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?

Genocide in Esther? My Response in JSOT to a Recent Attempt to Defend Haman (and my first ever tier-1 article!)

The Lord has a sense of humor, or at least irony. I am a New Testament specialist, with multiple academic publications on 1 Peter, yet I have striven in vain to get published in a tier-1 journal! And now, suddenly, I have an article in Journal for the Study of the Old Testament on Esther, which until a few years ago was my least favorite book of the Bible, if having a "least favorite book" is not heretical for somebody committed to the inerrancy of all 66 books! (Click here to see the article and abstract on JSOT's website; email me personally at phimes@gmail.com if you would like a copy).

Here is the abstract:

"A 2021 article in HTS Teologiese Studies advances the thesis that in the book of Esther ‘lawlessness by the Jewish diaspora community triggered genocide in the Persian Empire’ and that ‘Jews provoked the Persian authorities by disobeying the laws of the land’. Much of that article is devoted to a defense of Haman in responding to what the author portrays as the ‘lawlessness’ of the Jewish diaspora community. This article offers a three-fold response: (1) a critical analysis of both Haman and his accusation of ‘lawlessness’ against the Jewish diaspora minority, along with that article’s affirmation of that lawlessness; (2) a critique of that article’s accusation of ‘genocide’ against the Jewish diaspora community along with a discussion of the alleged violent vengeance of that same community vis-à-vis Esther 8–9; (3) a warning that the attempted vindication of Haman is nothing new, but possesses a disturbing Wirkungsgeschichte."

For the record, one of the anonymous peer-reviewers of my article for JSOT spoke of "the almost explicit antisemitism" in the HTS article. It is indeed extremely troubling.

The journey to this, my first and so far only tier-1 publication, is bizarre. In 2021, Temba Rugwiji published "A Critical Evaluation of Causalities of the Genocide in Esther 3:8–15: Lawlessness and Revolt of the Jewish Diaspora Community" in the formerly prestigious HTS Teologiese Studies. The article basically offered a defense of Haman in Esther. Don't take my word for it, you can see for yourself (click here to read this open access article). I was aware of this article by 2022, and was "stirred up," so to speak, but did not at first commit to a course of action until a guest speaker at our college spoke on the plight throughout history of the Jewish people. I wrote the article and initially sent it to a different journal, which was not interested in it (no peer review), and after their response sent it in to JSOT. I received a "heavy revision" decision. Both initial peer-reviewers were overall favorable (though one of them wondered if the article really needed to be written), but both had some good recommendations for revision, which I almost completely implemented. The third reviewer, after revision, was also favorable, and had just a few more suggestions, which I implemented. The process only took 2 months from submission of the paper to the decision to "heavily revise," and then it took 9 months for revision and publication (most of that was the time I needed to revise).

A closing thought: JSOT, of course, does not charge its authors for publication. Almost no respectable journal does this in biblical studies (I can't speak for journals in other disciplines)! I cannot help but wonder if the extremely high price HTS charges its authors (click here to see their "Article Processing Charge"), combined with the fact that they are putting out an extremely high number of digital articles per issue (click here to see the list of 100+ articles they published in the same issue with Rugwiji's article, vol. 77 issue 4), contributes to a lack of quality control. I don't know, it's just a thought.

Would the existence of aliens "discredit" Christianity?

In my last post, I discussed how the existence or non-existence of a so-called "multiverse" does not call into question the existence of the God of the Bible. Today we will look at a bit more complicated topic, extraterrestrial life. 

Full disclosure: I am an independent Baptist who is a young-earth creationist, in the sense of "thousands not millions" but not in the sense of "just barely over 6,000 years," a suggestion that actually cannot be proved by the biblical data, as aptly demonstrated by fellow fundamentalist Mark Snoeberger here. I also reject the so-called "conflict thesis," which cannot stand with an honest reading of the primary sources. The Scientific Method was developed and nurtured by theists, not atheists (for further discussion, see the excellent book Science & Religion: A Historical Introduction, edited by Gary B. Ferngren [John Hopkins University Press, 2002], especially the first chapter by Colin A. Russell; also worth reading is J. Rodney Stark, For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformation, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery [Princeton University Press, 2003]).

Before we get too far into the discussion, I need to point out an obvious fact that is often neglected in the conversation. Christians, indeed the entire Judeo-Christian tradition (with a few exceptions, like the Sadducees), already believe in extraterrestrial life, if extraterrestrial life is defined as "(a.) sentient beings who (b.) do not live on earth." They're called "angels," duh! And no, they are not properly "supernatural" (and thus irrelevant to the discussion), since, (a.) they are created beings (Psalm 148:5) just a little bit above humans (Psalm 8:5), and (b.) they have limitations (Daniel 10:12–13), implying that they obey some sort of physical, governing laws (I use "physical" in the broad sense, to cover all of matter and energy in the created universe, and the laws that govern them). That they can fly and do other things that humans can't is irrelevant. They are still part of the physical universe. So, in a sense, Christians already believe in intelligent life outside of earth.

Nonetheless, what most people mean by "extra-terrestrial life" is not the sort of life mentioned in the Bible. Sometimes (though not always) agnostics or atheists assume that the discovery of that life (say, intelligent radio signals from a star 50 light years away) would invalidate Christianity because it is incompatible with the Bible. Conversely, sometimes young-earth creationists like myself seem to have a knee-jerk reaction against any suggestion that there might be microbes on Mars (or elsewhere), as if somehow that is synonymous with an evolutionary worldview. Here are a few thoughts in response.

1. I take as the starting point for my very existence and operational worldview that (a.) there is a loving, yet just, triune God who created the universe, and (b.) Jesus Christ, the Son of God, died on the cross for my sins and (physically and literally) was raised again the third day, and that (c.) I have eternal salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. Absolutely nothing that can happen in the scientific realm or elsewhere can shake my faith. That is not to say that I can always explain everything, nor that my faith is always perfect; as one preacher years ago articulated, there are times in our lives where we cry out "Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief!" (Mark 9:24). But that is my starting point, the reason for my existence, and I can go nowhere else (John 6:68).

2. Whatever is discovered "out there," God created it. This means, then, that I am free from any "fear" of the discovery of extra-terrestrial life. God is the Creator, period, end of story. If there are living microbes on Mars, or were there in the past, God created them. Which means that I, personally, feel no need to have a knee-jerk negative reaction to the possibility. I will disagree with any "billions of years" description, but simply because a secular scientist discovers something does not necessarily make it a vast, evil conspiracy, nor is he or she necessarily wrong.

3. Christians have, in the past, speculated (either in non-fiction or fiction) about sentient extra-terrestrial life that was not angels. C. S. Lewis' Space Trilogy is the classic example, and, at a minimum, Lewis could be quite critical of evolution (see the discussion by Samuel D. James here). But there are other examples predating him.

4. If, hypothetically (and this is a big "if"), intelligent life were to be discovered on another planet, the standard evangelical Christian reaction would not be "oh no, my faith is shaken!" but rather, "Do they know God? Are they fallen or un-fallen?; Do we need to send missionaries?" In my opinion, the only truly difficult theological question Christians would need to grapple with is whether or not Christ's death on the cross is meant to apply to all non-angelic sentient beings, or whether (if an alien race is fallen), they simply express faith in a Creator for salvation. (Salvation is always by faith, regardless; that's a universal principle). I, for one, have absolutely no problem with the idea of "interstellar evangelism," though atheist sci-fi writers in the past have maligned the idea (I think it was Harry Harrison, though I could be mistaken, that once wrote a short story where a well-intentioned Roman Catholic priest actually causes the aliens' fall from innocence, rather than redemption. Of course, such a short story only "preaches to the [atheistic or agnostic] choir," and hardly contributes to the discussion).

5. Both atheists and Christians would quickly fit the discovery, or non-discovery, of extra-terrestrial life into their paradigm. There are today agnostic and atheist astronomers and physicists who believe that we are alone in the universe (and thus we are really "lucky" to be here), but there are also agnostic and atheist astronomers and physicists who believe that the universe has quite a bit of life, which we just haven't discovered yet. One's presuppositions regarding the likelihood of the existence or non-existence of a Creator really does not matter one way or the other for the possibility of non-angelic life outside of earth. The existence or non-existence of life outside of earth does not "prove" or "disprove" either Christianity or atheism. The point of disagreement between Christians and atheists would not be the existence of extra-terrestrial life, but its origin.

6. Finally, evangelical Christians do not avoid the topic of the possibility of alien life. Its possibility is not an embarrassment. Both scholarly and more accessible discussions of the topic do exist, with C. S. Lewis being a prime example. The interested reader should also note the fascinating article by Rob Cook, "Would the Discovery of Alien Life Prove Theologically Embarrassing? A Response to Paul Davies," Evangelical Quarterly 84, no. 2 (2012): 139–154 (I say that it is worth reading, without endorsing everything in his conclusion).

Would a multiverse "discredit" Christianity?

Despite being very conservative in my theology and approach to Scripture, as well as a firm Creationist, I enjoy reading very broadly and can count within my library volumes by secular scientists Paul Davies, Stephen Hawking, and Brian Greene (in addition to books by scientists more theistically oriented, such as Francis Collins and Keith Ward). Quite a few (though not all) secular physicists of various stripes approve of, or at least are sympathetic to, the idea of a "multiverse," that our universe, consisting of millions of galaxies, is just one of many, perhaps infinite, other universes: As Greene writes, "Imagine that what we call the universe is actually only one tiny part of a vastly larger cosmological expanse, one of an enormous number of island universes scattered across a grand cosmological archipelago" (Brian Greene, The Elegant Universe [New York: Vintage, 2003], 366). 

Now, quite often the idea of a multiverse intrudes from the scientific realm into the philosophical realm as a tool to dispense of the need for God. Indeed, some time ago I read a short story in which the protagonist, as part of theoretical physics research team, assists in the discovery of another universe, and subsequently is "freed" from having to believe in God (as if somehow agnostics and/or atheists lived a more fulfilled life than religious people!). Occasionally the argument is given that a multiverse would once-for-all do away with the need to speculate about why our universe just so happens to be right for life, issues raised by the so-called anthropic principle.

In reality, this perspective is somewhat naive and begs the question. We are still left with the foundational question of why there is something rather than nothing, whether that be one universe or many. To argue that we just happen to be lucky to live in the one universe in a million that could sustain life does not explain how there exists a mechanism for the creation (or self-creation) of universes in the first place (the Big Bang further complicates matters, since with most interpretations it dispenses with the possibility that the universe is eternal).

 If one wishes to argue, as some do, that quantum mechanics via the role of observers allows for the destruction and creation of entire universes out of nothing, we are left with the question of how and why quantum mechanics came to define the universe. If quantum mechanics and the mechanism of observation, as an explanatory framework for the existence of the universe or multiverse, is simply left unquestioned, then quantum mechanics takes the role of God as the object of unquestioning faith. (I have discussed this more technically in my article in the British journal Science and Christian Belief, back in 2012; click here for access).

In other words, though arguably one can create an internally consistent explanation via quantum mechanics and the multiverse as to why we exist today, this comes at the expense of critical reflection on the very existence of those two elements. They replace God, because like God they are taken for granted. Every position, no matter how "scientific," retains some unquestioned presuppositions.

The flip side, of course, is that sometimes Christians assume unfairly that simply because secular science makes a suggestion not mentioned in the Bible, it is automatically suspect. Could God have created a multiverse? Absolutely. Why not? What God wishes to create is His business, and who am I to tell Him "no"? We Christians need to be a bit more careful in our knee-jerk reactions, and also to acknowledge the mystery of all that we do not know. As Augustine once said, "It is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics [i.e., maters about physical creation]; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, . . ." ("The Literal Meaning of Genesis," translated by J. H. Taylor; note to impressionable readers: this does not mean I agree with everything Augustine said in that treatise!).

Now, could the existence of a multiverse raise difficult theological questions? Maybe, maybe not. The very idea is not problematic. If God could create multiple galaxies, why not multiple universes? What would cause some deep theological reflection, though, is the possibility that via quantum mechanics every decision a person made in this universe causes it to split until two universes, with the opposite decision existing in another. We could end up with the bizarre situation of Jesus Christ dying for sinners in millions, perhaps an infinite number, of universes (though perhaps some universes exist where the Fall to sin never happened). At a minimum, that does not cohere well with the emphasis in Scripture on the finality of Christ's once-for-all sacrifice here on earth in AD 33 [or, less likely, AD 30]. Still, that is only one unlikely interpretation out of the unlikely (though not impossible) possibility that the multiverse exists (a situation which would seem to resist tangible proof, anyways).

In the next post we will look at another situation that some atheists and some Christians seem to think is antithetical to the coherence of Christianity, extra-terrestrial life.

A Blog on Biblical Studies Salutes the Best Player in Baseball History (Willie Mays)

This is a blog about the Bible and theology, and I am a professor of Bible and Ancient Languages. However, I am also a die-hard baseball fan, and I wanted to briefly pay tribute to the man who is, in my humble-but-opinionated opinion, the greatest baseball player of all-time, Willie Mays, who just passed away this past Tuesday at age 93.

Any claims that somebody is the "Greatest of All Time" are, of course, fraught with controversy and open to rebuttal. I make no claim to be the final authority on this topic (or, for that matter, to be any authority on baseball matters. I'm a Bible professor, for crying out loud!) Having said that, the case for Mays' supremacy is well-documented (e.g., on mlb.com, Paul Casella, "Willie Mays' Best Stats and Accomplishments"). My own rationale for claiming that Mays is the best ever is simply that he was an extremely great 5-tool player (hitting for contact, hitting for power, speed, defense, and throwing arm), and he reached multiple milestones (e.g., 600 homers, 3,000 hits, 1,909 RBI) where even one would have been a reason for inclusion in the Hall of Fame.

If Babe Ruth had continued pitching at a decent level after his trade to the Yankees, or if Shohei Ohtani is able to pitch and hit at an equally elite level for another 7 years or so without season-ending injury (an unlikely prospect), then either of them could, perhaps, be the GOAT. But for now, I believe Mays stands at the top. (Also, unlike Ruth, Mays played in an era and a league where players of all ethnicities competed against each other; i.e., the competition was stiffer).

I'll close out this tribute by quoting the conclusion of Joe Posnanski's excellent book, The Baseball 100: 

"The only thing Willie Mays could not do on a baseball diamond was stay young forever. But even to the end, he sparked joy. What do you love most about baseball? Mays did that. To watch him play, to read the stories about how he played, to look at his glorious statistics, to hear what people say about him is to be reminded why we love this odd and ancient game in the first place. Yes, Willie Mays has always made kids feel like grown-up and grown-ups feel like kids. In the end, isn't that the whole point of baseball?"

Some quick thoughts on a biblical theology of Fatherhood

Having now, at the age of 43, become the first-time father of a baby girl, I have a new perspective on life filled with a whole range of different issues and questions! (Like: What will it take to get her to stop crying at 2am? And: How can I teach her to appreciate baseball and coffee?) Significantly, the fatherhood of God is a major theme in Scripture, peaking in the Gospel of John to such a great degree that Westcott could write in his commentary on John 1:18, 

"τοῦ πατρός] of the Father. The choice of this title in place of God (τοῦ θεοῦ) serves to mark the limits of the revelation made through Jesus Christ. Even this was directed to one aspect (so to speak) of the Godhead. The Son made God known not primarily as God, but as the Father. At the same time this title lays the foundation of revelation in the essential relation of the Persons of the Godhead. Comp. 1 John i.2." (The Gospel According to St. John: The Greek Text with Introduction and Notes, reprint of the 1908 edition [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1980) 1:29.

Westcott here is not denying that Jesus revealed God the Father as God (note the word "primarily"), as D. A. Waite infamously accused him of doing (in The Theological Heresies of Westcott and Hort as Seein in Their Own Writings). Westcott is focusing on the theological emphasis of John, which at times seems to emphasize God the Father as father even more so than (though not at the exclusion of) His identify as God. Significantly, the Gospel of John uses the word πάτηρ (patēr, "father") 138 times, one more than all three synoptic Gospels combined (at least in the TR), and patēr occurs more often in John than even Theos ("God")!

Now, John is certainly not unique in emphasizing God's role as our father and our role as his children (see, for example, Heb 12:7; 1 Pet 1:17). Nor is this theme unique to the New Testament. Isaiah 63:16, for example, connects God's fatherhood with his role as provider (v. 15) and redeemer (v. 16b). Isaiah 64:8, on the other hand, links God's fatherhood with his role as Creator. Malachi 2:10 similarly links God's fatherhood to his role as Creator, but also uses this as the grounds for a rebuke of the disunity and sinfulness of the people of Israel.

All of that creates a solid foundation for our current understanding of God as Father. Yet going back to the Gospel of John and remembering Westcott's statement, the revelation of God as Father was not complete until the incarnation of the Son. Consequently, the more we study Jesus and his relationship to the Father, the more we understand our relationship to God.  And the more I understand God, the better I will understand how to raise my new daughter.

A (soon-to-be) commentator's comments on the top commentaries of 2 Peter and Jude.

I am privileged to have written the forthcoming 2 Peter and Jude entries for the Lexham Research Commentary series in Logos (1 Peter has already been published). To date, I only have one peer-reviewed journal article on 2 Peter and one contribution to a Festschrift that deals with 2 Peter, but nothing on Jude, so I most definitely do not qualify as an expert. Nonetheless, my work for Lexham necessitated burying myself in the secondary literature, and consequently I have gotten a feel both for the general quality of the various commentaries as well as how they are perceived by other commentators. So here, for what it's worth, is my opinion (keep in mind this post is written from an evangelical perspective, though I interacted with sources from a wide range of views).

Commentaries on 2 Peter 

(The following is adapted and re-written from my forthcoming LRC. Total commentaries on 2 Peter cited for the LRC: 47, which does not include monographs and theologies. Total sources cited for the 2 Peter LRC: approximately 380).

First of all, Richard Bauckham's Word Biblical Commentary (1983) is still king. This is based not only on the sheer amount of times he is cited by other works, but also the deep respect other commentators hold for him and the influence Bauckham had on them.  Even when a scholar disagrees with Bauckham, they are just as likely to have a word of praise in their disagreement.The takeaway, dear reader, is this: you cannot possibly write a paper on 2 Peter and expect it to be taken seriously if you have not, in fact, checked to see what Dr. Bauckham has to say! It is worth mentioning that a 2nd edition of this commentary in the works, with Darian Lockett as the revisor/editor (last I knew).

Now, after Bauckham, as far as traditional exegetical commentaries, both Peter Davids (PNTC, 2006) and Gene L. Green (BECNT, 2008) offer excellent value, though I believe Davids' 2 Peter commentary is better than his 1 Peter commentary. (Full disclosure: I am a bit biased towards Gene L. Green, because he was the outside reader for my dissertation on 1 Peter). In addition, among non-English scholars, Ceslas Spicq's commentary remains a classic (SB, 1966), in my opinion much better on 2 Peter than 1 Peter! Jörg Frey's contribution is one of the most important German commentaries, at least recently (THZNT, 2015).

Next, I would suggest that Jerome H. Neyrey (AB, 2006), together with G. Green and Davids, offer the best background studies in their commentaries. Neyrey and Andrew M. Mbuvi (NCC, 2015) seem to pay the most attention to ANE social thought, e.g., "honor-and-shame," though Terrance Callan (stand-alone, 2014), Acknowledging the Divine Benefactor: The Second Letter of Peter, is also worth mentioning. Mbuvi's commentary is also one of the most "counter-imperial."

For the layperson wishing for more accessible scholarship, I would highly recommend Michael Green (TNTC, 1987) and D. Edmond Hiebert (stand-alone, 1989). J. Daryl Charles  (2006, EBC 2nd ed.) is also good.

For the sub-genre of "theologically commentary," Catherine Gunsalus González (Belief, 2010) and Ruth Anne Reese (2HC, 2007) are both excellent, with Douglas Harink (BTC, 2009) also worth mentioning. In addition, let the record show that González has written what is in my opinion one of the most quotable commentaries on 2 Peter.

Finally, since a good commentary should also "preach" to the reader some, I would like to mention González, Harink, Douglas J. Moo (NIVApp, 1996), and Dieudonné Tamfu (AfBC, 2018) as being well-suited to practical application. In addition, I commend Moo and Tamfu for both giving a clear evangelistic message to their audiences.

Commentaries on Jude

(Total commentaries on Jude cited for the LRC: 56, which does not include monographs and theologies. Total sources cited for the Jude LRC: approximately 290).

I don't have as much to write regarding commentaries on Jude. Many of the observations made on 2 Peter apply to Jude. For example, Bauckham is still king (WBC, 1983). Again, whether you agree or disagree with him, his opinion is essential to grappling with the text or background of Jude. In addition, his monograph on Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church is a very important work.

I feel both Neyrey and Mbuvi did a much better job with 2 Peter than they did with Jude. I also feel that Watson E. Mills' entry on "Jude" in the Smyth and Helwys series is somewhat better than its 2 Peter counterpart by a different author (SHBC, 2010). As before, Frey remains a key German source. Moo and Tamfu, as with 2 Peter, offer practical commentaries that do not jettison scholarship.

Abbreviations:

2HC: Two Horizons Commentary

AB: Anchor Bible Commentary

AfBC: Africa Bible Commentary 

BECNT: Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament

BTC: Brazos Theological Commentary

EBC 2nd ed.: Expositor's Bible Commentary, 2nd ed.

LRC: Lexham Research Commentary

NCC: New Covenant Commentary

NIVApp: NIV Application Commentary

PNTC: Pillar New Testament Commentary

SB: Sources Bibliques

SHBC: Smyth and Helwys Bible Commentary

THZNT: Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament

TNTC: Tyndale New Testament Commentary

WBC: Word Biblical Commentary

 

LRC 1 Peter now in Chinese!

Some time ago I had the privilege of writing the 1 Peter volume for the Lexham Research Commentary series. The commentary was a privilege to write and pulls together most of the relevant English scholarship (and just a bit of foreign scholarship) on 1 Peter to show the reader the wide range of interpretive options, including the pros and cons of many positions on a particular text. At the same time, it introduces the reader to the most relevant Petrine literature out there. The commentary has been fairly well-received (notwithstanding a solitary one-star review that based its judgment on one small section of my commentary and rather misrepresented me), and since then I have also completed 2 Peter and Jude for the same series (both due out in March).

My local church (Falls Baptist Church in Menomonee Falls, WI), has a very robust Chinese group of believers that has grown significantly over the last few years. Consequently, I was delighted to learn that my LRC on 1 Peter has now been translated into both traditional Chinese and simplified Chinese, and is now available as a digital resource! I believe the rest of the LRC is being translated, as well. I trust this will be a benefit to our Chinese brothers and sisters in Christ (and to the translator[s], whoever you are, thank you for your hard work!).

Tweny-three things I am grateful for in 2023!

 1. I am born again by the blood of Jesus Christ, and belong to Him forever.

2. I married the wonderful Franziska Ritschel in June :)

3–15. I married the wonderful Franziska Ritschel :)

16. Did I mention that I got married to my wonderful wife Franziska?

17. We are expecting a baby girl, due in April!

18. My parents, my mother-in-law Petra, and my friends, especially those who were my groomsmen at my wedding.

19. I belong to a good church with good people and good leadership.

20. I get to teach all sorts of cool stuff at a good Bible college and seminary.

21. The Texas Rangers won the World Series! (I have waited 30 years for this, ever since I became a fan when my parents and I returned home on furlough from Japan in 1993).

22. Two peer-reviewed academic articles published this past Spring in solid journals: one in TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism on 2 Peter 2:15, and one in Themelios on David's census.

23. Coffee (I really love coffee) 

Sometimes God cares about sports

Note: All comments are moderated before posting. It is the prerogative of this author to not post comments if he does not wish to. 

This post will be a bit out of the mainstream, in a sense, but one that is meant to be taken seriously. I am an independent Baptist, a fundamentalist (more emphasis on "fun" and less on "mental"), but somebody who does not consider himself to be on the front-lines of the "culture wars," e.g., by pushing for boycotts of Target or whatever.

Also, I should point out that what I'm suggesting in all seriousness has already been satirized by Babylon Bee, though in all fairness I was already suggesting this back on October 2nd while the Rangers were a long-shot to win it all (and I'm not criticizing the Bee, since they tend to satirize Christian trends that need to be satirized, like misapplying Philippians 4:13!)

On October 2nd, I published a post entitled "A New Testament professor cheers for the Texas Rangers." Now that the Rangers have won the World Series for the first time in history (an event which I have been waiting for 30 years, ever since I became a fan as a teenager in 1993), I am writing this follow-up post.

In 2023, the Texas Rangers were the only team to not host a "Pride Night" (see this Associated Press post here). Although generally I would be the last person to suggest that God intervenes in sports, nonetheless I believe this is significant.

Now, I will reiterate what I said in the October 2nd post. God loves everybody, including those in the LGBTQ community, and Jesus died to save everybody. Yet God created two genders, and marriage is intended to be the only legitimate expression of sexuality: man and woman, in a committed relationship for as long as both of them are still alive. This is anchored first and foremost in God's creative act (Genesis 1:27) and the words of Jesus about the origins and intended permanence of marriage (Mark 10:5–9, answering a question about divorce), though Scripture abounds with many other passages on this topic (e.g., Romans 1:24–27). Anything that deviates from God's intended norm for sexuality is a sin (this includes, of course, heterosexual lust and pornography, not just homosexuality). So for Christians that take God's Word seriously, there can be no doubt about the issue.

Now for another preliminary theological note. I do not believe that God foreordains every single invent that happens, though I believe He foreknows all things (for a lexical  argument about prognōsis and proginōskō as not meaning foreordination, see my revised dissertation, published by Wipf & Stock). Nonetheless, I do believe that God in His sovereignty reserves the right to do whatever He wishes (consistent with His character), including intervening in history. Consequently, I feel that Christians must acknowledge the possibility that God can answer prayers about even relatively insignificant matters such as sporting events, if it is in accordance with His will. I believe He has done so at least once before in history, the famous story of Eric Liddell withdrawing from the 100-meter dash at the 1924 Paris Olympics due to a matter of conscience, and going on to win the gold and set a new world record in the 400-meter dash.

There are two points of theological tension here. Point one is that, as much as many of us (including myself) enjoy professional sports, especially baseball, professional sports are ultimately irrelevant in the grand scheme of things and oftentimes a hindrance to a character development, whether it be the player or those cheering for him. Sports can even become an idol that can threaten to overshadow more important things in life. After all, how many die-hard sports fans have stuck with their team for 30+ years "for better or for worse," and yet divorced their wives? 

Yet the second point is that, as a general principle, God can indeed react positively to both individuals and even large-scale entities (e.g., nations) that do right (or abstain from doing wrong), even when lacking a specific covenant with Him. God, by His very nature, has a propensity to bless the good and punish the evil. Although this aspect of His character will not be universally fulfilled until all things on earth are put under permanent subjection to Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 15:24–28), nonetheless there is a principle that remains true until that point, that "righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people" (Proverbs 14:34).

So, did God directly determine or influence in some way the outcome of the 2023 World Series? (Keep in mind I am speaking as somebody who is not a Calvinist, for whom the answer might be a bit more straightforward!). Speaking as somebody who directly prayed for that result, on the basis of the fact that the Rangers in 2023 did not host a "Pride Night" like all other MLB teams, I have to say that yes, I believe He did, even while acknowledging my own biases towards the Rangers.

Now, I could be wrong, of course, and even if I were right this does not diminish the accomplishments of the Rangers, who throughly earned their victories. Yet there are always certain elements (like injuries, weather, crowd noise, etc.) that are out of the control of a particular team, and obviously God can providentially guide matters in such a way that human effort is included in the equation, not abrogated (though surely Ecclesiastes 9:11 is relevant here).

Nor am I suggesting for an instance that the Rangers were somehow a more "godly" team than any of the others. Far from it, I'm sure! 

The point is simply that as a corporate entity in 2023 the Texas Rangers abstained from celebrating a lifestyle choice that displeases God, they were the only MLB team to so abstain, and thus I believe it is no coincidence that they attained their first World Series victory in the history of their existence this same year.