# Revelation: Commentaries, theologies, et al



## Sydnorphyn (Oct 17, 2007)

Friends:

I am working through Revelation and want to get "me hands" on all the literature available - of course after the exegesis is completed...or in the process thereof. Suggestions for either commentaries or theologies...or single articles....NOTE: I am not interested in discussing interpretations at this point. 

I have been in the process for a couple of months now, but want to be sure I leave no stone uncovered - all flavors welcome except dispensationalism, most of this material simply recaptiulates others, with different dust jackets. 

The more technical the better - church history; literary, post-colonial, etc. 


Thanks in advance


Sydnorphyn


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 17, 2007)

George Ladd is a good starter, although he is not as deep as I might want him to be. The commentary on Revelation in The New Interepreter's Bible Commentary (volume 12) is eccentric, if at times thoughtful.


----------



## elnwood (Oct 17, 2007)

Denver Seminary maintains one of the best commentary recommendations list, and the most up-to-date.
Denver Seminary > Articles > New Testament Exegesis Bibliography - 2007


----------



## Dr Mike Kear (Oct 17, 2007)

Triumph of the Lamb: A Commentary on Revelation by Dennis Johnson

More Than Conquerors: An Interpretation of the Book of Revelation by William Hendriksen

The Returning King: A Guide to the Book of Revelation by Vern S. Poythress

Revelation (NICNT) by Robert H. Mounce


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Oct 17, 2007)

James Durham
E.B. Elliott
Arthur Dent
Thomas Goodwin


----------



## Archlute (Oct 17, 2007)

I'm sure that you've already picked up Beale's volume in the NIGTC series. It has pretty much become the standard in that field, and includes a comprehensive bibliography for the literature up to 1999. 

You might also be interested in his work in the _New Studies in Biblical Theology_ entitled _The Temple and the Church's Mission: a biblical theology of the dwelling place of God_. It is a thematic survey of temple imagery and purpose throughout the whole of Scripture, but chapters 10 and 12 focus upon this imagery as found in the book of Revelation.

Also, Cambridge University Press published a work by Richard Bauckham in their _New Testament Theology_ series entitled _The Theology of the Book of Revelation_, which you might find to be of help.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Oct 18, 2007)

Here's another good one, John (available online): _Behold He Cometh_, by Rev. Herman Hoeksema:

Table of Contents for Behold he Cometh


----------



## Mayflower (Oct 18, 2007)

Days of Vengeance by David Chilton
Days of Vengeance

Back to the Future: A Study in the Book of Revelation by Ralph E. Bass, Jr.
Back to the Future: A Study in the Book of Revelation


----------



## bookslover (Oct 20, 2007)

Stephen S. Smalley has a new commentary on Revelation. I paged through it briefly. He says that John the Apostle was the author. He believes that Revelation was written just before the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. And - as with all commentaries on Revelation - I flipped through to see what he has to say about Revelation 20. Alas, he takes the amil view, with the "thousand years" being figurative and symbolic. Oh, well. Nobody's perfect!

It looks like a pretty good commentary, though.


----------



## py3ak (Oct 20, 2007)

It seems that every subsequent commentator at one point or another has to refer to Charles' work on Revelation in the ICC.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Oct 20, 2007)

Sydnorphyn said:


> Friends:
> 
> I am working through Revelation and want to get \"me hands\" on all the literature available - of course after the exegesis is completed...or in the process thereof. Suggestions for either commentaries or theologies...or single articles....NOTE: I am not interested in discussing interpretations at this point.
> 
> ...



Hey:

Beal's commentary on Revelation is one of the most important:

Amazon.com: The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text (New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, Mich.).): Books: G. K. Beale

Grant Osborne"s is also an important one:

Amazon.com: Revelation (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament): Books: Grant R. Osborne

And Barnes' Notes on Revelation is also good:

Amazon.com: Notes on the New Testament: Revelation (Barnes' Notes): Books: Albert Barnes

The Lord bless you in your studies,

-CH


----------



## Jaymin Allen (Oct 20, 2007)

Just wait a couple of months until Kenneth Gentry's Revelation commentary comes out... I am assured the commentary will be promising. Gentry, in my opinion, is one of the best communicators out there on Revelation


----------



## Dr Mike Kear (Oct 20, 2007)




----------



## CalvinandHodges (Oct 21, 2007)

Jaymin Allen said:


> Just wait a couple of months until Kenneth Gentry's Revelation commentary comes out... I am assured the commentary will be promising. Gentry, in my opinion, is one of the best communicators out there on Revelation



Hi:

Gentry is a preterist with an axe to grind. His commentary is useful only if you are looking for one with a severe bias.

Blessings,

-CH


----------



## bookslover (Oct 22, 2007)

CalvinandHodges said:


> Gentry is a preterist with an axe to grind. His commentary is useful only if you are looking for one with a severe bias.



...not to mention that he's a strong theonomist.


----------



## Jaymin Allen (Oct 22, 2007)

CalvinandHodges said:


> Jaymin Allen said:
> 
> 
> > Just wait a couple of months until Kenneth Gentry's Revelation commentary comes out... I am assured the commentary will be promising. Gentry, in my opinion, is one of the best communicators out there on Revelation
> ...



Calvin and Hodges,
What makes you think Gentry is a theological pounder instead of an exegetical observer (meaning allowing ones theology to inform an exegesis)? And I would also further the discussion, how is it possible to come to ANYTHING without a "severe bias?"


----------



## Jaymin Allen (Oct 22, 2007)

bookslover said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> > Gentry is a preterist with an axe to grind. His commentary is useful only if you are looking for one with a severe bias.
> ...



How would you define a "strong theonomist?"


----------



## bookslover (Oct 22, 2007)

Jaymin Allen said:


> How would you define a "strong theonomist?"



Gentry is strongly committed to theonomy.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 22, 2007)

Jaymin Allen said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> > Jaymin Allen said:
> ...



Ditto, it is sort of like thinking, anyone who disagrees with us has a severe bias.


----------



## toddpedlar (Oct 22, 2007)

CalvinandHodges said:


> Grant Osborne"s is also an important one:
> 
> Amazon.com: Revelation (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament): Books: Grant R. Osborne



Does Osborne's Arminianism come out in that commentary? I wouldn't touch his Romans commentary with a 6.5-cubit pole, and it's hard to imagine that it doesn't flavor his work in Revelation.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Oct 22, 2007)

bookslover said:


> ...not to mention that he's a strong theonomist.



Is a positive or negative comment? Just wondering....


----------



## DMcFadden (Oct 22, 2007)

Regardless of his Arminianism, you sortof haveta consult such a massive and up-to-date commentary as the Baker Exegetical Commentary! Beale, Ladd, Kistemaker/Hendriksen, Keener, Michaels, Mounce, Wilcock, and Aune would be among my first choices for modern authors. Gregg's "Revelation: Four Views" is great if for nothing else than than ease of comparison of various schools of thought. Others in this thread have offered suggestions for Puritans and Reformers.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 22, 2007)

Southern Presbyterian said:


> bookslover said:
> 
> 
> > ...not to mention that he's a strong theonomist.
> ...



It is against the holy customs of the Reformed faith to say positive things about theonomy.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Oct 22, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> It is against the holy customs of the Reformed faith to say positive things about theonomy.



OIC

I'm just trying to get a feeling for what the overall attitude of the PB may be toward theonomy. I recently read (not on the PB) that some folk out there (again, not on the PB) view theonomy to be as dangerous [or maybe even more dangerous] as FV. 

But also let me state for the record, I'm not trying to start a debate on this particlular subject at this time, as I am still sorting things out for myself.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Oct 23, 2007)

Jaymin Allen said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> > Jaymin Allen said:
> ...



Hi:

Good questions. He only presents the Preterist case rather than a variety of different interpretations to the text. If you read Beal or Osborne on Revelation you will see what I mean. Gentry gives the impression that it is the Preterist only position that is valid on Revelation. One could be sympathetic to such a view if it was anything but Revelation - which is highly symbolic. For example - in the Book of Revelation whether you believe a certain passage should be understood literally or figuratively will determine your eschatological viewpoint.

In arguing for an early (pre 70 AD) date for the Book of Revelation Gentry points out that Revelation 11:1-3ff is about the literal Temple of Solomon sitting in literal Jerusalem. Thus, he argues, since the Temple is still standing in Jerusalem, then Revelation must have been written prior to its destruction in 70 AD.

However, if you understand the Temple here to mean the Church figuratively (Eph. 2:21). Then you will come to a different conclusion concerning the passage.

If you want to know what a Preterist says concerning a passage in Revelation, then Gentry is the place to go. But a person should be careful lest they fall into a pit.

Blessings,

-CH


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 23, 2007)

Southern Presbyterian said:


> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> > It is against the holy customs of the Reformed faith to say positive things about theonomy.
> ...



Most here would be against theonomy, but do realize that it is a viable position with several really competent proponents. I have been called, in public and in person, by some noted theologians, a "terrorist" and "should be thrown in jail," a "Marxist" etc. But PCA presbyteries have ruled it, so argues Doug Kelly, an acceptable position in the PCA. 

People who view it as more dangerous than the FV are...well, I won't say anymore.


----------



## Jaymin Allen (Oct 23, 2007)

CalvinandHodges said:


> Jaymin Allen said:
> 
> 
> > CalvinandHodges said:
> ...



Calvin and Hodge, 

First I want to thank you for taking the time to respond and read my prior post  I think you have pointed out some excellent points that deserve attention. First, Beale and Osborn do present each side (not near equally though; they have that same 'severe bias') better than Gentry does. What is responsible for this? Obviously those two exegetes have written a critical Revelation commentary and by obligatory standards of a critical commentary, they must present all heeded positions. Gentry has not (yet) produced a commentary on Revelation, but I am sure when it is published you will find Gentry is thorough and perhaps goes through greater painstaking efforts at giving his readers a healthy variety than Beale and Osborn. To make matters simple, you have argued against Gentry using a false analogy. He cannot possibly be compared to two scholars who have published commentaries on Revelation. It is not proper to compare Gentry to those individuals, on a fair treatment of Revelation basis, when Gentry has not yet presented a Revelation commentary.

Not to mention in Gentry's "He Shall have Dominion: A Postmillennial Eschatology," "Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation," "The Beast of Revelation," and "Perilous Times: A Study in Eschatological Evil," Gentry dedicates entire chapters and sections to contrary viewpoints. Sure, they are presented with the tone of an polemicist, but what can you expect from an individual trying to set up a Preteristic hermeneutic? This is akin to Beales studies on I and II Thessalonians. Would you condemn beale of "an axe to grind" because Beale argues for a futuristic eschatology? Or Bock and Blasing "Case for Progressive Dispensationalsim" with "an axe to grind" because they set their view up against all others with a higher degree of veraciousness than all other positions presented? When an individual produces a pro (?) work, it is presented as true (because the author believes its true) over contrary positions to (?). In a critical commentary, all viewpoints must be given a lot more attention then in simply a pro (?) work. I hope I am making a bit of sense to you  

I have no problem with the rest of your post on the different ways to take scriptures (especially in Revelation). However, before you condemn Gentry, you better be ready to accuse nearly every bible scholar of the same issue; commentary or not. Nearly everyone presents their view as the accurate view (they may show how some may come up with degrees of deviances), yet they will still show how their view is theologically or exegetically superior… otherwise they would not hold that view but switch to the other contrary view they are presenting.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Oct 23, 2007)

I think that Beale's is the best commentary on Revelation in print. He is fair to the various positions while arguing for an amillennial interpretation.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 23, 2007)

Even as a premillennialist, I find Beale's writing to be very thought-provoking. His commentary is really worth having.


----------



## etexas (Oct 23, 2007)

Simon J. Kistermaker New Testament Commentary Revelation.


----------



## bookslover (Oct 23, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> Even as a premillennialist, I find Beale's writing to be very thought-provoking. His commentary is really worth having.



You're premil? May your (our) tribe increase! You, Sir, are obviously a very intelligent fellow!


----------



## etexas (Oct 23, 2007)

bookslover said:


> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> > Even as a premillennialist, I find Beale's writing to be very thought-provoking. His commentary is really worth having.
> ...


I often have problems with deciding where I stand or should stand on pemil and the other positions...so complex....I guess I am in good company....Calvin struggled with Revelation.....


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 23, 2007)

bookslover said:


> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> > Even as a premillennialist, I find Beale's writing to be very thought-provoking. His commentary is really worth having.
> ...



Premil, yes. Intelligent, no. Russell Moore of SBTS convinced me of premillennialism this summer.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 23, 2007)

etexas said:


> bookslover said:
> 
> 
> > Spear Dane said:
> ...



I used to considered myself for the longest time an articulate, apologist for partial preterism regarding Revelation. Now, I have no clue what the symbolism means. I used to think I knew. Now, I am not so sure. I read good theories but can't see them explain the whole book.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Oct 23, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> bookslover said:
> 
> 
> > Spear Dane said:
> ...



As a matter of curiousity, what was the argument that convinced you?


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 24, 2007)

SolaScriptura said:


> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> > bookslover said:
> ...



I am about to go to work, but it was 1) Russel Moore's book, The Kingdom of Christ. 2) It was listening to Bruce Ware's lectures on eschatology. 3) I found the premillennial arguments on Revelation 20, particularly the two resurrections, to be compelling. 4) I saw that some aspects (not all) of my old postmillennialism were untenable.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Oct 24, 2007)

Spear Dane said:


> (4) I saw that some aspects (not all) of my old postmillennialism were untenable.



Now I must ask, out of curiosity, what aspects you are referring to here?


----------



## Archlute (Oct 24, 2007)

Southern Presbyterian said:


> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> > (4) I saw that some aspects (not all) of my old postmillennialism were untenable.
> ...



The aspects that cause postmillennialism to diverge from amillennialism


----------



## Jaymin Allen (Oct 24, 2007)

Southern Presbyterian said:


> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> > (4) I saw that some aspects (not all) of my old postmillennialism were untenable.
> ...



Spear Dane, 
I wanted to ask the same question


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 24, 2007)

Southern Presbyterian said:


> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> > (4) I saw that some aspects (not all) of my old postmillennialism were untenable.
> ...



Because Jesus established the separation of church and state and you can't legislate morality and theonomy is wrong but it is still okay to vote republican therefore postmillennialism is wrong.


Ok, seriously. I have seen a few amils use that argument. My main objection to post is the same to amil--I disagree with their timing of the millennium. They see the millennium as juxtapositional with the church age. I see it as sequential.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Oct 24, 2007)

Jaymin Allen said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> > Jaymin Allen said:
> ...



Hey:

I very much appreciate your reply. Beal states that he is an "eclectic idealist" in his approach to Revelation. Thus, he claims, his interpretation will at times agree with the amill, postmill. and premill positions as well as hold to, at times, Historicist, Preterist, and Futureist views.

Reading the way Gentry does exegesis in the past - especially his "Dating of Revelation." I am not at all of the disposition that he will exegete Scripture correctly, though I will give his book a fair reading. To take up his views concerning Revelation 11:1-4, for example, he claims that this is a prophecy of the literal Temple.

If this is the literal Temple, then it is a false prophecy. Why? Because the Scriptures are clear that the inner Temple will be spared, and that only the court of the Gentiles will be destroyed. Yet, if this prophecy is of the literal Temple at the Destruction of Jerusalem, then the inner Temple was not spared but completely destroyed along with the court of the Gentiles. The Preterist interpretation of this passage makes the Apostle John out to be a false prophet. I don't think it is intentional, but, logically speaking, it is the case.

I accept your point about the "False Analogy." Gentry has not written a critical commentary on Revelation, yet, thus to compare him with those who have was not correct. However, as you have pointed out, he has written much on Eschatology and Revelation, and a lot of it is polemic in nature. *If* he follows along the same route, then I expect his commentary to be along the same lines. I will cetainly be interested in how he relates to the critical refutations of his internal evidences for the dating of Revelation. If he simply restates his position without interracting with the scholarly refutations, then my supposition that he has an "axe to grind" would be established.

However, only time will tell.

Grace and Peace,

-CH


----------



## Jaymin Allen (Oct 25, 2007)

CalvinandHodges said:


> Jaymin Allen said:
> 
> 
> > CalvinandHodges said:
> ...



Lol... right on Calvin and Hodge , I can agree with most of your post. If Gentry does not interact with scholarly exegesis, then I will join you in your cries of poor exegesis (aka 'axe to grind) on Kenneth Gentry. 



> If this is the literal Temple, then it is a false prophecy. Why? Because the Scriptures are clear that the inner Temple will be spared, and that only the court of the Gentiles will be destroyed. Yet, if this prophecy is of the literal Temple at the Destruction of Jerusalem, then the inner Temple was not spared but completely destroyed along with the court of the Gentiles.



I do not know if this is intentional or simply a lapse of familiarity with the material, but this entire paragraph is false. As matter of fact (as I will show in a minute) non-preterist scholars, in their critiques of Gentry, recognize that Gentry deals with this very problem. Maybe not to they're standards but it is dealt with nonetheless. Pages 174-176, in Gentry “Dating the book of Revelation” are given to this very problem. In Gentry's "The Beast of Revelation" an entire chapter is dedicated to this very matter you presented pgs 149-170! Robert Thomas, of Master Seminary, recognizes the fact that Gentry deals with your problem for Thomas writes on Gentry 's Revelation 11 hermeneutic, "...involves a mixture of figurative-symbolic and literal-historical... He wants a figurative and literal meaning for essentially the same terminology." Thomas then complains Gentry gives "no attention to the possibility that this may be a future literal temple" (Theonomy and Dating the Book of Revelation). So, basically Robert Thomas is complaining that Gentry interprets the temple of Revelation 11 figuratively and spiritually, contrary to you asserting that Preterist find it as a "literal temple" so therefore false prophecy. I find it very suspicious that you would push this argument as decisive, when Gentry deals with this argument in such detail. 

Not to mention, Gentry does deal with opposing views. Can you give me one example where Gentry does not deal with an (well known) opposing view? I thought you were arguing a matter of fair representation, which I would concur, but not a matter of interaction. Kenneth Gentry in all of his works, where a controversial topic is espoused, deals with the theological renitence. Matter of fact, most of Gentry’s works is aimed at dealing with criticisms! To assert that Gentry does not deal with opposing arguments is to inadvertently confess that you have not read Gentry.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Oct 25, 2007)

Jaymin Allen said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> > Jaymin Allen said:
> ...



Hi:

I guess the matter of Gentry's "answer" to Rev. 11:1-4 does not strike me as an honest answer, and seems to me to be a bunch of gobbledegook. If the Temple is spiritual, then there is no reason to think that the literal Temple was standing in order to interpret the passage. Remember the thrust of his argument for dating the Book of Revelation as to prior to 70 AD is that the literal Temple is still standing.

The literal Temple does not have to be standing in order to understand this passage as meaning the true Temple of God - the Church. This is a matter of necessity. For Gentry's application of the date of Revelation to work in this passage the literal Temple *must* be standing. By claiming a spiritual interpretation here he is cutting off the legs of necessity: that is, *the literal Temple does not have to be standing* in order for this prophecy to be rightly fulfilled.

For his interpretation of the prophecy to follow the Temple must have still been standing at the writing of Revelation. However, even today we can rightly come to an interpretation of the prophecy without the Temple literally in existence.

To me, this is an example of the doublethink of the Preterist position - they want their cake and eat it too.

Thanks for pointing these things out - iron sharpens iron,

-CH


----------



## Jaymin Allen (Oct 25, 2007)

CalvinandHodges said:


> Jaymin Allen said:
> 
> 
> > CalvinandHodges said:
> ...



Ok, I understand what your saying. You do not believe Gentry's argument suffices as an honest exegesis of the passage, but instead you find Gentry attempting to read predispositions into the scripture. Hmmm... You bring up an interesting point. I thought about responding but I will be honest, I do not understand Revelation as I ought before I go in a defense of a Preteristic understanding of it (Matthew 24 is a different story ). As I study Revelation in greater depth, I will gradually throw out my thoughts to see what you think... until then, grace and peace Calvin and Hodge


----------

