NOTE: See Colossians.
★ Fitzmyer, J. A. ‡ The Letter to Philemon (AB) 2000. Most will think the Colossians-Philemon vols. recommended above suitable for covering this letter’s 25 verses. But those wishing to build that first-class exegetical library I talk about will want to add this to the Colossians purchases. Fitzmyer is ever the patient, thorough exegete and provides excellent treatment of background matters (though I disagree on Onesimus’s plight). Like Dunn and a few others recently, he holds that Onesimus was not a fugitivus, “but rather a slave who has been in some domestic trouble with his master Philemon and who has come to seek the intervention of an amicus domini (friend of the master) in the hope that he might be restored peacefully to his former status” (p.18). This Roman Catholic scholar also wrote the AB vols. on Luke, Acts, Romans, and 1 Corinthians. [CBQ 10/01; JTS 10/01; Int 7/02; SwJT Fall 01; RelSRev 10/01; BBR 11.2; DenvJ; ExpTim 3/10].
✓ Barclay, John M. G. “Paul, Philemon and the Dilemma of Christian Slave-Ownership,” NTS 37 (1991): 161 – 86. This article, alongside Nordling’s of the same year, presents potent arguments for the traditional runaway-slave interpretation. See also his NT Guides vol. (1997).
✓ Barth, Markus, and Helmut Blanke. ‡ (ECC) 2000. An unbelievably big vol. (544pp.) on a brief epistle. See their AB work on Colossians, intended as a companion to this commentary. This is a rich resource for researching the social-historical background of the letter, the Greek text, and the history of interpretation. But do take note that the vol. was so long in production that the research was over 10 years old when it appeared. Will this ever be surpassed in comprehensiveness? I fear that such interpretive overkill tends rather to obscure than to clarify things. [Complimentary: ExpTim 4/01; SwJT Fall 01; JETS 12/01; and Evangel Sum 02; more perceptive: JBL Sum 02; Bib 83.2; JTS 10/01 (Moule)].
✓ Burtchaell, James T. ‡ Philemon’s Problem: A Theology of Grace, 1973, rev. 1998. This is a difficult book to characterize. It treats matters of ancient slavery, the master-slave motif in Scripture, Paul’s Epistle to Philemon, and the theological theme of grace (with application to today). Sadly, the Notre Dame academic (†2015) had to resign his post due to allegations he admitted. [EvQ 4/02].
✓ Byron, John. Slavery Metaphors in Early Judaism and Pauline Christianity, 2003; Recent Research on Paul and Slavery, 2008.
✓ Callahan, A. D. ‡ Embassy of Onesimus: The Letter of Paul to Philemon, 1997. The revisionist thesis that Onesimus was no fugitive slave, but rather the estranged brother of Philemon, doesn’t fly (see Fitzmyer’s critique, pp.19 – 20). [CBQ 10/98; RelSRev 4/98].
Cousar, Charles B. ‡ Philippians and Philemon (NTL) 2009. See under Philippians.
Ehorn, Seth. (EEC) 2011 – digital. I have not seen this work.
✓ Felder, Cain Hope. [ℳ], (NIB) 2000. A good, up-to-date commentary by a prof at Howard University. Felder appreciates evangelical scholarship and addresses the slavery issue with poignancy and good sense. For preachers. [SewaneeThRev Easter 01].
✓ Gloer, W. Hulitt, and Perry L. Stepp. ‡ Reading Paul’s Letters to Individuals (RNT) 2008. This vol. of 280pp. treats Philemon, Titus, and 1 – 2 Timothy (in that order).
✓ Johnson, Matthew V., James A. Noel, and Demetrius K. Williams, eds. ‡ Onesimus, Our Brother (PCC) 2012. There is a growing body of scholarship challenging what has been a consensus, that one should see marked differences between the ancient institution of slavery and the American variety (and so be slow to draw comparisons). The essays here contribute to the debate. [CBQ 1/14; JSNT 35.5; RelSRev 6/13]. One of the first to issue the challenge was Orlando Patterson, Slavery and Social Death (Harvard, 1985).
✓ Knox, John. ‡ Philemon among the Letters of Paul, 1935, 2nd ed. 1959. Proffered a much debated revisionist thesis about the letter’s circumstances and recipient. Archippus, he says, was the slave-owner, not Philemon, and the runaway slave Onesimus should be identified with the later bishop of Ephesus mentioned by Ignatius. Said bishop was a major influence in the formation of the Pauline canon (and the epistle’s inclusion).
✓ Kreitzer, Larry J. ‡ (Read) 2008. Nearly 200pp., comprised of history of interpretation, a small commentary, and seven more chapters on quite a variety of topics, including some reception history. [RBL; RelSRev 12/09].
Migliore, Daniel L. ‡ Philippians and Philemon (Belief) 2014.
Müller, J. J. (retired NICNT) 1955. Philemon was originally bound with his Philippians commentary and is o/p. Replaced by Bruce.
✓ Nordling, John G. (Concord) 2004 This large scale (379pp.) Lutheran work reveals deeper learning than some other vols. in the series. He is one of the strongest defenders of the traditional interpretation; see his long article in JSNT 41 (1991). As with Barth-Blanke, I fear most pastors would be wearied and discouraged using such a large commentary on little Philemon. [EvQ 10/07].
✓ Osiek, Carolyn. ‡ Philippians, Philemon (ANTC) 2000. Only 20pp. on the shorter letter.
✓ Petersen, Norman R. ‡ Rediscovering Paul: Philemon and the Sociology of Paul’s Narrative World, 1985. A judicious and important monograph, not a commentary, on the social situation.
Rupprecht, Arthur A. (EBC) 1978. Merely 15pp. Now replaced by EBCR.
F Saarinen, Risto. I – II Timothy, Philemon (Brazos) 2008. [BSac 1/11].
✓ Still, Todd D. Philippians and Philemon (S&H) 2011. See under Philippians.
✓ Stöger, A. ‡ The Epistle to Philemon (“The NT for Spiritual Reading”) ET 1971.
✓ Tolmie, D. Francois, ed. ‡ Philemon in Perspective: Interpreting a Pauline Letter, 2010. A large vol. (391pp.) of essays issuing from an international colloquium. The lead contribution is “Tendencies in the Research on the Letter to Philemon since 1980” by Tolmie. Students might even start with this work! [BBR 21.4; JSNT 33.5].
✓ Thurston, Bonnie B., and Judith Ryan. ‡ Philippians and Philemon (SacP) 2004. See under Philippians.
✓ Vincent, M. R. ‡ (ICC) 1897, 5th ed. 1955. Bound up with the Philippians commentary.
★ Cockerill, Gareth Lee. (NICNT) 2012. Building on his earlier accessible commentary, the author has written a much fuller (750pp.), more academic vol. for NICNT, replacing Bruce. I find him strong on finer points of exegesis, rhetorical and structural analysis (not that I agree with all his structures), and showing close familiarity with the scholarship, but he seems less helpful in his discussion of theology. There is a confident Arminianism here, and Cockerill at points does not lay out the other options (e.g. at 6:4 – 8), which surprised me in such a widely-used series. (And NICNT used to have a more Reformed flavor too.) Stressing that Hebrews is a sermon, not merely has a sermonic character, he consistently terms the author “the pastor,” who warns the congregation against “reverting to a spiritual immaturity totally inappropriate for experienced believers” (p.16). Cockerill seems not “to take the term ‘Jewish Christian’ in an ethnic sense”; rather it “describes both Jews and Gentiles who give allegiance to Christ while insisting on or feeling the need of various Jewish associations or practices” (p.20). He also finds “ties with the world of Jewish apocalyptic” (p.26) — not a routine Hebrews commentary, then. If you are a student wanting a stimulating, up-to-date exegesis and bibliography, or if Cockerill represents your own theological position, then this belongs on your recommended purchase list. If you do not fit either of those two categories, Cockerill might drop off the list. [CBQ 4/14; JTS 10/14 (Attridge); Int 7/14; JSNT 35.5; Chm Sum 14; JETS 3/13; Bib 95.1; CTJ 4/14; DenvJ 16; BTB 11/14].
★ Guthrie, George H. (NIVAC) 1998. Normally I would not urge students to consult NIVAC for exegesis, but this is an exception. Guthrie has long been doing a rhetorico-discourse analysis and has been concerned to understand “The Structure of Hebrews,” which is the title of his 1991 dissertation for Southwestern Baptist Seminary (Brill, 1994; Baker, 1998). That doctoral work has been termed “an invaluable road map through one of the letter’s thorniest problems” [RelSRev 10/97]; Lane provides in his WBC a fine review of Guthrie’s contributions (p.xc – xcviii). Besides the exegetical help in the NIVAC, there is real theological and homiletical worth in the vol. Also on the list of best expositional helps are Kent Hughes, Phillips, Owen, Raymond Brown, John Brown, and Kistemaker.
★ Hughes, Philip E. 1977. A most valuable, largely theological commentary which complements Lane beautifully. Hughes used to be my first choice — for pastors, that is. He will be valuable for decades because he was as fine a theologian as he was a biblical scholar, and you need a penetrating theological commentary on Hebrews. Remarkably, Hughes also had expertise in church history, and this vol. is esteemed for his choice citations of the church fathers. He knew the history of interpretation well, and leads us to draw on those rich resources. The commentary is nearly 600pp. in length, and the theology is in line with the Reformation tradition. The author was an Anglican clergyman who, at the close of his career, taught at Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia. This vol. has been published in both hb and pb; it had been o/p but is available again. Are there weaknesses? Well, Peter Head points to one [BSB 9/06]: “Hughes’ interest in reading Hebrews in the light of the rest of the NT may actually blunt his appreciation of its distinctive theological witness.” [WTJ Spr 79; RTR 5/78; JBL 9/79].
★ Lane, William. [ℳ], (WBC) 2 vols., 1991. If you are desiring an exegetical commentary on the Greek that leaves no stone unturned, this has been the best piece of scholarship from the evangelical perspective, arguably the best piece of scholarship from any perspective. I quickly add that we need a rigorous, more current exegesis of the Greek from an evangelical; WBC and NIGTC are twenty-five years old. A mountain of work — 12 to 15 years’ worth — went into this WBC. Students will naturally wish to consult Attridge, Ellingworth, Koester, Cockerill, etc., but Reformed pastors with Calvin, Hughes, Guthrie, Lane, and O’Brien have all they need. Among very few weaknesses is the relative lack of attention given 6:4 – 6. Lane’s views on the message of Hebrews are available to a wider segment of Bible students in his earlier Hebrews: Call to Commitment (1985). Lane also wrote a fine commentary on Mark. [CBQ 1/93; ExpTim 5/93; RTR 9/93; Them 1/93; WTJ Spr 94; CRBR 1994].
★ O’Brien, Peter T. (Pillar) 2010. After completing a trio of commentaries on the Prison Epistles, where he demonstrated exceptional ability in exegeting the Greek, rhetorical interpretation, and theological exposition, O’Brien has produced this dependable commentary. I will even call it brilliant and my first choice for the pastor’s study. Students will be glad to have all the bibliographical guidance in this 630-page vol. Perhaps those same students might compare O’Brien’s approach to discourse analysis with Westfall below. Take Ellingworth’s word for it: “I cannot commend this work too highly.” The theological orientation here is winsomely Reformed. There is word of an additional O’Brien vol. on the theology of Hebrews in NSBT. [DenvJ 7/10; Them 7/10; BBR 23.4; CBQ 1/14; JSNT 33.5; Chm Sum 14; RTR 4/11; JETS 6/11; RelSRev 9/11].
F Alexander, Loveday, and Philip Alexander. ‡ (ICC – new series). I expect this is a long way off.
☆ Allen, David L. (NAC) 2010. After some publishing delay — related to the size of the work (620pp.)? — Allen has presented a full introduction to (70pp.), and hard-working commentary on Hebrews. The author is Dean and a professor of preaching at Southwestern Baptist Seminary. Along the way he has also written Lukan Authorship of Hebrews (2010) [JETS 12/11 (Guthrie); Them 5/11; RelSRev 3/11]. There are some idiosyncracies here, but I am not dismissive. He has far more interaction with the scholarship than what is usual in NAC, and pastors may find the vol. less of a handbook and a little more difficult to use. (There are 50pp. on 6:4 – 8 alone; might Allen better have published a long article and summarized it here? Also he pays somewhat closer attention to the exegetical details than to the big picture.) I need to use this more to assess the quality of the exegesis. [Them 8/11; JETS 3/12].
✓ Attridge, H. W. ‡ (Herm) 1989. An enormously learned tome which will, together with Lane and Ellingworth, be a leading scholarly commentary in English for a very long time. Attridge has taught at Notre Dame and Yale, and has expertise in the areas of Greco-Roman philosophy and Gnosticism. He pays special attention to the structure of the epistle and the rhetorical skills of the author, whoever he was. Use with some discernment. [Bib 72.2; JTS 10/90; JBL Fall 91; CBQ 10/91; Int 1/92]. Students benefit from consulting his collected Essays on John and Hebrews (2010) [JSNT 34.5].
Barclay, William. [ℳ], (DSB) 1957. A fine little vol., perhaps best in the series.
✓ Bateman, Herbert W., IV, ed. Four Views on the Warning Passages in Hebrews, 2007. Participating were Cockerill and Osborne from the Arminian side, with Fanning and Gleason representing a more Reformed interpretation. Guthrie offers a wise, winsome Conclusion (pp.430 – 45).
✓ Bauckham, Richard, et al., eds. The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology, 2009. The University of St. Andrews sponsors an annual Conference on Scripture and Theology, which seeks to bridge the longstanding divide between systematic theologians and biblical scholars. This large work (nearly 500pp.) is a welcome Conference product, containing as it does such high-quality exegetical and theological essays. Contributors are generally more conservative critics, from Theology and both the OT and NT guilds, with several famous evangelicals (I. Howard Marshall and Ben Witherington). [ExpTim 5/10; BL 2010; JTS 4/11; Chm Sum 12; RBL 2011].
☆ Brown, John. (GS) 1862, reprint 1961. Mainly a theological exposition which shares many of the same characteristics one finds in the Puritans. Brown was a godly and learned pastor and professor in Scotland. Spiritually edifying. See his other works on Romans and 1 Peter.
☆ Brown, Raymond. (BST) 1982. Not to be confused with Raymond E. Brown, the liberal Catholic scholar. This is a helpful vol. which a preacher could put to good use, but not so valuable as some others in the series (notably Stott). Brown isn’t as strong as he might be in understanding the connection between the doctrinal and hortatory sections of the epistle. [WTJ Spr 87; JETS 9/82].
Bruce, A. B. 1899. Reprinted from time to time, this has a strongly theological orientation. Now free online.
☆ Bruce, F. F. (retired NICNT) 1964, rev. 1990. Bruce’s deliberate, well-reasoned exegesis made this valuable, even as one of the top two choices, for many years. Back in the 1980s conservatives were pretty well agreed that Bruce and Hughes were indispensable and a well-matched pair. Unfortunately, as Carson pointed out, the revision undertaken by Bruce was not extensive, and one gained little in replacing the first edition with the revision. (I must add to Carson, however, that the author does offer his own fresh translation of Hebrews in 1990.) Still serviceable, Bruce dropped from my recommended list in 2010. For his other commentaries, see Acts, Ephesians, and Thessalonians. [JBL 12/65; NovT 34.3; CTJ 4/91].
Buchanan, G. W. ‡ (retired AB) 1972. An earlier entry in the series. Though Buchanan was a noted scholar, this was not one of the stronger works on Hebrews or better entries in the series. It was replaced by Koester.
✓ Calvin, John. 1551. His brilliant grasp of the theological argument in Hebrews is not to be missed. Remember the strong recommendation to purchase his NT commentaries in the Torrance edition.
F Carson, Donald A. (BECNT). I don’t expect this to appear soon.
Cockerill, Gareth L. Hebrews: A Bible Commentary in the Wesleyan Tradition, 1999. “Written with the purpose of enabling the Christian in the pew to understand God’s message in the book of Hebrews” (p.315). See his NICNT above.
✓ Craddock, Fred B. ‡ (NIB) 1998. From a famous emeritus professor of preaching and NT. See Long below.
✓ Delitzsch, Franz. 2 vols., ET 1868 – 70. A technical work and part of the exceedingly rich tradition of German commentary on Hebrews over the past 150 years (Bleek, Braun, Michel, Riggenbach, Grässer). In between writing those masterful vols. on the OT for KD, he found time for this weighty, incisive commentary. Recommended more for students. Reprinted by Klock & Klock.
☆ deSilva, David A. Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle “to the Hebrews” (SRC) 2000. This marks a continuation of Witherington’s program — apparently an Eerdmans series — to provide (Vernon Robbins-esque) socio-rhetorical commentaries on the NT. The 500-page vol. is successful enough that I added deSilva to my own buy list because he asks and answers some questions not taken up in more traditionally-styled commentaries. He convincingly proposes that “the rhetorical situation of Hebrews (as an address . . . urging the maintenance of loyalty and obedience) must govern its application and appropriation” (p.242). See what he does with 6:4 – 8 to get the flavor of this work, which serves well as a complement to the exegetical treatments by Lane, Ellingworth, Attridge, etc. At points, though, I’m afraid he presses the biblical material into the mold of his patronage thesis (see Motyer’s review). His insistence that the epistle’s recipients were wavering Gentile Christians does not seem well-founded. My counsel is that more studious pastors consider buying this as a provocative fresh reading. [ExpTim 10/00; CBQ 10/00; Int 4/01; JTS 4/01; EvQ 1/02; Them Aut 02; Bib 82.4 (Attridge); Anvil 18.2 (Motyer)]. His dissertation, now revised, is often cited: Despising Shame (1995, rev. 2008). Note too that deSilva published an abbreviated version of the commentary (187pp.) in 2012 [Int 7/13].
☆ Ellingworth, Paul. [ℳ], (NIGTC) 1993. A massive, erudite work (760pp.) which should be consulted for papers and, like Attridge, will definitely be of interest to the pastor wanting a first-class exegetical library. (Earlier he wrote a 731-page Aberdeen PhD on Hebrews.) Lane is probably better for pastors, for this NIGTC is more detail-oriented and less theological. The biggest plus is that this patient scholar was able to interact with WBC and Hermeneia. Ellingworth’s exegesis here is complemented by a briefer 1991 Epworth Commentary for preachers. His NIGTC is a very smart purchase for the more scholarly. [ExpTim 1/95; RTR 9/94; Them 1/95; CBQ 7/94; CRBR 1994].
F Fanning, Buist. (EEC).
☆ France, Richard T. (EBCR) 2006. Replaces Morris from the old EBC and is a real improvement, though I could wish for something fuller than these 175pp. France is especially known for his large-scale, quality works on the Gospels.
Gelardini, G., ed. ‡ Hebrews: Contemporary Models — New Insights, 2005.
Gench, Frances Taylor. ‡ Hebrews and James (WestBC) 1996. [Int 7/98; RelSRev 7/98].
F Gheorghita, Radu. (SGBC).
☆ Gordon, Robert P. (Read) 2000, 2nd ed. 2008. The author, now retired as Regius Prof. of Hebrew in Cambridge, here offers a shorter study of Hebrews. Other Alttestamentler (OT specialists) have written insightfully on this epistle in the past (e.g. Delitzsch); Gordon shows again that they have a lot to say. His 2nd edition discusses further the supersessionism controversy and makes the important point that both Judaism and Christianity represent “a significant break with the religion of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament.” Gordon’s study, not really a commentary per se, is in a class all by itself. See also his work on Samuel. [JTS 10/01; Anvil 18.3].
Gouge, William. Reprint of 1866 ed. This huge commentary has a reputation to match its size among lovers of the Puritans. Gouge died in 1653. The subtitle is “Being the Substance of Thirty Years’ Wednesday’s Lectures at Blackfriars, London.” Free online.
✓ Griffiths, Jonathan, ed. The Perfect Saviour: Key Themes in Hebrews, 2012. Evangelical essays from IVP on the theology of the letter. In passing I note that Griffiths’s PhD is worthwhile: Hebrews and Divine Speech (2014) [Them 8/15].
☆ Guthrie, Donald. (TNTC) 1983. A fine replacement vol. in the series. Now becoming dated itself. [EvQ 1/85].
☆ Hagner, Donald A. (NIBC) 1990. This 278-page book is one of the best in the category of non-technical exegesis and exposition. Hagner is a fine exegete and writes clearly. Certainly worth more than a skim. Added to this commentary is a college textbook, Encountering the Epistle to the Hebrews (2002), given warm reviews [Them Spr 04; Int 7/03; RelSRev 7/03; JETS 6/03]; the beginning student would do well to start with it.
F Hahn, Scott, and Mary Healy. ‡? (CCSS).
F Hall, R. (RRA).
✓ Harrington, Daniel J. ‡? What Are They Saying about the Letter to the Hebrews? 2005. [JETS 9/06; BTB Fall 06].
F Harris, Dana M. (EGGNT).
F Hart, David. (Brazos).
✓ Heen, Erik M., and Philip D. W. Krey, eds. (ACCS) 2005. [JETS 6/06].
✓ Heil, John Paul. Hebrews: Chiastic Structures and Audience Response, 2010. A large (475pp.) work with a fresh approach to the intriguing epistle. Heil says (p.2), “This new proposal is distinguished by the discovery of multiple levels of macro- and microchiastic patterns that, in a consistent and concerted way, drive the rhetorical rhythm within the persuasive strategy of Hebrews as ‘the word of the encouragement’ (Heb 13:22).” The overall thesis may not be convincing (I’d say way overblown), but the parallels are fascinating, illuminating, and worth further exploration.
Héring, Jean. ‡ ET 1970. In his survey Martin might again have referred to Gallic verve when reviewing this quite critical work. See under 1 Corinthians.
Hewitt, Thomas. (retired TNTC) 1960. Well replaced by Donald Guthrie.
☆ Hughes, R. Kent. (PTW) 2 vols., 1993. See under Mark. This would be a good addition to the preacher’s shelf. Compare Phillips. The ESV edition is a single vol. (2015).
✓ Hurst, L. D. The Epistle to the Hebrews: Its Background of Thought, 1990.
Isaacs, Marie E. ‡ Reading Hebrews & James (RNT) 2002.
F Jewett, Robert. ‡ (NCBC).
☆ Jobes, Karen. Letters to the Church: A Survey of Hebrews and the General Epistles, 2011. A substantial textbook (478pp.), born out of her Wheaton College lectures. She is an able pedagogue, and many more students are now likely to appreciate her skill. [CBQ 7/13; JSNT 34.5; JETS 12/12; ExpTim 10/12; Them 11/12; BTB 5/14].
✓ Johnson, Luke Timothy. ‡ (NTL) 2006. This veteran scholar with a Catholic background has written some of the best NT commentaries from a mildly to moderately critical viewpoint (see his Luke, Acts, Timothy, and James). Among accessible, middle-length interpretations of Hebrews from the critical camp, this is a standard work. The commentary emphasizes the theme of discipleship and seeks to trace the influence of Platonism (especially Philo) upon the argument/theology of the epistle. Evangelical readers may be troubled by Johnson’s excursus on the Old and New Covenants, where he joins most critics in rejecting any kind of supersessionism. What is noteworthy is that Johnson contends that Hebrews itself rejects supersessionism, allowing for the continuance of the old way of worship without reference to Christ, viewing the Old Covenant as remaining valid for those in the old camp (but not for those who would return to it?). Students will not find lengthy interaction with the massive scholarship on Hebrews. [Chm Aut 08; CBQ 4/07; JETS 9/07; Int 4/08; BL 2008; ThTo 4/08; ExpTim 12/07; RelSRev 3/08; Bib 90.3; HBT 29.1; BBR 20.3 (Guthrie)].
☆ Kistemaker, Simon J. (NTC) 1984. Builds on his dissertation, The Psalm Citations in the Epistle to the Hebrews (1961). Because of that previous research one might have expected a more scholarly work, but Kistemaker is writing for this specific series. Has value for the preacher. [RTR 9/85].
✓ Koester, Craig R. ‡ (AB) 2001. A replacement for Buchanan, Koester must be placed alongside the other recent large-scale commentaries, such as Lane, Attridge and Ellingworth, as a first-rate reference tool. While most interpretations amplify the superiority-of-Christ idea as central to Hebrews, Koester thinks the purposes of God for his people is the main theme. He is an unusually gifted exegete and has written here one of the stronger recent vols. in the AB series. See Revelation. [JTS 4/02; ExpTim 3/02; RelSRev 1/03; DenvJ 1/02 (Blomberg)].
F Laansma, Jon C. (TTC).
Lang, G. H. 1951. F. F. Bruce once wrote, “For drawing out and applying to the conscience the practical lessons of the epistle G. H. Lang has few rivals” (NICNT, 1964, xii).
✓ Lindars, Barnabas. ‡ The Theology of the Letter to the Hebrews, 1991. From CUP.
Long, D. Stephen. ‡ (Belief) 2011. [Int 4/13; CTJ 4/14].
Long, Thomas G. ‡ (I) 1997. Well written. Some might wish he had written more. After a mere 3pp. of introduction, Long provides 146pp. of commentary. Call this a standby — such a brief commentary does less to help the preacher unlock the riches of this Bible book. In liberal circles, this book, Craddock, and Johnson are the usually recommended preacher’s commentaries. [ThTo 1/98; Int 7/98; CBQ 7/98; RelSRev 7/98].
MacArthur, John. 1983. See Matthew for a review of the series, of which this was the first vol.
✓ Mason, Eric F., and Kevin B. McCruden, eds. Reading the Epistle to the Hebrews: A Resource for Students, 2011. A selection of the best critical essays, published (for convenience?) by SBL. [CBQ 1/15; JSNT 34.5; JETS 3/13; ExpTim 2/13; ETL 89.4].
McKnight, Edgar, and Christopher Church. ‡ Hebrews – James (S&H), 2004. This vol. is something of an odd blend. First, the seasoned NT scholar McKnight provides an understated commentary on Hebrews (320pp.) with much information to help pastors draw their own conclusions. He gives guidance as you read and you make application. Church (95pp.), on the other hand, forcefully reads James with you and makes many specific applications. The two commentaries have a different feel, one more academic and reflective, the other more urgent and preachy. [Int 7/06].
☆ Michaels, J. Ramsey. (CorBC) 2009. See Belleville under Pastorals.
✓ Mitchell, Alan C. ‡ (SacP). 2007. This full (357pp.), accessible, critical commentary completes the Catholic series. Mitchell downplays what others see as the Jewish orientation of the epistle, and treats the material as best falling into the genre of homily. Good attention is paid to rhetorical aspects. Sometimes the exegesis, in my opinion, seems to miss the point; e.g. despite the following stern verse, Mitchell argues that 10:26 “may mean that attempting any other rites of purification is senseless, since that end has been accomplished by Christ’s death.” [CBQ 4/08; RelSRev 7/07; ExpTim 8/08].
✓ Moffatt, James. ‡ (ICC) 1924. “A strong commentary, but more useful to teachers than to preachers” (Childs). Bold, rigorous exegesis. This was the standard reference work for scholars decades ago. Still worth consulting, if one is doing an in-depth exegesis.
✓ Montefiore, H. W. ‡ (BNTC) 1964. Martin had impressive things to say about this work, but it’s hard for me to understand why. It is a good commentary, a serviceable commentary for its day, but hardly a first or second choice. Montefiore is moderately critical. [WTJ Spr 66].
F Moo, Douglas. (ZECNT).
Morris, Leon. (EBC) 1981. All in all, not his best day (150pp.). See France.
F Motyer, Steve. (THC).
✓ Moyise, Steve. ‡ The Later NT Writers and Scripture, 2012. See under Acts.
Murray, Andrew. The Holiest of All, 1894. A devotional classic which, for all its heartwarming thoughts, isn’t so solid in its exegetical base. Not to be discarded, Murray should always be checked against a careful scholarly work. Murray ministered in the South African Dutch Reformed Church and was a main proponent of the Keswick “victorious life” teaching. Several other devotional gems are: F. B. Meyer’s The Way into the Holiest, H. C. G. Moule’s Studies in Hebrews, and Griffith Thomas’s Hebrews, A Devotional Commentary (each shows a Keswick influence).
☆ Owen, John. 7 vols. 1668 – 74 (1980 Baker reprint). All the rigor, theological profundity, and verbosity you would expect from the greatest scholar among the Puritans. Can be an extraordinarily difficult chore to work through this, but hard work does pay off. This set was abridged into a one-vol. work and published as Hebrews: The Epistle of Warning (Kregel pb). More recent is the Crossway Classic abridgement (1998), which is probably what the average pastor would find most conducive to personal study. Reformed congregations with a tradition of deep Bible teaching could add CrossC to their libraries. [SBET Sum 93]. Note, though, that the whole work is free online.
☆ Pfitzner, Victor C. ‡ (ANTC) 1997. One of the best in the series. The author, a Lutheran scholar teaching in Australia, gives both a mature and fresh interpretation which demonstrates “that every climactic point in the book is a statement about worship” (Lane). Perhaps Pfitzner’s reflections on a Bible-based theology of worship will spur evangelicals to give that topic more thought than they often do. A very fine, compact exegesis, which expertly draws connections between texts. He also uses the older and newer structural studies like Vanhoye and Guthrie. Some evangelicals would say Pfitzner is not always the best theological guide. [AsTJ Fall 99; RelSRev 1/99].
☆ Phillips, Richard D. (REC) 2006. One of the best practical/devotional works available. Readers will find it especially rich and thoughtful on ch. 11; Phillips builds on his earlier book, Faith Victorious: Finding Strength and Hope from Hebrews 11 (2002). The author is pastor of Second Presbyterian (PCA) in Greenville, SC. The vol. is well stocked with helpful material (650pp.) for expositors.
Pink, Arthur. 1954. A huge vol. of exposition published for many years by Baker. Verbose but suggestive to the expositor who speed-reads.
Rayburn, Robert S. Evangelical Commentary on the Bible (one-vol.), 1989. A radical thesis is propounded here. Rayburn argues the terms old covenant and new covenant should not be understood as having religio-historical significance, but as describing the religion of legalism and the religion of faith in all ages (BC and AD). This is no place for a full review, but this much should be said: the author of Hebrews has derogatory things to say about the old covenant because after Christ the OT cultus is a closed door. The new age has come in the appearance of a better Prophet and Priest. Adhering oneself to the old economy is now the way of unbelief because such an act disregards Messiah’s coming and his self-sacrifice. (See Calvin’s Institutes, II. ix-xi.).
☆ Schreiner, Thomas R. (BTCP) 2015. The author does consistently strong work, and many pastors will want to go buy this theological exposition. Southern Baptist types with an affinity for moderately Reformed theology (especially if distilled-down for busy preachers) will possibly view this as a first-choice. Schreiner describes his commentary as “relatively brief and nontechnical” (p.1). If it helps thousands take doctrine more seriously and to discover the riches of biblical theology, as developed in this epistle, I am enthusiastic in welcoming his book. In addition to the 435pp. of commentary, there are nine essays on theological themes (65pp.). If Lane and Cockerill would demand too much of your time, consider this (much easier reading).
Stedman, Ray C. (IVPNT) 1992. Helpful for communicators, less so for students. Stedman published a fair number of expositions on both OT and NT books. This is probably the least scholarly contribution to IVPNT. [Chm 107.4].
F Thatcher, Tom. (NCCS). The author teaches at Cincinnati Christian University.
☆ Thompson, James W. ‡ (Paideia) 2008. It is hard to find anything more valuable than this in the category of compact (288pp.), moderately critical exegesis. Thompson’s research on Hebrews goes back to a 1974 dissertation. He is recognized as an expert in detailing the philosophical background to the epistle (more the Greco-Roman than the OT and Jewish background). See Moo’s review of Thompson’s weaknesses as an exegetical reference for one moving text-by-text. [ExpTim 12/09; Int 4/10; BBR 20.2 (Moo); CBQ 4/10; BL 2010; Them 7/10].
✓ Trotter, Andrew H. Interpreting the Epistle to the Hebrews (Guides to NT Exegesis), 1997. Not a commentary, but a fine introduction for students [JSNT 75]. A little more recent is Harrington.
✓ Vanhoye, Albert. ‡ Structure and Message of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 1989. See also A Different Priest (2011), which approaches Hebrews as an example of biblical/Semitic rhetoric as opposed to Greco-Roman rhetoric [DenvJ 15]. Note that Paulist Press published a Vanhoye commentary in late 2015 (272pp.).
✓ Vos, Geerhardus. The Teaching of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 1956. This is a true gem. If you plan to do any work on the theology in Hebrews, you would do well to read this rich biblical theological study. Reprinted from time to time by P&R.
✓ Westcott, B. F. 3rd ed. 1920. Even today regarded as a valuable classic; it “remains impressive and is especially rich in Patristic references” (Childs). Westcott was often reprinted and was a wise purchase. Now free online.
F Westfall, Cynthia L. (BHGNT). Her published dissertation, A Discourse Analysis of the Letter to the Hebrews (2005), is already a highly useful commentary for advanced students [Bib 88.2; ExpTim 8/07].
✓ Wilson, R. McL. ‡ (NCB) 1987. A good entry, but in view of the many great works now available you won’t pay as much attention to it. Wilson is slightly over 250pp.
☆ Witherington, Ben. Letters and Homilies for Jewish Christians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on Hebrews, James and Jude, 2007. Stunningly, this marks the completion of his project to comment on the entire NT (in various series). The vol. is well-done and useful to both students and pastors. [BL 2009; DenvJ 1/08; Chm Sum 12; ExpTim 2/12; RelSRev 6/11].
NOTES: (1) George Guthrie, “Hebrews’ Use of the Old Testament: Recent Trends in Research,” CBR 1.2 (2003): 271 – 94. (2) J. C. McCullough has written four valuable articles in Irish Biblical Studies surveying Hebrews scholarship; see IBS numbers 2, 3, and 16. (3) Peter Head, formerly with Tyndale House (Cambridge), shows himself to be a shrewd judge of the best commentaries on Hebrews as he reviews a dozen of them in BSB 9/06.
★ Blomberg, Craig L., and Mariam J. Kamell. (ZECNT) 2008. A promising start to the series (see Commentary Series). Both pastors and students warmly welcome this handy (288pp.), well-written vol., which leads the reader through grammatical analysis and other matters of exegesis. A strength here is the wise way that the coauthors point out the key questions and problems faced in interpreting James. The coauthors do so well in moving from exegesis to exposition to application that pastors would be more than satisfied with this as a first-pick. I will voice a complaint, however, about the number of sections (7) into which the commentary is divided. For the weaknesses of the book, see Davids’s review. [JETS 9/09; Them 7/09; CBQ 7/09 (Davids); ExpTim 2/10 (Hartin); BTB 8/10; BL 2010; BSac 10/10].
★ Doriani, Daniel. (REC) 2007. A very worthwhile homiletical commentary to use after having carefully done one’s exegesis. The author has taught NT at Covenant Seminary and pastored in St. Louis. As I expected, Doriani’s exegesis is well-studied and dependable. [JETS 6/08]. Other splendid pastoral helps are Manton, Hughes, Motyer, Blanchard (more devotional), and Nystrom (offering more cultural critique).
★ Johnson, Luke Timothy. ‡ (AB) 1995. Brilliant! A sizable (347pp. + indices) work from a conservative critic with a Catholic background. Johnson should be of great use to those interested in rhetorical criticism; he’s proven himself skillful in a broad range of exegetical tasks. Students should appreciate Johnson’s attention to the history of interpretation. While most Bible expositors will bypass Johnson, the scholarly pastor wanting a first-class exegetical library will buy this — my five “musts” are Moo (Pillar), McCartney (BECNT), McKnight (NICNT), Allison (ICC), and Johnson (AB). In shorter compass (about 50pp.), Johnson does “James” in the NIB. For more on Johnson, see Timothy, Luke, and Acts. [JETS 3/99; Int 7/97; RelSRev 1/97; JR 1/98]. Students can consult his Brother of Jesus, Friend of God: Studies in the Letter of James (2004), which adds a great deal to the commentary. [JTS 10/05; SJT 59.4; CurTM 4/05; ExpTim 2/05; HBT 29.2].
★ McCartney, Dan G. (BECNT) 2009. The author taught at Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia for about twenty-five years and is now at Redeemer Seminary (TX). He is a very careful, thorough exegete and has a fine theological mind. As one might expect from a WTS professor, the approach is both rigorously Reformed and fresh; McCartney does not simply recycle older views. I consider it well-rounded: “exegetically rewarding, theologically rooted, and pastorally wise” (Schreiner). While pastors will probably still buy Moo’s Pillar or the ZECNT first, students might well make McCartney their choice. For advanced students of the Greek NT, the bibliography is quite valuable but not as full as I had expected. This reference tool (335pp.) deserves the warmest of welcomes. See McKnight below. [DenvJ 6/10 (Blomberg); JSNT 33.5; JETS 3/11; ExpTim 3/12].
★ McKnight, Scot. (NICNT replacement) 2011. The author is an accomplished, astute evangelical commentator, writing here mainly for students and academically-minded pastors. Interacting with the best scholarship, McKnight carefully weighs the exegetical options and draws well-considered conclusions — a time or two he left me hanging. This has to be among the top picks, especially for its being lucid, thorough (over 500pp.), and up-to-date. He shows caution in (finally) favoring the identification of James as the brother of our Lord, upholding Jacobean authorship, and settling on an early date (50s). “McKnight resists any precise analysis of the letter’s circumstances. His commentary is attentive to text rather than speculative about context” (Proctor [BSB 6/12]). He wisely argues that the teachings of Paul and James are “more complementary than identical or contradictory” (p.263). One might question whether James is quite so focused on the trial of economic stress as McKnight makes it out to be. Instead of centering on the theme of perfection, he sees the ethic in James as “a Torah observance in a messianic key” (p.47) — on this point see Ellis’s review [JTS 4/13]. Some pastors may struggle with the academic language in places; one paragraph includes the words protreptic, paraenesis, reify, and ambit. See Adamson below. [BBR 23.3; CBQ 1/14; JSNT 34.5; JETS 12/11 (McCartney); ExpTim 3/12; ETL 89.4; Them 8/11; BSac 10/13; DenvJ 14; RevExp Sum 12; BTB 11/14].
★ Moo, Douglas. (Pillar) 2000. This commentary superseded the 1985 TNTC work; it is about twice as long and is a fresh interpretation of the epistle. After a well-written, satisfying introduction of about 45pp., readers are treated to some 210pp. of careful exegesis and theological reflection. Moo’s thorough knowledge of Romans leads to some expert discussion of the differences and similarities between the two letters — an issue pastors often wind up explaining in their teaching ministry. (Johnson as well has some learned discussion of the topic.) Moo, however, reads James on its own terms and avoids the trap of interpreting the epistle by reference to Paul. I am glad for the interaction with Johnson’s impressive work in AB. This has been, hands down, the first choice for the evangelical pastor, but it now has competition from Blomberg-Kamel, McCartney, and McKnight. [Int 1/01; RTR 8/00; SwJT Spr 01; CBQ 4/01; Them Spr 04; EvQ 10/03; JETS 9/02; Chm Aut 01; BBR 12.1 (Davids); Evangel Spr 02].
☆ Adam, A. K. M. (BHGNT) 2013. Worthwhile for those wanting a safe pair of hands to guide them through an exegesis of the Greek (146pp.). Cf. Vlachos, which does a bit more for the preacher.
✓ Adamson, J. B. (retired NICNT) 1976. This was a good work which didn’t have the best scholarly reception. Carson summed up the problem when he described the commentary as “disproportionately dependent on Hellenistic parallels at the expense of Jewish sources.” One need only compare Adamson with Davids on a few passages to see Carson’s point. Adamson made his contribution to scholarship, perhaps not in the commentary so much as in his monograph, James, The Man and His Message (1989). In that 500-page work he answers his detractors [CRBR 1991; WTJ Spr 91; JETS 6/92; Evangel Sum 92; Chm 104.2; TJ Spr 89 (McKnight)]. See McKnight.
✓ Allison, Dale C. ‡ (ICC – new series) 2013. This professor, long at Pittsburgh Seminary (PCUSA), has contributed what will be classed for decades as a leading technical commentary on James. He leaves no stone unturned. After 110pp. of introduction, he provides about 700pp. of densely-packed, painstakingly detailed textual criticism, lexical analysis, historical and archaeological study, literary research, exegesis, theological discussion, and reception history. One gets the sense that he truly has read everything. His approach is more historical-critical, in line with the series, and he concludes that James is a pseudepigraphal diaspora letter, with a sermonic and paranetic orientation. He guesses it was written from Rome instead of Palestine and that the author, whoever he was, knew of Paul’s epistles. The lack of indices is a major disappointment. [JETS 6/14; ExpTim 7/15; Them 11/14].
F Baker, Bill. (THC).
Baker, William R., and Thomas D. Ellsworth. [ℳ], Preaching James, 2004. From Chalice. Baker wrote an Aberdeen PhD on “Personal Speech-Ethics” in James.
F Batten, Alicia. ‡ (Illum). See her What Are They Saying about the Letter of James? (2009) [JETS 12/10].
✓ Batten, Alicia, and John Kloppenborg, eds. ‡ James, 1 & 2 Peter, and Early Jesus Traditions, 2014. [ExpTim 9/15].
✓ Bauckham, Richard. [ℳ], James: Wisdom of James, Disciple of Jesus the Sage (NT Readings) 1999. This fresh reading of James’s epistle is well worth consulting, both by students interested in exegesis and the structure of the letter (influenced, he says, by “Jewish wisdom instruction”) and by preachers who are eager to apply the message to hearers’ hearts and lives. Bauckham is conservatively critical, and his wisdom genre identification has convinced many (but cf. the more cautious approach of McKnight and McCartney). Don’t miss this (256pp.). If it were not rather pricey at $45, then it could be heartily recommended for purchase. [JTS 4/02].
☆ Blanchard, John. Truth for Life: A Devotional Commentary on the Epistle of James, 2nd ed. 1986. I would like to have included this book among the recommendations above. Its 400pp. are eminently practical, good food for the soul, and directly serve preachers in their task of applying Scripture to life. [EvQ 10/84].
✓ Bray, Gerald, ed. James, 1 – 2 Peter, 1 – 3 John, Jude (ACCS) 2000. Fascinating reading and instructive for all who wish to study how these epistles were first interpreted by the church. There are fresh insights and remarks to ponder on nearly every page (xxx + 288pp.).
✓ Brosend, William F. [ℳ], James and Jude (NCBC) 2004. The author follows Vernon Robbins’s socio-rhetorical approach. I have not had much opportunity to use this, but I note that it got good reviews. Brosend takes a conservative stance, arguing that these two letters are well treated together as written by Jesus’s half-brothers. [Int 1/07; BL 2005; RelSRev 1/05; ExpTim 10/05].
Burdick, Donald W. (EBC) 1981. See Guthrie.
✓ Cheung, Luke L. The Genre, Composition and Hermeneutics of James, 2003.
✓ Chilton, Bruce, and Jacob Neusner, eds. The Brother of Jesus, 2001. Essays from an SBL consultation.
☆ Davids, Peter. (NIGTC) 1982. In the 1980s this was the first choice of Childs, Carson, and Martin. You should note that Davids contributed the brief, more popularly-styled commentary in NIBC (1989). NIGTC is of much greater value, especially if one is studying the Greek. Davids argues that James the Just received some sort of editorial assistance and that there is a discernable structure to the epistle’s argument. Compare with Laws. For student or scholarly pastor, Johnson is more current in scholarship and just as probing and useful, and I regard McCartney as superseding this good book in most respects. [JETS 6/83; WTJ Fall 84; JBL 102.4; RTR 9/83].
✓ Davids, Peter H. A Theology of James, Peter, and Jude (Biblical Theology of the NT) 2014. Because the contribution of these letters to NT theology is usually under-appreciated, I am delighted to see Davids’ vol., written after publishing three major commentaries on these books. I understand he moved over to Rome in 2014.
✓ Dibelius, M., and H. Greeven. ‡ (Herm) 1964, ET 1976. A standard exegetical tool from the critical camp. This is for specialists and advanced students. By its critical and atomizing approach the commentary does injustice to the tone and message of James, stripping this vibrant book of all theology, and, for me anyway, losing all sense for connection of thought in the epistle. Dibelius-Greeven is not of much use to the pastor. The German original was the 7th ed. KEK from 1921, and it was revised and expanded up to 1964. [JBL 85.2].
Gench, Frances Taylor. ‡ Hebrews and James (WestBC) 1996. [Int 7/98].
F George, Timothy. (Brazos).
✓ Gowler, David B. (BBC) 2014. Reception history. [ExpTim 1/15; Them 11/14; RevExp 11/14].
F Green, Joel B. [ℳ], (NTL).
☆ Guthrie, George. (EBCR) 2006. Quality, concise (75pp.), accessible evangelical exegesis from a scholar who has published important work on Hebrews and 2 Corinthians.
✓ Hartin, Patrick J. ‡ (SacP) 2003. Far deeper scholarship is in evidence in this vol. (319pp.) than in most other Sacra Pagina entries, which tend to wear their learning lightly. The work, by a Catholic priest at Gonzaga, may be compared with Johnson above. Hartin holds that James of Jerusalem is the author of the material, which was collected and published in one letter soon after his death. Cargal says this “commentary represents ‘the state of the art’ in research on the letter of James.” One of his particular interests is James and the Q Sayings of Jesus (1991), originally his dissertation. [Int 10/04 (Johnson); ExpTim 6/04; JETS 3/05; CBQ 10/04 (Cargal)].
Hiebert, D. Edmond. 1979, rev. 1992. An exposition published by Moody. Quite full.
✓ Hort, F. J. A. [ℳ], 1909. This weighty exegetical treatment of the Greek covers most of the epistle — it was left incomplete, ending at 4:7 — and was published by Macmillan (xxxiii + 118pp.). More conservative in its criticism. Now free online.
☆ Hughes, R. Kent. (PTW) 1991. See under Mark. Compare with Doriani.
Isaacs, Marie E. ‡ Reading Hebrews & James (RNT) 2002.
F Jimenez, Pablo. (NCCS). The author is a pastor in Puerto Rico.
☆ Jobes, Karen. Letters to the Church, 2011. See under Hebrews.
Johnson, Luke Timothy. ‡ (NIB) 1998. For students this commentary should be passed over, in favor of the larger AB (above), which is a major resource for scholarship on this epistle. Preachers will find some of their proclamation concerns addressed in this 50-page NIB contribution.
☆ Johnstone, Robert. (GS) 1871. A thoughtful, reverent exposition which many pastors have used.
F Kamell, Mariam. (SGBC). See Blomberg-Kamell above.
☆ Keddie, Gordon J. The Practical Christian (WCS) 1989.
☆ Kistemaker, Simon J. James and 1 – 3 John (NTC) 1986. [Them 4/88].
F Kloppenborg, John S. ‡ (Herm).
✓ Laato, T. “Justification According to James: A Comparison with Paul,” TJ 18 (1997): 43 – 84. Counted important reading by several leading evangelical scholars such as Moo and McCartney.
✓ Laws, Sophie. ‡ (BNTC) 1980. Perceptive, packed, and highly praised by a number of scholars. In the 1980s Davids and Laws were probably the two most important reference commentaries. This is more accessible than Davids in that she explains the English text. However, she has obviously done her homework in the original. Laws argues for a late date and Roman provenance, which seems far less likely than the setting proposed by Davids, that James addresses Jewish Messianists in the 50s and 60s. Laws’s approach also entails a rejection of Jacobean authorship. More critical than Davids. [ExpTim 1/81; JBL 102.4; JETS 9/82; ThTo 38.3].
MacArthur, John. 1998. See Matthew for a review of the series. This is one of the better vols. he has done, which makes sense because the epistle presses home one of MacArthur’s main pastoral concerns over the years: the danger of “easy believism” or “cheap grace” which disregards the ethical demands of the gospel (see, e.g., his 1993 Faith Works).
Manton, Thomas. (GS) 1651, 1693. For twenty-five years I surprised many by including this classic of Puritanism on the purchase list. Manton has a rich vein of practical theology a pastor can mine out during an entire lifetime of ministry. I’m guessing that now most preachers would prefer an up-to-date work such as Doriani. Also, Manton is free online. Note: reading literature from another era and culture can provide the Bible interpreter with a different perspective. Manton helps at points where we may have 21st century blinders on. (Look up online C. S. Lewis’s essay “On the Reading of Old Books.”) Cheaper and more accessible than the GS edition is the CrossC pb version (1995) [SBET Spr 97].
☆ Martin, Ralph P. [ℳ], (WBC) 1988. He probably used the odd WBC format better than anyone else. In his surprisingly lengthy introduction (100pp.), Martin has some very interesting rhetorical analysis of the letter. This commentary is a success, even if you don’t buy into his idea of a 2-stage compositional history (p.lxxvii, trying to balance the Greek style and Palestinian flavor). I admit to slight irritation when Martin attributes so much to some “enterprising editor,” even questioning that James intended a letter to be sent, and then declares that we cannot tell whether the editor succeeded in his publishing venture, whatever his purposes. Besides such introductory issues, I am more trusting of Davids’s exegetical judgment in commenting on pericopae. As always, Martin’s bibliography is superb (but now dated). For more scholarly types. [WTJ Spr 92; EvQ 10/92; RTR 9/90; CBQ 10/91; Them 4/91; Chm 105.2].
Maynard-Reid, Pedrito U. ‡ Poverty and Wealth in James, 1987. An Orbis issue, “organized according to its exegesis of select passages . . . that just happen to have the sharpest ideological edge and the greatest sociocultural implications” (Brosend, 25).
✓ Mayor, J. B. [ℳ], 3rd ed. 1910, 1913. Another mammoth work in the old Macmillan series (600pp.). I once counseled advanced students to obtain a copy of this work, but it is now free online. Mayor did for James and 2 Peter-Jude what Selwyn did for 1 Peter, except with less flair. Mayor is deeply learned, conservatively critical in the old British tradition, and treats the Greek text in detail.
✓ Mitton, C. L. ‡ 1966. A stimulating expositional commentary, unfortunately o/p. This is better than his Ephesians commentary, especially for pastors. Mitton posits a Palestinian milieu and points to a date in the 50s.
Moffatt, James. ‡ (Moffatt) 1928. Covers the General Epistles. Moffatt was always liberal, deeply learned, and scintillating at the same time.
☆ Moo, Douglas. (TNTC) 1986, rev. 2015. This superb commentary was Moo’s earlier effort, which I once recommended for its exposition which complemented the more exegetical NIGTC entry. Contains a great deal of practical and pithy comments, besides astute scholarly judgment. The 1986 vol. was superseded by Moo’s Pillar commentary (above), but students will want to consult the 2015 update too (240pp.).
✓ Morgan, Christopher W. A Theology of James, 2010. From P&R. [BSac 7/12].
☆ Motyer, J. Alec. (BST) 1985. Lives up to the standards of the series. Blanchard, though more diffuse, is just as useful as Motyer to the preacher. In editions of this guide prior to 2001, Motyer was a recommended purchase. Still a smart buy for two main reasons: it is an inexpensive pb, and Motyer’s OT expertise gives him special insight into the letter’s theological background. [JETS 3/87].
✓ Moyise, Steve. ‡ The Later NT Writers and Scripture, 2012. See under Acts.
✓ Niebuhr, Karl-Wilhelm, and Robert W. Wall, eds. ‡ The Catholic Epistles and Apostolic Tradition, 2009. Arose out of years of work by the SNTS Seminar on the Catholic Epistles. Half the sixteen essays are on James. [JSNT 33.5; RBL 2011; ExpTim 6/11; BTB 11/11].
✓ Nienhuis, David R., and Robert W. Wall. Reading the Epistles of James, Peter, John, and Jude as Scripture: The Shaping and Shape of a Canonical Collection, 2013. Their argument is that these letters “came into the canon as an intentional collection — implicitly the church’s intention — arranged not by chronology or length, but by a ‘canonical logic’, that is, ‘in a sequence that recommends an order of reading for maximal benefit’ for forming disciples” (Lockett [JTS 10/14]). It is stimulating to read arguments for canonical shaping of NT corpora; cf. scholarship on Psalms and the Twelve Minor Prophets. [JSNT 36.5; JETS 12/14; ExpTim 5/15; Them 7/14].
☆ Nystrom, David. (NIVAC) 1997. The author’s forte is ancient history and contemporary cultural critique, not NT scholarship. While the literature cited in Contemporary Significance sections is current, Nystrom uses little periodical literature and seems largely dependent on Davids, Laws, and Martin in researching the Original Meaning. He does helpfully draw from the Caird-Hurst NT Theology (1994). In short, this vol. provokes pastors to make application but is weak in the exegetical foundation laid beforehand.
Osborne, Grant. (CorBC) 2011. I have not seen this, but know that Osborne wrote on James, 1 – 2 Peter, and Jude, while M. Robert Mulholland contributed Revelation. The vol. is said to be over 600pp.
✓ Painter, John. ‡ Just James: The Brother of Jesus in History and Tradition, 1999, 2nd ed. 2005. A helpful “sourcebook for the study of the letter of James” (Brosend). [Anvil 17.3].
✓ Painter, John, and David deSilva. ‡ James and Jude (Paideia) 2012. Painter is responsible for the James exegesis while deSilva does Jude. I have scarcely used this, but it joins strong scholarship with good accessibility. One of the better vols. in the series. [CBQ 4/14; Int 7/15; ExpTim 12/13; RevExp 5/15; RelSRev 9/14; TJ Fall 14].
✓ Perkins, Pheme. ‡ First and Second Peter, James, and Jude (I) 1995. Covering all four letters in about 200pp. makes this commentary a bit too thin at points to help its intended readership. By contrast the Tyndale series treats these letters in 638 total pages. Another problem noted by reviewers — ironically in the direction of inaccessibility — is the more academic orientation which renders it perhaps less serviceable than other Interpretation vols. to those without a solid scholarly background. [JETS 9/97; ThTo 1/97; Int 4/97; CBQ 10/96; CRBR 1996].
Plummer, Alfred. General Epistles of St. James and St. Jude (EB) 1891. Still cited in the literature.
Reicke, Bo. ‡ (retired AB) 1964. Covers Peter and Jude as well; the comment is too cursory to make it very worthwhile. Rejects Jacobean authorship. The series’ editors have replaced this work. We now have Johnson on this epistle, Elliott on 1 Peter, and Neyrey on 2 Peter/Jude.
Richardson, Kurt. (NAC) 1997. The author taught at Gordon-Conwell, and his commentary is full enough at 272pp. to accomplish some good. The exegesis tends to be weak, however, and I predict you will much prefer Moo’s Pillar vol. This is not one of the stronger contributions to the series. [BSac 10/99].
✓ Ropes, J. H. ‡ (ICC) 1916. Though students will find the best help on technical issues in Mayor, Dibelius/Greeven, Davids, Martin, Johnson, McCartney, and Allison, they could consult Ropes and Hort too. Those older commentaries retain some value and are cited in the more recent works. Ropes is more critical than Hort or Mayor and argued for pseudonymity. Now free online.
Ross, Alexander. (retired NICNT) 1954. Replaced by Adamson. Carson spoke of it as “a book warmly devotional in tone but offering no serious help in the difficult passages.” F Samra, Jim. James, 1 & 2 Peter, and Jude (TTC).
Sidebottom, E. M. ‡ (NCB) 1967. Covers Jude and 2 Peter too, but in my estimate it is too brief to do much good. Would likely have been replaced, if the series had continued.
✓ Sleeper, C. Freeman. ‡ (ANTC) 1998. Some reviewers are calling this 150-page, compact exegesis a success, but it does not compete with the likes of Davids, Moo. [Int 7/01].
☆ Stulac, George. (IVPNT) 1993. A practical exposition of some 190pp. by a PCA pastor in St. Louis. I have not had opportunity to examine it closely, but some give it high marks, not so much for scholarly penetration, but for pastoral insight and an earnest, humble spirit which is in line with the epistle’s tone. Students will need to look elsewhere for exegetical helps. [Chm 109.1].
Tasker, R. V. G. (retired TNTC) 1957. A brief, perceptive work replaced by Moo.
✓ Taylor, Mark Edward. A Text-Linguistic Investigation into the Discourse Structure of James, 2006.
✓ Varner, William. (EEC) 2014. Decades ago, the author was a popular speaker and writer in dispensational circles. I have hardly used this vol. on the Greek text (600pp.), which applies discourse analysis (as did a 2011 James commentary published by Kress), and includes Application and Devotional Implications sections. Much research went into this book. McCartney is mistakenly left out of the index.
☆ Vlachos, Chris A. (EGGNT) 2013. The author took a PhD at Wheaton and here contributes well to the restarted series. I’ve used it only briefly, but agree with the warm commendation by Kamell that Vlachos provides “a beautiful distillation of the critical questions” regarding Greek grammar and syntax [JETS 9/13]. Another selling point is Vlachos’s including homiletical suggestions. [Them 7/13].
F Wachob, W. H. (RRA).
✓ Wall, Robert W. Community of the Wise: The Letter of James, 1997. Exceedingly full (335pp.) for the series of which it is a part, the TPI “NT in Context.” (Contrast Sloyan’s 76pp. on John’s Epistles.) Wall describes his intention: “my work seeks to expose a layer of meaning by mining the text within the context of scripture itself — a canonical Sitz im Leben” (p.1). This is a fine contribution. [Int 7/98; DenvJ]. Cf. Nienhuis-Wall above.
✓ Webb, Robert L., John S. Kloppenborg, eds. ‡ Reading James with New Eyes: Methodological Reassessments of the Letter of James, 2007.
Webber, Randall C. ‡ Reader Response Analysis of the Epistle of James, 1996.
☆ Witherington, Ben. Letters and Homilies for Jewish Christians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on Hebrews, James and Jude, 2007. The introduction and commentary on James stretch over 170pp.
NOTES: (1) Ruth B. Edwards, “Which Is the Best Commentary? XV. The Epistle of James,” ExpTim 6/92. (2) Todd Penner, “The Epistle of James in Current Research,” CurBS 7 (1999): 257 – 308. (3) Scot McKnight, “James and His Commentaries” (pp.405 – 19), in On the Writing of NT Commentaries, eds. Porter and Schnabel, cited in the Introduction.
★ Clowney, Edmund. (BST) 1989. A favorite of mine. His exegetical decisions are well considered, and his theological interpretation is very valuable. One of the best informed entries in the series. He was a communicator too (former President of Westminster Seminary and Professor of Homiletics and Practical Theology). This work is interesting from start to finish; you can read it straight through. Compare with McKnight, who is stronger in NT scholarship. [Evangel Win 89; JETS 12/92; RTR 1/92; CTJ 11/90; Chm 103.3].
★ Davids, Peter. (NICNT) 1990. My first choice among mid-level works. The earlier James commentary led us to expect a lot, and those expectations were not disappointed. This is an ideal commentary: careful exegesis, superb theological reflection, thorough yet pithy. As I was preaching through 1 Peter myself in 1990, Davids was the most lucid and helpful in wrestling with the cruxes: 3:18 – 22 and 4:1, 6. [CRBR 1992; Them 1/92; CBQ 7/92; Evangel Sum 92; NovT 35.3]. See also Davids’s Theology (2014) under James.
★ Doriani, Daniel M. (REC) 2014. Given very high marks by Carson: “exemplary in its careful handling of the text, theological robustness, and fresh writing . . . loaded with the best kind of application.” Pastors will rejoice to read such model preaching. Compare with McKnight, Helm, and Marshall as expositional helps.
★ Jobes, Karen H. (BECNT) 2005. “Thankfully manageable in size (ca. 350 pages . . .), this is nonetheless a major critical commentary” (Green) from the evangelical camp. Jobes has done much work on the Septuagint (Westminster PhD) and has contributed the Esther vol. to NIVAC. The up-to-date bibliography and interaction with recent technical commentaries will make this a fine reference vol. for students. Her special contributions, besides the solid exegesis, are: a proposal that the recipients were converts, possibly from Rome, displaced to Asia Minor; assessment of the LXX background; and a research of the quality of the Greek. Pastors can benefit much from the fine exegesis. [CBQ 4/06; JETS 3/07; BL 2006; NovT 49.4; BSac 10/07; ExpTim 5/06; BBR 19.3 (Hafemann)]. Students will consult Jobes alongside the major heavyweight commentaries of Achtemeier, Elliott, and Michaels, with more than a nod to Selwyn, Goppelt, Kelly, and Feldmeier. See also Jobes’s textbook survey, Letters to the Church (2011).
★ Schreiner, Thomas. 1, 2 Peter, Jude (NAC) 2003. One of the best vols. in the NT series. Though Schreiner gives a very good study of 1 Peter, with plenty of bibliographical help for students, I have valued this vol. even more for 2 Peter and Jude because of the long-standing lack of evangelical exegetical commentaries on that portion (Davids and Green have now supplied that lack). Preachers will appreciate the author’s clarity, exegetical good sense, and focus upon theological exposition (more or less Reformed). Blomberg rightly says, “If someone could afford only one commentary on these three letters together, then this is the obvious one to choose, with no close rivals.” [RelSRev 4/04; JETS 12/04; BSac 10/05; DenvJ 1/04 (Blomberg)].
☆ Achtemeier, Paul J. ‡ (Herm) 1996. A significant publication which is of greater interest to the NT academic than the average pastor. This 400-page entry in the series argues for pseudonymity and a date between 80 and 100. I find Achtemeier’s work more theologically sensitive than others in the series. (The theology drawn out is more conservative than the critical conclusions on introductory matters.) Students are advised to take notice of this vol. in their research writing; it is to be regarded, alongside Elliott’s AB, as the leading full-scale critical commentary available. The advanced student or scholarly pastor could put this superb work to good use; I prefer it to Elliott, Michaels, and Goppelt because of Achtemeier’s sensible, even masterful, well-rounded exegesis. I predict this vol. will have a long shelf-life. [JETS 6/99; JBL Spr 98; WTJ Fall 96; Int 1/98; CBQ 1/98; SJT 51.3; RelSRev 7/97].
Adams, Jay E. 1979. A popular commentary which digs into the theology and may be worth skimming.
Bartlett, David L. ‡ (NIB) 1998. This 90-page exposition, from a Yale professor of preaching, dates the book near the close of the 1st century.
✓ Batten, Alicia, and John Kloppenborg, eds. ‡ James, 1 & 2 Peter, and Early Jesus Traditions, 2014. [ExpTim 9/15].
✓ Beare, F. W. ‡ 1947, 3rd ed. 1970. Beare immediately followed Selwyn and put forward a rather more critical interpretation of the epistle. Scholars remember him for his proposal that we read 1:3 – 4:11 as a “baptismal discourse” (pp.25 – 27), but today it is hard to find anyone who believes the letter springs from a homily or liturgy. All discussion of 1 Peter since 1947 has taken as its starting point these two rigorous works. Beare denies Petrine authorship in this most valuable of all his commentaries.
☆ Bentley, Michael. Living for Christ (WCS on 1 & 2 Peter) 1990.
✓ Best, Ernest. ‡ (NCB) 1971. Useful for reference, but not nearly as important as his work on Thessalonians for BNTC, or on Ephesians for the rev. ICC. Best denies the authenticity of this letter.
✓ Bigg, C. A. ‡ (ICC) 1902. Still useful for technical work. Bigg covers Jude and Peter 1 – 2. He defends Petrine authorship of the first letter, but rejects 2 Peter as pseudonymous.
✓ Blum, Edwin A. (EBC) 1981. Insightful and clear, but too brief to compete with the other works listed.
✓ Bockmuehl, Markus. Simon Peter in Scripture and Memory, 2012. Not a commentary, but an excellent help for understanding the apostolic figure [EvQ 4/14; CBQ 4/14; Int 10/14; JETS 9/13; Them 7/13; RevExp Spr 13; RelSRev 3/14; TJ Fall 14], complementing his more scholarly earlier book, The Remembered Peter (2010) [Them 5/11; RelSRev 6/11]. Other works on the subject include Larry Helyer, The Life and Witness of Peter (2012) [CBQ 7/14; JETS 12/13; Them 7/13; DenvJ 16; RevExp 2/15], which may be the best entry point; Martin Hengel’s more critically oriented Saint Peter: The Underestimated Apostle (ET 2010) [JSNT 33.5; Chm Spr 14; JETS 9/11 (Davids); ExpTim 6/11; Them 11/12; BTB 5/12; RelSRev 6/12]; and Peter in Early Christianity (2015), eds. Bond and Hurtado.
✓ Boring, M. Eugene. ‡ (ANTC) 1999. Boring argues for pseudonymity and, from an evangelical perspective, is not the safest theological guide to the epistle. As he presses his case for universalism, he takes issue with other writers such as Achtemeier.
✓ Bray, Gerald, ed. James, 1 – 2 Peter, 1 – 3 John, Jude (ACCS) 2000. See James above.
Briscoe, D. Stuart. When the Going Gets Tough, 1982. Engaging sermons on 1 Peter.
Brown, John. Expository Discourses on First Peter, 3 vols., 1848. A huge Calvinistic work that is rich and suggestive theologically for anyone willing to wade through it. Somewhat in the Puritan vein with regard to style and substance. Free online.
✓ Campbell, Barth L. Honor, Shame, and the Rhetoric of 1 Peter, 1998. A classical rhetorical approach; compare with Martin’s understanding of rhetoric and structure.
☆ Charles, J. Darryl. (EBCR) 2006. This author contributes the commentary on 1 – 2 Peter and Jude. Earlier he did 2 Peter and Jude in BCBC.
Craddock, Fred. ‡ First and Second Peter and Jude (WestBC) 1996. The expositor may learn a lot here, but students will turn to more exegetical works. Craddock is agnostic about authorship but favors the pseudonymity position. [CBQ 4/97; RelSRev 10/97].
✓ Cranfield, C. E. B. [ℳ], (Torch) 1960. Covers both of Peter’s epistles and Jude. It is insightful and penetrating, as one would expect from Cranfield. There was also an earlier work on 1 Peter (1950), eclipsed by this entry. Fairly mild in its critical stance on 1 Peter.
✓ Dalton, William J. ‡ Christ’s Proclamation to the Spirits: A Study of 1 Peter 3:18 – 4:6, 1965, rev. 1989. Certainly one of the most important monographs published on this epistle over the last fifty years. Nearly all commentators (e.g. Davids, Achtemeier, Boring, Jobes, and Michaels, but with an odd twist) follow his interpretation. See also Pierce.
F deSilva, David. [ℳ], (RRA).
F deSilva, David. [ℳ], (Illum).
✓ Donelson, Lewis R. ‡ I & II Peter and Jude (NTL) 2010. Useful to those seeking a mid-level, compact (285pp.) critical commentary. The author teaches at Austin Presbyterian Seminary and rejects the authenticity of all three epistles. He writes, “Christianity . . . exists as an intersection of readings of the OT, stories and traditions about Jesus, and the demands of living in the Roman world and the still-emerging church. The commentaries that follow will show that each letter gathers those forces in its own way” (pp.2 – 3). Donelson is dependably liberal in theology. E.g. “this reading seems unlikely because the NT persistently resists the later Christian notion that in death the body . . . dies while the spirit lives on” (p.109). [CBQ 10/11; JSNT 34.5; JETS 6/11].
☆ Dubis, Mark. (BHGNT) 2010. Given that 1 Peter is a major exegetical challenge, this guide to the Greek is most welcome. I have not used it much, but it is said to be expertly done (220pp.). The author wrote his dissertation on 1 Peter at Union Seminary, Virginia, under Achtemeier. [JSNT 34.5; ExpTim 12/11].
F Edwards, Dennis. (SGBC).
✓ Elliott, John H. ‡ (AB) 2001. This commentary is huge in size and erudition. Few, if any, know the literature on the book of 1 Peter as well, or have contributed so much to contemporary Petrine scholarship as Elliott. He argues for pseudonymity and takes a heavily sociological approach. His earlier work is A Home for the Homeless: A Sociological Exegesis of 1 Peter, Its Situation and Strategy (1981, rev. 1990). I cannot agree with Elliott that the aliens and strangers were literally homeless; this is a case where sociological research should not trump biblical theology. See Achtemeier above. Advanced students once leaned hard on Elliott for bibliographical help. [CBQ 10/01; NovT 46.3].
✓ Feldmeier, Reinhard. ‡ The First Letter of Peter: A Commentary on the Greek Text, 2005, ET 2008. I was glad finally to see this 317-page Baylor University Press issue. Davids is the translator, and when a productive scholar takes time out to do a translation project, we expect there is good reason. German readers should note that the ET is a revision of, and improvement on, the original edition. Horrell says Feldmeier “offers much insight in a short space” (1 Peter, p.29), and Hagner calls it “an exceptional commentary that is not only brilliant academically, but one that is also edifying.” On the authorship issue he tentatively concludes that the weight of evidence is against the apostle Peter (p.38). [CBQ 1/10; ExpTim 7/09 (Horrell); Int 1/11].
Forbes, Greg W. (EGGNT) 2014. I have not seen it. [WTJ Spr 15; JSNT 37.5].
☆ Gardner, Paul. 1 and 2 Peter and Jude (Focus on the Bible) 2013. A treatment of 1 Peter has been added to his 2 Peter and Jude (1998). See 2 Peter.
F Glenny, W. Edward. (EEC). To be bound with Bateman on 2 Peter, Jude.
González, Catherine Gunsalus. ‡ 1 & 2 Peter and Jude (Belief) 2010. [Int 7/12].
☆ Goppelt, Leonhard. ‡ 1978, ET 1993. This valuable vol. from the KEK has been translated and published by Eerdmans. In the German it has been of immense help to scholars for its technical and theological discussion. The commentary is probably most notable for its sociological approach. Goppelt, along with just about all the German NT scholars, rejects Petrine authorship. [JBL 100.1]. Goppelt is well-known for his useful 2-vol. NT Theology, published in German 1975 – 76 and in ET 1981 – 82.
F Greaux, Eric. (NCCS). The author teaches at Winston-Salem State University.
☆ Green, Joel B. (THC) 2007. The author, now teaching at Fuller, here delivers a fresh exegesis with extended theological reflection on the epistle’s contribution to NT Theology. As with Marshall on this same epistle, the author’s Methodist convictions are not so much on display. Along with Fowl on Philippians and Thompson on Colossians, this is one of the best vols. in the developing THC series. For a probing critique see Gene Green in JETS. [RTR 12/08; CBQ 10/08; ExpTim 1/09; JETS 12/08; BL 2009].
☆ Grudem, Wayne. (TNTC) 1988. Sought to produce a more independent work and was quite successful in delivering fresh insights. Morris, the General Editor, made a wise choice in Grudem, who gives good attention to theological questions. Compare with other commentaries on “preaching to the spirits in prison.” In the first six editions of this guide I urged readers to purchase this book. The author tells me a revision is on the way (and, funny enough, that I am presently [Aug 2015] sitting at the very desk in Cambridge where he composed the book). [WTJ Fall 89; JETS 6/91; CTJ 4/90].
F Hafemann, Scott. (Pillar).
Harink, Douglas. ‡ 1 & 2 Peter (Brazos) 2009. A widely-ranging, lively, and provocative theological interpretation, directly challenging many traditional evangelical views — a book not unlike his Paul among the Postliberals (2003). [ExpTim 9/10, 7/12; CBQ 10/10; JSNT 33.5].
☆ Helm, David R. 1 & 2 Peter and Jude (PTW) 2008. Fine work, which can be compared to Doriani. The bonus with this PTW vol. is that it covers three epistles, not just 1 Peter. Helm is easy to recommend to anyone wanting a book of sermons — one that includes solid teaching and preaching (exhortation).
Hiebert, D. Edmond. 1984. A lengthy commentary which seeks to be both exegetical and expositional. Has some attractive features, but is not as penetrating as some other works. Dispensational. [JETS 9/85].
☆ Hillyer, Norman. 1 & 2 Peter, Jude (NIBC) 1992. Clear and useful for its size (300pp.) — “both concise and incisive even in its exegesis of difficult verses” (B. Campbell). The approach here is thoroughly evangelical. Call this a bargain. [RTR 1/96; Them 1/96; CRBR 1994 (Davids)].
✓ Holloway, Paul A. ‡ Coping with Prejudice: 1 Peter in Social-Psychological Perspective, 2009. [JTS 10/11; JSNT 33.5].
F Horrell, David. ‡ (ICC – new series). Publication has been expected for years now. Once it appears, it may take its place alongside Elliott and Achtemeier as a technical, critical exegesis of the first-rank. I expect, however, it to run down a different track after reading his postcolonial essay. Preliminary research is published in Horrell’s expert overview of recent scholarship in the “NT Guides” vol. on 1 Peter (2008) [ExpTim 5/09; BL 2009; RelSRev 9/09; BTB 8/10], and in Becoming Christian: Essays on 1 Peter and the Making of Christian Identity (2013) [JSNT 36.5; ExpTim 5/14]. There was an earlier (1998) commentary, assisting preachers, on The Epistles of Peter and Jude in the Epworth series [Anvil 17.3].
✓ Hort, F. J. A. 1898. Though fragmentary and covering only 1:1 – 2:17, this work is worth noting for its exegesis (see Michaels, p.x). Intended for the old Macmillan series.
✓ Hunter, A. M. [ℳ], (IB) 1957. I find he always has something profitable to say, but few ministers make use of IB anymore. Takes a more conservatively critical approach.
Keating, Daniel. ‡ First and Second Peter, Jude (CCSS) 2011. [JSNT 35.5].
☆ Kelly, J. N. D. [ℳ], (BNTC) 1969. Valued by all scholars and by studious pastors, this commentary covers both of the epistles of Peter and Jude. It is a judicious work by a renowned authority on the early church. Unfortunately he follows the critical line on the authorship of 2 Peter. Was also reprinted by Baker (Thornapple series). [JBL 89.4].
☆ Kistemaker, Simon J. Peter and Jude (NTC) 1987. Though not profound, this serves the pastor as a sturdy theological guide through these very theological epistles. Strongly supports the stance of believing scholarship regarding the authenticity of both 1 & 2 Peter. His exegetical decisions are well-grounded and clearly explained. Schreiner has done us a similar service more recently. [WTJ Fall 89; CTJ 11/90].
✓ Knight, Jonathan. ‡ (NT Guides) 1995. For a quick survey of scholarship.
Leighton, Robert. 1693 – 94. A classic work of full theological exposition, extremely valuable to the pastor willing to work through it. Was reprinted by Kregel in 1972. Leighton (500pp.) was edited down and included in the Crossway Classic series; see below. The full text is free online.
Leighton, Robert, and W. H. Griffith Thomas. 1 & 2 Peter (CrossC) 1999.
✓ Luther, Martin. 1522 – 27. His commentaries on the Catholic Epistles are available in both a 19th and 20th century translation. The single vol. published by Concordia (1967) is the one to possess, if you wish to purchase the work, though the earlier one is serviceable. Do not expect to find a commentary on the Epistle of James — the “epistle of straw,” as the Saxon Reformer termed it — in this vol.
MacArthur, John. 2004. See Matthew for a review of the series.
☆ Marshall, I Howard. (IVPNT) 1991. Marshall is General Editor and his work always carries a weight of scholarship. This is a very fine book, satisfying in its exegesis and contemporary application. There is a great deal more substance to this work than one might suppose looking at its slim size — reminds me of Cranfield. I would even go so far as to say this would be an excellent first purchase for a pastor. [CRBR 1992].
F Martin, Troy. (NIGTC). He will build upon his dissertation, Metaphor and Composition in 1 Peter (1992).
✓ Mason, Eric F., and Troy W. Martin, eds. ‡ Reading 1 – 2 Peter and Jude, 2014. Subtitled “A Resource for Students,” the 275-page book contains fourteen SBL essays.
☆ McKnight, Scot. (NIVAC) 1996. The author edited the NT series and here contributes a model commentary for it. See NIVAC under Commentary Series. Almost 300pp.
☆ Michaels, J. Ramsey. [ℳ], (WBC) 1988. A remarkably learned work which advances the scholarly discussion a good ways. This was Carson’s and Silva’s first choice in the early 1990s. Though I dislike Michaels’s fence-sitting in the introduction (pp.lxii-lxvii), I am impressed with his erudition and was greatly helped in my understanding of 1 Peter by this commentary. Surprisingly, Michaels wants to argue that the evidence supports both Petrine authorship and a date in the 70s — a view earlier put forward by A. M. Ramsay. Advanced students especially will want to purchase this, but compare with Achtemeier, Selwyn, Elliott, and Jobes (who was able to interact with all the previous scholarship). [JTS 40.2; WTJ Fall 89; JETS 12/91; Them 1/92; CTJ 11/90; Chm 104.1; CRBR 1990 (Elliot, too negative)].
Miller, Donald G. [ℳ], On This Rock: A Commentary on First Peter, 1993. Mainly a theological exposition designed to appeal to a wide audience.
Moffatt, James. ‡ (Moffatt) 1928. See under James. Moffatt upheld Petrine authorship (dictated to Silvanus).
Mounce, Robert H. A Living Hope, 1982. Covers both epistles of Peter. This popularly-styled commentary is appreciated for its warm-hearted tone, clarity, and its thoughtfulness.
✓ Moyise, Steve. ‡ The Later NT Writers and Scripture, 2012. See under Acts.
F Newman, Carey C. ‡ (S&H).
✓ Nienhuis, David R., and Robert W. Wall. Reading the Epistles of James, Peter, John, and Jude as Scripture, 2013. See under James.
Nisbet, Alexander. (GS) 1658. Covers 1 and 2 Peter, and this Puritan surprisingly wasn’t verbose. Banner of Truth mercifully came to our rescue by resetting this classic in modern typeface.
Osborne, Grant. (CorBC) 2011. See James.
Perkins, Pheme. ‡ (I) 1995. See James above.
✓ Pierce, Chad T. [ℳ], Spirits and the Proclamation of Christ: 1 Peter 3:18 – 22 in Light of Sin and Punishment Traditions in Early Jewish and Christian Literature, 2011. It’s good to have a fresh study with an extensive history of research. In the end he finds “it is impossible to specify a single tradition-historical explanation behind this passage in 1 Peter” (p.236). [JSNT 34.5].
Powers, Daniel. 1 & 2 Peter, Jude: A Commentary in the Wesleyan Tradition, 2010.
Reicke, Bo. ‡ (AB) 1964. See under James. Argues for Petrine authorship through Silvanus.
✓ Richard, Earl J. ‡ Reading 1 Peter, Jude, and 2 Peter: A Literary and Theological Commentary (RNT) 2000. The work of an able Catholic exegete (400pp.).
F Samra, Jim. James, 1 & 2 Peter, and Jude (TTC).
☆ Selwyn, E. G. [ℳ], (Macmillan) 1946. This was a magisterial work in its day and continues to be consulted by all engaged in serious study. Reprinted in Baker’s Thornapple series back in 1981. In spots I find it marginally more useful than WBC for working through the Greek. I used to recommend Michaels’s WBC above because it was fairly up-to-date and discussed Dalton, and because Selwyn was o/p and difficult to obtain. Selwyn defends Petrine authorship but through Silvanus. [WTJ Fall 47]. See also his valuable, lengthy 1964 essay on “Eschatology in 1 Peter,” in The Background of the New Testament and Its Eschatology (Dodd FS).
✓ Senior, Donald, and Daniel Harrington. ‡ 1 Peter, Jude, 2 Peter (SacP) 2003. Jude and 2 Peter are treated by Harrington. More critical positions — all three epistles pseudonymous — are assumed regarding authorship issues. (Doesn’t this serve to diminish St. Peter’s place in the early church?) This is learned and accessible as a commentary reference, but it does not break any new ground really. The authors are both in the top rank of American Catholic scholars. [ExpTim 5/04; RelSRev 1/04; JETS 12/04; Int 4/05].
Skaggs, Rebecca. 1 Peter, 2 Peter, Jude (Pentecostal Commentary) 2004. [ExpTim 4/06].
✓ Talbert, Charles H., ed. ‡ Perspectives on First Peter, 1986.
✓ Vinson, Richard B., Richard F. Wilson, and Watson E. Mills. ‡ 1 & 2 Peter, Jude (S&H) 2010. Of the three, Vinson’s treatment of 1 Peter is the most thorough (255pp.) and well-informed by scholarship. He denies apostolic authorship. Wilson, a theologian rather than a NT scholar, reaches generally mainstream critical conclusions and writes well (pp.261 – 365). I find Mills’s work on Jude cursory, with essentially a 2-page introduction and 30pp. of commentary. [Int 1/13].
Walls, A. F., and A. M. Stibbs. (retired TNTC) 1962. Walls contributed the introduction and Stibbs did the commentary. This is replaced by Grudem and can be ignored.
Waltner, Erland, and J. Daryl Charles. 1 – 2 Peter, Jude (BCBC) 1999. Waltner writes on 1 Peter in this good vol., perhaps the most conservative in the NT series thus far. See Charles above. [Int 1/01; JETS 9/01].
✓ Watson, Duane F., and Terrance Callan. ‡ First and Second Peter (Paideia) 2012. Watson contibutes the work on 1 Peter and is somewhat more conservative and theological than his partner. [CBQ 4/14; Int 7/13; JSNT 35.5].
✓ Webb, Robert L., and Betsy Bauman-Martin, eds. ‡ Reading First Peter with New Eyes: Methodological Reassessments of the Letter of First Peter, 2007. [ExpTim 8/08; BibInt 18.1]. See especially Boring’s updated essay on “Narrative Dynamics in First Peter.”
F Wilkins, Michael. (ZECNT).
✓ Williams, Martin. The Doctrine of Salvation in the First Letter of Peter, 2011. A Presbyterian minister’s PhD work, published by CUP. [JTS 4/15; JSNT 35.5; JETS 12/12; ExpTim 12/12; Them 11/12; BTB 11/13; RelSRev 12/13].
✓ Williams, Travis B. Persecution in 1 Peter: Differentiating and Contextualising Early Christian Suffering, 2012. Can serve as a standard study on this key theme. [JTS 10/13; JETS 12/14; RelSRev 6/14]. He summarizes current scholarship in CBR 10.2 (2012).
☆ Witherington, Ben. Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians, Vol. II: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 – 2 Peter, 2008. A much fuller work (400pp.) than some of his recent vols. on the epistles. I have not been able to review this as yet.
NOTE: Mark Dubis, “Research on 1 Peter: A Survey of Scholarly Literature Since 1985,” CBR 4.2 (2006): 199 – 239.
NOTE: Since it is now customary in most series to treat Jude together with 2 Peter in the same vol., I have marked with a [J] those works which follow the pattern. For works treating Jude but not 2 Peter, see the Jude section below.
★ Bauckham, Richard J. [ℳ], Jude, 2 Peter (WBC) 1983. [J] The first choice of Carson, Silva, Martin, and Childs. Simply put, this was once regarded as the best exegetical commentary on the Greek text of 2 Peter/Jude in any language. A revision is supposedly in the works; for this reason it might be best to hold off purchasing the 1983 edition. Readers should be apprised that Bauckham rejects Petrine authorship. (The order of books in his title indicates his conclusion that Jude came first and 2 Peter is literarily dependent.) For a conservative assessment of Bauckham’s thesis that 2 Peter is testamentary writing and his arguments for pseudonymity, see Davids and G. Green. This vol. is very useful to students and to scholarly evangelical pastors, who will likely conclude that the author’s theology is healthier fare than his historical criticism. (He belongs to the critically oriented wing of British evangelicalism, and so I have marked him as mediating or [ℳ].) Compare to Neyrey. [EvQ 7/85; RTR 9/83; JETS 3/84; TJ Fall 84; Them 9/85; JBL 104.3].
★ Davids, Peter H. (Pillar) 2006. [J] In the absence of a NICNT, this fills a gap in the preacher’s library. Davids has a well-established reputation as a commentator on the General Epistles; his works on James and 1 Peter have both exegetical merit and rich theological exposition. This vol. includes a learned discussion of the relationship between the two epistles, concluding (with Bauckham) that Jude came first and 2 Peter shows signs of literary dependence. At the same time he says Bauckham’s case for pseudonymity is not proven. Davids’s exegesis is scholarly — more scholarly than some other Pillar works (e.g. Kruse on John’s Letters) — and reliable, and his theological discussion is a great help to both students and preachers. Students will keep Bauckham and G. Green close at hand, but pastors will wisely make this their first pick (even if evangelicals were surprised to hear he joined the Catholic Church in 2014). [BBR 18.1; Chm Win 07; RTR 12/07; CBQ 10/07; JETS 9/07; BL 2007; RelSRev 7/07; ExpTim 5/07; DenvJ 5/07; BSac 10/08; Anvil 25.1]. See also Davids’s Theology (2014) under James and the BHGNT below.
★ Green, Gene L. (BECNT) 2008. [J] Can be put alongside Davids as a dependably conservative work on two epistles for which we earlier had little in the way of evangelical exegesis besides E. M. B. Green. This vol. is especially strong in discussing the historical, cultural, and intellectual background. He helpfully reopens debate of the Bauckham thesis that 2 Peter is testamentary literature, suggesting that a testamentary section (1:12 – 15) does not make the whole letter such. This 420-page work is a boon for evangelical students, and studious pastors will buy this as a supplement to Davids and Moo. [DenvJ 1/09; JETS 3/10; CBQ 7/09; ExpTim 6/10 (Davids)].
★ Lloyd-Jones, D. Martyn. Sermons on 2 Peter, 1983. There is probably nothing better to get a sense for the power of this epistle when preached by one with full confidence in the authority of the Holy Scriptures. These 25 sermons were originally delivered in London’s Westminster Chapel in 1946 – 47, immediately after the apocalyptic horrors of World War II. Still more homiletical help is available in Helm, Lucas/Green, Nisbet, and the two CrossC vols. listed below.
★ Moo, Douglas J. (NIVAC) 1996. [J] Moves so well and wisely from exegesis of the ancient text to discerning the contemporary message that lazy pastors might be tempted to let Moo do all their work for them. I used to say this vol. should be the model for the whole NT series. Note that Moo also does Romans for this series.
Adams, Thomas. A Commentary on the Second Epistle General of St. Peter, ca. 1633. This huge Puritan classic was reprinted by Soli Deo Gloria in 1990. Now free online.
Barnett, A. E. ‡ The Second Epistle of Peter (IB) 1957. Can be passed over.
F Bateman, Herbert. (EEC). [J] The Jude commentary has already been released (2015).
☆ Bentley, Michael. Living for Christ (WCS on 1 & 2 Peter) 1993.
✓ Bigg, C. A. ‡ (ICC) 1902. [J] See 1 Peter above.
✓ Blum, Edwin A. (EBC) 1981. See 1 Peter above.
✓ Bray, Gerald, ed. James, 1 – 2 Peter, 1 – 3 John, Jude (ACCS) 2000. See James above.
☆ Brown, John. Parting Counsels: 2 Peter Chapter 1 (GS) 1856. Has a Puritan flavor to it — Spurgeon called him “a Puritan born out of due time” — and provides much commentary on the theological message. Reprinted by Banner in 1980. Brown has other full expositions of Romans, Hebrews, and 1 Peter.
F Callan, Terrance. ‡ (RRA). [J] See also his Paideia work with Watson on 1 – 2 Peter.
☆ Charles, J. Darryl. (EBCR) 2006. This author contributes on 1 – 2 Peter and Jude (a total of 165pp.). See Waltner below for an earlier Charles commentary. I would use this more recent commentary instead of BCBC. Let me add that I believe Charles’s EBCR is the best brief exegesis for conservative pastors (29pp.).
Craddock, Fred. ‡ (WestBC) 1996. [J] See 1 Peter above.
✓ Cranfield, C. E. B. ‡ (Torch) 1960. [J] See 1 Peter above.
☆ Davids, Peter H. (BHGNT) 2011. [J] Expert walk-through for the Greek text, useful to students and pastors for sharpening their skills. See his Pillar above. [JSNT 34.5].
✓ Donelson, Lewis R. ‡ I & II Peter and Jude (NTL) 2010. See 1 Peter.
F Ewell, C. Roselee Velloso. (SGBC). [J]
☆ Gardner, Paul. (Focus on the Bible) 1998. [J] One of the best in the series with excellent exegesis in the background. (Gardner once taught NT at Oak Hill College in London.) Pastors can benefit from the theological exposition, and I cannot think of a better book on these letters to put in the hands of an eager lay Bible student. See 1 Peter.
✓ Giese, Curtis P. (Concord) 2012. [J] I believe Giese was a wise choice to author this vol. because he has undertaken intensive studies in Jewish literature of the Greco-Roman period and in the early church fathers. He follows the series pattern in a disciplined way, offering textual notes (lots of syntax), exegesis of the Greek, and ample theological exposition (in the Lutheran mode). The good-sized vol. (373pp.) sometimes wanders a bit from the explicit teaching of the text in order to reassure readers regarding the doctrines of their church (e.g. consubstantiation and closed communion on p.138). Overall, worth consulting. [CBQ 1/14].
González, Catherine Gunsalus. ‡ 1 & 2 Peter and Jude (Belief) 2010.
☆ Green, E. M. B. (TNTC) 1968, rev. 1987. [J] A sturdy defense of the authenticity of 2 Peter, together with a solid exegesis. This is a fine little commentary from a prominent evangelical preacher in the Church of England; for so long in conservative circles it was the standard work on 2 Peter/Jude in pastors’ and churches’ libraries, in part because there was hardly anything else. In the first six editions of this guide, I listed this as recommended for purchase. Reformed folk will note his Arminianism in the interpretation of 2 Peter 3:9. See Michael Green’s other well-received works on Matthew’s Gospel. [WTJ Fall 69].
F Hafemann, Scott. (NIGTC). [J]
Harink, Douglas. 1 & 2 Peter (Brazos), 2009. See under 1 Peter.
Harvey, Robert W., and Philip H. Towner. (IVPNT) 2009. [J] The late Harvey was mostly responsible for 2 Peter and he offers mainly a devotional reading. Towner then offers a solid exegesis of Jude, but one which can be challenged, according to a reviewer, when it “repeatedly makes the assertion that the letter is a missional document intended to offer hope to Jude’s opponents” [BL 2010]. Gauged for pastors. [JETS 9/09 (Davids); Chm Aut 11].
☆ Helm, David R. 1 & 2 Peter and Jude (PTW) 2008. See 1 Peter.
☆ Hillyer, Norman. (NIBC) 1992. [J] See 1 Peter above.
James, Montague Rhodes. (Cambridge Greek Testament) 1912. [J]
☆ Jobes, Karen. Letters to the Church, 2011. See under Hebrews.
Keating, Daniel. ‡ First and Second Peter, Jude (CCSS) 2011. [CBQ 10/13].
☆ Kelly, J. N. D. [ℳ], (BNTC) 1969. [J] See 1 Peter above. Many would argue this is still among the very best general treatments of 2 Peter. Kelly’s writing is a model of clarity, and I have used him extensively over the years.
☆ Kistemaker, Simon J. (NTC) 1987. [J] See 1 Peter above.
✓ Kraftchick, Stephen. ‡ (ANTC) 2002. [J] I have not used this 190-page commentary. It is given a good review by Davids [CBQ 7/03]. The critical stance will be off-putting for many evangelicals. [RelSRev 7/03; JETS 9/03].
☆ Leighton, Robert, and W. H. Griffith Thomas. 1 & 2 Peter (CrossC) 1999. An edifying exposition for the church. For Jude see the Manton vol. in the series.
☆ Lucas, R. C., and Christopher Green. The Message of 2 Peter and Jude (BST) 1995. [J] Dick Lucas, a famous British evangelical Anglican, also contributed the BST vol. on Colossians. There are a great many nuggets here for the preacher, and I’ll call them gold (235pp.). [RelSRev 10/97].
Luther, Martin. The Catholic Epistles, 1522 – 27. [J] See 1 Peter above.
✓ Mason, Eric F., and Troy W. Martin, eds. ‡ Reading 1 – 2 Peter and Jude, 2014. Subtitled “A Resource for Students,” the 275-page book contains fourteen SBL essays.
✓ Mayor, J. B. [ℳ], Second Peter and Jude, 1907. [J] A companion to Mayor’s James commentary and Selwyn’s encyclopedic First Peter in the Macmillan series, with the same exhaustive approach to grammatico-historical exegesis; few stones are left unturned. Advanced students are encouraged to look this up. Mayor denies Petrine authorship, but he is less dogmatic than many critics on the issue: “there is not that chasm between 1 and 2 Peter which some would try to make out” (p.civ). The Macmillan work was reprinted but it is now free online. Note too that Mayor has a fine old 70-page commentary on Jude in the Expositor’s Greek Testament (1897).
F Mbuvi, Andrew. (NCCS). [J] The author teaches at Shaw University, North Carolina.
Moffatt, James. ‡ (Moffatt) 1928. [J] See James above.
Mounce, Robert. 1982. See 1 Peter above.
✓ Moyise, Steve. ‡ The Later NT Writers and Scripture, 2012. See under Acts.
✓ Neyrey, Jerome H. ‡ (AB) 1993. [J] In its close exegesis of the Greek text, this commentary is said by some to compete with WBC as a first choice for scholars, but does not supersede Bauckham. I have found Bauckham to be a shrewder, more balanced exegete and a better guide into the theology of these epistles. Some of the conclusions in this AB replacement for Reicke are far-fetched. A Catholic professor, Neyrey follows the critical line — arguing both letters are pseudonymous — and the commentary is close to 300pp., including introduction and indices. Students will value this for its bibliography and for its application of the methods of social-scientific research, though the arrival of several major commentaries (2003 – ) makes this AB less important to students than was the case at the turn of the century. [Int 10/95; JBL Sum 95].
✓ Nienhuis, David R., and Robert W. Wall. Reading the Epistles of James, Peter, John, and Jude as Scripture, 2013. See under James.
Nisbet, Alexander. (GS) 1658. See 1 Peter above.
Osborne, Grant. (CorBC) 2011. [J] See James.
F Pearson, B. A. ‡ (Herm). [J]
Perkins, Pheme. ‡ (I) 1995. [J] See James above. Gene Green finds much of value here as a theological exposition of 2 Peter/Jude [BSB 12/03].
Powers, Daniel. 1 & 2 Peter, Jude: A Commentary in the Wesleyan Tradition, 2010.
✓ Reese, Ruth Anne. [ℳ], (THC) 2007. [J] The author, a prof at Asbury Seminary, gives almost as much space to Jude as to 2 Peter. She earlier published Writing Jude: The Reader, the Text, and the Author (2000). Reese pursues a canonical reading of these books and avoids taking positions on the higher critical issues. I find her theological reflection careful and thought-provoking yet deficient, starting as it does from a definition of theology itself (see p.3) which neglects divine revelation and is largely anthropocentric. Her approach seems tied to a more postmodern way of thinking, e.g. the idea that our beliefs in community are the source of our knowledge. Her work represents one of the few attempts to interpret these two epistles using contemporary literary theory. Note that Davids says the commentary on 2 Peter “is significantly weaker than her work on Jude.” [CBQ 4/09; RelSRev 9/08; JETS 9/08 (Davids); BL 2009; ExpTim 7/09 (Davids)].
Reicke, Bo. ‡ (AB) 1964. [J] See James above.
✓ Richard, Earl J. ‡ Reading 1 Peter, Jude, and 2 Peter: A Literary and Theological Commentary (Reading the NT) 2000. [J] This work of nearly 400pp. is published by Smyth and Helwys but not in their S&H series.
F Samra, Jim. James, 1 & 2 Peter, and Jude (TTC).
☆ Schreiner, Thomas. 1, 2 Peter, Jude (NAC) 2003. See under 1 Peter. Excellent. Though Schreiner gives a very good study of 1 Peter, with plenty of bibliographical help for students, I used to value this vol. even more for his treatment of 2 Peter and Jude because of the lack of evangelical exegetical commentaries on that portion. For so long we had little more than Michael Green’s slim Tyndale vol., and Green does not interact with much scholarship in his exegesis. I spoke of this NAC in 2005 as the average pastor’s first choice for a mid-level exegesis and exposition of 2 Peter and Jude. With the recent appearance of both Davids and Gene Green, Schreiner is not the standout work that it was. It remains, however, a smart purchase for its quality, coverage (three epistles at low cost), and sound theology.
✓ Senior, Donald, and Daniel J. Harrington. ‡ 1 Peter, Jude, 2 Peter (SacP) 2003. [J] Harrington is responsible for the latter two epistles. See 1 Peter above.
Sidebottom, E. M. ‡ (NCB) 1967. [J] See James above.
Skaggs, Rebecca. 1 Peter, 2 Peter, Jude (Pentecostal Commentary) 2004. [ExpTim 4/06].
Vinson, Richard B., Richard F. Wilson, and Watson E. Mills. 1 & 2 Peter, Jude (S&H) 2010. See Vinson under 1 Peter.
✓ Waltner, Erland, and J. Daryl Charles. 1 – 2 Peter, Jude (BCBC) 1999. [J] Charles has previously done much work on both 2 Peter and Jude and makes a decent contribution here. Though not a major commentary, this has been a good reference for students because of its date (more current bibliography) and the research which lies behind the work. I quickly note in passing Gene Green’s disappointment with this commentary [BSB 12/03]. See Charles’s more recent EBCR above. See also under Jude below. [Int 1/01; JETS 9/01].
✓ Watson, Duane F. ‡ (NIB) 1998. [J] Not of great account in my opinion, and better on Jude than on 2 Peter. Greek students will probably learn much more from his Duke PhD, Invention, Arrangement, and Style: Rhetorical Criticism of Jude and 2 Peter (1988), which began to establish his reputation as a leader in the field of rhetorical studies on the NT.
✓ Watson, Duane F., and Terrance Callan. ‡ First and Second Peter (Paideia) 2012. Callan contributed 2 Peter, and his work is all the more worth consulting because exegeses are thin on the ground (approx. 90pp.). See 1 Peter.
F Webb, Robert L. (NICNT). [J] Originally this was to be a joint work with Peter Davids (for Davids see Pillar and BHGNT above). Webb teaches at McMaster University. There is a foretaste of his interpretation of Jude in “The Use of ‘Story’ in the Letter of Jude,” JSNT 31.1 (2008): 53 – 87.
F Webb, Robert L. (RRA). [J]
✓ Webb, Robert L., and Duane F. Watson, eds. [ℳ], Reading Second Peter with New Eyes: Methodological Reassessments of the Letter of Second Peter, 2010. [JSNT 33.5; ExpTim 7/12; RelSRev 3/14].
F Wilder, Terry L. (EGGNT).
☆ Witherington, Ben. Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians, Vol. II: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 – 2 Peter, 2008. A much fuller work (400pp.) than some of his recent vols. on the epistles. I have not been able to review this as yet.
★ Burge, Gary. (NIVAC) 1996. Highly praised by a number of my pastor friends. This is a good addition to the other recommendations — all strong on exegesis and theological exposition — because of its fuller discussion of how John’s Letters might best be applied today. Burge has some good exegesis, too, but that is not the main value of his commentary here. He is unsure whether the Fourth Gospel and John’s Epistles come from the same hand. DenvJ [2015] makes Jobes, Kruse, Yarbrough, and Burge its top four picks. [JETS 6/99].
★ Jobes, Karen H. (ZECNT) 2014. See her previous work on Esther and 1 Peter. This 325-page commentary on the Greek was born out of a decade of experience lecturing on John’s Letters at Wheaton Graduate School. Because ZECNT includes a translation in graphical layout and emphasizes the Greek text’s flow of thought, besides a fine commentary section, this vol. is helpful in new and distinct ways, alongside Pillar and other series. Pastors will find her work all the more helpful for their study because she proceeds on the assumption that, “while the letters must be allowed their own voice, they cannot be properly understood without reference to John’s Gospel as the interpretive framework for metaphors, images, and theology common to both” (p.14). Jobes intentionally does not systematically engage interpreters who push a hypothetical Johannine Community theory, and also avoids a polemical reading of 1 John that tries to reconstruct with specificity the false teaching(s) being confronted. I found the Theology in Application sections to be apt and thought-provoking. See also Jobes’s textbook survey, Letters to the Church (2011).
★ Kruse, Colin G. (Pillar) 2000. Prior to Yarbrough and Jobes, this commentary was valuable as probably the best recent evangelical exegesis. (There had not been much competition.) The pluses of this vol. are its confidence in the authority of God’s Word, spiritual insight, manageable size (250pp.), and distillation of much current scholarship. (There is substantial interaction with the trio of Brown, Schnackenburg and Strecker.) On the negative side, the commentary is thinner on 2 & 3 John (32 of 184pp. total). I think a fuller work would have been beneficial at points; by comparison Moo’s Pillar vol. on James has over 200pp. of commentary. Kruse argues for authorship by John the Apostle. Dependable is the right adjective here, even though Collins is correct in pointing out instances where Kruse follows the NIV and should have paid closer attention to the Greek (e.g. aspect theory, abundant use of μένω). Pastors working without the Greek could start with Kruse, but those delving into the original will prefer the guidance provided by Yarbrough and Jobes. [RTR 12/00; Int 4/01; SwJT Spr 01; EvQ 7/03; JETS 12/01; Chm Aut 01; Presb Fall 05 (Collins); Evangel Spr 02; Anvil 19.3].
★ Stott, John R. W. (TNTC) 1964, rev. 1988. Probably the best in the series. I used to go so far as to recommend the expositor purchase Stott first, and that remains good advice, though it sticks mainly to the exegetical task (not an expansive exposition). You can use it the rest of your life. Of course, students need a tool which is in-depth and which interacts with current scholarship, and they will likely bypass this on their way to the major scholarly series (AB, BECNT, NTL, WBC, Herm). [RTR 5/89]. Other excellent helps for preachers are Allen, Jackman, and Lloyd-Jones.
★ Yarbrough, Robert. (BECNT) 2008. Sterling. This vol. replaced Smalley on my recommended list and is my top pick for studious pastors. The author is a PCA minister, trained under Howard Marshall at Aberdeen, who headed the NT Department at TEDS, and co-edits this series. He teaches at Covenant Seminary. The exegesis of the Greek is both carefully thorough (464pp.) and aimed at exposition of the theological message. I welcome his attention to the history of interpretation, with special place given to Augustine, Calvin, and Schlatter (one of his favorites). Students appreciate his interaction with well-sifted, modern Johannine scholarship, though more could have been done to engage with critical views at variance with conservative ones; some will see this as a plus perhaps. After the rehashing of the Martyn/Brown thesis in so many commentaries, it might be refreshing to read this one. He plows a different furrow. (Carson is expected to do the same.) Foster suggests that Yarbrough and Lieu are well paired, since the former’s weak spot (2 – 3 John) is precisely where Lieu is strongest. Preachers will find help — more than usual in BECNT — as they seek to discern the pastoral implications of the text. [JETS 9/09; DenvJ 1/09; RBL; CTJ 11/09; BSac 7/10; ExpTim 8/09 (Foster); TJ Spr 10; CBQ 7/10; BBR 21.2 (Jobes)].
☆ Akin, Daniel L. (NAC) 2001. This approximately 250-page commentary is similar to Kruse in some respects (especially the intended audience of pastors). It is solid, reveals substantial research on the part of the author, and would be a good purchase for pastors. Akin is President of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. [Them Sum 04; JETS 9/02; BSac 7/03].
☆ Allen, David L. (PTW) 2013. Considerably more attention is paid to 1 John (20 sermons) than 2 – 3 John (one sermon each). Allen has been a homiletics prof and loves the deeper, riper sermonic material in Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Wesley, Edwards, and Spurgeon. A fine, worthwhile book for preachers (over 300pp.). “He opens up John’s epistles with admirable clarity and force” (Yarbrough).
F Anderson, Paul N. (THC).
Barker, Glenn W. (EBC) 1981. Now honorably retired. See Thatcher.
✓ Black, C. Clifton. ‡ (NIB) 1998. A little over 100pp. of solid scholarship.
✓ Bray, Gerald, ed. James, 1 – 2 Peter, 1 – 3 John, Jude (ACCS) 2000. See James above.
✓ Brooke, A. E. ‡ (ICC) 1912. Remains somewhat useful as a reference on technical questions.
☆ Brown, Raymond E. ‡ (AB) 1982. “Commentaire monumental” (Bonnard)! Brown was a Catholic who taught at Union Seminary, New York for many years. Only for the advanced student and specialist. See also Brown’s commentary on John’s Gospel — the epistles were not written by the evangelist, he argues. This is by no means a conservative work and it is too full (800 jam-packed pages) for the average pastor. Still, the commentary is self-recommending as an enormously learned tome and a high point in Johannine scholarship. Quite influential is his argument (building on Meeks’s 1972 article, “The Man from Heaven in Johannine Sectarianism”) that these Epistles reflect controversy in the Community of the Beloved Disciple over the proper understanding of the Johannine tradition. Years ago, though I did not buy this argument, in some ways I preferred Brown to the more conservative but less rigorous Smalley. Advanced students and academically-inclined pastors might invest in this, if they want more than Yarbrough and Jobes and are impatient for Carson. [JBL 103.4].
☆ Bruce, F. F. 1970. A solid brief commentary that is very much to the point. Were it not for Stott, this might be considered the best popular exegetical work. Has been bound with Bruce’s work on John’s Gospel.
Bultmann, Rudolf. ‡ (Herm) ET 1973. One of this scholar’s last publications (completed 1967). Quite slim (115pp. plus bibliography), radically critical, and not all that influential at this stage, though at one time it was. Don’t bother with it, unless you are an advanced student deeply engaging the question of where Johannine scholarship has come from. Bultmann has now been replaced in the series; see Strecker below.
✓ Burdick, Donald W. 1985. One of the largest evangelical works (475pp.) on John’s Epistles. Has a number of good points and is a good value in pb, but this cannot be among the top choices. Now o/p. Note: this work should be distinguished from his earlier, much briefer work (also) for Moody Press.
Calvin, John, and Matthew Henry. 1, 2, 3 John (CrossC) 1998. Better to consult the unedited commentaries online for free.
F Campbell, Constantine R. (SGBC).
Candlish, Robert. 1 John (GS) 1866. A full exposition by a 19th century Scottish pastor and professor. It is good to see the work get a new lease on life by being added to the GS series. [SBET Fall 95]. Now free online.
F Carson, Donald. (NIGTC). Will be cause for celebration and possibly become a first choice, at least for students and those pastors comfortable with their Greek NT. Carson’s exegetical skill and gift for theological interpretation are well-known.
☆ Culy, Martin M. I, II, III John: A Handbook on the Greek Text, 2004. This brief guide (155pp.) is published by Baylor and guides the student through the basics of lexical and grammatical analysis. [EvQ 1/07; BL 2006; ExpTim 9/06].
Derickson, Gary. (EEC) 2014. Apparently the second vol. in the series, after Varner on James, Derickson’s exegesis of the Greek appears to be thoroughly researched, though not always so wisely selective in whom he engages. He is hostile to Calvinism at points and pushes a Zane Hodges-style “Absolutely Free” grace. Obedience, to Derickson, is not a test of life or evidence of justification (p.135). I’m puzzled by some statements: “it is possible for a regenerate person not to know God personally, relationally” (p.137). I’ve hardly used this tome (760pp.).
Dodd, C. H. ‡ (Moffatt) 1946. An old classic with all of Dodd’s brilliance, but from an evangelical perspective the theology is atrocious. “Wildly out of sympathy with the text,” says Carson.
Findlay, G. G. Fellowship in Life Eternal, 1909. A devotional classic, justly famous, to which pastors have turned again and again. The same can be said for Law’s book below. Findlay only treats 1 John.
✓ Grayston, Kenneth. [ℳ], (NCB) 1984. Challenges the usual conclusion of modern scholarship that the letters are a good bit later than the Fourth Gospel. Grayston is cited today mainly for that original theory. Of interest to students rather than pastors. [JETS 9/85; ExpTim 12/84; Them 1/86; EvQ 1/87].
✓ Haas, C., M. deJonge, and J. L. Swellengrebel. (UBS) 1972, rev. 1994. Marshall had high praise for the first edition: “an extremely valuable book, useful to all students and not merely to Bible translators.” The revised edition is 214pp.
Harris, W. Hall. 1, 2, 3 John: Comfort and Counsel for a Church in Crisis, 2003. From a Dallas Seminary prof, this is an exegesis of the Greek text, published by Biblical Studies Press (292pp.). I have not seen the work, which is praised in Glynn’s Survey.
✓ Houlden, J. L. ‡ (BNTC) 1973, 2nd ed. 1994. Retains some value (something of a signpost along the way), but it is not worth poring over. The tone is quite critical. As the Preface makes clear, Houlden’s revision does not “tinker with the body of the text.” The updating is “an essay of description and assessment” on two decades of scholarly developments (pp.155 – 60). [JBL 94.4].
☆ Jackman, David. (BST) 1988. An exposition which builds on Stott’s TNTC (first edition). More useful to the expositor than to the student.
☆ Johnson, Thomas. (NIBC) 1993. A fine work of about 180pp. which is more up-to-date than Stott with regard to NT scholarship and more exegetical, but is not quite as helpful to the expositor. For a compact exegesis, Rensberger is more rigorous and critical. [Chm 108.1; CRBR 1994].
Jones, Peter Rhea. [ℳ], (S&H) 2009. Deciding “at the outset to ground my analysis in my own exegesis primarily” (xv), Jones has less interaction with the scholarly literature. The commentary has value and is of good length (294pp.), but at points I found the writing style awkward (see Pastoral-Polemical, p.105). Jones is a mature pastor and former seminary prof (McAfee), keenly interested in rhetoric and literary criticism. [Int 10/11].
☆ Kistemaker, Simon J. (NTC) 1986. See under James.
☆ Köstenberger, Andreas J. A Theology of John’s Gospel and Letters, 2009. See under John’s Gospel.
✓ Kysar, Robert. ‡ (Augsburg Commentary) 1986. [JETS 6/90].
☆ Law, Robert. The Tests of Life, 1909. See Findlay above. Stott mined this work and used Law’s idea that 1 John encourages readers to test themselves whether they have true life in Christ (tests of love, doctrine, obedience). You will find Law more valuable than Findlay, and he is free online.
✓ Lieu, Judith M. ‡ (NTL) 2008. A reasonably full work (336pp.) standing in the top rank of critical commentaries and especially welcome because there have been fewer excellent exegeses published by either the critics or evangelicals since the mid – 1980s. Lieu builds upon two notable scholarly monographs: The Second and Third Epistles of John: History and Background (1986), and The Theology of the Johannine Epistles (CUP, 1991) [CRBR 1993]. She has presented some wise caveats regarding the dominant Brown thesis, and has emerged as an authority on this literature. (Lady Margaret’s Professor of Divinity in Cambridge, Lieu has been president of SNTS.) The book description gives her central thesis: “Each letter shows how an early Christian author responded to threats against authority by recourse to the correct teachings of the faith and a proper understanding of the relationship between Jesus and God. Together, these letters argue for a bond of unity among believers, based on fidelity to the truth of God.” In line with the critics’ consensus, she believes 1 – 3 John exhibit no signs of knowing the Fourth Gospel. [JETS 9/09; ExpTim 8/09; Int 7/09 (Kysar); BL 2010; RelSRev 9/10; BSB 6/12].
☆ Lloyd-Jones, D. Martyn. Fellowship with God (1993); Walking with God (1993); Children of God (1993); The Love of God (1994); Life in God (1994). This sermon series is well worth consideration. I am glad that the publisher, Crossway, has put it all in one cheaper, fat (736pp.) vol., Life in Christ (2002).
☆ Marshall, I. Howard. (NICNT) 1978. A splendid commentary, though some take issue with Marshall’s forthright Arminianism. (He was a Methodist minister, long on the faculty at Aberdeen, and regarded as an elder statesman of evangelical NT scholarship in Britain.) He writes with the pastor in mind, and this has been the evangelical standard that pastors have used alongside Stott’s gem. The introduction disappoints some conservatives in that he states his uncertainty about the author’s identity. At least he believes that the three came from the same hand. This vol. is still valuable to students for its full survey of introductory issues — Smalley referrred his own readers to it (1984, p.xxi). Well worth obtaining; this was my own first purchase on John’s Letters. Marshall also wrote magisterial commentaries on Luke and the Pastoral Epistles, and a fine compact TNTC on Acts. [WTJ Fall 79; JBL 99.4; EvQ 4/79].
✓ Moyise, Steve. ‡ The Later NT Writers and Scripture, 2012. See under Acts.
F Ngewa, Samuel. (NCCS). The author is a veteran, beloved professor in Kenya and has previously published expositions of John’s Gospel, Galatians, and the Pastorals.
✓ Nienhuis, David R., and Robert W. Wall. Reading the Epistles of James, Peter, John, and Jude as Scripture, 2013. See under James.
✓ Painter, John. ‡ (SacP) 2002. Painter’s vol. is recognized especially for its lengthy introduction — over a quarter of the 410-page vol. — and for his interpretation of the epistles as reflecting a polemical situation within the Johannine community. He dialogues with Brown a good bit in the technical “Notes.” This is more of a literary and historical commentary than a theological one. Preachers will likely not find much to assist them here. [CBQ 10/03; Int 7/03].
✓ Parsenios, George L. [ℳ], (Paideia) 2014. A 165-page exegesis from a former prof at Princeton Seminary, now at St. Vladimir’s Seminary, that appears to be well-done. He sees the Gospel and Letters as from the same hand(s), with the latter interpreting the former. [JSNT 37.5].
Plummer, Alfred. (Cambridge Greek Testament) 1886. Reprinted from time to time. But if you want one of the older works, pick up Westcott.
✓ Rainbow, Paul A. Johannine Theology: The Gospel, the Epistles, and the Apocalypse, 2014. See under John.
✓ Rensberger, David. ‡ (ANTC) 1997. This is among the leading compact critical exegesis and shows the influence of Brown’s thesis. Of special interest to students. More directed toward meeting the expositor’s need is the next entry. [Int 1/99].
Rensberger, David. ‡ (WestBC) 2001. A slim vol. of only 130pp., this work probably will not be a preference among evangelicals because of its critical theological orientation. Rensberger is sometimes out of sympathy with the text, and his adoption of the Martyn/ Brown thesis, I find, makes application of the epistles’ message today more difficult. [Them Spr/Sum 02; ExpTim 8/02; SwJT Spr 02; RelSRev 4/02].
F Root, Michael. (Brazos).
Ross, Alexander. (retired NICNT) 1954. Now replaced by Marshall and long o/p.
✓ Schnackenburg, Rudolf. ‡ 1984, ET 1992. Like fellow scholar Brown, Schnackenburg is a critical Catholic who has produced in-depth commentaries on the Gospel of John and the Epistles. Both scholars moved left since they first began commenting on the Johannine Literature, the late Brown more so. Schnackenburg was also more conservative than Brown to begin with. This exceptionally fine scholarly work, translated out of the German (Herders series), is 302pp. This is Childs’ first choice and is given high marks by Carson, who is presently working on these epistles. Schnackenburg will find his way into more students’ hands than pastors’. I bought it. [Int 1/94; JETS 9/96; BSac 7/93].
Schuchard, Bruce G. (Concord) 2012. I have not seen the hefty vol. (about 750pp.). [CBQ 1/15]. See the negative review on Amazon.
✓ Sloyan, G. S. ‡ Walking in the Truth: Perseverers and Deserters — The First, Second, and Third Letters of John, 1995. A very slim work in the series NT in Context.
☆ Smalley, Stephen S. [ℳ], (WBC) 1984, rev. 2007. A solid, respectable vol. by a scholar at home in the Johannine literature. A great deal was to be learned from the 1984 work, which began to show its age. Though I preferred the huge work by Brown in some ways, I was always convinced that Smalley was more useful to the pastor, in part because the WBC was more manageable at half the length. Students appreciated Smalley for his extensive interaction with the many works available in the early 1980s on these epistles in all the languages. It is happy news that there is now a thoroughly revised edition (xxxi + 376pp.). At the same time, I regret that he still pushes the Johannine Community interpretation like he does. In the revision he “remain[s] convinced that the Johannine corpus . . . enshrines the history of a volatile community, gathering in some sense around John the Apostle, the Beloved Disciple, and that it is possible to trace the story of his church from the Apocalypse, through the Gospel, and thence to the Epistles” (viii). I wish he had taken opportunity to interact with Strecker, Klauck, and Kruse in the new edition. See Smalley under John’s Gospel and under Revelation. This was Silva’s first choice years ago. Yarbrough replaced this on my recommended list. [WTJ Fall 86; RTR 9/85; JBL 106.1; EvQ 4/87; JETS 3/86].
✓ Smith, D. Moody. ‡ (I) 1991. This author has long been a noted contributor to Johannine scholarship, and some students may wish to consult this shorter work — I wish he had written twice as much. Smith also has a commentary on John’s Gospel. Do note the next entry. [CRBR 1993].
F Smith, D. Moody. ‡ (ICC – new series).
✓ Strecker, Georg. ‡ (Herm) 1989, ET 1996. Replaced Bultmann in both KEK and Hermeneia; Strecker studied under him at Marburg. This is a translation of a rigorous, radical, historical-critical vol., and extends to somewhat over 300 large pages. Compare this technical exegesis with the more accessible and rewarding Schnackenburg. Advanced students will use Strecker, but not pastors. (The latter will think the world is turned upside-down when Strecker argues the Presbyter had nonorthodox teaching and “Diotrephes ... stands closer to the orthodox side” [p.263].) While praising many features of this demanding commentary (e.g. the wealth of 19 excursuses), Grayston wonders if scholars should hold off producing such works until the whole corpus of Qumran material has been examined (Strecker does little in that area). [JETS 6/99; JTS 10/97 (Grayston); Bib 74.1; JBL Win 00].
✓ Streett, Daniel R. They Went Out from Us: The Identity of the Opponents in First John, 2011. [BBR 22.4; CBQ 4/13; JSNT 34.5; RTR 8/12; JETS 6/12].
Thatcher, Tom. (EBCR) 2006. Replaces Barker in the earlier EBC. Thatcher fits the bill as a brief exegesis (125pp.), but it is worrisome to see only a single bibliographical entry later than 1992.
Thomas, John Christopher. 1 John, 2 John, 3 John (Pentecostal Commentary) 2004. [ExpTim 4/06; Anvil 22.4 (Smalley)].
☆ Thompson, Marianne Meye. [ℳ], (IVPNT) 1992. A useful 168-page commentary, written with pastors in mind, including both exegesis and application (with preaching-style illustrations). The interpretive work has good research behind it, but the application (often the truly hard work of preaching) is less useful. Perhaps she comes off sounding too much like an academic. A solid representative of the series. [Them 5/94; Chm Spr 95].
F Turner, David L. John and 1 – 3 John (TTC).
✓ Wahlde, Urban C. von. ‡ The Gospel and Letters of John (ECC) 3 vols., 2010. See under John’s Gospel. The commentary on the letters is 434pp.
F Watson, Duane F. ‡ (NCBC).
F Watson, Duane F. ‡ (RRA).
✓ Westcott, B.F. 1902. “A classic of lasting value” (Childs). He comments on the Greek text, and would not be an unwise purchase. Pastors of several generations relied heavily on Westcott, which was reprinted often — the latest was Wipf & Stock in 2001 — but it is now free online.
F Wilder, Terry L. (EGGNT). He is also doing 2 Peter – Jude for the series.
F Williamson, Rick. 1, 2, & 3 John: A Commentary in the Wesleyan Tradition, 2010.
☆ Witherington, Ben. Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians: Vol. I: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on Titus, 1 – 2 Timothy, and 1 – 3 John, 2006.
F Yieh, John. ‡ (Illum).
NOTES: (1) D. Moody Smith, “The Epistles of John: What’s New Since Brooke’s ICC in 1912?” ExpTim 120.8 (2009): 373 – 84. (2) There are two review-essays by Klaus Scholtissek in CurBS 6 (1998) and 9 (2001), and they pay special attention to German works. (3) Matthew Jensen, “The Structure and Argument of I John: A Survey of Proposals,” CBR 12.2 (2014): 194 – 215.
NOTE: See “2 Peter” above.
Bateman, Herbert. Jude (EEC) 2015 – digital. To be bound with Glenny on 1 Peter and Bateman on 2 Peter, neither of which has been released. I am yet to see the Jude work.
✓ Bauckham, Richard J. [ℳ], Jude and the Relatives of Jesus, 1990. Quite important as a follow-up to the masterful WBC on 2 Peter/Jude, and his study of James.
Benton, John. Slandering the Angels: The Message of Jude (WCS) 1999. I have not seen this, but it is said to be about 190pp. in length, which is substantial indeed for this epistle. Pastors might consider Benton.
✓ Brosend, William. ‡ James and Jude (NCBC) 2004.
✓ Charles, J. Daryl. Literary Strategy in the Epistle of Jude, 1993. A significant evangelical study. See Charles (EBCR) and Waltner under 2 Peter.
Jenkyn, William. Jude, 1652. Manton self-consciously built on this Puritan work, which he regarded as exceptional. Jenkyn has been reprinted but is free online.
Jones, P. R. The Epistle of Jude as Expounded by the Fathers, 2001.
Manton, Thomas. Jude (GS) 1658. Extends to almost 400pp. in typical Puritan fashion. Those who readily profit from Puritan writings are encouraged to look up this beautifully bound vol., reprinted in 1989. Now free online too. “Full of deep application,” says Evangel [Sum 90]. I consider the scaled-down, modern language version of Manton’s Jude in the Crossway Classics edition (1999) to be very useful.
✓ Painter, John, and David deSilva. ‡ James and Jude (Paideia) 2012. See James above. More accurately, deSilva is conservatively critical [ℳ]; see his book, The Jewish Teachers of Jesus, James, and Jude (2012).
Plummer, Alfred. General Epistles of St. James and St. Jude (EB) 1891. Still cited in the literature and free online.
✓ Reese, Ruth Anne. ‡ Writing Jude: The Reader, the Text, and the Author, 2000. This dissertation, with its reader-response criticism, led to the THC commentary on 2 Peter and Jude. [BibInt 12.4]. I confess I learned less here about Jude, as Reese invited much reflection on “the openness and possibilities of language” (p.158). There seemed to be more Barthes, Foucault, Freud, and Lacan than NT study.
☆ Saarinen, Risto. The Pastoral Epistles with Philemon & Jude (Brazos) 2008. See under Pastorals.
✓ Wasserman, Tommy. The Epistle of Jude: Its Text and Transmission, 2006. A stunningly thorough study of text-critical issues. [CBQ 7/07; BBR 18.1; BL 2008; NovT 50.3; ExpTim 5/07; Them 5/08]. Earlier we had Charles Landon, A Text-Critical Study of the Epistle of Jude (1996).
✓ Watson, Duane F. ‡ Invention, Arrangement, and Style: Rhetorical Criticism of Jude and 2 Peter, 1988. See under 2 Peter.
✓ Webb, Robert L., and Peter H. Davids, eds. ‡ Reading Jude with New Eyes: Methodological Reassessments in the Letter of Jude, 2008. [ExpTim 7/09; BL 2010].
☆ Witherington, Ben. Letters and Homilies for Jewish Christians: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on Hebrews, James and Jude, 2007.
NOTE: I hesitate to make strong recommendations of commentaries on Revelation. There is a wide range of interpretations, and one’s own eschatological convictions can strongly influence value-judgments. Some key approaches are (1) preterist: Revelation points to its immediate historical context and is mostly already fulfilled; (2) historicist: Revelation predicts the whole course of Christian history; (3) futurist: Revelation is primarily fulfilled in the final events of history — there are both simpler and wildly extreme interpretive positions here; (4) idealist: Revelation is a symbolic portrayal of the struggle between God and Satan, not so tied to historical events. Also, there are a good many scholars today who, in emphasizing the apocalyptic genre, argue that Revelation is more an encouragement and witness to Christian endurance in the face of imperial Roman and cultural pressure/persecution. I believe you can best use this section of the guide if you know my position. While taking the prophetic character of the book very seriously (1:3), I cannot take a strictly futurist approach. The highly symbolic character of the apocalyptic genre present here — which ironically conceals as much as it reveals — makes me very cautious about details and inclined to sympathize somewhat with idealist interpretations. (A similar mixed position is taken by Beasley-Murray, A. Johnson, Ladd, Morris, Mounce, and Osborne.) Still, I am compelled by my own exegesis of Rev 20 to take a historic premillennial (i.e. post-trib) stance. I have tried to evaluate the works available without much reference to my own convictions. As it falls out, two of the five full-length recommendations are Amil, two are Premil, and one is hesitant to decide. All have been highly praised by scholars of every stripe. All are notable for their sensitivity to the book’s tension between apocalyptic and the prophetic tradition, both of which impacted 1st century Jews and Christians. Those unfamiliar with apocalyptic and its significance are urged to digest George Ladd’s article in ISBE, Revised. (For more in-depth study there is a bibliography above, following Daniel.) It is best to avoid the plethora of fanciful works which view Revelation as a forecast of imminent world events (esp. in the Middle East), seemingly written for 20th and now 21st century Americans, with scant relevance to the early church. Would that more people heeded the ancient advice of Irenaeus: “It is . . . more certain, and less hazardous to await the fulfillment of the prophecy, than to be making surmises, and casting about for names that may present themselves” (Against All Heresies, 5.30.3). I admit having strong views against the sensational fiction which has been so popular the last three decades. Here is a challenge for all to take to heart: “If responsible interpreters do not make the effort to set forth the message of Revelation in terms that are faithful both to Scripture and to our own times, this task goes by default to others” (Boring, p.59).
★ Beale, G. K. (NIGTC) 1999. His published dissertation led us to expect a fine piece of work, and this is a treat, especially for those who love the Greek NT. It can be regarded as the best, most exacting evangelical exegesis. A pleasant surprise is that Beale provides a good bit more theology than we are used to receiving from this series. His approach is “eclecticism, or a redemptive-historical form of modified idealism” (p.48). The best feature of this work is its treatment of Revelation’s OT background; I expected this. (In my humble opinion, though, Beale fails to do full justice to the influence of Ezekiel.) Compare with Aune’s set. [Them 2/00; TJ Spr 00; JBL Spr 00; WTJ Spr 00; Bib 81.3; Int 1/00; RTR 12/00; RelSRev 7/00; HBT 12/02 (Aune)]. Many pastors are scared off by the price and size of this tome (1200pp.). There is a remedy, however. Unless you are an academic, you might consider buying Revelation: A Shorter Commentary (2015) in pb, which is still quite full (over 500pp.) but does not treat the Greek directly. Students note another of Beale’s titles, John’s Use of the OT in Revelation (1998).
★ Johnson, Dennis. The Triumph of the Lamb, 2001. This is a suggestive exposition with an amillennial perspective and a sensitivity to biblical theological themes, anticipated in earlier Scripture and developed in Revelation. (Goldsworthy and Poythress use a similar approach.) I expected this would be good, but it’s better than I had hoped. For another very useful Johnson commentary, see Acts.
★ Keener, Craig S. (NIVAC) 2000. Shows insight and learning — the Author Index extends 10pp., “Other Ancient Sources” to 16pp. (Keener previously wrote the IVP Bible Background Commentary.) This is a book for students and expositors. In the exegesis sections (Original Meaning), there is good interaction with Aune and Beale. Theologically, he likes to cut the difference between premillennialists and amillennialists. Though there is not always the maturity of reflection and synthesis one finds elsewhere in NIVAC, Keener does well in stimulating the preacher to think hard about the rather complex move from interpreting Revelation responsibly to applying the book’s message helpfully. He was given a most difficult task and did it well. Though a strong partisan on some theological points, Keener here is very fair to various schools of interpretation. [RelSRev 7/03]. More of the best preaching helps are Hamilton, D. Johnson, Michaels, Poythress, and Wilcock.
★ Mounce, Robert. (NICNT) 1977, rev. 1998. Was once the most scholarly of the evangelical works I suggested for purchase. The first edition was the result of fifteen years’ intensive research on the book, and with the revision “a good piece of work has been turned into an even better one” (I. H. Marshall). This, Osborne, or Beale’s “Shorter Commentary” would be my first choice for pastors. In Beale’s 1999 tome we have an excellent detailed commentary on the Greek, but this work by Mounce contains in the notes some close exegesis of the original and some text criticism for those who don’t want to take out a bank loan to purchase NIGTC or the 3-vol. WBC. Mounce takes a historic premillennial position, but is fair and appreciative in dealing with the amillennial point of view. [CTJ 13.2; JBL 9/79; EvQ 7/78, 7/99; TJ Spr 00; RelSRev 4/01].
★ Osborne, Grant. (BECNT) 2002. Very well done and more accessible than one might think for a commentary on the Greek text. The expositor who feels intimidated by the size and scholarship of Beale might take a small step down and buy this instead. Like Mounce, Osborne offers a premillennial interpretation of ch. 20 (expected of a TEDS prof), but is a model of fairness is dealing with other positions. [RTR 8/04; Them Spr 04; JETS 12/03; Int 4/04; SBET Spr 03; RelSRev 10/03; CTJ 11/04; ExpTim 5/06].
★ Stott, John R. W. What Christ Thinks of the Church, 1958, rev. 1990. A slim vol. on the letters to the churches which is suggestive for pastors. Those interested in more expositions of Revelation 1 – 3 can look up Barclay (1957 — different from DSB) or, even better, Marcus Loane’s book called They Overcame (1971). Surely the best historical study on these chapters is Colin Hemer’s Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia (1986), which superseded the old work by W. M. Ramsay. More critical is Roland Worth, The Seven Cities of the Apocalypse (Paulist Press, 1999).
✓ Alford, Henry. Alford’s Greek Testament, 1875. A seminal treatment which caused the premillenarian ranks to swell in the 19th century. Alford continues to be quoted by commentators, especially his argument on the two resurrections in vol. IV, p.732. Free online.
✓ Aune, David E. ‡ (WBC) 3 vols., 1997 – 1998. From his journal articles I anticipated that this would be thorough, very scholarly, moderately critical, “linguistically well-informed” (Porter), and have a few idiosyncratic views. I guessed right. Go to Aune and Beale for first-rate commentaries which will long serve the academic world; I believe you will judge Beale to be the better balanced and more judicious. Also, Beale is far more interested in theology. Aune by contrast joins those who “bracket theology” (p.xlviii). Boring considers the commentary’s most helpful contribution to be where Aune shares “his vast knowledge of the Hellenistic world and its literature.” This 3-vol. work (nearly 1600pp.) is quite a foil to Beale, who emphasizes rather the OT background of the Apocalypse. One could wish for more in the introduction on history of interpretation. Need I say this is more of a scholar’s reference set than a tool for the working pastor? Students can make excellent use of his vol. of essays listed previously under Apocalyptic Literature. [ExpTim 11/99; RelSRev 10/98, 7/00, 10/00; Bib 79.4; JTS 10/99; NovT 42.2; Int 7/00; Chm Spr 01; JETS 9/00].
✓ Barr, David L. ‡ Tales of the End: A Narrative Commentary on the Book of Revelation (The Storyteller’s Bible, 1) 1998. Something of a postmodern take. [RelSRev 7/00]. See also the two SBL collections of essays that Barr edited: Reading the Book of Revelation: A Resource for Students (2003) [BL 2005; CBQ 10/04], and The Reality of Apocalypse (2006), composed of cutting-edge studies on intertextuality, genre, rhetoric, political readings, and ritual [ExpTim 8/08].
✓ Bauckham, Richard. [ℳ], The Theology of the Book of Revelation, 1993. [JETS 9/97; CBQ 7/94]. Coming out about the same time was his book of essays, The Climax of Prophecy: Studies on the Book of Revelation (1993), which Ian Paul once termed “perhaps the most significant English-language work on Revelation in recent years” [BSB 9/06].
☆ Beasley-Murray, George R. [ℳ], (NCB) 1974. Brilliant for its time and mildly critical, with more of a stress on apocalyptic than prophecy. This “richly suggestive” (Martin) commentary offered a historic premillennial interpretation of ch. 20. In early editions of this guide I always recommended buying both NCB and NICNT. Unfortunately, this good book has become harder to find. [EvQ 7/75].
✓ Beckwith, I. T. 1919. One of the better old scholarly commentaries. More conservative than Charles’s magisterial set. Still to be consulted for work in the Greek text, and thankfully now free online. His discussion of the history of interpretation remains quite useful (pp.318 – 36).
✓ Blount, Brian K. ‡ (NTL) 2009. The author, who previously served as a pastor and as a prof at Princeton Seminary, is now President of Union Seminary-PSCE in Richmond. He writes as a moderately critical scholar who sees connections between the courageous faith of the early church, with her nonviolent protest against Roman idolatry and injustice, and the experience of African-American Christians. Regarding historical setting, he dates the book to ca. 95 and contends that persecution under Domitian was, at the time anyway, a real, but as yet largely unrealized, threat to the Christians in the empire. [Int 7/10; ExpTim 2/10; BL 2010; BTB 5/11]. Earlier Blount gave us a politically-engaged reading in Can I Get a Witness? Reading Revelation through African American Culture (2005) [ThTo 1/06].
Boring, M. Eugene. ‡ (I) 1989. Treats Revelation in 240pp. A careful and well received exposition which is widely used in more liberal pastoral circles. Professor Boring is fond of the universal salvation idea. [Int 4/91; CRBR 1991]. See his other major commentaries on Mark and Thessalonians.
✓ Boxall, Ian. [ℳ], (BNTC) 2006. A solid replacement for Caird’s stellar vol. There is a tendency in NT scholarship to downplay any severe Roman persecution as the contextual key to the message of Revelation (e.g. Thompson’s ANTC). Boxall gives greater weight to that pressing concern within the faithful community. The author is a mildly critical Oxford scholar and a gifted exegete. [JETS 9/07]. A previous publication was Revelation Vision and Insight: An Introduction to the Apocalypse (2002).
✓ Bratcher, R. G., and H. A. Hatton. (UBS) 1993. A fairly full vol. of 352pp., called “invaluable” by Thompson. [CRBR 1995].
✓ Brighton, Louis. (Concord) 1999. The author is emeritus professor of NT at Concordia Seminary in St. Louis. This is a full-scale technical commentary (673pp.) from a conservative Lutheran perspective. I have not used it. He later published the Concordia Popular Commentary (2009) [CBQ 7/11].
Brooks, Richard. The Lamb Is All the Glory (WCS) 1986.
✓ Buchanan, George Wesley. ‡ (Mellen Biblical Commentary) 1993. A huge scholarly commentary of nearly 700pp., which pays special attention to Revelation’s relationship to other texts. Students may never see this o/p book (originally $140) without recourse to inter-library loan. [SwJT Spr 98].
Bullinger, E. W. 1909. A large work reprinted by Kregel in 1990 — why I don’t know. It deserves to be buried. Though a scholar of some repute long ago, Bullinger and his “ultra-dispensationalism” were vigorously rejected by dispensationalists: Ironside called it “an absolutely Satanic perversion of the truth.”
✓ Caird, G. B. ‡ (retired BNTC) 1966. Similar to NCB in its interpretive approach, but slightly more critical. Caird’s commentary has been one of the most highly regarded works on Revelation. He was an incisive exegete indeed. The drawback is that it is now so dated. See Boxall. [JBL 86.2].
F Carson, D. A. (Pillar replacement). I expect this is a long way off. See Hughes below.
✓ Charles, R. H. ‡ (ICC) 2 vols., 1920. The extraordinarily learned Charles produced an enduring classic with this mine of technical information for students. Though it will be consulted for scholarly work well into the 21st century, the set “has nothing to offer the preacher” [BSB 9/06]. Charles interprets Revelation using all his background studies in Daniel, OT Apocrypha, and Pseudepigrapha. See also Swete. Free online.
Chilton, David. The Days of Vengeance, 1987. A large work offering a postmillennial exposition with a Reconstructionist flavor (radical preterist). Chilton is not generous in handling opposing viewpoints, and his dogmatism in dating the Apocalypse prior to Jerusalem’s Fall (AD 70) flies in the face of too much evidence. Still, there is theological insight in this commentary and presses the overall point that Christ’s ultimate victory ought to mean everything to the Christian today. Chilton substantially moderated his theonomic views before his untimely death.
✓ Clouse, Robert, ed. The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views, 1977. The Hoekema and Ladd interaction is top-notch. Similar books are: Pate, ed., Four Views on the Book of Revelation (1998); Bock, ed., Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond (1999); and Hultberg, ed., Three Views on the Rapture (2nd ed., 2010).
✓ Court, J. M. ‡ Revelation, 1994. This is an introduction, not a commentary, useful for reviewing developments in scholarship (especially continental European).
F deSilva, David. (RRA).
✓ deSilva, David A. Seeing Things John’s Way (SRC) 2009. A mid-scale work (416pp.), focused upon “The Rhetoric of the Book of Revelation” (the subtitle), and aiming to explain the relevance of the Apocalypse to today’s church. The strength of the Ashland Seminary professor’s work is, as some might expect, more in the academic area of classical rhetorical-critical analysis. I find it less helpful for pulpit concerns of theological reflection and application. For more on where he positions himself regarding rhetorical approaches to Revelation, see “What Has Athens to Do with Patmos?” CBR 6 (2008): 256 – 89. For an earlier commentary by deSilva, see Hebrews. [CBQ 4/12; Int 10/10; JSNT 33.5; JETS 12/10; ExpTim 11/10; BibInt 18.4; DenvJ 13; RelSRev 3/11].
Durham, James. 1658. A 1000-page exposition, treasured by lovers of the Puritans, reprinted by Old Paths (2000), and now free online. Spurgeon recommended Durham’s gospel “savour” more than his lines of interpretation. This author’s Song of Solomon was also republished, but by Banner. [CTJ 11/01].
☆ Duvall, J. Scott. (TTC) 2014. Students familiar with Revelation scholarship will not learn much here, but Duvall is a very attractive, clearly written, well-organized, conservative book for pastors (320pp.). The author comes across as a born teacher. The approach is open to the text, where it leads, and insightful on exegetical and theological questions. He frequently makes applications to daily life. I find the Illustrating the Text segments less helpful. In my opinion, unless the illustration is brilliant, it’s best to leave it out of the book and use the space for other purposes. (Isn’t the best illustrative material usually the speaker’s own, perhaps tying into current events which are on the minds of the audience?)
F Fanning, Buist. (ZECNT) 2017? This scholar embraces progressive dispensationalism, which finds a healthy measure of continuity between the Testaments, and he teaches at Dallas Seminary (since 1974). I expect there will be excellent discussion of the Greek — he’s known for his Oxford monograph on Verbal Aspect in NT Greek — and fairness in dealing with various eschatological positions.
✓ Farrar, Austin M. ‡ The Rebirth of Images, 1949; The Revelation of St. John the Divine, 1964. The latter is a penetrating, provocative commentary first published at Oxford’s Clarendon Press, still useful to consult, though not a reliable guide. Caird says Farrar “first opened my eyes to John’s use of the imagination and taught me to see in him both an exegete and a supreme literary artist” (p.v).
Fee, Gordon. (NCCS) 2010. The author taught at Regent College, has written many commentaries, and was editor of the NICNT series. As one would expect, Fee is learned and deliberate in taking up exegetical issues, but I argue that far less research went into this work. His eschatological positioning seems a bit eclectic. [CBQ 7/12; JTS 4/14; Int 1/12; JSNT 34.5; DenvJ 14; RTR 8/15].
F Fisk, Bruce N. (EGGNT).
✓ Ford, J. Massyngberde. ‡ (retired AB) 1975. One of the most startlingly eccentric commentaries — on a Bible book that has had its share. She says Revelation is the product of John the Baptist and his circle and is a decidedly Jewish Apocalypse, pre-Christian in parts. Wild and woolly ideas! Advanced students may wish to consult her work for its references to the DSS (many references incorrect, according to Carson) and church fathers. Yale replaced this with Koester. [JBL 9/76].
F Friesen, Steven J. (Paideia). Earlier he wrote the well-received Imperial Cults and the Apocalypse of John: Reading Revelation in the Ruins (OUP, 2001), which one can read alongside Kraybill.
Glasson, T. F. 1965. Published by CUP.
☆ Goldsworthy, Graeme. The Gospel in Revelation, 1984. It is hard to think of a better book for Bible study groups than this 160-page theological guide. The author has an excellent background in biblical studies, especially the OT, and here uses the key of biblical theology to unlock the riches of Revelation. He makes the truths of Scripture exciting and practical for the Christian life. See the other books in his Trilogy (subsequently bound together): Gospel and Wisdom, and Gospel and Kingdom.
González, Catherine Gunsalus, and Justo L. González. ‡ (WestBC) 1997. [RelSRev 10/98, 7/00].
Gorman, Michael J. [ℳ], Reading Revelation Responsibly: Uncivil Worship and Witness, Following the Lamb into the New Creation, 2011. On a popular level.
Gregg, Steve, ed. Revelation: Four Views — A Parallel Commentary, 1997.
Guthrie, Donald. The Relevance of John’s Apocalypse, 1987. This fine book of lectures moves beyond the fine points of exegesis and questions of Revelation’s meaning for the future to examine the practical relevance of the book for the church today.
☆ Hamilton, James M. (PTW) 2012. In some circles, full sermon series on Revelation are a rarity, perhaps due to preachers’ fears of being unable to answer congregants’ questions. (I myself preached only on the Seven Letters.) Hamilton has done a fine job in producing a 400-page vol. of sermons on chs. 1 – 22 which may stimulate many to commence a book-length exposition. He takes a historic premillennial approach (with an interest in biblical theology), but the book is edifying and useful to any evangelical pastor. Like all the best preaching, it can be engrossing. [Them 11/12; RelSRev 12/13].
✓ Harrington, Wilfred. ‡ (SacP) 1993. Covers this Bible book in 271pp. The commentary exemplifies some of the best contemporary Catholic scholarship and is worth consulting by the student. Compared with some other vols. in the series, this early entry is brief. [SwJT Spr 95; CRBR 1994; ExpTim 8/08].
✓ Hays, Richard B., and Stefan Alkier, eds. ‡ Revelation and the Politics of Apocalyptic Interpretation, 2012. From a conference at Duke. [CBQ 10/14; JETS 6/13].
☆ Hemer, Colin J. The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia in Their Local Setting, 1986 (2001 reprint in pb). Hemer gave us a great piece of historical scholarship which also serves the expositor’s needs. Reading this may prompt the preacher to plan a seven-week series. See Stott above and Worth below. [EvQ 1/02; SwJT Spr 02; RelSRev 7/03].
Hendriksen, William. More Than Conquerors, 1939. One of his first books and has a different scheme of interpretation: recapitulation. This exposition has long been a favorite in Reformed circles. Idealist.
Henry, Matthew. (CrossC) 1999. The full commentary is free online.
✓ Hort, F. J. A. [ℳ], The Apocalypse of St. John I – III, 1908. Rigorous exegesis; it is a pity he was unable to complete it.
☆ Hughes, Philip E. (Pillar) 1991. About 250pp., this theological exposition is suggestive from the amillennial angle but not up to the standard he set in his Hebrews commentary. I think you will prefer Hughes to Hendriksen. For even better amillennial expositions, see Dennis Johnson and Kistemaker. Eerdmans let this go o/p; see Carson above for the future replacement. [WTJ Fall 92; EvQ 7/92; CTJ 4/91; CRBR 1992].
☆ Johnson, Alan F. (EBCR) 2006. His EBC from 1981 was one of the best in the NT section (200pp.) and offered a historic premillennial interpretation. The length of the new work is similar to the old. This remains one of the most useful shorter evangelical exegeses.
☆ Johnson, Darrell W. Discipleship on the Edge: An Expository Journey through the Book of Revelation, 2004. The author teaches pastoral theology at Regent College and here offers 412pp. of sermonic material. Stimulating, without question.
Kelly, Douglas F. (Mentor) 2012. Large vol. of sermons on the AV. [Them 7/13].
✓ Kiddle, Martin. ‡ (Moffatt series) 1940. Continues to be consulted by scholars working on Revelation. An in-depth work, but not as valuable as its length might imply (450pp.).
✓ Kik, J. Marcellus. Revelation Twenty, An Exposition, 1955. There are fewer postmillennial commentaries, and this one is in the classic postmillennial mold. See also his Eschatology of Victory (1971). Those interested in a postmillennial work from the Christian Reconstruction camp should consult Chilton.
☆ Kistemaker, Simon J. (NTC) 2001. This highly theological, amillennial exposition has been used as a seminary textbook (over 600pp.). I salute Professor Kistemaker for completing the series, which has proved its usefulness to the Church. It was a huge task he undertook. [Them Aut 02; JETS 3/03; Int 1/03].
✓ Knight, Jonathan. ‡ (Read) 1999. [ExpTim 1/00; Them Spr 01; WTJ Spr 02].
✓ Koester, Craig R. ‡ (AYB) 2014. This is a replacement for Ford, written by the author of Hebrews in this series. Koester teaches at Luther Seminary and has one of the best critical introductions in print: Revelation and the End of All Things (2001). Scholars must take account of the AYB, with its 120-page Introduction, 50-page bibliography, and 650pp. of commentary in small type. Koester has a strong academic reputation and displays broad and deep learning as he treats the history of interpretation, historical issues (doubts the Apostle John wrote the Gospel, the Epistles, or Revelation, p.66), social setting, literary aspects, rhetoric, and the text. The commentary portion is impressively detailed, with much technical discussion, but also readable. Excellent use of ancient artifacts is made in interpreting the message (e.g. p.694f). His take? “I read Revelation as a forward-moving spiral in which scenes of conflict lead to celebration in heaven over and over again, until ‘all is done’ in New Jerusalem” (p.xiv). He offers more of an amillennial interpretation (pp.786 – 88). I’m afraid Koester is little used outside libraries due to price ($125, but $65 in pb in late 2015). [Them 4/15].
✓ Kraybill, J. N. ‡ Imperial Cult and Commerce in John’s Apocalypse, 1996. A Mennonite perspective. More recent and accessible is Apocalypse and Allegiance: Worship, Politics, and Devotion in the Book of Revelation (2010) [CBQ 10/11; JETS 6/11; Them 11/10]. Yet another treatment of the historical topic is the S. R. F. Price vol., Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor (CUP, 1984).
Kuyper, Abraham. ET 1935. Full (350pp.) and one of the better old amillennial expositions for the pastor. Heavily theological, which one would expect from the great founder of, and theology prof at, the Free U. of Amsterdam.
☆ Ladd, George E. 1972. Relative to NCB and NICNT, Ladd has a greater stress on futurist aspects. But I hasten to add that he is famously a proponent of historic premillennialism, not dispensationalism. Many of his writings deal with eschatology. (Building very much on Ladd’s foundation is Blomberg-Chung [eds.], A Case for Historic Premillennialism [2009] [Them 7/09].) This is a dependable commentary, a premillennial favorite, with a sharp eye for theological themes. Lots of preachers love this one and Wilcock’s BST. [WTJ Spr 73; EvQ 1/75].
LaHaye, Tim. Revelation Unveiled, 1999. Popularizing old-style dispensationalism. With the author’s name recognition, this has sold like mad. See Michaels below.
MacArthur, John. 2 vols., 1999 – 2000. See Matthew for a review of the series. Strongly dispensational.
✓ Malina, Bruce J., and John J. Pilch. ‡ A Social-Science Commentary on the Book of Revelation, 2000. Published by Fortress. The authors take up many issues and interpretive methods scarcely used in more traditional commentaries. I found the appendix helpful for getting a quick view of the structural development of the Bible book and some of its more significant literary features. The line of interpretation (John as an astral prophet) is weird and forced. [JR 10/01; RelSRev 7/03].
Mangina, Joseph L. (Brazos) 2010. I have yet to use this book. [BBR 21.2; CBQ 1/12; ExpTim 1/11; Them 11/10; BSac 1/13].
F Matthewson, David L. (BHGNT) 2016.
Mauro, Philip. Things Which Soon Must Come to Pass, 1925. A hefty conservative commentary (amillennial), often reprinted.
☆ Michaels, J. Ramsey. [ℳ], (IVPNT) 1997. The author is a well-known scholar who also published a fine introduction entitled Interpreting the Book of Revelation (Baker, 1992) [CRBR 1994]. The popularly styled IVPNT commentary is well done; I would like to see it get into the hands of many people tempted to get their eschatology from the “Left Behind” series. Here is a taste from Interpreting: “The purpose of preaching from Revelation is to evoke first wonder and then faithfulness to the slain Lamb, not to explain the book away or reduce it to a blueprint of the future. The preacher’s task is to stand out of the way and let the book’s images do their work” (p.146). Michaels joins those who view apocalyptic as an inadequate genre identification for Revelation. [RelSRev 7/00; Chm Win 06].
Minear, Paul. ‡ I Saw a New Earth, 1968. Listed mainly for the value of its bibliography. [JBL 89.4].
✓ Moffatt, James. ‡ (Expositor’s Greek Testament) 1910.
F Moo, Jonathan. (SGBC).
☆ Morris, Leon. (TNTC) 1969, rev. 1987. One of the best informed works in the series and amillennial in its interpretation. Fine introduction and 210pp. of insightful, crystal clear exposition with more stress on the prophetic tradition. In early editions of this guide I included Morris on my recommended purchase list. Note his helpful slim vol. on Apocalyptic (1972).
✓ Moyise, Steve, ed. ‡ Studies in the Book of Revelation, 2001. [Them Aut 03; JTS 10/03]. See also his book, The Later NT Writers and Scripture (2012), under Acts.
Mulholland, M. Robert. (CorBC) 2011. I regret that I have not used it. The vol. in which Revelation is found also contains James, 1 – 2 Peter, and Jude, all covered by Osborne.
✓ Murphy, Frederick J. ‡ Fallen Is Babylon: The Revelation to John (NT in Context) 1998. Nearly 500pp. in length, this is definitely a reference book for students. Still, it is accessible to a broader audience interested in literary readings of biblical texts. His book on apocalyptic is recommended. [RelSRev 7/00].
Newell, William R. 1935. See under Romans. This was perhaps the favorite exposition among dispensational pastors before Walvoord was published.
✓ Patterson, Paige. (NAC) 2012. We expected a dispensational work and were not disappointed by this clear, readable exegesis (about 300pp.). Patterson is a giant figure in the Southern Baptist Convention and has served as President of Criswell College, Southeastern Baptist Seminary, and now Southwestern Baptist. Though not so penetrating with regard to scholarship, this will be on the purchase list of thousands of pastors in the premil, pretrib camp. Compare with Walvoord, Thomas — both more traditional dispensationalists — and the forthcoming Fanning (progressive dispensational). [JETS 12/13; Them 11/14; BSac 1/14].
Peterson, Eugene H. Reversed Thunder: The Revelation of John and the Praying Imagination, 1988. More of a meditation.
F Phillips, Rick. (REC).
Pieters, Albertus. 1950. A notable commentary in the preterist tradition.
☆ Poythress, Vern. The Returning King: A Guide to the Book of Revelation, 2000. This pastoral and theological exposition is especially notable for its clarity in presenting the recapitulation scheme of amillennial interpretation and its gracious spirit in interacting with other positions. It also introduced me to the author’s fascinating idea of “counterfeiting.” This P&R issue is a good addition to either pastors’ or church libraries. I imagine that the book got its start in Poythress’s “Notes on Revelation” in New Geneva Study Bible (1995), one of the best sections in that Nelson project.
✓ Prigent, Pierre. ‡ Commentary on the Apocalypse of St. John, ET 2001. A huge (717pp.) and deeply learned work which gives much attention to both the historical background and the Apocalypse’s indebtedness to the OT.
✓ Rainbow, Paul A. Johannine Theology: The Gospel, the Epistles, and the Apocalypse, 2014. See under John.
Ramsey, James B. (GS) 1873. This posthumously published exposition only covers the first 11 chapters.
✓ Ramsay, W. M. The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia, 1905. Another of Ramsay’s excellent historical-archaeological studies, now dated. See Hemer and Worth.
☆ Reddish, Mitchell G. ‡ (S&H) 2001. A readable, critically-informed exposition in the Baptist tradition, this 512-page work is given a very warm review by Aune. The author teaches at Stetson U. in Florida. The retail price of nearly $60 will probably keep it off many pastors’ shelves. [RelSRev 7/03].
✓ Resseguie, James L. [ℳ], The Revelation of John: A Narrative Commentary, 2009. From Baker Academic. While insights abound, his hermeneutical approach applied to this book has been questioned by some. Said by Fanning to be “really helpful” for following the flow of the text and “highly recommended.” Even if one disagrees with a fair number of interpretive decisions, having a rather different hermeneutical approach in a commentary on Revelation stimulates good reflection. He emphasizes the new exodus theme. Compare with Barr’s Tales of the End, and take note of Resseguie’s earlier scholarship in Revelation Unsealed: A Narrative Critical Approach to John’s Apocalypse (Brill, 1998). [Them 11/09; JETS 6/10; ExpTim 2/10; BL 2010; CBQ 10/10; Int 7/11; RTR 8/12; RevExp Spr 11; BTB 2/11].
✓ Roloff, Jürgen. ‡ (ContC) 1984, ET 1993. Useful, but unfortunately not as thorough as most others in the series (250pp.). There is less interaction with other points of view than one might hope for. This is not a technical work (i.e. a comprehensive historical and linguistic commentary) and is quite accessible, even to well-educated laity. [PSB 15.2; Int 4/95; SwJT Spr 95; SJT 49.3].
✓ Rowland, Christopher C. ‡ (NIB) 1998. Probably the most significant contribution to NIB vol. XII. Rowland is an Oxford professor who writes with flair in an essay style. He is renowned as an expert on the place of apocalyptic in Judaism and early Christianity; see The Open Heaven (1982). His introduction includes a fine overview of the history of interpretation (especially some little-known British movements and liberation theology), the use and misuse of the Apocalypse. Note that biblical scholarship is not the emphasis here, and that Rowland scarcely ever interacts with evangelical works. He believes Revelation leads us to resist the idolatries and demands for compromise issuing from the dominant culture, wherever we may be, and to put our hope in a sovereign God. Actually, a better book for preachers may be his 1993 Epworth Commentary.
F Schüssler Fiorenza, Elisabeth. ‡ (Herm). Will proffer a highly technical exegesis and a liberationist-feminist interpretation. Students might note her book of essays, The Book of Revelation: Justice and Judgment (1985, rev. 1998), and her brief 1991 commentary, Revelation: Vision of a Just World, both of which outline her “perspective from below” and show her interest in rhetoric.
Seiss, J. A. 1909. A lengthy dispensational work which was reprinted many times.
Skaggs, Rebecca, and Priscilla C. Benham. (PentC) 2009. Earlier, Skaggs contributed the vol. on Peter & Jude in this series. [ExpTim 6/10; BL 2010].
☆ Smalley, Stephen S. [ℳ], 2005. Subtitled “A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Apocalypse” and published by SPCK (IVP in North America), this full (597pp.) and densely-packed vol. contains much interaction with other scholars’ writings. Smalley has concentrated for decades on the Johannine literature and knows it well. He interprets Revelation as “a creative and coherent drama” in two acts (1:9 – 11:19; 12:1 – 22:17) and as a unity authored by John the Apostle (= the Beloved Disciple) shortly before AD 70. This is a very good book for both students and academically-minded ministers. A few reviewers allege that the book has a more traditional feel, paying less attention to cutting-edge social scientific and rhetorical approaches. Like Osborne, it is a more accessible commentary on the Greek than Aune or Beale. The general approach is more or less idealist. [JETS 12/06; BL 2006; BTB Win 07; BSac 7/07; ExpTim 8/06].
F Stallard, Mike. (EEC).
F Stuckenbruck, Loren. ‡ (Illum).
✓ Sweet, John P. ‡ (WPC, now TPI) 1979. A highly acclaimed vol. which was lengthier than others in the now defunct Pelican series. Though Sweet is showing its age, I continue calling this one of the best briefer commentaries on Revelation. [JETS 6/80].
✓ Swete, H. B. 3rd ed. 1911. A classic comparable to Beckwith and the more liberal Charles. Swete is a careful, in-depth study on the Greek text and is still useful. Has been reprinted and is now free online.
Tenney, Merrill C. Interpreting Revelation, 1957. An introduction to the issues facing the expositor and to the various schemes of interpretation. Premillennial (p.158).
F Thomas, John Christopher, and Frank Macchia. (THC) 2016. Expected in the springtime.
✓ Thomas, Robert. Revelation 1 – 7 (intended for WEC?) 1992; Revelation 8 – 22, 1995. The vols. are 524 and 690pp. respectively and compose a massive exegetical study from an older-style dispensational perspective. Though more moderate than Walvoord (in openness to other views), it still presses the literal interpretation very hard — “The proper procedure is to assume a literal interpretation of each symbolic representation provided to John unless a particular factor in the text indicates it should be interpreted figuratively” (p.36). I believe only those sharing Thomas’s doctrinal commitment will give it a high grade. On the plus side, Thomas gives copious citations of others’ works and views, sometimes approaching being a catena or chain of extracts. This is a valuable reference for students. [WTJ Spr 93; BSac 4/94, 7/96].
✓ Thompson, Leonard L. ‡ (ANTC) 1998. From an expert on the historical background of Revelation. (See The Book of Revelation: Apocalypse and Empire [1990] [JR 1/92], which sparked a resurgence of interest in the social setting.) This is among the best compact commentaries from the critical camp (190pp.). Some strongly disagree with him when he gives a positive reassessment of Domitian’s reign, arguing that Revelation was written to a community living in peace and that there was no persecution setting. [RelSRev 7/00].
☆ Trafton, Joseph L. (RNT) 2005. I like this book. It is subtitled “A Literary and Theological Commentary” and contains good insights from a conservative angle.
✓ Wainwright, Arthur. ‡ Mysterious Apocalypse, 1993. Well done introduction.
Walhout, Edwin. Revelation Down to Earth: Making Sense of the Apocalypse of John, 2000. The author is a retired Christian Reformed Church minister. He writes that his commentary “explains this difficult book of the Bible from a pastoral point of view” (p.1). It is a thoughtful personal reading, foregoing much interaction with scholarly literature, except when he discusses the structure of the Apocalypse.
☆ Wall, Robert. (NIBC) 1991. Fairly full for the series at over 300pp. The reviews are a bit mixed. [WTJ Spr 93; EvQ 10/97; Them 4/96; CRBR 1994].
Walvoord, John F. 1966. Illustrates what old-style dispensationalists do with the book. This has been a standard pretribulational commentary. I cannot recommend it as a guide to interpreting Revelation. These days, if I want to read the classic dispensational interpretation of a passage (and have time), I look up Thomas. (More up-to-date and moderate is Patterson.) Walvoord tends to be irritatingly dismissive of other approaches.
✓ Weinrich, William C., ed. (ACCS) 2005. [BL 2007].
☆ Wilcock, Michael. (BST) 1975. Different type of interpretation, but most stimulating for anyone preaching or teaching through this book. Years ago I nearly included this among the recommended purchases. [EvQ 4/76].
Williamson, Peter S. ‡ (CCSS) 2015. I have not seen it.
✓ Witherington, Ben. (NCBC) 2003. This launched the series, with Witherington himself serving as General Editor. As might be expected in light of his past work, he pays attention to both historical backdrop and socio-rhetorical analysis. He writes that “John is what Eusebius was later to call a ‘chiliast,’ a believer in a thousand-year reign” upon the earth (p.291). Students will appreciate the bibliographical guidance on pp.51 – 64. [ExpTim 9/04; RelSRev 4/04; JETS 3/05; Int 7/05; CBQ 4/09; BL 2005; Anvil 22.1].
✓ Worth, Roland H. The Seven Cities of the Apocalypse and Roman Culture, 1999; The Seven Cities of the Apocalypse and Greco-Asian Culture, 1999. See Hemer above.
✓ Yarbro Collins, Adela. ‡ Crisis and Catharsis: The Power of the Apocalypse, 1984.
Yeatts, John R. (BCBC) 2003. Comes from the pacifist tradition. [Int 4/04].
NOTES: (1) Ian Paul, “Ebbing and Flowing: Scholarly Developments in Study of the Book of Revelation,” ExpTim 119.11 (2008): 523 – 31. (2) Michael Naylor has reviewed the recent scholarship on “The Roman Imperial Cult and Revelation,” CBR 8.2 (2010): 207 – 39. (3) Lois K. Fuller Dow, “Commentaries on Revelation” (pp.421 – 48), in On the Writing of NT Commentaries, eds. Porter and Schnabel, cited in the Introduction.