What do you think?
Rate this book
Revelation Exegetical Commentary - 2 volume set
Get back to the roots on Revelation
Through the centuries since its writing, the book of Revelation has captured the fascination of the Christian church. The earliest Christians were unanimous in understanding it along a premillennial view of Jesus' second coming, but other hermeneutical approaches began to emerge in the third century. These clouded, and added complexity to, the task of explaining the book’s meaning. For most of the Christian era, consequently, many readers have viewed this last of the NT writings as though it were hopelessly embedded in an aura of deep mystery. An avalanche of interpretive literature has evidenced remarkable interest in the book’s contents, but along with the interest has come widespread bewilderment.
Written especially for the informed layman, student, and scholar, this commentary seeks to clear the air. The book is interpreted according to a historical and grammatical hermeneutic and propounds a conservative, evangelical theology, but the reader will not get a narrow view on areas of disagreement. This commentary interacts with a range of major views, both evangelical and nonevangelical. It reaffirms the basic framework of eschatology espoused by ancient Christianity, but with added help from centuries of maturing thought and doctrinal progress in the Body of Christ.
All exegesis and exposition in this 2-volume commentary are based on the original language of the text. Translations used are those of the author, and textual criticism and word study are included where appropriate. This in-depth commentary also includes extended excursuses on important topics of theological and historical interest.
Through the centuries since its writing, the book of Revelation has captured the fascination of the Christian church. The earliest Christians were unanimous in understanding it along a premillennial view of Jesus' second coming, but other hermeneutical approaches began to emerge in the third century. These clouded, and added complexity to, the task of explaining the book’s meaning. For most of the Christian era, consequently, many readers have viewed this last of the NT writings as though it were hopelessly embedded in an aura of deep mystery. An avalanche of interpretive literature has evidenced remarkable interest in the book’s contents, but along with the interest has come widespread bewilderment.
Written especially for the informed layman, student, and scholar, this commentary seeks to clear the air. The book is interpreted according to a historical and grammatical hermeneutic and propounds a conservative, evangelical theology, but the reader will not get a narrow view on areas of disagreement. This commentary interacts with a range of major views, both evangelical and nonevangelical. It reaffirms the basic framework of eschatology espoused by ancient Christianity, but with added help from centuries of maturing thought and doctrinal progress in the Body of Christ.
All exegesis and exposition in this 2-volume commentary are based on the original language of the text. Translations used are those of the author, and textual criticism and word study are included where appropriate. This in-depth commentary also includes extended excursuses on important topics of theological and historical interest.
2056 pages, Kindle Edition
Published August 15, 2016
33 people are currently reading
23 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
October 6, 2023
In my studies of Revelation I have tried to read commentaries from many different perspectives. I have found it difficult to find scholarly commentaries written from a premillennial-pretribulation rapture standpoint. Generally such commentaries are written for a popular audience. The only such commentary I have found up to now is John Walvoord's commentary written over 50 years ago. Thomas's commentary is much better.
Two features of this commentary that I thought were excellent were the author's argument that the same person wrote the fourth gospel, the Johannine letters, and Revelation. Not only does he argue for this in an extended portion of the introduction, he makes references throughout the book to parallels between Revelation and the other Johannine books. The second feature that I found excellent were the extensive text-critical notes on the Greek. The author seems to have excellent command of Greek, though I disagree with his assessment that παρθένος regularly referred to male virgins in New Testament times. Matthew 25:1 and 2 Corinthians 11:2 can hardly serve as examples here, since these are metaphorical virgins, not literal ones. The 144,000 may be literal virgins, but the meaning remains obscure.
The commentary is interesting in that it claims to follow a literal interpretation except when the text requires a non-literal interpretation. Thomas correctly points out that insisting on symbolic interpretation can lead to a mass of contradictions. Interpretations which equate the various angels to historical figures such as Thomas Aquinas or some of the evil figures to Mohammad are useless. Yet picking and choosing which passages have to be taken non-literally also runs into a mass of contradictions. A good example is the case of mystery Babylon who sits on seven mountains (or hills, the Greek word can mean either). Most expositors take Babylon as a metaphor for Rome, which would make the seven hills literal. But Thomas insists that Babylon is the literal city of Babylon on the Euphrates, which will be rebuilt before the end of history. Therefore according to Thomas, the hills must be metaphorical, since Babylon does not sit on seven hills.
More humorous was Thomas's struggling with the passage about the Lamb taking the scroll from the one seated on the throne. How can a lamb, who has no hands, take a scroll? Thomas supposes that the lamb must have morphed back into his human form before taking the scroll. Is this really necessary? I suppose that if a heavenly lamb can have seven horns and seven eyes, it can have human hands as well.
Then there is Thomas's rejection of an interpretation that the little scroll of chapter 10 could contain more information than the larger scroll of chapter 5ff. Are heavenly scrolls really subject to such limitations, especially scrolls that can be eaten by humans? Though Thomas sees his as a valid criticism here, he waves off the criticism that the fantastically high city described at the end of the book would not be structurally sound fail because heavenly structures have no such limitations! Examples such as these shows that trying to interpret Revelation by giving preference to literal interpretation runs into a host of problems.
Inconsistencies abound in this book, but there is one in particular I must point out. In criticizing an opinion that the letter to Sardis in chapter 3 makes a futuristic prediction, Thomas correctly notes that "Principles of interpretation dictated by a grammatical and historical approach to the text require that the primary application of these words to a church then-existent at the specified location [Sardis] in the Roman province of Asia." Yet this all goes out the window when Thomas gets to the promise to the Philadelphian church that Jesus will keep them from the hour of trial that is about to come upon the whole earth, which must be about a church thousands of years in the future, not the Philadelphian church.
Thomas takes pains in his commentary to show that Revelation is a "perfectly logical apocalypse" (v2 p 534). I think this points out perfectly one difference between the hyperliteralists and those who prefer symbolism. It is not only a hermeneutical style but an expression of one’s opinion of God's nature. The hyperliteralists cannot imagine a God that would not clearly lay out his meaning in perfectly understandable prose. The symbolists on the other hand give room for mysticism in God, that is, the possibility that God may be keeping some things to himself. I have to wonder, though. If God is so perfectly logical, why did he use symbolism at all?
Two features of this commentary that I thought were excellent were the author's argument that the same person wrote the fourth gospel, the Johannine letters, and Revelation. Not only does he argue for this in an extended portion of the introduction, he makes references throughout the book to parallels between Revelation and the other Johannine books. The second feature that I found excellent were the extensive text-critical notes on the Greek. The author seems to have excellent command of Greek, though I disagree with his assessment that παρθένος regularly referred to male virgins in New Testament times. Matthew 25:1 and 2 Corinthians 11:2 can hardly serve as examples here, since these are metaphorical virgins, not literal ones. The 144,000 may be literal virgins, but the meaning remains obscure.
The commentary is interesting in that it claims to follow a literal interpretation except when the text requires a non-literal interpretation. Thomas correctly points out that insisting on symbolic interpretation can lead to a mass of contradictions. Interpretations which equate the various angels to historical figures such as Thomas Aquinas or some of the evil figures to Mohammad are useless. Yet picking and choosing which passages have to be taken non-literally also runs into a mass of contradictions. A good example is the case of mystery Babylon who sits on seven mountains (or hills, the Greek word can mean either). Most expositors take Babylon as a metaphor for Rome, which would make the seven hills literal. But Thomas insists that Babylon is the literal city of Babylon on the Euphrates, which will be rebuilt before the end of history. Therefore according to Thomas, the hills must be metaphorical, since Babylon does not sit on seven hills.
More humorous was Thomas's struggling with the passage about the Lamb taking the scroll from the one seated on the throne. How can a lamb, who has no hands, take a scroll? Thomas supposes that the lamb must have morphed back into his human form before taking the scroll. Is this really necessary? I suppose that if a heavenly lamb can have seven horns and seven eyes, it can have human hands as well.
Then there is Thomas's rejection of an interpretation that the little scroll of chapter 10 could contain more information than the larger scroll of chapter 5ff. Are heavenly scrolls really subject to such limitations, especially scrolls that can be eaten by humans? Though Thomas sees his as a valid criticism here, he waves off the criticism that the fantastically high city described at the end of the book would not be structurally sound fail because heavenly structures have no such limitations! Examples such as these shows that trying to interpret Revelation by giving preference to literal interpretation runs into a host of problems.
Inconsistencies abound in this book, but there is one in particular I must point out. In criticizing an opinion that the letter to Sardis in chapter 3 makes a futuristic prediction, Thomas correctly notes that "Principles of interpretation dictated by a grammatical and historical approach to the text require that the primary application of these words to a church then-existent at the specified location [Sardis] in the Roman province of Asia." Yet this all goes out the window when Thomas gets to the promise to the Philadelphian church that Jesus will keep them from the hour of trial that is about to come upon the whole earth, which must be about a church thousands of years in the future, not the Philadelphian church.
Thomas takes pains in his commentary to show that Revelation is a "perfectly logical apocalypse" (v2 p 534). I think this points out perfectly one difference between the hyperliteralists and those who prefer symbolism. It is not only a hermeneutical style but an expression of one’s opinion of God's nature. The hyperliteralists cannot imagine a God that would not clearly lay out his meaning in perfectly understandable prose. The symbolists on the other hand give room for mysticism in God, that is, the possibility that God may be keeping some things to himself. I have to wonder, though. If God is so perfectly logical, why did he use symbolism at all?
June 24, 2023
Quite possibly he best exegetical commentary on the book of Revelation available today. Not a light read but if you are preaching Revelation or want to deep five into it, this is the book for you.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews