Download a free mp3 teaching series on Revelation HERE!
The Bible gives us a unique vision of the future—a picture that is not only true, but also desirable. It not only conforms to reality, but it offers us hope. Yet, most Christians have never studied (or even read!) the book of Revelation. Why not? If the book of Revelation is simply an encoded enigma that cannot be understood, then why would God offer a special “blessing” to those who read it (Rev. 1:3)? Moreover, if the book of Revelation is a complete and total mystery, then why call it a “revelation” at all?
That’s why we wrote this commentary. We hope it will aid readers in understanding the book of Revelation.
Introduction to Revelation
The Authorship of Revelation Critics since the 3rd century AD have challenged that John the apostle wrote this book. We hold that John of Zebedee—one of the Twelve—was the author.
The Date of Revelation We date the book of Revelation sometime during the reign of Emperor Domitian (AD 81-96). This historical question has important implications for the interpretation of the book. If the Domitianic dates are true, then the view known as preterism is false.
The Genre of Revelation Many interpreters hold that the book of Revelation was written in the apocalyptic literary genre. We evaluate the merits of this view.
Different Schools of Interpreting Revelation There are four major schools of interpretation for the book of Revelation: (1) Preterism, (2) Historicism, (3) Idealism, and (4) Futurism. We evaluate all four views and offer our perspective.
Why did God make eschatology so confusing? Many people complain, “If God wanted to communicate about the end of human history, why didn’t he just give a clear and detailed account? Why do we have to appeal to hundreds of passages—scattered throughout the Bible?” We give our thoughts on this perplexing question.
Doesn’t a futurist interpretation deny first-century readers any understanding or application? If John was writing a book about the end of human history, wouldn’t this neglect the needs of his original audience? Moreover, why would John write a book that could only be understood by a future generation—perhaps 2,000 years in the future?
Millennial Views One of the key interpretive issues at the heart of eschatology is our view of the millennium. Will Jesus literally reign on Earth for a thousand years, or is Jesus spiritually reigning from heaven or in the hearts of believers? Should we expect human history to get better with time, or worse? Does the millennium refer to a literal 1,000-year reign, or is this symbolic of the church age? Many questions confront the interpreter.
The Pretribulational Rapture In the end, it is relatively unimportant when the rapture will happen; it is more important that it happens. However, after evaluating the various biblical data, it seems that the Bible teaches a pre-tribulation rapture.
A Critique of Preterism The “preterite” in English is the past tense. Preterism is a view of Bible prophecy that argues that these events have already occurred in the past—not the future. We give an evaluation and critique of this system.
Commentary on Revelation
Revelation 1: Jesus Reveals the Future
Revelation 2-3: Letters to the Churches
Revelation 4-5: Creation Worships the Creator
Revelation 8-9: The Seven Trumpets
Revelation 11: The Temple, Two Witnesses, and the Trumpet
Revelation 12: The Rise and Fall of Satan
Revelation 15-16: The Seven Bowls
Revelation 17-18: The Fall of Babylon
Revelation 19: The Second Coming
Revelation 21-22: Heaven and Hell
How to use this commentary well
For personal use. We wrote this material to build up people in their knowledge of the Bible. As the reader, we hope you enjoy reading through the commentary to grow in your interpretation of the text, understand the historical backdrop, gain insight into the original languages, and reflect on our comments to challenge your thinking. As a result, we hope this will give you a deeper love for the word of God.
Teaching preparation. We read through several commentaries in order to study this book, and condensed their scholarship into an easy-to-read format. We hope that this will help those giving public Bible teachings to have a deep grasp of the book as they prepare to teach. As one person has said, “All good public speaking is based on good private thinking.”[1] We couldn’t agree more. Nothing can replace sound study before you get up to teach, and we hope this will help you in that goal. And before you complain about our work, don’t forget that the price is right: FREE!
Questions for Reflection. Each section or chapter is outfitted with numerous Questions for Reflection or questions for reflection. We think these questions would work best in a small men’s or women’s group—or for personal reading. In general, these questions are designed to prompt participants to explore the text or to stimulate application.
Discussing Bible difficulties. We highlight Bible difficulties with hyperlinks to articles on those subjects. All of these questions could make for dynamic discussion in a small group setting. As a Bible teacher, you could raise the difficulty, allow the small group to wrestle with it, and then give your own perspective.
As a teacher, you might give some key cross references, insights from the Greek, or other relevant tools to help aid the study. This gives students the tools that they need to answer the difficulty. Then, you could ask, “How do these points help answer the difficulty?”
Reading Bible difficulties. Some Bible difficulties are highly complex. For the sake of time, it might simply be better to read the article and ask, “What do you think of this explanation? What are the most persuasive points? Do you have a better explanation than the one being offered?”
Think critically. We would encourage Bible teachers to not allow people to simply read this commentary without exercising discernment and testing the commentary with sound hermeneutics (i.e. interpretation). God gave the church “teachers… to equip God’s people to do his work and build up the church, the body of Christ” (Eph. 4:11-12). We would do well to learn from them. Yet, we also need to read their books with critical thinking, and judge what we’re reading (1 Cor. 14:29; 1 Thess. 5:21). This, of course, applies to our written commentary as well as any others!
In my small men’s Bible study, I am frequently challenged, corrected, and sharpened in my ability to interpret the word of God. I frequently benefit from even the youngest Christians in the room. I write this with complete honesty—not pseudo-humility. We all have a role in challenging each other as we learn God’s word together. We would do well to learn from Bible teachers, and Bible teachers would do well to learn from their students!
At the same time, we shouldn’t disagree simply for the sake of being disagreeable. This leads to rabbit trails that can actually frustrate discussion. For this reason, we should follow the motto, “The best idea wins.” If people come to different conclusions on unimportant issues, it’s often best to simply acknowledge each other’s different perspectives and simply move on.
Consulted Commentaries
We consulted many commentaries for individual passages of Revelation, but we read these specific commentaries below exhaustively. We give a very short review of each commentary below. The idea is to help students to know where to turn if they are looking for a commentary.
Grant R. Osborne, Revelation, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002).
This is a technical commentary that takes a moderate Historical Premillennial view throughout. It was very well done. Even though we disagree with Osborne on his Historical Premillennialism (i.e. the Church replaces ethnic Israel in the millennium), we found this to be one of the best commentaries that we read on Revelation.
Robert L. Thomas, Revelation 1-7: An Exegetical Commentary (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1992).
Robert L. Thomas, Revelation 8-22: An Exegetical Commentary (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1995).
Thomas is a Dispensational Premillennial commentator and an expert in Greek. Indeed, his treatment of each individual word and its syntax is exhaustive (and frankly overkill). Yet, anyone disagreeing with a Dispensational interpretation of Revelation needs to read Thomas. He has simply written the best technical commentary from this perspective.
On the down side, his commentary lacked primary historical sources. In his historical analysis of the background, he would appeal to other commentators, rather than the primary sources themselves. Hemer is far better, for example, in his treatment of the seven churches in this regard.
Alan F. Johnson, “Revelation,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Hebrews through Revelation, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 12 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981).
This commentary takes a moderate Historical Premillennial view throughout. Johnson is one of our favorite commentators. Even though we disagree with his Historical Premillennialism, this is an excellent place to start when studying Revelation.
John F. Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ (Galaxie Software, 2008).
This is a short commentary that defends a classical Dispensational view. Personally, we thought Walvoord’s commentary on Daniel was far better than his commentary on Revelation.
Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1997).
Mounce is an excellent commentator, and he writes from a Historical Premillennialist view. On the positive side, this is a technical commentary that fights to remain succinct. In fact, most of his discussion of Greek vocabulary and grammar occurs in the footnotes. He also focuses on OT references to interpret the book, rather than looking to apocryphal literature (though he does contain a lot of this material as well). On the negative side, it was honestly difficult to see where Mounce ultimately landed in his interpretation of many contested portions of the book. Mounce’s commentary is lauded for being a sound futurist commentary that doesn’t get into a lot of discrediting speculation. However, he didn’t seem to remain consistent in his reading of Revelation. He viewed some imagery through a preterist framework and other imagery through a futurist framework. Mounce’s eclectic approach was honestly difficult to follow at times.
Leon Morris, Revelation: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 20, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1987).
Morris writes from an Amillennial view. This is a short, well-written commentary from a NT scholar for whom we have much respect. We found it insightful, even though we disagree with his Amillennial view.
Colin J. Hemer, The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia in their Local Setting (England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989).
This book is a rewritten version of Colin J. Hemer’s doctoral dissertation given under the supervision of the late F.F. Bruce. Hemer only focuses on Revelation 1-3, but he offers his typical brilliant and exhaustive research regarding the Seven Churches.
Our critique of Hemer’s work is that he relies too much on the historical background to inform his interpretation. This might sound odd to read, especially since we advocate a grammatical-historical hermeneutic. But consider one example to illustrate: Hemer sees the earthquake in Sardis in AD 17 as being the imagery for John’s visions of the mountains falling in Revelation 6. He affirms that Revelation is prophetic (i.e. futurism). However, in our view, the local setting of the Seven Churches seems to be the grid through which he interprets the book as a whole. This leads to speculative conclusions in our view. Regardless, the late Colin J. Hemer is the premier source on the historical setting of the Seven Churches.
[1] Scott Berkun, Confessions of a Public Speaker (Cambridge: O’Reilly Media, 2009), 57.