Best Commentaries on Revelation

Many people were excited to learn that Schreiner would be providing a substantial commentary on Revelation as part of the BECNT. And who wouldn’t want to read his careful, scholarly take on it? The expert verdicts have since arrived. Michael Kruger says, “It is both erudite and accessible, scholarly yet practical, and filled with a plethora of new insights and observations. I highly recommend it,” and Brian Tabb calls it “a first-rate exposition” and “magnificent commentary [that] will be a treasured resource for preachers, teachers, and students of the Scriptures for years to come.” It also formally replaces Osborne’s volume in the Baker Exegetical series (though Osborne remains worth owning).

It is hard to keep track of all of Phillips’ commentaries in this series! The early reviews of his commentary on Revelation are encouraging.

The PTW series, like the REC, is based on sermons. Where Phillips writes his from a Presbyterian context, Hamilton writes his as a Baptist. Both are careful, trusted scholars.

This relatively new commentary series features volumes by prominent Reformed pastors and scholars.

The consensus choice for the best commentary on the book of Revelation seems to be Beale’s. It is in the NIGTC series, so will require some knowledge of Greek. Carson says, “For students and well-trained pastors, the commentary that best combines comprehensiveness with biblical fidelity, exegesis with theology, and literary sensitivity with historical awareness, is that of G.K. Beale. While the prose can be dense, and while there are some areas the author could have explored in greater detail, his work is probably the best place to begin.

Osborne’s commentary is far simpler than Beale’s and his strength is in laying out the various interpretive options. Keith Mathison says, “he takes an eclectic approach with an emphasis on the futurist position. Osborne’s commentary is particularly helpful in providing historical background information on the people, places, and things mentioned in the biblical text. Like most commentators, Grant too easily dismisses the arguments for an early date of the book, but the commentary is still well worth consulting.”

Aune’s commentary is massive, coming in three volumes. Keith Mathison highlights the strengths and weaknesses of the work: “The strongest point of Aune’s commentary is the amount of information it contains regarding relevant extrabiblical literature that sheds light on the historical context. … The primary problem with this commentary, however, is that it loses sight of the forest for all the trees. Aune is very helpful with the details of the text and the details of extrabiblical literature. He is not as helpful when it comes to the point of understanding what the book means, its message and theology. He looks closely at the brush strokes, but he looks so closely that he can’t see the big picture.”

Stephen Smalley’s commentary receives high accolades from various commentators on the commentaries. Carson says it is “a competent piece of work, less daunting than Beale and less tendentious than Aune.” I had to look up “tendentious” and found he means it as a compliment: “expressing or intending to promote a particular cause or point of view, esp. a controversial one.” That makes it sound like quite a helpful work.

Mounce’s treatment of Revelation is now available in a revised edition (dated 2008). Carson praises his commentary as “a learned and well-written work that not only explains the text satisfactorily in most instances but also introduces the student to the best of the secondary literature” while saying that Mounce’s special strength is in “his appropriate and balanced use of both Jewish and Greco-Roman sources.” He also points out that this may be the best option for someone whose knowledge of Greek is minimal or nil.