What do you think?
The Avenging of the Apostles and Prophets: Commentary on Revelation
The Avenging of the Apostles and Prophets is a commentary on the New Testament book of Revelation. First published as a hard back in 1985, Christians around the world have found it to be a commentary on Revelation they could easily read and understand. Now in its 2006 third edition (fourth printing) it has helped to open the eyes of many to the meaning of the Apocalypse. In this study the Apocalypse is examined as an intricate part of the Bible and interpreted in light of the teaching of all the books of the Bible. Speculative theories are avoided and unnecessary. The marvelous message of the book of Revelation comes to full view when considered in this light. You will not be disappointed with the results of this study. The author presents powerful and convincing arguments to show the book of Revelation was written much earlier than generally thought. He shows the desolation of Israel and the destruction of Jerusalem to be God's judgment for their rejecting His apostles and prophets.
518 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2006
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
May 24, 2024
I’ve been asked to read this as the primary representation of the early date view of Revelation. Ogden takes Revelation to be primarily about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.
I acknowledge the extreme difficulty of Revelation (especially when you are “on the record” regarding details) and the struggle with consistency of interpretation. But Ogden was a repeat offender on randomly switching from literal to figurative and back again. His interpretive rule seems to be “it’s figurative unless Josephus addresses it.” On the two witnesses in Rev 11, they are figurative for the law and prophets, but 1/10 of the city falling is literal bc of Josephus, but the earthquake by which it falls is figurative, but the Roman army which takes 1/10 of the city is literal. Back and forth we go, flipping and flopping.
The New Jerusalem is the church. Our tears are wiped away now because we have hope (!). The harlot is Jerusalem, who is riding on the beast who is Rome, but we’re never really clear on what that is supposed to mean in real life.
On the whole I would say that the Jerusalem perspective is severely underproved. This feels like an overreaction to the wild interpretations of Revelation that have abounded through the years.
I don’t have all the answers on Revelation, but this book is a reminder that aversion to literal interpretations and fantastic millennial theories does not a coherent view make.
I acknowledge the extreme difficulty of Revelation (especially when you are “on the record” regarding details) and the struggle with consistency of interpretation. But Ogden was a repeat offender on randomly switching from literal to figurative and back again. His interpretive rule seems to be “it’s figurative unless Josephus addresses it.” On the two witnesses in Rev 11, they are figurative for the law and prophets, but 1/10 of the city falling is literal bc of Josephus, but the earthquake by which it falls is figurative, but the Roman army which takes 1/10 of the city is literal. Back and forth we go, flipping and flopping.
The New Jerusalem is the church. Our tears are wiped away now because we have hope (!). The harlot is Jerusalem, who is riding on the beast who is Rome, but we’re never really clear on what that is supposed to mean in real life.
On the whole I would say that the Jerusalem perspective is severely underproved. This feels like an overreaction to the wild interpretations of Revelation that have abounded through the years.
I don’t have all the answers on Revelation, but this book is a reminder that aversion to literal interpretations and fantastic millennial theories does not a coherent view make.
February 6, 2026
By and large, it is a very good representation of the early date view of the book of revelation, focusing on the destruction of Jerusalem rather than the destruction of Rome or yet further unseen future events.
I am docking a few points for his inconsistency regarding imagery of Jerusalem and the church and changing from figurative to literal With no apparent reason only to change back again.
I am docking a few points for his inconsistency regarding imagery of Jerusalem and the church and changing from figurative to literal With no apparent reason only to change back again.
June 21, 2013
Pretty good reference book with well laid out facts for supporting an earlier dating and interpretation of Revelation.
That being said, I felt Ogden dropped the ball in Chapter 20, failing to address many of the most controversial topics around that chapter's interpretation. I coudldn't be sure but I also felt his thoughts were inconsistent in relation to the chapters that preceded it which found me disagreeing with his opinion in several instances.
That being said, I felt Ogden dropped the ball in Chapter 20, failing to address many of the most controversial topics around that chapter's interpretation. I coudldn't be sure but I also felt his thoughts were inconsistent in relation to the chapters that preceded it which found me disagreeing with his opinion in several instances.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews