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.

"Did Jesus Quote the Apostles?" (Latest issue of Southeastern Theological Reivew)

The latest issue of the Southeastern Theological Review is out (the official journal of my doctoral alma mater, SEBTS!), and I am grateful that I have an article published in that issue:
Paul A. Himes, "Did Jesus Quote the Apostles? The Possible Intertextuality and Significance of Revelation 2:24," STR 11 no. 1 (Spr 2020): 31-52.
The journal is open-access, and can be read here.
Here is the abstract:

This article examines the significance of the phrase “no other burden” (οὐ . . . ἄλλο βάρος) in Rev 2:24, including its relationship to ὡς λέγουσιν shortly before it. A full analysis of these phrases has been mostly lacking in modern commentaries, which has not prevented many from taking dogmatic positions on whether or not Jesus might be alluding to the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15. This article defends the possibility that ὡς λέγουσιν is meant to point forward, thus making an allusion to Acts 15 highly probable. This article then explores the theological significance of such an allusion in light of the situation in Acts, and then closes by briefly discussing the practical significance of this thesis.

Key Words: Acts 15, Bible translation, intertextuality, Jerusalem Council, New Testament ethics, Revelation 2, Thyatira

Going to Kenya, and my second book is out!

Just a quick note! I have the privilege of heading to Kenya this week to visit, teach New Testament Introduction at a small Baptist seminary there, and preach possibly as many as seven times! (Your prayers are appreciated; I'm not exactly at the "Billy Sunday" level on the "Scale of Preaching Excitement!")

In the meanwhile, I'm grateful to report that my second book is out, entitled Where Is Your Allegiance? The Message to the Seven Churches, published by Energion. Click here for the publisher's link and here for the Amazon link (where you can buy it on Kindle).

Basically, this book is a practical and theological look at the first three chapters of Revelation, drawing heavily on the social and historical backgrounds of the seven cities (a note to the wise; Colin Hemer's The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia in Their Local Setting is an immensely beneficial source). Also, unlike my first book (which could probably be classified as an academic snooze-fest, meant to be read by scholars and doctoral students), this one is meant for the "average Joe" and "average Josephine," with an eye towards practical application.

I have the privilege of teaching "Revelation" as an elective after I return from Kenya, so I'm grateful the Lord let me get this book out, and thanks to my (hopefully many!) readers (must resist checking "Amazon sales rank" every day . . . must resist checking "Amazon sales rank" every day . . .).

Congratulations to Alex Stewart (Revelation) and Michael Stover (1 Clement) on their successful defense!

I am pleased to report that two good friends of mine have just successfully defended their dissertation and thesis at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, one for a Ph.D. in Biblical Theology and the other for a Master of Theology.

1. First of all, congratulations to (soon-to-be) Dr. Alex Stewart for successfully defending his dissertation entitled “Soteriology as Motivation in the Apocalypse of John.” His advisor was Dr. David Alan Black, his secondary reader was Dr. Andreas J. Köstenberger, and his outside reader was Dr. Grant Osborne (author of the Baker Exegetical commentary on Revelation) from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

What follows is a snippet of his abstract, posted with his permission:

“Recent research into the Apocalypse of John has made it clear that John did not primarily write the Apocalypse in order to provide a detailed time-table of events that would unfold thousands of years in the future. Instead, John wrote to affect and move his hearers at the end of the first century—to motivate them to reject idolatrous compromise with the surrounding cultural and political institutions and overcome through repentance, worship, witness, perseverance, and obedience.

How does the Apocalypse accomplish this motivation and persuade its hearers to adopt a course of action (overcoming) that would put their present lives, income, and security in jeopardy? . . . To be sure, classical rhetorical theory may be heuristically helpful, but if that is its main contribution, why exclude the heuristic contributions of modern theories of argumentation analysis? This dissertation seeks to remedy this gap in the study of John’s motivational argumentation by methodologically employing Stephen Toulmin’s model of argumentation analysis to study John’s explicit and implicit argumentation (chapter four). Toulmin’s model has revolutionized the modern study of argumentation analysis and has found wide utilization in a variety of disciplines.

In addition to the general conclusion that John primarily employs soteriology as motivation, this dissertation makes several other contributions to the study of the Apocalypse. First, it further strengthens the thesis that the Apocalypse of John is a thoroughly rhetorical text; i.e., it was not written primarily to convey theology or information about the future, but to motivate its hearers to concrete actions in the present. Second, it highlights the centrality of logos, or logical argumentation, in John’s argumentation. Despite the arguments of many previous scholars, logical argumentation is a central, not peripheral, element of John’s rhetorical strategy; albeit a logos dependent upon a shared meta-narrative and worldview. Third, it demonstrates the general applicability of Toulmin’s model of argumentation analysis to biblical texts, even such complicated texts as John’s Apocalypse. Although Toulmin’s model is relatively simple, it can be usefully applied to ancient texts to clarify, simplify, and synthesize the argumentation. Fourth, it confirms that the Apocalypse displays a genuinely inaugurated eschatology and soteriology with both presently possessed and future, non-possessed elements.”

Alex has been a good friend of mine in the doctoral program, and he has the privilege of teaching overseas in Europe beginning this summer and continuing for the foreseeable future. Best wishes, Alex!

2. Secondly, congratulations to Michael Stover for successfully defending his Th.M. thesis entitled “The Dating of First Clement.” Michael Stover has put a lot of research into this issue (his thesis was 200+ pages, slightly long for a master’s thesis!) and examines in-depth the evidence for the earlier, middle, and later dates for 1 Clement, ultimately arguing for the middle date. Michael’s thesis has significance for both patristic and New Testament studies, since Clement cites much of the New Testament and thus may be used as a terminus ad quem for the dating of certain NT books.

Michael’s academic advisor was also Dr. David Alan Black. His secondary readers were L. Scott Kellum and Ed Gravely.

Michael has been a good friend of mine here in North Carolina and I wish him the best for his future. Good job, Michael!

Although I am totally biased in this regard, I view Southeastern as one of the best places for New Testament studies, not least because of the work of Drs. Black and Köstenberger. They promote a high standard of scholarly excellence, and many of their students go on to make contributions to scholarship (Alex, for example, has already been published in both Tyndale Bulletin and Trinity Journal). For students considering doctoral work in New Testament, we have, among others, Dr. Black who has made major contributions in Greek studies (as well as having written one of the best beginner Greek textbooks, in my humble but biased opinion), Dr. Köstenberger, who has written one of the top commentaries on John (the Baker Exegetical; also in my humble but biased opinion), Dr. Maurice Robinson, textual critic and editor of the Byzantine/Majority text (2005) of the NT, Dr. Benjamin Merkle, who has made contributions in the studies of the Pastoral Epistles and New Testament theology, and Dr. L. Scott Kellum, who has written a monograph on the Gospel of John. This is, of course, a small fraction of our scholars at Southeastern!

I am planning to finish my own dissertation within a year and hope that I can live up to their standards, and the standard set by Alex and Michael’s work. Congratulations, gentlemen!