Presenting at the national ETS meeting in Boston

(The buildings of Boston, just outside of South Station, around midnight on Nov. 17th/18th. Photo taken by Paul Himes)

This past month I was privileged to present at the national meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society in Boston. I am grateful for the invitation from my friend Dr. Tim Miller (the panel moderator) to present on "Pneumatology in the General Epistles," though I expanded on that to try to create a more wholistic Petrine pneumatology. My paper was entitled "The Rock, the Cornerstone, and the Empowering Spirit: Tracing Peter's Pneumatology through the Petrine Material of Scripture."

I received some excellent feedback on the paper, most significant being my need to incorporate 1 Pet 4:14 more thoroughly into my analysis and the need to think a bit more deeply about how sanctification fits in with Peter's pneumatology. At least one major scholar was in the audience, and she had some positive things to say, while also agreeing with a couple other people that I talk too fast 😀 (it's true, and my students can attest to that fact as well).

In addition, I was privileged to sit at the panel table with Dr. Herb Bateman, Dr. Adam Harwood, and Dr. Dana Harris, all of whom gave excellent presentations. This is kind of like a Triple-A ballplayer suddenly finding himself at a clinic with MLB Allstars, but I am grateful for the opportunity.

This was the first time in 10+ years I have actually attended a national ETS (thanks to my school, BCM, a very small college, for paying for the trip!), and the first time since 2010 (Atlanta: the Great Debate on the NPP and justification!) that I actually presented a paper (though I have presented at regional ETS meetings). Besides presenting, the highlights for me at ETS this year were hanging out with OT and Homiletics scholar Timothy Yap and his brother (which included trying out an overpriced but authentic and delicious Boston lobster fast-food joint), and listening to almost all of the "Paul within Judaism" panel presentations and discussions, featuring Paul Sloan, John W. Taylor, John Goodrich, and Justin Hardin.

Ranking Academic Journals: A Sample of what I hope the Final List Will Look Like

Some time ago I wrote "Peer-Reviewed Journals Pt 2: The Top 100+ Academic Journals for Biblical Studies," which has turned out to be my most popular post on this rather obscure blog that I publish, with 12,000+ hits and a significant number of comments. I am hoping to publish a book on academic journals in biblical and theological studies (I'm submitting proposals to publishers right now), a book which will cover everything from how peer-review works, predatory journals, "author-pays" journals, and journal articles as a "metric" evaluation (fairly or unfairly) for one's academic value. One chapter in the book will also offer a word of admonition to editors and peer-reviewers on behalf of all the would-be authors who have felt that they wasted their time with a particular journal or been treated unfairly. (With fourteen published academic journal articles and three more forthcoming, I have a lot of experience with the process. In addition to publishing, I have also peer-reviewed for a major evangelical journal).

In this book, I intend to include an intensely researched 4-tier listing of journals, significantly improved from the original posting. This is based on my firm belief that such online rankings as Scopus, while possessing value for ranking journals in "religion" in general, are almost worthless for ranking journals in the narrower fields of Christian biblical and theological studies (I discuss this in the book).

Here is an example of what I hope the final list will look like, using just the tier-1 journals. (The list will almost certainly change based on the surveys I intend to conduct. For the record, of my 17 journal articles only two of them are in this top-tier, so I feel that I am being objective. Also, I am open to feedback on these rankings, and those on the earlier post, but only from people that have actually published peer-reviewed material).

This is only the 1st tier out of 4 tiers.

 

Title and abbreviation	Years	Affiliation and/or   publisher	What sort of paper does it publish?	Misc.
Biblica (Bib)	1920–present	Pontifical Biblical Institute	Broad, biblical studies in general (including extra-canonical Christian literature)	Maximum of 55,000 characters; articles published in “English, French, German, Italian, and Spanish.” No author fees.
Bulletin of the American Society of Overseas Research (BASOR). Multiple previous titles.[1]	1919–present	ASOR; The University of Chicago Press	Ancient Near East archaeology, society, and languages	Maximum of 12,000 words.
Catholic Biblical Quarterly (CBQ)	1939–present	Catholic Biblical Association of America	Broad, biblical studies in general (including extra-canonical Christian literature)	Maximum of 10,000 words.
Dead Sea Discoveries (DSD)	1994–present	Brill	“. . . the study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and their cultural, historical, and archaeological contexts” (from website).	Only British or American English.
Ephemerides theologicae lovanienses (ETL)	1924–present	KU Leuven and Université catholique de Louvain	“all aspects of theology and canon law” (from website).	Publishes articles in English, French, and German.
Harvard Theological Review (HTR)	1908–present	Harvard Divinity School	“. . . the history and philosophy of religious thought in all traditions and periods, including Hebrew Bible, New Testament, Christianity, Jewish studies, theology, ethics, archaeology, and comparative religious studies” (from website).	12,000 words is the upper limit (with some exceptions). Note that I am open to debate as to whether or not HTR belongs in tier-1, especially after the whole “Gospel of Jesus’ Wife” issue.
The Jewish Quarterly Review (JQR)	1889–present	University of Pennsylvania Press	Jewish studies, but broad, including biblical, theological, philosophical, and cultural matters.	12,000 word limit.
Journal for the Study of the New Testament (JSNT)	1978–present	Sage Journals	New Testament studies, but broad.	Generally prefers 5,000–10,000 words.
Journal for the Study of the Old Testament (JSOT)	1976–present	Sage Journals	Old Testament studies, but broad.	Generally prefers 5,000–10,000 words.
Journal of Biblical Literature (JBL), formerly known as the Journal of the Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis.	1881–present, with a hiatus of 1 year (current title 1890–present)	Society of Biblical Literature	Very broad, anything connected to Old and New Testament studies, as well as discussions of the nature of modern biblical scholarship itself.	Quarterly. Upper limit of 10,000 words, including footnotes.
Journal of Early Christian Studies (JECS), formerly known as The Second Century (SecCent).	1981–present (current title 1993–present)	North American Patristics Society; John Hopkins University Press	Church History, from C.E. 100–700.	Upper limit of 12,500 words (with endnotes). Adamantly declares that it does not charge author fees, and warns against websites claiming to represent Hopkins Press that charge a fee.
Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages (JNSL)	1971–present	Stellenbosch University	Publishes “linguistic, translational, literary, text-critical, historical, religious and cultural issues related to Ancient Near Eastern texts and societies, as well as articles addressing theoretical issues underlying these fields” (from the website). Elsewhere clarifies that ANE “includes Nubian, Coptic and Ethiopian studies.”	Bi-annual. 6,000 words is considered the approximate maximum amount.
Journal of Religious Ethics (JRE)	1973–present	Wiley Online Library	Not limited to Christianity and Judaism; includes discussions on a variety of ethical issues including climate change and AI. Also includes “historical studies of influential figures and texts” (from the website).	Prefers between 8,000–10,000 words, though willing to consider longer articles in special cases.
Journal of the American Oriental Society (JAOS)	1843–present	American Society for Premodern Asia (formerly the American Oriental Society)	Very broad, including studies on the culture, history, and religion of the Ancient Near East, Islamic Near East, South Asia, Southeastern Asia, and Eastern Asia.	“Preferably not exceeding 15,000 words, including footnotes . . .” The author retains the copyright for their journal article.
Journal of Theological Studies (JTS)	1899–present	Oxford Academic	Very broad, “the entire range of theological research, scholarship and interpretation” (from the website). Covers New Testament, Hebrew Scriptures, Church history, textual criticism, etc.	Biannual. “The length of articles in the Journal ranges from less than 1,000 to over 30,000 words” (from the website).
Maarav: A Journal for the Study of the Northwest Semitic Languages and Literatures (Maarav)	1978–present	University of Chicago Press	The journal “is devoted to the texts and verbal objects of the ancient Levant featuring Aramaic, Hebrew, Phoenician, and related languages” (from the website).	Biannual.
Mission Studies (MIST)	1984–present	Brill; International Association for Mission Studies	The journal intends to be “a forum for the scholarly study of Christian witness and its impact in the world, and the related field of intercultural theology, from international, interconfessional and interdisciplinary perspectives.”	Triannual. Prefers articles about 6,000 words long, but with some “reasonable leeway,” including footnotes, etc., but not including “Tables and Figures” (from the website).
New Testament Studies (NTS)	1955–present	Cambridge University Press; Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas	Broad, anything related to New Testament studies and early church history.	Quarterly. Will publish articles in English, German, and French. Limit of 8,500 words, including footnotes.
Novum Testamentum (NovT)	1957–present.	Brill	Broad, anything related to New Testament studies and early church history.	Quarterly. Will publish articles in English, German, and French. Limit of 8,500 words, including footnotes.
Old Testament Essays (OTE)	1987–present	Old Testament Society of South Africa	Broad, anything related to the Old Testament, both Hebrew and Greek.	Triannual. Word limit of 7,000–10,000 words, including footnotes, etc.  Publishes in English,,  German. Requires that authors pay a fee of 400 Rand per page (equivalent, as of 9/10/2025, to $22.89 per page), if accepted for publication.
Philosophy	1926–present	Cambridge University Press; Royal Institute of Philosophy	Broad, anything related to modern and ancient philosophy, including overlapping concerns from language, religion, medicine, etc.	Quarterly Upper limit of 10,000 words.
Revue biblique (RB), two other former names[2]	1892–present (current name from 1946)	L’École Biblique et Archéologique Française de Jérusalem	Very broad, virtually all matters relating to biblical studies, including Old Testament, New Testament, ANE archaeology, and church history.	Quarterly. Publishes articles in French, English, German, Italian, and Spanish.
Scottish Journal of Theology (SJT)	1948–present	Cambridge University Press	Covers “systematic, historical, and biblical theology” (from the website).	Quarterly. Prefers articles of 5,000–6,000, with 8,000 words as the upper limit.
Theologische Zeitschrift (TZ)	1945–present	University of Basel	The focus of this journal is on theology, but also how various “subfields of theology” can enter “into an interdisciplinary conversation” with other subfields, including subfields from non-theological disciplines.	Quarterly.  Publishes articles in German, French, and English. Maximum of 60,000 characters (this would probably come out to a maximum of 10,000 words).
Vetus Testamentum (VT)	1951–present	Brill; International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament	Broad, everything related to Old Testament studies.	Quarterly. Publishers in English, French, and German. Prefers articles less than 8,000 words, as well as “short notes” (2,000–3,000 words).
Vigiliae christianae (VC)	1947–present	Brill	Publishers material “of an historical, cultural, linguistic or philological nature on early Christian literature written after the New Testament, as well as on Christian epigraphy and archaeology” (from the website).	Five issues per year. Publishes articles in English, French, and German.
Zeitschrift für alttestamentliche Wissenschaft (ZAW)	1881–present	De Gruyter Brill	Broad, anything connected to the Old Testament and early Judaism.	Upper limit of 38,000 characters, including footnotes and spaces. Quarterly. Publishes articles in English, French, and German.
Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft (ZNW)	1900–present	De Gruyter Brill	Broad, anything connected to the New Testament.	Biannual. Publishers articles in English and German.

---

[1] Initially Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research in Jerusalem, then Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research (1922). Current title from 2022 onward.

[2] Began as Revue Biblique in 1892, switched to Vivre et Penser in 1941, then returned to Revue Biblique in 1946.

Sometimes academic articles have practical spiritual value

Even as a professor at a relatively small Bible college, I acknowledge that I still live in the "Ivory Tower," so to speak. The majority of material I try to write and publish is not likely to impact the average Joe or average Josephine, at least not directly, though perhaps as a cure for insomnia. This feature of my writing is shared by the vast majority of academics. Conversely, many of the practically-minded material that is published and tries to pass itself off as academic is lacking scholarly substance (i.e., evidence of critical thinking and thorough research) and thus falls short of its potential.

Having said that, occasionally a rigorously researched piece of academia is published that actually has the potential for direct spiritual benefit. In other words, it could make a difference in your life or the life of somebody you are counseling. Let me share with you two recent examples.

First, Greg Palys, "Cut Off Your Hand, Save Your Soul: How the Outer Self Affects the Inner Self in the Fight against Lust," Themelios 50, no. 1 (April 2025):142–157 (click here for the article). Palys' article consists of a rigorous study of Matthew 5:27-30. Concluding that the command to remove one's eye or hand should be taken as "literal" yet "hypothetical," Palys notes that Jesus wants us to consider everything in our lives that causes us to lust and to eliminate it. We should be willing to part with anything, "even our physical members" if that is what is necessary. As Palys emphasizes, the external impacts the internal: "Jesus assumes that our lust itself will diminish if we obey him by removing touchpoints with lust." Practically, "Sanctification looks like repenting of lust, bathing in Scripture, and applying an internet filter."

Second, Brian R. Hand, "Feeling the Fall: A Biblical-Theological Examination of Melancholy as an Emotional Mirror of a Fallen World," Journal of Biblical Theology and Worldview 4, no. 1 (2023): 1–29 (click here for the article). Hand begins with a discussion of melancholy, depression, and related ideas, including the difficulty of defining it both here and as observed in the text of Scripture. He uses Psalm 88 as a biblical starting point, and then provides an extensive list of scriptural passages that "intersect" with the 5th edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder, though also noting that lumping all such texts together into a classification of "depression" is overly simplistic. From there, Hand goes on to develop a theological discussion of how melancholia relates to the Fall and then a biblical-theology survey of "Select Texts Correlating Sorrow to the Fall." In the final section, Hand discusses application, specifically with the biblical counselor in mind.

Many other examples exist, of course, and occasionally even the most obtuse academic journal article can contain material of value that eventually impacts a preacher or layperson's understanding of Scripture. Nonetheless, Palys' and Hand's articles are excellent examples of how rigorous academic writing and practical, spiritual application need not be at cross purposes.

Introducing the "Studies in Judeo-Christian Thought" Monographs Series

 I am excited to announce that the first volume in the brand-new Studies in Judeo-Christian Thought Monograph Series (SJCTMS) has now been published. That volume, by Brent A. Belford, is entitled Analyzing Pauline Literary Techniques, Hermeneutics, and Theology in Composite Quotations. The topic of "composite" (i.e., "fused") quotations is not something that has been studied that often in the scholarly literature. Having read Dr. Belford's book I can testify that he makes a solid contribution to this topic and Pauline scholarship in general.

The SCTMS is published by Southern California Seminary Press (click here), and seeks to "provide a rigorous, peer-reviewed publishing platform for scholarly projects that align with the mission of SCS Press," specifically those from a "biblical-fundamentalist or conservative-evangelical framework."

I have the privilege of being on the board of reviewers (along with such "all-stars" of conservative evangelical scholarship as Andreas J. Köstenberger, John K. Goodrich, and Michael Grisanti), and I was privileged to be a peer-reviewer for one of the first volumes.

For those with a legitimate doctoral degree who wish to see their dissertation published, but feel that some elements of it (e.g., rejecting the documentary hypothesis of the pentateuch or accepting Pauline authorship of the pastoral epistles) might not be looked kindly upon by some publishers, I would strongly recommend looking into the SCJTMS. The series is dedicated to simultaneously upholding the supreme authority of God's Word and rigorous scholarship and peer-review.

Our Plagiarism Exam at BCM

Plagiarism at a minimum exposes a certain degree of sloppiness in a student and at worst reveals a serious character flaw that needs to be dealt, that of stealing ideas and/or the artistic arrangement of words from an author and claiming it as their own. Nobody is immune to the potential of committing plagiarism, of course, whether accidental or deliberate. Nonetheless, I firmly believe that the fostering of key habits in a student's research and writing, not to mention a mindset that cares about what's at stake, can help minimize the risk.

Here at Baptist College of Ministry I have the privilege of teaming up with a colleague to address all the students in the college on the matter of plagiarism. We host an hour long session on the topic, and then we make every student take a test (designed by me) where the main goal is the ability to distinguish between plagiarized work and acceptable work, especially correct vs. incorrect paraphrase.

The test must be passed perfectly, though it can be retaken multiple times (probably about 35% pass it perfectly on the first try). After failing to pass the test the second time, each student must meet with a faculty member to go over the test and discuss each question, after which they will take it again. Some students require more "hands-on" coaching, and that's fine; the point is that everybody understands enough to pass it perfectly in the end.

All answers are multiple choice. Thanks to Populi, the answers to the questions are randomized, so nobody can simply memorize the order of the questions and keep trying until they get it right via brute force. The first four questions of the test are basic, common-sense questions about the nature of plagiarism and how we handle citation here at BCM (e.g., we use footnotes, not endnotes).

For the next three questions, we make the students study an article from the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society and, focusing on specific paragraphs of material, distinguish between good citations of that article and plagiarism of that article. The two, well-written articles we utilize are: Timothy T. Larsen, "Literacy and Biblical Knowledge: The Victorian Age and Our Own," JETS 52, no. 3 (2009): 519–535, or Kirk R. MacGregor, "Biblical Inerrancy, Church Discipline, and the Mennonite-Amish Split," JETS 60, no. 3 (2017): 581–593 (we alternate between the two, depending on the year). I chose these two articles for the exam because, (a.) they are interesting, and (b.) they are not technical (i.e., requiring knowledge of technical terms, etc.). The questions then consist of examples of good citation using those articles vs. poor citation using those articles (i.e., a hypothetical writer who plagiarizes Larsen or MacGregor, either not citing them or citing a sentence or series of key words without putting the sentence or phrase in quotation marks)

The test is "open book" in the sense that they are encouraged to have a digital or physical copy of the article open, including a physical copy that has been highlighted or marked up. They may also have scrap paper with their notes from the previous failed exam, etc. It is impossible to cheat on this exam (unless you are looking at somebody else taking it) because, again, the answers are randomized.

Each student will probably take the exam twice in their college career (and all seminary students take it once). This does not, of course, totally vanquish plagiarism unto the nether world of academic dishonesty where it belongs, but at a minimum it reinforces to the students that plagiarism is (a.) undesirable and (b.) can be avoided if you use your brain.

Archive.org and Theological Research

I confess that I am not the brightest bulb in the chandelier, so to speak, when it comes to keeping up with matters of digital copyright and litigation. I know, however, that in the past I have benefitted from archive.org and its system whereby patrons could "check out" a book digitally for a period of time, just like a regular library.

Apparently, with the conclusion of "Hachette v. Internet Archive," much of what you could do before on archive.org is no longer possible (for a brief discussion of the case, sympathetic to the Internet Archive, click here). I, personally, recognize my lack of experience and knowledge in the legality of such matters and so will not offer an opinion. Still, I miss what I used to be able to do on archive.org, and I will offer this point of support in favor of The Internet Archive: my ability to borrow a book from archive.org directly led to my having our BCM school library purchasing it (i.e., as a physical copy) for our own stacks, in your role as unofficial director of library acquisition (in other words, my ability to borrow a book on archive.org actually may have made the publisher money, rather than costing it money). 

However, when it comes to sources in the public domain, including sources hundreds of years old in various languages (including Latin), my dear readers should be aware that the Internet Archive has some invaluable material, including, for example, the first edition (1516) of Eramsus' Textus Receptus (click here). In other words, for research purposes, the Internet Archive can supply you with some extremely rare, older sources that otherwise you would have to fly to Europe to consult, assuming you could gain access to them. While we may never again appreciate the potential of archive.org as a true digital library, we can still utilize it as a compendium of older, rare texts all scanned and waiting to be studied.

Interview by Matthew Ralston on the "common sense" principle in Hermeneutics (and some thoughts on interpreting the 7 churches in Revelation)

Recently I was privileged to be featured on Matthew Ralston's podcast, "Createdverse." We discussed the principle of the "common sense" reading in Hermeneutics. You can watch the interview here.

A common expression about Bible study heard within Christian circles is, "When the plain sense makes common sense, seek no other sense" (the earliest use of this phrase that I have found is David L. Cooper, What Men Must Believe [Los Angeles, CA: Biblical Research Society, 1943], 63; please let me know if you find an earlier reference!). While this expression does not solve all hermeneutical issues (after all, sometimes the plain sense does not make common sense), it is perhaps the single most important principle for studying the Bible, and it does not require the average Christian to possess knowledge of Greek or Hebrew, only a good translation.

The application of this principle places the authority of Bible interpretation right where it should be, in the intended meaning of the original author to the original audience, not in the creativity of my brain in its attempt to find a "deeper" meaning. This principle, for example, prohibits us from seeking the identity of the antichrist in texts such as Luke 10:18, as one pastor in Florida did back in 2009 (his implied answer? The antichrist is Barak Obama!). More close to home, the application of this principle strongly discourages us from seeking for a "deeper meaning" in the identity of the seven churches in Revelation, as if they were 7 different eras of history. Yes, Revelation does look to the future, but it also concerns John's present era (Rev 1:19, "Write the things which thou has seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter"). In Rev 1:11 Jesus said "write . . . and send it unto to the seven churches which are in Asia," not "to the seven eras throughout history," so we should assume they are literal churches unless there are clues otherwise. (As a side note, we already had a symbol representing the 7 churches, clearly explained, in v. 20; it would be odd if we had a symbol representing another symbol representing something not even remotely related to the text).

To claim the seven churches are seven eras, when we have not yet reached the main apocalyptic-futuristic sections of Revelation yet, suffers from two debilitating weaknesses. First, to identify Laodicea as the modern era (rich, self-sufficient) ignores the poor, persecuted Christians currently suffering in China, India, Nigeria, etc.; it's an overly anglo-centric perspective that seems to assume that North American and European Christians are the only Christians in the world.

Second, such a pseudo-"deeper" meaning beyond the plain NT meaning of "church"  removes all restrictions for interpretation other than my own creativity. After all, why couldn't the seven churches represent seven types of Christian music? (One of my former professors actually heard such a view presented at a conference!) Or perhaps 7 different Bible translations? Or 7 different types of coffee shops? Yes, I'm being silly, but that's the point! When you are not content with the plain sense, when the plain sense is sufficient, what is to keep you from being silly?

Anyways, listen to the interview to hear more on this topic of the "plain sense," the single indispensable element (besides the indwelling Holy Spirit) to effective Bible study.

Helpful commentaries on Revelation for conservative evangelical preachers

Update: mistake corrected 11/20/2025

In my past 4 years at BCM, I have had the privilege of teaching Revelation as a 2-credit, upper-level elective three times, with a fourth opportunity coming up next week. I have published one small book on Revelation's first three chapters and a peer-reviewed journal article in Southeastern Theological Review on Revelation 2:24. While I am hardly on the cutting edge of scholarship on Revelation, I have learned a lot in the past few years and am in a better position to offer some commentary on commentaries, so to speak.

Now, before we get started, I need to draw two sets of distinctions. First, there is a distinction between what is essential for serious academic work (e.g., at the masters or doctoral level) and what is essential for pastoral study that is committed to the ultimate authority of Scripture. The two lists will overlap, but will also contain significant differences. The first list would include liberal commentaries in addition to conservative evangelical commentaries, because serious academic study must demonstrate competency at dialoguing with the secondary literature at the master's level and complete mastery of the secondary literature at the doctoral level. This does not mean that a more liberal commentary would be completely lacking in value for a born-again Christian studying to prepare a Sunday morning Bible study (though it may, in some cases!). It simply means that the two disciplines (writing a graduate level academic paper vs. distilling the inspired lesson of Scripture into something challenging and practical for the believer in the pew) have different needs.

The second distinction, one that is more important for Revelation than for any other book of the Bible with the possible exception of Daniel, is the distinction between commentaries that possess high value to all believers regardless of eschatological and hermeneutical perspective, and those that are valuable mostly to those who agree with the author's major hermeneutical commitments. In other words, on the one hand a commentary like John Walvoord's is less likely to benefit a conservative evangelical from the Reformed tradition, just as the commentary by Simon J. Kistemaker is less likely to benefit a dispensationalist like myself, though both are sure to contain some value for all Christians.

In light of those distinctions, the following list is written first with conservative evangelical sermon preparation in mind, not research paper writing, with the assumption that the preacher has at least a basic knowledge of Greek. Secondly, I will skew the list somewhat towards the dispensationalist side of the equation, but without neglecting everybody else (#1 on my list is not a dispensationalist author). So, without further ado, here we go!

1. Grant R. Osborne, Revelation, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. This volume, though not dispensational, remains top on my list. Steeped in a thorough knowledge of background matters, genre considerations, and the Greek text, Osborne nonetheless evidences astute theological awareness and does not hesitate to offer practical application (his "summary and contextualization" sections are extremely valuable). Though since replaced by Thomas R. Schreiner in the series (a helpful volume in its own right, though in places a bit idiosyncratic), I am confident Osborne's tome will retain its value for many years to come.

2. Buist M. Fanning, Revelation, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. In some ways, this is my favorite commentary on Revelation, notwithstanding my belief that Osborne's offers better value for everybody. Fanning combines an in-depth focus on the Greek text with excellent theological and practical observations (e.g., his "Theology in Application" sections). In addition, I would say that this is perhaps the most academically rigorous and respectable commentary on Revelation from a premillennial perspective (I am much more fond of Fanning than I am of Robert L. Thomas' 2-volume set, though the latter can certainly lay claim to being a solid resource).

3. Daniel L. Akin, Exalting Jesus in Revelation, Christ-Centered Exposition Commentary. I admit my bias on this one, since Dr. Akin was the president of the seminary where I received my PhD. Yet the commentary is very down-to-earth and practical without sacrificing academic credibility. This is the sort of commentary I would recommend to the average Christian without much formal theological education. It is premillennialism.

4. Robert Mounce, The Book of Revelation, New International Commentary on the New Testament. Dr. Mounce's son, William Mounce, is perhaps a bit more well-known, having published one of the most popular 1st year Greek textbooks, but the father is a solid scholar in his own right and this commentary is highly regarded within conservative evangelical circles.

5. Paige Patterson, Revelation, New American Commentary. Though this former president of Southern Seminary is persona non grata within some Southern Baptist circles these days, I have found his commentary to be both accessible and theologically rich.

Honorable mention:

1. G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation, New International Greek Testament Commentary. Not really one of my favorites (though I respect Beale's work), but considered one of the best by many, and so worth mentioning. As the series name indicates, not recommended for those without any background in studying biblical Greek.

2. Colin J. Hemer, The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia in Their Local Setting. Not a commentary, but still in my opinion one of the most valuable resources for studying Revelation. The book is rich in insights on the background of the seven churches of Asia Minor and virtually indispensable if you are preaching through Revelation 2–3.

3. Richard Bauckham, The Theology of the Book of Revelation, New Testament Theology (Cambridge University Press). Again, not a commentary, but a very helpful resource in understanding much of the "big picture" of Revelation.

Dr. Stanley Porter's new commentary on the Pastoral Epistles: A brief description and some positive thoughts

Dr. Stanley E. Porter, of McMaster Divinity College in Hamilton, Ontario, is well-known for his contributions to the study of New Testament Greek and biblical hermeneutics (among other topics). Although I don't always agree with him on Greek grammar and linguistics (though I have become somewhat more sympathetic to his views on Verbal Aspect Theory now than I was 15 years ago), I respect his immense contributions to our study of Scripture. Also, his commentary on Romans (Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2015), is quite good, and I would consider it among my "top 5" recommendations for a well-rounded, English-speaking/reading, evangelical pastor's library (along with Moo, Longenecker, Barth, and Cranfield).

Since I co-teach the Pastoral Epistles in our small college with my father (who was for 30+ years a missionary to Japan), I was excited to hear of Porter's new commentary and made sure our library acquired it: The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2023). The price is normally a bit hefty (at $70), but students and impulse-buyers should note that it is only $26.44 on Amazon right now [3:15pm on Wednesday, 11/27]; hurry before the sale ends!!!!!! 

Anyways, the reader should know that this rigorous, 800+ page commentary (not counting the bibliography) is focused specifically on the Greek text. You will find less of background matters here (e.g., Ephesus and Crete), but you will find intense discussions  of virtually every nuance of the Greek words and syntax. Indeed, the commentary's raison d'etre is summed up here by Porter:

"My major criticism against conventional commentary writing is that most of them offer little that is new in interpretation, to a large extent because they have departed from the major purpose of a commentary on an ancient text: to help in understanding the language of the text and thereby its situational context" (p. 1).

As noted above, this commentary is not the sort of commentary you turn to for extensive background information, nor is it the sort of commentary that rigorously discusses the various viewpoints on a particular topic (the very long and rigorous section on "saved through childbearing" was a bit disappointing in that regard). It is, however, the sort of commentary you turn to for an intense analysis of the actual Greek text of the Pastorals, and as such it will prove to be an extremely valuable addition to any library. 

I offer the following as a positive example of this (from page 219, discussing 1 Timothy 2:6, to which he devotes 10 paragraphs):

"The prefixed form ἀντίλυτρον in Paul must be considered with the preposition that is used int he adjunctive prepositional phrase. The Markan context [Mark 10:45] uses the simplex form along with ἀντί (in place of), the clear preposition of substitution; Paul uses the prefixed form indicating ransom in place of along with the preposition ὑπέρ (on behalf of). The first construction is clearly substitutionary, but the second may indicate nothing more than benefit. However, the latter preposition was often used in a substitutionary way in Greek texts contemporary with the NT, as evidenced in numerous documentary papyri (e.g., P.Tebt. 104.39–40; P.Hamb. 4.14–15), where a scribe would write 'on behalf of' (ὑπέρ) one who did not know how to write (S. Porter 1994: 176–77; cf. Radermacher 1925: 139; Robertson 1934: 630–32). There was benefit, to be sure, but there was also substitution of a literate person for someone illiterate. Thus, the general overall sense of both constructions is the same; both indicate substitution, although the Pauline text lacks the elegance of the Markan one" (p. 219).

The above paragraph shows Porter's thoroughness but also warns the reader to be prepared for some very technical terminology. Elsewhere, in what may have set some kind of record, Porter devotes 9 and a half pages to discussing 1 Timothy 2:12 (just that one verse!).

Two other points of appreciation. (1.) The introduction section of the commentary, spanning 88 pages, has one of the most rigorous defenses of Pauline authorship of the PE that you will ever see, including a brilliant discussion on the logical problems of assuming pseudonymity for the PE (specifically, pages 33–35). (2.) Pages 88–93 contain a very detailed overview (complete with comparisons of the Greek text) of "Early Church Attestation" of the PE.

Porter's commentary is not for the faint of heart, and he makes it very clear early on that he holds to both monosemy and verbal aspect theory, which will affect his interpretation to some degree (how much of a difference that makes in contrast to other commentaries remains to be seen). For those looking for a fresh perspective grounded solidly in the original language of the New Testament, however, the commentary has much to commend it.

Whatever you do after the election results, please don't quote Psalm 11:3 ("If the foundations be destroyed . . .")

Just a friendly reminder this presidential election: don’t take it too seriously (as if the future of Christianity in America hinged on politics, instead of humbly seeking God’s face), don’t pretend any of the candidates are righteous people or heaven-ordained saviors, and please, please, don’t quote Psalm 11:3, “If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?”

 

I’ve blogged about this before (here), but in an exercise in ignoring context, too many well-meaning Christians quote Psalm 11:3—"Boy, this country [or church, or society, or local coffee shop] sure is going downhill fast! You know, if the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?"

 

Yet the person speaking Psalm 11:3 is the same person speaking Psalm 11:2 and even the second half of Psalm 11:1, “Flee as a bird . . .” In other words, the person speaking Psalm 11:3 is not David, the author of the psalm, but the people David is rebuking!

 

You see, David’s message in Psalm 11 is not “O boy, what can the righteous do?” It is the total opposite of that: “In YHWH put I my trust . . . YHWH is in his holy temple, . . .” (vv. 1a, 4a).

 

Psalm 11 provides us with two contrasting perspectives. One perspective, that of David’s counsellors in vv. 1b–3, embraces uncertainty and fear (“What will we ever do? The sky is falling!!”). The other perspective, David’s perspective (v. 1a, vv. 4–7), expresses faith in the one true God. How can we ever worry about circumstances, including silly politics determined by silly men and women (none of whom are good role models, at least this year!), when God is on His throne?

 

So, regardless of what happens in a week, which perspective is yours?