The Book of Revelation is the final chapter of the bible. It is a relatively lengthy book. Shorter than the Gospels and Acts, it is nevertheless longer than every other document in the New Testament. It is also full of prophecies, monsters and apocalyptic import. Lengthy and mysterious it is not one of the most popular books of the bible. So a commentary to help readers engage with the document is very helpful.
Following the usual pattern of commentaries the book goes through the text chapter by chapter and line by line, flagging up links with other parts of the bible and setting it all into its historical context. One of the questions posed by Revelation is whether, and to what extent, the book is referring to contemporary history, or is it describing future events that cannot yet be known.
The author steers a middle course between those extremes. On the one hand there are obvious historical allusions. Revelation itself refers to contemporary opponents (the Nicolaitians) and the number of the beast, 666, is explained as referring to the emperor Nero. Yet the book is clearly also looking to the end of history, where the New Jerusalem will appear.
One of the points made clearly by the book is that readers who try to find a description of the end of the world miss the point of the book. The book is offering readers a choice between two lifestyles. They can ally with the slain Lamb of Christ, or they can ally with Satan the Beast and his false emissaries. The vivid imagery just sets those choices into various contexts, so that people are properly informed about the implications and consequences of their choices. Yet it is the choice itself which is the important focus of the book.
Where I think the book could have been a little clearer was in pressing points of consistency. We hear at the beginning of the book about various people who are being (or are going to be) punished for their sins. Yet when we get to the first four seals releasing the horses of the apocalypse (chp.8, 41%) the author tells us that that should not be interpreted as a divine punishment. Really? If some ills sent by God are punishments, and other’s aren’t, then would those ills which are not punishments just make God seem sadistic? Or is there something else going on? There were some issues here that needed more unpacking and explaining.
I was also expecting a little more information about the historical context of Revelation. The book was used and abused so much by the Montanist heretics of the Second Century that it left a stain on the book’s reputation. That was so much the case that it took longer for the book to be recognised as canonical, and to this very day, many Eastern Churches do not include readings from it in their public services. Given those facts, it would have been interesting to get a sense of which bits of Revelation were being misused by the Montanists.
Towards the end of the book the author started to include more references and quotes from the fathers and the Great Patristic commentaries. Tertullian, Irenaeus and Andrew of Caesarea are probed on the identity of Babylon (78%). There is also an informative use of Augustine, Peter Olivi and others to probe the meaning of the thousand year reign (ie millennialism). I would have welcomed hearing more from the fathers, especially in the first half of the book.
Overall, an informative book, accessible to readers of any background.