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.

The New ICC on 1 Peter by Williams and Horrell: Positive Initial Impressions

First Peter is no longer the "Exegetical Stepchild" that John H. Elliott once labeled it. The last decade has produced a plethora of monographs and commentaries dealing with this epistle, including but not limited to the Ruth Anne Reese's New Cambridge Bible Commentary, Craig Keener's stand-alone commentary for Baker Academic, Dennis Edwards' Story of God Bible Commentary, my own Lexham Research Commentary, and Catherine Gunsalus González's Belief theological commentary. In addition, Baker just put out Karen Jobes' 2nd edition of her Baker Exegetical Commentary, which remains (in my humble-but-opinionated-opinion) the commentary of choice for any minister's library.

This past year also saw the publication of the new, massive, 2-volume International Critical Commentary Travis B. Williams and David G. Horrell (T&T Clark). This replaces the previous ICC on 1 Peter by Charles Biggs, a volume which also contained 2 Peter and Jude (in my opinion, Biggs' commentaries on 2 Peter and Jude were better than his commentary on 1 Peter).

I intend here to give a few positive initial impressions of Williams and Horrell's epic tome ("epic" in the sense of "It's got 800+ pages per volume!!"). First, a couple caveats:

1. Notwithstanding the immense value to be had from this ICC (despite its hefty price tag), Jobes' commentary still remains the best for pastoral work, and should be the first one to be purchased by any seminarian or minister seeking to preach on or develop a Bible study on the topic (for second place, I would suggest Wayne Grudem [Tyndale], Reese, or perhaps Keener for the wealth of his background material). For my reflections here, I am dealing with the value of this ICC for academic study.

2. I am a bit biased towards this commentary, because I have enjoyed a cordial correspondence with Dr. Williams regarding 1 and 2 Peter and NT scholarship in general, and also because their commentary cites my work a number of times (not always in agreement, but always fairly). It is worth noting that Williams studied under Horrell at the University of Exeter, and in fact it seems to me that Horrell has been mentoring a relatively high number of Petrine scholars in the past couple decades compared to other professors at top-tier universities. In other words, a lot of interesting work on 1 Peter has been coming out of Exeter. 

With that in mind, here are a number of positive observations regarding this commentary:

1. First, this ICC can probably claim to be the most well-researched commentary ever written on 1 Peter (though Keener's commentary has an immense number of primary/ancient sources). Williams and Horrell have put together a bibliography with over 2,500 sources (the bibliography runs from pages 657–816, and I am "guesstimating" about 16 sources per page).

2. Second, you can rest assured that the authors represent some of the best in the field of Petrine scholarship. I confess that one of my pet peeves is when a scholar who has written virtually no peer-reviewed material on a particular book of the Bible ends up writing a commentary on it in a major series. Such authors are usually (though not always) at a disadvantage in regards to understanding the secondary literature, and thus their commentary is usually (though not always) subpar, in my humble-but-opinionated opinion (and yes, I have a specific example in mind, albeit on a different book than 1 Peter). No worries here, as both Williams and Horrell are already easily in the top-10 of Petrine scholarship, at least where English is a primary language. Williams, the junior member of the team, by himself has published two full monographs on 1 Peter, each in a different prestigious European series, not to mention eight peer-reviewed articles specifically on 1 Peter, four of which are in tier-1 journals (and Williams' article in ZNTW significantly influenced my own thinking on 1 Peter).

3. Third, even a cursory glance indicates that Williams and Horrell interact with the Greek text in a very detailed manner. (This is not a a commentary for casual perusal!) For the record, the commentary flows verse-by-verse and clause-by-clause, making it much easier to find a discussion on a particular point of the text.

4. Fourth, the authors do an excellent job of discussing competing viewpoints. And yes, for those of you who were wondering, there is an entire excursus of 7 pages (2:215–221) devoted to the "history of interpretation" of the phrase "preached to the spirits in prison," with 18 pages (2:221–238) that actual exegete the text and discuss the various viewpoints. Interestingly, the commentary takes the minority view that the phrase refers to "disembodied human souls" rather than fallen angels.

So there you have it, the next big thing in Petrine scholarship. These positive comments should not be taken as an endorsement of all the views held to by the authors, of course (and my own position is that Peter himself wrote the book, while allowing for the possibility of an amanuensis), but this is a commentary that libraries and serious Petrine academics need to purchase.

Ruth Anne Reese's new commentary on 1 Peter: initial impressions

As a petrine specialist and the author of the Lexham Research Commentary on 1 Peter, I am excited that this is turning out to be an awesome decade for 1 Peter commentaries. Craig Keener just published his magisterial background commentary; Karen Jobes' 2nd edition of her Baker Exegetical commentary (which, in my opinion, still remains the best overall) is due out soon; Travis Williams and David Horrell's epic ICC is in production; and W. Edward Glenny's ECC with Lexham is supposed to come out anytime now.

In the midst of all that, we are privileged with another commentary that Ruth Anne Reese (Asbury Theological Seminary) just published a few months ago. As a series, the "New Cambridge Bible Commentary" has as one of its strengths a robust focus on background issues, as  well as segments entitled "A Closer Look" and "Bridging  the Horizons" which allow the author to focus  a bit more on key topics of his or her choice. The series as a whole is not, by my observation, intended to be evangelical  per se, but it actually contains a significant number of broadly evangelical authors (e.g.,  Ben Witherington III and Craig Keener both author or co-author multiple commentaries). My readers can rest assured that Reese approaches the book from a strongly confessional perspective, and she affirms Peter's authorship of the epistle which bears his name (see page 19). 

The book demonstrates a solid grasp of secondary and primary literature, especially considering its relatively smaller size. Reese cites recent petrine scholarship, such as that of Travis Williams, frequently, and even manages to fit Keener's new commentary in there (though it came out just months before hers!). Key background works are often cited (e.g., Hengel, Crucifixion; Bain, Women's Socioeconomic Status), as well as ancient sources (e.g., Plutarch, Advice to the Bride and Groom). Another strength is that Reese also cites sources outside of New Testament studies to further enrich her observations.

The commentary generally proceeds verse-by-verse or with short clusters of verses. The commentary is fairly well accessible to those without training in Greek (and Reese transliterates key Greek words and phrases). This is both an advantage  and a disadvantage. It fits well with  the  series' desire to embrace "jargon-free" language, and this commentary is definitely more accessible than those by Davids, Jobes, Keener, etc. The downside is that sometimes a difficult phrase in the Greek text will not receive the attention it receives in more technical commentaries.

The "Closer Look" sections peer  into the social and historical  background of 1 Peter (e.g., pages 134-6 and what constituted "Good Works" in ancient culture). With the "Bridging the Horizons" section, Reese is able to link her observations on the text with theology for the church (e.g., the excellent discussion on spiritual identity and suffering on pages 81-82).

A strength of the  commentary, then, is its ability to meld solid exegesis with theological and practical application. Naturally I would disagree with Reese in a few places. I am very hesitant, for example to assert that "It is clear that the church is portrayed as Israel in 1 Peter" (p. 128), and I believe she too quickly downplays the role of evangelistic vocal proclamation in 1 Peter, though without denying it altogether (e.g., page 207 fn 367). In my opinion, a more balanced treatment of the latter point can be found in Torrey Seland's excellent article, "Resident Aliens in Mission," in Bulletin for Biblical Research vol.  19 (2009). Nonetheless, Reese's treatments of the various issues are solid, well-informed, and often theologically and practically relevant.

Reese, in my opinion is one of the more readable writers out there within Petrine scholarship, i.e., regarding the ability to make it easier to plow through their book (her Two Horizons Commentary on 2 Peter and Jude is also excellent reading and quite quotable). Witherington is another one of the better petrine writers, imo, when he's not getting bogged down in the technical details rhetorical analysis (though for the most accessible treatment of Peter in general, I highly recommend Larry Helyer's The Life and Witness of Peter).

For the curious, here is a very quick tour of Reese's positions on some key topics. As already noted, she does affirm Peter as the author, suggesting that he wrote sometime between AD 65-68 (p. 17).

1. Peter was writing from Rome (p. 7; "Babylon"  = Rome; this is the  standard position  for almost all  commentators these days, regardless of theological persuasion. Somewhere in heaven John Calvin may still be objecting vociferously, unless the Apostle Peter himself has set him straight).

2. Also with the majority of commentaries these days, Reese sees the audience as a mix of Jews and  Gentiles (certainly plausible, though I confess I am finding myself more and more drawn to the vocal minority view of Witherington's and others that the audience was primarily Jewish)

3. In 2:2, regarding what "milk" is referring to, Reese follows Jobes in seeing more christology than bibliology (p. 106).

4. Reese's perspective on Sarah calling Abraham "Lord" is complicated (177-180), and here I feel that perhaps a deeper discussion of alternative interpretive options would help. She does, however, provide a comparative analysis with Philo on Sarah, concluding that "Both idealized portraits are presented in a particular context," yet that "In 1 Peter, women who have courageously chosen  a dangerous path [Christianity], . . . are reminded  that Sarah  also faced danger when she obeyed her husband" (p. 179). Reese also wishes that this passage not be read as forcing  women  to endure abuse without recourse or help, and suggests that "Our  interpretation  of 1 Peter 3:6 need not be prescriptive for every marriage and every situation  that a Christian wife may encounter" (p. 179).

It is with  a sense of irony (because I am a complementarian) that I note that my Lexham Research Commentary was roasted over a bed of hot coals by a 1-star reviewer on the Logos website on precisely this issue (he basically accused me of caving in to feminism for daring to suggest that it is a bad thing to utilize this text to justify abuse against women,  and for citing feminist authors positively, notwithstanding my strong critique of J. Bird, which the reviewer ignored). Now,  in this case, while I would agree with Reese's concerns  against legitimizing abuse, I am much more hesitant  to downplay the  normative nature of 1 Peter 3:1-6. I think we can  "have our  cake  and eat  it too," so to speak, by seeing this text as broadly applicable in every marriage but yet allowing  a woman to seek for sanctuary and legal protection if she is abused. I have discussed this more in depth in  my LRC on 1 Peter. Nonetheless, Reese's discussion contains some helpful material.

5. Regarding "the spirits in prison" in 3:19, I think Reese holds to the view that the phrase refers to the  fallen  angels ("sons of God") in Genesis 6. At least she portrays that view more positively than the other views (p. 218, "The greater context of suffering argues for a message of triumph over enemies . . ."), though she is not dogmatic.  Notwithstanding the strong objections of Wayne Grudem, I personally feel that is the best way to understand the text (no offense to Dr. Grudem, whose Tyndale commentary is, in my opinion, the best commentary for an undergrad class or a church Bible study). 

6. For the OT background to 1 Peter 4:17a, Reese provides  an excellent discussion of the pros and cons of each suggested text before concluding that "It is best to see the background for the idea of judgment  beginning with the household of God as deriving from the generally well-known Old Testament idea that  God is the judge of all the nations and that God's judgment begins with God's own people" (p. 274).

Bottom line: this  is an excellent mid-sized commentary with good depth but also excellent practical and theological discussion. While it will not replace Jobes' BECNT as my commentary of choice for teaching a graduate class, and obviously it will not provide the massive amount of background material one finds in Keener's commentary (but then, who could?), Reese's commentary is still worth its weight in gold and possibly among the top five I would recommend for any evangelical pastor's library.

Note: I purchased this commentary with my own money and was under no obligation to provide a positive review. However, [bias alert!], since Reese cites me positively at one point, I am naturally more favorably inclined towards the commentary. Also, by that logic, Keener's new commentary (which cites me 5 times!) is the greatest commentary ever, and anything Keener writes is golden. 😊  I am being facetious, of course, but as a relatively minor-leaguer, it's nice to be noticed by both Keener and Reese, or at least by their graduate assistants.

Craig Keener's New Commentary on 1 Peter: Initial Impressions

As of June this year, we are all indebted to Craig S. Keener for yet another commentary on a New Testament book. Entitled simply 1 Peter: A Commentary, it is published by Baker Academic and showcases many of Keener's strengths in writing and research. Keener is one of my favorite NT scholars, and though I am an independent Baptist I even benefitted from his book Spirit Hermeneutics while I was working through, for my own benefit (and that of my Hermeneutics class), the role of the Spirit in studying Scripture.

I think what sets this book apart is the incredible detail given to primary and ancient sources, a specialty of Keener's (as those of us who have used his 4-volume  commentary on Acts know). To put this in perspective: the bibliography of primary sources is 23 pages of two columns, and his index of ancient sources, not including Scripture, is a jaw-dropping 61 and a half pages, including everything from Theon of Smyrna to Virgil to Phaedrus to Cicero. 

Also, in the midst of the commentary Keener consistently inserts "A Closer Look" segments that deal with background issues such as "Marriage Expectations in Greco-Roman Antiquity" or "Providence, Fate, and Predestination in Antiquity." Other commentaries have done this on a limited basis, but for Keener this is a main feature of the commentary.

A couple notes on content: Keener competently defends Petrine authorship (pp. 8-25), suggests that in 3:19 the reference is to fallen angels and that ". . . ancient audiences might take for granted that Christ's proclamation to the spirits was not an invitation to repentance, but rather a proclamation  of their complete subjugation" (p. 275), seems to tentatively prefer the view that eperōtēma in 3:21 means "pledge" (p. 283), and states regarding the crux interpretum of 4:17 that "In the OT, God was sometimes more strict with his own people first, since they knew better (Jer. 25:29; Amos 3:2; cf. Isa. 10:12)" and that "Believers may experience even unjust suffering as divine discipline in one sense (cf. Heb. 12:3-11), as something to make them better. But one could be assured that if even the righteous suffer, judgment will come far more harshly on those who disobey the gospel . . . ."

I would also note that a hermeneutical strength of this commentary is Keener's focus on how Peter's original audience would have understood something, based on primary sources from that time period.

The only critiques I have at this point are that Keener's use of primary and/or ancient sources may seem a bit excessive at times (e.g., page 239, where basically half the page consists of footnotes referring to ancient sources), and the "Closer Look" sections, while helpful, have a tendency to crop up in places where they disrupt the commentary on a particular verse. In addition, they can be somewhat lengthy, going on for pages and pages before one returns to the actual commentary.

Nonetheless, this is a milestone for Petrine commentaries. For academics (professors, grad students, and anybody trying to publish anything on 1 Peter), this becomes one of the essential commentaries up there with Paul J. Achtemeier, Karen Jobes,  Leonhard Goppelt, and John H. Elliott, definitely in the "top 5" most important commentaries. For pastoral work, both Jobes' Baker Exegetical Commentary and Wayne Grudem's Tyndale Commentary are more accessible, and thus maintain their position as the two essential commentaries for pastors or Bible-study leaders, in my humble-but-opinionated opinion, though Keener's would still be a very helpful addition to any pastor's library if their budget allows.

Having said all that, full-disclosure, one reason I am excited and positively inclined towards Keener's commentary is because this is the first commentary on 1 Peter to cite some of my own work on 1 Peter. But I trust my readers will forgive that personal bias.

The Next Two Great Commentaries on 1 Peter (Williams/Horrell and Keener)

As a Petrine "specialist," it's my job and privilege to keep up with significant works on 1 and 2 Peter. Sadly, there has not been a hugely significant commentary on 1 Peter since Karen  Jobes' Baker Exegetical Commentary in 2005 (the best commentary overall, IMO) and Witherington's Socio-Rhetorical Commentary in 2007. Although there are some promising works languishing in limbo that I desperately hope will come out within this decade (*cough* Edward Glenny's Evangelical Exegetical Commentary on 1 Peter *cough* Where are you!!!), I am happy to inform my readers of two very significant commentaries that are on the verge of being published. 

First up, Craig Keener has written a stand-alone commentary on 1 Peter by Baker Academic (click here for the publisher's page). I am very excited about this, because I like Keener's work, though his massive 4-volume commentary on Acts is a wee-bit intimidating (yes, 4 volumes; and each volume has a gajillion pages; oh, and the last volume is basically a bibliography so massive it makes War and Peace look like Horton Hears a Who!). Keener has also written an excellent commentary on Galatians that I made sure we acquired for my school's library.

Second, I'm very excited about the duo of David G. Horrell and Travis B. Williams publishing the new International Critical Commentary on 1 Peter. The latter completed his dissertation under the former, and both have produced significant books and articles on 1 Peter. I don't think Bloomsbury has a page for this forthcoming work yet, though there is a page for it on "ResearchGate." I have corresponded with Dr. Williams, however, and he assures me it is very close to being published.

These commentaries will differ in significant ways (I am fairly certain Keener's is more likely to favor direct Petrine authorship). Both, however, will be essential for serious academic work on 1 Peter, and I'm certain both will have some excellent insights that will benefit sermon preparation (and I intend to purchase both for my own personal library). In the meanwhile, for those who just can't wait, you're welcome to make my publisher happy and purchase my recent Lexham Research Commentary on 1 Peter (pardon the shameless plug; though in all honesty you should buy Jobes and Grudem first, if you're a pastor, and Jobes, Elliott, and Achtemeier first, if you're a graduate student).

Robert Yarbrough's new Pillar commentary on the pastoral epistles: a mini-review

My father and I have the privilege of co-teaching "Pastoral Epistles" to our preacher boys here at BCM. My father has 30+ years experience of pastoring and church-planting, while I took the PE as a doctoral course under NT scholar Benjamin Merkle and have since contributed two articles on the pastorals (published in Filologia Neotestamentaria and The Bible Translator). We have a lot of fun building off of each other and goofing around (believe me, it's a great privilege and pleasure to co-teach a class with one's father!). The class has been excellent so far, with a lot of discussion.

Now, a new commentary has just come out, the first major evangelical commentary on the pastorals in a long time: Robert W. Yarbrough, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2018). I'd like to offer a mini-review on this work. Bottom line: a very useful conservative evangelical commentary with some key, unique contributions that nonetheless will probably not replace the "big four" (Knight, Mounce, Marshall, and Towner) in usefulness. In other words, it definitely belongs in your library (individual or institutional) but will probably not be a textbook at either the college level or seminary level.

I am going to offer a brief analysis in four key areas that I feel are key to judging a commentary: 1. contribution, 2. general content and writing, 3. research, and 4. treatment of controversial issues. The first area is "mostly good," the second one is "very good", while #s 3 and 4 I feel are "good, but with some disappointments."

1. Contribution. Robert Yarbrough is a tier-1 New Testament scholar who teaches at Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis (he has also taught at Trinity and Wheaton). His list of contributions to scholarship is massive, including especially the Baker Exegetical commentary on 1-3 John. Although he is not a specialist in the Pastoral Epistles, he has contributed broadly to New Testament scholarship and has some interesting things to say on the Pastorals. His section on "Paul as Working Pastor: Exposing an Open Ethical Secret," is excellent (though adapted from previous material). The strength here, then, is that Yarbrough is without a doubt a Pauline scholar, and this strength carries throughout the book. Thus the book is especially valuable when dealing with aspects of the PE that intersect especially with Pauline theology (e.g., his treatment of 1Tim 1:15 is excellent and very informed by the rest of Pauline theology). This is, of course, linked to Yarbrough's conservative treatment of the authorship of the PE, which I can appreciate (though, dear reader, do not go to this commentary for a robust defense of Pauline authorship; go to Robert Mounce's Word Biblical Commentary instead). However, since Yarbrough is not a PE specialist (to my knowledge none of his other books focused on the PE, and he seems to only have one journal article that deals specifically with something in the PE), his contribution to PE scholarship in the PNTC series is not as robust as it might have been, perhaps. 

[Note added 8/22/20. To be fair, however: my friend Chuck, in the comments section, notes where Dr. Yarbrough has contributed a significant number of professional papers on the PE. He's perhaps more of a specialist than my initial comments may lead one to believe]

As far as the introduction section of the book, this is lacking in some areas that other commentaries spend more time on (e.g., as noted above, see authorship). On the other hand, Yarbrough has some excellent material in the introduction that you won't see in other commentaries, such as his expansion on Thomas Oden's "eight thesis" on the PE. 

2. General Content and Writing. Overall, this book is a solid commentary to have an your shelf (whether pastoral or academic) and should definitely be in every seminary library. This is a consistent, solid, scholarly treatment of the pastoral epistles by an author who is broadly read and fairly well-versed in PE scholarship (though not as well as he could have been; see below for some mild critique).

The book is well-written. While both my father and I felt it was a bit too technical for a college class (so we're sticking with Donald Guthrie's Tyndale commentary for now), we are still requiring our students to read some small portions from his book. Once again, Yarbrough is an excellent writer, and for somebody at the seminary level this is a good read. Also, as appropriate for a commentary within the Pillar series, Yarbrough interacts very well with the Greek, though not in an overly-technical way (à la the WBC series).

3. Research. On the plus side, Yarbrough has a fairly good grasp of PE scholarship, and I felt his level of interaction with primary/ancient sources was excellent. On the downside, there are some lacuna. He never actually cites Ceslas Spicq (though he mentions him in passing, but he never cites him), which is a pity because Spicq is one of the essential scholars on the PE. Also, at times it appears Yarbrough is not quite as caught up on the most recent journal articles. For example, Southeastern Theological Review devoted an entire issue to the PE (Winter 2016, which should have been enough time to be noticed by Yarbrough) with articles by Swinson, Couser, Bumgardner, and Stiekes, plus an extremely helpful "literature review" by Charles J. Bumgardner. In addition, his commentary is not as "discourse sensitive" as I would have hoped, especially in this modern era. For example, the significant work by Ray Van Neste on "Cohesion and Structure in the Pastoral Epistles" is not cited, so far as I could tell. To that I would add that any exegetical commentary in this day and era should probably be citing Steven Runge's Discourse Grammar of the New Testament (a book I require for all my "Intro to NT Exegesis students") or similar works, but that's just my opinion.

I counted approximately 335 sources (including primary) in the bibliography. This is ok, but not really spectacular, in my opinion. As noted below, when it comes to the discussion of "saved through childbearing," Yarbrough's bibliography is not near as good as it should have been.

In a nutshell, Yarbrough's engagement with primary sources is better than his engagement with secondary sources in this commentary (based on what I was expecting).

4. Treatment of controversial issues. In many areas, I feel Yarbrough does an excellent job. For example, although he definitely trends towards the complementarian side in issues of women in ministry (as do I), he covers a lot of ground very effectively and I feel he is generally fair to egalitarian evangelicals, even while disagreeing with them (e.g., page 185; to be fair, egalitarian evangelicals might disagree). At the very least, he is very clear on what the positions and issues are.

Having said that, in some areas he glosses over complicated issues way to quickly. I have no wish to be overly negative, but his treatment of "saved through childbearing" is woefully inadequate (see especially page 187). First, he does not evidence knowledge of some important recent articles that grapple with this issue (e.g., Moyer Hubbard in JETS vol. 55.4 and Andrew Spurgeon in JETS vol. 56.3--both of these articles of are significant: Hubbard for his background study on maternal mortality in childbirth, and Spurgeon for his discussion of the theology of Genesis 2-3 in 1Tim 2; also worth noting, Sandra L. Glahn in BibSac vol. 172.687-688, dealing with the background of Artemis; Yarbrough does not cite any of these scholars). He does not deal at all with George W. Knight's (NIGTC) objections to the traditional reformed soteriological view, and dismisses with two sentences the idea that tēs teknogonias might refer to the Messiah. He mentions nobody that specifically holds that view (George Knight is one of its ablest defenders) and simply refers the reader to an essay by Thomas Schreiner to refute it. This falls far short of what I would have expected (indeed, what I was hoping for) from a scholar of Dr. Yarbrough's caliber. In addition, sometimes Yarbrough offers more of a survey of scholarship rather than a dialogue (e.g., page 262-3 left me wanting a bit more discussing), but some of that might be just the constraints of the commentary series.

In conclusion: this is a great commentary by a great scholar. Its strengths are: 1. Overall solid conservative treatment on the Pastorals (i.e., pastors, this is a commentary you want in your library), 2. Some excellent unique theological thoughts, and 3. Solid writing. Its weaknesses are: 1. Some surprising lacuna among secondary sources, some of them quite important; and 2. Inadequate treatment of some topics, especially "saved through child-bearing" (seriously, with all due respect to Dr. Yarbrough, I'm kind of miffed about this one since I make a point of lecturing on it in both Hermeneutics [time permitting] and Pastoral Epistles; it's arguably the most difficult passage in the New Testament, and deserves a more thorough and fair treatment).

Once again, however, my criticisms should not detract from the value of this book. While it would not be my primary textbook even at a graduate level, it has valuable material in it that students should be aware of.

Evangelical New Testament Commentaries: A Short and Totally Biased Guide

First off, a shout-out to my friend Joe Greene who has re-entered the blogosphere with his newest post, "10 How-To Steps of Biblical Interpretation" (click here). By the way, for those interested in pneumatology in Biblical Studies, see his article on "The Spirit In The Temple: Bridging The Gap Between Old Testament Absence And New Testament Assumption," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 55 (Dec. 2012): 717-742.

The other day I had the privilege of addressing the seminary students here at Baptist Theological Seminary, a fine, strapping group, if I do say so myself! I was asked to create a "commentary guide," so I obliged by sharing with them my top 2-5 commentaries on each NT book (the OT list will have to wait, though I will say I'm very found of C. John Collins' Genesis 1-4: A Linguistic, Literary, and Theological Commentary and Daniel I. Block's New American Commentary on Ruth.

The following list is, ultimately, my own creation, but it has been heavily influenced by my own biases (some of the authors were profs of mine), various reviews I read, and Daniel Akin's massive "Building a Theological Library" document (revised, 2011). The 2013 update, which I have not read, is here:
http://www.danielakin.com/building-a-theological-library-2013-update/

At the end, I list 20+ books that should be in every seminary student or pastor's library (eventually).
Please note that some parts of this list are more competent than others! My list on 1 Peter, for example, actually counts for something because I've actually published in that realm (and just had a new article on 1 Peter 2:6 accepted recently, my first article since finishing my doctorate!). Conversely, my section on Mark is woefully ignorant and inadequate, but hey, I'm posting it anyways and if you object you can get your own blog! :) Or, better yet, make suggestions in the "comments" section.

This list is subject to revision, especially if I get any good comments.

Matthew

      1. D. A. Carson, in volume 9 of the revised Expositor's Bible Commentary (2010).
 This is probably pound-for-pound the best commentary on Matthew, even though I'm normally not a fan of the Expositor's series.
      2. David L. Turner, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (2008).
      3. John A. Broadus, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (no specific series).
 This is the classic conservative work, still highly regarded today (was reprinted
 in 1958, but probably public domain).
     4. R. T. France, New International Commentary on the New Testament (2007).
     5. Also worth having, D. A. Carson, The Sermon on the Mount: An Evangelical
 Exposition of Matthew 5-7 (1978).

Mark
     1. James R. Edwards, Pillar New Testament Commentary (2001).
     2. R. T. France, New International Greek Testament Commentary (2002).

Luke
     1. Darrell L. Bock, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (2
volumes, 1994)
     2. Leon Morris, Tyndale New Testament Commentary (2007)
     3. I. Howard Marshall, New International Greek Testament Commentary (1978)

John
     1. Andreas Köstenberger, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament
(2004). I'm a bit biased on this one, since Köstenberger was one of my teachers,
 but it really is an excellent source. For a more entry-level source, see
Köstenberger's Encountering John.
      2. D. A. Carson, Pillar New Testament Commentary (1990). Carson was
 Köstenberger's mentor, so you no doubt you'll see some of the same emphasis, but both are good commentaries in their own right..
     3. G. R. Beasley-Murray, Word Biblical Commentary (1987). Usually the WBC
 series is daunting and rarely the most conservative; however, Beasley-Murray's
 work is a golden exception (and Beasley-Murray was a Baptist pastor and
 scholar).
     4. Leon Morris, New International Commentary on the New Testament (1995).
 Almost anything by Leon Morris will have significant value.
     5. Note: the premier commentary on John for broader academia (not conservative
 but with some value) is Raymond Brown's Anchor Bible commentary (2 vols,
 1970)
     6. Also, the two-volume commentary by Craig Keener (stand alone, I think, but published by Baker Academic)--Dr. Keener puts the "epic" back on commentary-writing (see acts, below). Thanks to my friend Joe Greene for this suggestion.

Acts
     1. Craig S. Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary (3 volumes; stand-alone, no
 series; 2011-2014). It is not an exaggeration to say that this is the most epic
 commentary ever written on any book in the New Testament (and I do not use
 the term "epic" lightly!). While all three volumes will cost you a pretty penny,
 this pretty much represents "almost everything you wanted to know about the
 book of Acts" by a conservative scholar.
     2. Darrell Bock, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (2007).
     3. I Howard Marshall, Tyndale New Testament Commentary (2007).
     4. C. K. Barrett, International Critical Commentary (2 vols., 2000).
     5. In addition, the ministry student should be interested to hear that the "lost"
 commentary on Acts by J. B. Lightfoot has just recently been published: The
 Acts of the Apostles: A Newly Discovered Commentary (2014), ed. by Ben
 Witherington III (who personally discovered Lightfoot's notes in the Durham
 Cathedral Library, collecting dust).

Romans
     1. Douglas Moo, New International Commentary on the New Testament (1996).
     2. Grant R. Osborne, IVP New Testament Commentary (2004). Osborne is
 probably the most Arminian on the list, while Schreiner is probably the most
 Calvinistic, but both have value.
      3. C. E. B. Cranfield, International Critical Commentary (1979). 2 vols.
      4. Thomas Schreiner, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament
 (1998).
     5. Leon Morris, Pillar New Testament Commentary (1988).
     6. F. F. Bruce, Tyndale New Testament Commentary (2nd ed., 2007).

First Corinthians

     1. Gordon D. Fee New International Commentary on the New Testament (1987).
     2. Anthony C. Thiselton, New International Greek Testament Commentary (2002).
A bit intimidating, and some parts are overly technical, but still good.
     3. David Garland, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament.

Second Corinthians
      1. George Guthrie, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (2015).
 Brand new, and Guthrie was one of my profs one summer, so I can personally vouch for his
 solid conservative scholarship.
      2. David Garland, New American Commentary (1999).
      3. Mark A. Seifrid, Pillar New Testament Commentary (2014)

Galatians
     1. Douglas Moo, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (2013).
     2. F. F. Bruce, New International Greek Testament Commentary (1982).
     3. Timothy George, New American Commentary (1994).

Ephesians
      1. Harold W. Hoehner, Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary (stand alone, no
series; 2003).
      2. Peter T. O'Brian, Pillar New Testament Commentary (1997).
      3. F. F. Bruce, New International Commentary on the New Testament (1984;
 includes Colossians and Philemon).

Philippians
      1. Gordon Fee, New International Commentary on the New Testament (1995).
      2. Peter T. O'Brian, New International Greek Testament Commentary (2005).
      3. Ralph P. Martin, Tyndale New Testament Commentary (2007).

Colossians and Philemon

     1. F. F. Bruce, New International Commentary on the New Testament (1984;
 includes Ephesians).
     2. Douglas J. Moo, Pillar New Testament Commentary (2008).
     3. David E. Garland, NIV Application Commentary (1998). Please don't let the
 series title turn you away; this series has some excellent resources, makes a
 genuine effort to be practical and relevant to the Christian life (without
 neglecting scholarship), and will correct the NIV when the author feels it to be
 appropriate.

First and Second Thessalonians
     1. Gordon D. Fee, New International Commentary on the New Testament (2009).
     2. Gene L. Green, Pillar New Testament Commentary (2002).
     3. Charles A. Wanamaker, New International Greek Testament Commentary
 (1990). A bit odd in that Wanamaker thinks 2 Thessalonians was written first,
 but still a helpful resource.

Pastoral Epistles
     1. William D. Mounce, Word Biblical Commentary (2000). This volume is a bit
 intimidating, but very thorough, with probably the best defense of Pauline
 authorship you will ever see.
     2. George W. Knight III, New International Greek Testament Commentary (1992).
     3. Donald Guthrie, Tyndale New Testament Commentary (1990). The most
 accessible volume on this list; use it when you're in more of a hurry. The "big
 three" for serious study are really Mounce, Knight, and Towner.
     4. Philip H. Towner, New International Commentary on the New Testament
 (2006).
     5. I. Howard Marshall, International Critical Commentary (1999).

Hebrews
     1. Peter T. O'Brian, Pillar New Testament Commentary (2010).
      2. George H. Guthrie, NIV Application Commentary (1998). The NIVAP series is extremely practical, one of the rare series that seems to care about its readers spiritual health. Guthrie's represents  one of the better books in the series.
     3. David Allen, New American Commentary (2010).

James
     1. Douglas Moo, Pillar New Testament Commentary (2000).
     2. George H. Guthrie, volume 13 of the revised Expositor's Bible Commentary
 (2006).
     3. Peter Davids, New International Greek Testament Commentary (1982).

First Peter (my area of expertise)
      1. Karen H. Jobes, Baker Exegetical Commentary (2005). Being a specialist on 1
 Peter, I would like to strongly stress that this is flat-out the best commentary out
 there (with some good theological observations as well).
      2. Douglas Harink, Brazos Theological Commentary (includes 2 Peter; 2009). This
 is one of the most quotable commentaries you'll find, packed with excellent,
 challenging discussion. It does not, however, deal with the minutia of the text
 like others on this list.
     3. Wayne Grudem, Tyndale New Testament Commentary (1988). Entry-level,
 more accessible than others on this list. I would use Grudem if teaching a college-level class, but Jobes for grad school or beyond.
     4. Peter H. Davids, New International Commentary on the New Testament 1990).
     5. The premier commentaries in broader academia (i.e., not necessarily
 conservative) are John H. Elliott (Anchor Bible) and Paul J. Achtemeier
 (Hermeneia). Also, John Elliott's A Home for the Homeless, a social-scientific study of 1 Peter, had a huge impact on my first book (for what it's worth, my first book is Foreknowledge and Social Identity in 1 Peter, published by Wipf&Stock).
     6. Larry R. Helyer, The Life and Witness of Peter (2012), is an excellent book for
 broader studies on Peter, his writings, and his theology.

Second Peter and Jude
     1. Peter H. Davids, Pillar New Testament Commentary (2006).
     2. Gene L. Green, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (2008).
     3. Thomas R. Schreiner, New American Commentary (2003). Also includes First
Peter, but I prefer other commentaries for that epistle.

1, 2, 3 John
     1. Colin G. Kruse, Pillar New Testament Commentary (2000). Superior to Akin's book
 when dealing with difficult passages.
     2. Daniel L. Akin, New American Commentary (2001). I'm slightly biased, since
 this author gave me my last diploma, but if you want a solid conservative work
 written by somebody with both pastoral experience and scholarly credentials,
 this is probably the best. Also has three helpful appendices dealing with the term
 antichrist, "Welcoming False Teachers into your Home," and "Homiletical
 Outlines."
     3. I. Howard Marshall, New International Commentary on the New Testament
 (1978).
      4. Robert W. Yarbrough, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament
 (2008).

Revelation

     1. Grant R. Osborne, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (2005).
 Though not a dispensationalist, Osborne's commentary is still, in my opinion,
 the best for your money (especially on background matters). [Yes, my theological biases are revealed here]
      2. Robert Thomas, Revelation: An Exegetical Commentary (1995; 2 volumes;
 stand-alone, not part of a series). This is the most scholarly dispensational
 treatment. Though a bit dry at times (and weaker on the background), still a
 must-have for dispensational pastors.
     3. John F. Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ (1966; stand-alone, not part of
 a series). The classic dispensationalist commentary, valuable for theology (in my thoroughly theologically biased opinion) but
 somewhat weaker on background matters and as an introduction to the book as a
 whole.
      4. Also highly recommended: Colin J. Hemer, The Letters to the Seven Churches
 of Asia in Their Local Setting (1989). Note to the student or pastor: Revelation
 was written to seven distinct locales, each with their own rich history that Jesus
 Christ, in his address in chapters 2-3, draws on (e.g., the Laodiceans and their
 sickening water supply). The expositor who wishes to be true to Jesus' message
 should study the background of these churches and their geographical locations.
    5. Also (with thanks to Joe Greene), G. K. Beale's NIGTC volume.

Note: For the biblical theology of individual NT authors,, Zondervan is in the
process of producing a fantastic series (called "Biblical Theology of the New
Testament," ed. by my former professor Andreas J. Köstenberger). Published
volumes so far include Peter H. Davids, A Theology of James, Peter, and Jude, and
Köstenberger's A Theology of John's Gospel and Letters.

Other New Testament resources that can benefit graduate students and
pastors (not in any particular order):

     1. D. A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, 2nd ed.
 (2005).
     2. Andreas J. Köstenberger, L. Scott Kellum, and Charles L. Quarles, The Cradle,
 the Cross, and the Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament (2009). In
 historical and background matters, I believe this is a superior introduction to
 Carson and Moo.
     3. Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 4th ed. (1990).
     4. Leon Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, 3rd ed. (1955).
     5. Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 2nd ed. (1993). If you can
 only afford one backgrounds book, let it be this one!
      6. Gary M. Burge, Lynn H. Cohick, Gene L. Green, The New Testament in
 Antiquity (2009).
     7. Larry R. Helyer, Exploring Jewish Literature of the Second Temple Period: A
 Guide for New Testament Studies (2002).
     8. David Alan Black, New Testament Textual Criticism: A Concise Guide (1994).
 An entry-level, easily readable guide to textual criticism.
     9. Andreas J. Köstenberger and Michael J. Kruger, The Heresy of Orthodoxy
 (2010). If you find yourself needing to refute the works of Bart Ehrman, the
 "Bauer thesis," and the like, this is one of the better books.
    10. J. Ed Komoszewski, J. James Sawyer, and Daniel B. Wallace, Reinventing
 Jesus: How Contemporary Skeptics Miss the Real Jesus and Mislead Popular
 Culture (2006). A fantastic book that refutes all the pop culture (and liberal
 scholarship) views on Jesus, including alleged parallels between the
 Resurrection and the "Osiris myth," etc. Much more readable than
 Köstenberger/Kruger and more suitable for the average Christian.
    11. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, eds., Commentary on the New Testament Use of
 the Old Testament (2007). A massive tome that can quite easily repay your
 investment. Comprehensive examination of every (or almost every) New
 Testament use of the Old Testament, from the hands of capable conservative
 scholars.
    12. James R. Edwards, Is Jesus the Only Savior? (2005) A fantastic treatment of
 Jesus Christ as the only Name under heaven by which we are saved! An
 effective refutation of pluralistic liberalism.
    13. Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (1997). If you can only
 afford one Greek reference book, this should be it.
    14. Murray J. Harris, Prepositions and Theology in the Greek New Testament
 (2012). An surprisingly useful resource!
    15. Peter Cotterell and Max Turner, Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation (1989).
 A fantastic book dealing with discerning appropriation of the biblical
 languages in exposition.
    16. D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, 2nd ed. (1996). This is an extremely helpful
 resource, a good safeguard against certain excesses in preaching.
    17. J. Scott Duvall and J. Daniel Hays, Grasping God's Word: A Hands-On
 Approach to Reading, Interpreting, and Applying the Bible, 3rd ed. (2012). In
 my opinion, the best book on hermeneutics. As a bonus, it has what other books
 on hermeneutics too often lack: an entire chapter on the Holy Spirit.
    18. F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (latest edition
 2003; one of the most significant and best-selling books in conservative
 scholarship).
    19. David Alan Black, Using New Testament Greek in Ministry: A Practical Guide for Students and Pastors. A very practical book that shouldn't scare anybody away!
    20. Tom (N. T.) Wright and Stephen Neil, The Interpretation of the New Testament: 1861-1986. This is, in my opinion, probably one of the best books for preparing for further studies in NT beyond a master's degree.
    21. Any kind of "Reader's Lexicon" of the New Testament that assists you in
 reading through your Greek NT (a "reader's lexicon" will go verse-by-verse
 and supply rare words, e.g., that occur less than 25 times in the NT; you can
 have it open as you read through your Greek NT and not have to look up
 individual words).