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.