Favorite Revelation comm. and Why

Michael A. Mnich · 2025-06-30T02:29:26+00:00

There was an error rendering this rich post.

Michael A. Mnich

Dear Folk,

What are your favorite Revelation commentaries, and why?

Thanks,

Mike

Find more posts tagged with

Accepted answers

All comments

Doc B

Mine are Beale, G. K. (NIGTC), Mounce, R. (NICNT), and Schreiner, T. (BECNT). [Edit: Schreiner replaced Osborne in the BECNT, and I'd recommend Osborne as well, if you can get it.]

I like how they handle the text itself, esp. the Gk. ; Rev has a lot of variants and some of them are difficult…these do well in that area plus they deal with multiple views in a fair manner.

It would be important to note I have not used dozens of these so there may be better ones out there; these are the ones I've tried and found helpful.

David Thomas

My "go to" is Osborne BECNT 2002. I haven't read Schreiner's newer release in the same series. I find it intriguing that BECNT would release a 2nd Revelation volume when Osborne's is still in Best Commentaries top-3 of Revelation. I generally trust Schreiner, too bad Dr. Osborne passed so that we cannot get a dialogue between these 2 authors.

DAL

The Avenging of the Apostles and Prophets by Arthur Ogden. It lets Scripture interpret Scripture. Some label it preterist/early historical. It is not futuristic:

William Pankey

Yeah, Beale and Mounce are great.

Francis

@Michael A. Mnich it depends on the kind and level of commentary you are looking for. Aune is a mine of information about intertextuality and primary sources but hard to see the forest from the abundance of different leaves. One gets lost into the excess of secondary literature discussion. Beale is best for Jewish background, including the OT. Osborne (BECNT) is the clearest I have read in terms of "the forest." I have not used Schreiner's yet. Bauckham's book of Revelation is also a solid, yet shorter, read.

Doc B

» My "go to" is Osborne BECNT 2002. «

I agree…Osborne was excellent. I like Schreiner as well and referenced it since it is current. But I wouldn't hesitate to use Osborne alongside it.

Rick Mansfield (Logos)

If I may offer a historic—in many ways "foundational"—commentary on Revelation, let me suggest the Commentary on the Apocalypse by Andrew of Caesarea. This is a 6th-7th AD commentary that was the first fully accepted commentary on Revelation accepted in the Eastern churches. There was an earlier commentary by Oikoumenios, but this was seen as having heretical views. Andrew of Caesarea writes his commentary partly in response to Oikoumenios to correct what was seen as errant interpretation.

The commentary is significant because the book of Revelation was more slowly accepted in the East as opposed to the West. The writing of Andrew's commentary roughly coincides with the final universal acceptance of Revelation by the Eastern churches. Thus, for the East, Revelation becomes the only book in the canon that arrived with a commentary for interpretation at roughly the same time.

DMB

Thank you, Rick! I just finished up a book on this period, and the East.

Best of all, I own the commentary. Even better, ACT includes it, along with Oikoumenios. So, Logos-magic has a 3-way comparison!