The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text (New International Greek Testament Com (Eerdmans)) [Hardcover]

Dr. Bill Mounce (son of Dr. Robert Mounce, who wrote another Revelation commentary, also colleague of Dr. Beale at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary) once joked and said that "you know it's good when it's so thick."

I took a New Testament Interpretation class with Dr. Beale, and also have his Revelation class notes.

Indeed, this is a brilliantly written book, which is well-written and thoroughly done from an amillennial perspective. Although this camp is not particularly big within evangelicalism (the predominant view being premillennialism), this particular camp has some advantages of being supported by strong scholarship. Beale's book is one of the best in terms of applying interpretational methods.

Beale starts off with about 69 pages of background on symbolism of numbers and the symbolic nature of Revelation. His main premise is that the beginning of the book of Revelation (Rev. 1:1) begins with "he revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants what must soon take place; and he made it known by sending his angel to his servant John..." The word "made it known" (RSV) in greek is esemanen (aorist active indicative, 3rd singular for semaino ... which should be rendered "to be communicated in symbols"). Thus, Beale takes the view that the book of Revelation should be read primarily symbolically unless there is ample evidence that it should not be rendered symbolically. He would note some of those symbols include numbers, lampstands, sword, etc. Thus, because of the symbolic nature of the book, the "1000 years" of Rev. 20:4-6 is to be understood symbolically rather than a literal 1000 years, rendering his view as "amillennial".

Beale does a great job in scholarship in interacting with other views, namely the premillennial and postmillennial views (especially readings of Revelation 20:4-6 ... close to 100 pages here), and also with other theories of the horsemen (e.g., Beasly-Murray, etc.) He even interacts with other commentaries and papers written on Revelation, as well as incorporating other literature (e.g., Jewish apocryphal writings) to analyze the text. Excellent scholarship!

To utilize this commentary well, you will need some basic Greek training (as Beale does utilize the Greek New Testament a lot, including doing textual criticism analysis, sentence flow analysis), like at least a first-year biblical Greek course.

This is indeed the best amillennial commentary (and probably the best commentary) that I've seen of Revelation. The two that are typically suggested by scholars include Dr. Robert Mounce's and this one!

This book is a scholar's dream on Revelation. Beale is to be commended for offering both the current scholarly range of interpretation on Revelation and for lucidly giving his own point of view -- many commentaries today only offer one or the other. The reader will come away with an appreciation of the major interpretive views of Reveltion as well as an excellently argued defense of Beale's idealist viewpoint. Those who do not share the Idealist bias should still be able to benefit from the wide range of differing viewpoints that Beale mentions, although any serious study of Revelation in the future will have to account for Beale's scholarship. Beale uses the Old Testament as his primary (although not only) key for interpreting the myriad puzzling passages in Revelation, and what results is a convincing analysis of a very confusing book. The only problem I could find with this commentary was its length: it is so exhaustive that its length is somewhat prohibitive against frequent usage (researching any passage is a major undertaking). However, this is a small criticism, as a shorter treatment of the subject matter would have prevented Beale from analyzing the text with such impressive depth. If you can afford the expensive cover price you will get all of your money's worth, and more, with this brilliant work.

I pastor a church (10+ yrs now) about 2 hours from Wheaton College where Beale currently teaches. I audited his Spring 2006 course on Revelation in Greek. I have to say that the man is on fire for God's word. He's got a contagious zeal for the book of Revelation. We had a Greek student (from Greece) in class and visitors from Greece. Apparently they like him a lot.

His exegetical method weighs heavily on a unique approach that includes a relatively rare Discourse Analysis process that Wheaton and about 6 other schools now teach in their Biblical Interpretations Courses. I think someone at Fuller developed it. The Discourse Analysis process is a nice addition to the regular NT Exegesis that Gordon Fee has outlined for everyone in "NT Exegesis". It seems to help the students catch the flow of the text and to connect ideas in a more complex and systematic way than a regular flow analysis.

The linkages to the OT Prophetic books are overwhelming. Beale literally drips with quotations...his live course is about the same as the book. Just compare the quotes on one of his pages to any other commentary and you get way more for your money with Beale.

If you are preaching through Revelation, get Beale and Poythress (The Returning King). I recommend Poythress' outline for a sermon series...and Beale for more exegetical tips and references than you could possibly study for a typical sermon in a week. If you don't know Greek, then Poythress will really help you. His outlines preach well. My main criticism of Beale's work is that his Exegetical Summaries for each section sound very much like a summary that a scholar who does not have to speak to regular folks very often would give. It's not preachable...you will have to rework it to keep people with you if you are preaching. That's why Poythress is great...he gives preachable phrases that harmonize well with Beale's material.

I think a reviewers' criticism of Beale's failure to interact as clearly with the Preterist is accurate. I don't think Beale needs to interact with them as the reviewer claims. Beale's reasons for rejecting the Preterists approach are solid and difficult to get past (he convinced me). For example, he sees a problem with substituting a world-wide judgement with what happened in Jerusalem. He doesn't think the text warrants that sort of conclusion. He sees a problem with denying a phsyical resurrection. Because of these reasons, (and he has others listed in his book as well), he chooses to interact with the Premillenial view more.

I think another book that must be recognized by Revelation students is Regnum Caloreum (see my review on that). He also interacts a lot with Osborne. He recommends Regnum Caloreum and Poythress among other commentators. He seems to interact the most with Mounce, Osborne, Aune, Smalley to name a few.

I think that the argument one reviewer criticizes on 'show' in Revelation 1:1 is convincing (the other reviewer says it is confusing...but it really is quite simple) when we look at the useage of 'SEMAINW' throughout the NT-and the stuff of Revelation itself. One clear example of this is the famous use of the term in John 3:14-16 where Jesus interprets the symbol from the desert story about the serpent on a pole being lifted up to provide healing for all who look on it. I cannot recall if Beale uses that exact illustration, but that is the sort of thing he does throughout this book. Sometimes you do have to read slowly to really grasp what he is saying...because he's quite technical.

Also-Beale makes a case for a strong link to Daniel. He wrote a book about this. Really his case in the NIGTC Revelation rests on that as well. He builds a very strong case for tying the book of Revelation to the Daniel 2:29-45 dream story about Nebuchadnezzar and Daniel. He shows that phrase in Revelation 1:1; 4:1, and 22:6 'hA Dei Genesthai...' is found only in Daniel 2:28/29 Theo and Daniel 2:45. This grammatically points Revelation 1:1; 4:1 and 22:6 to the dream Daniel interpreted for Nebuchadnezzar...and is therefore an interpretive key to Revelation. The Kingdom which Nebuchadnezzar sees starting during the reign of the Roman Empire Kings (if we follow the typical view on that dream)...is that the Kingdom of God which will never end is NOT something of the future only...it is something that has started...inaugurated by Jesus Christ Himself and will ultimately culminate in the justice of all wrongs and the new Jerusalem/new community.

So Beale really is laying out a case for an "Inaugurated Kingdom" which began in the first century...and is prophetically and apocalyptically portrayed in Revelation. This "Inaugurated Kingdom" is expanding and will never be overthrown.

The densely packed inferences to OT and Jewish apocalypic literature reinforces the fact that John is portraying the coming Kingdom has now come. The grammatical links to Daniel 2 matching the beginning and end of a story has a similar feeling the the phrase 'In the beginning'...which reminds the reader who knows the bible of two passages...Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1. The fact that there are connections between those two passages should not be lost. Similarly there are links between Daniel 2 and Revelation...not only in the verses quoted...but throughout the entire book. Revelation 1:1, 4:1 and 22:6 all point to Daniel 2:28/45 in the exact way that John 1:1 points to Genesis 1:1. The three word phrase is a direct quote. In Revelation 1, 4 and 22 these are the only places in the entire LXX/GNT where the phrase is quoted from Daniel 2.

I think if you read him with a hungry and open heart you will catch fire for the most complex and detailed work of the New Testament...the book of Revelation.

Beale's capturing of extensive extrabiblical references to support the inferences from OT scripture is also overwhelming.

He contends, successfully, in my view, that the OT is consistently interpreted with the same hermeneutic that is recommended today. He's very good. I have to say that he is a scholar's scholar. Tough to disprove and no one can ignore him on the book of Revelation and maintain a convincing argument. Many fail to convincingly refute him. Many of his points are overwhelmingly convincing...some are not as powerful, but his overall perspective won over every single student in our class (that I could see) and there were some of the sharpest students I've ever sat with in that class. The material in this book is essentially what we studied...so I would not be surprised if you are not stretched beyond normal for a commentary of this sort.

You will use it over and over if you buy it. I heartily give this one a five star rating.