Revelation - Concordia Commentary

Concordia Commentary

by Louis a Brighton

Revelation may be the most perplexing book of the Scriptures, but Dr. Brighton explains its message with exceptional clarity. He interprets the features of the vision in light of similar images elsewhere in Scripture and appeals to the views of other theologians from the early church down to the present.

This last book of the Bible is the final testimony of the risen Christ to his church—until he returns in glory. Ascension Christology is the heart of the prophetic and visionary message. The saving work of Christ is implicit throughout the prophecy. Revelation depicts the ongoing reign of the exalted Christ, who governs all things in heaven and on earth for the sake of his church. While the book contains frightening images of God’s wrath and judgment, even more is it a celebration of the saints. Those still in the church on earth join the saints and angels in heaven in the joyful worship of the Lamb who was slain. The swelling hymn of victory is just one of the liturgical features of Revelation that inform the church’s worship.

Dr. Brighton shows that Revelation is not about some distant future, but is about the present life of the church amid the turmoil of world history. It inspires Christians to be urgent and faithful in their proclamation of the Gospel, no matter how fierce the opposition, because of Christ’s comforting promise: “I am coming quickly!”

Genres: Theology, Reference, Biblical Studies

712 pages, Hardcover

First published November 1, 1999

Reviews

[Dan · Rating 4 out of 5]

A wonderful and faithful commentary. I recommend reading it piecemeal with other faithful commentaries for a rounded picture.

[Paul · Rating 5 out of 5]

I obtained this commentary when it first was published. It was what one might call a 'life's work' by the author, Rev. Dr. Louis A. Brighton (Professor Emeritus, Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, MO). This particular book of the Bible had been of interest to his father but his own experiences, e.g. at his first parish in London, England in the early 1950's and there after, kept him most interested especially when many have not read it in proper context. In my own opinion, it is one of, if not the finest commentaries in the Concordia Commentary Series to date. The preparatory research is extensive and most well done. I had the pleasure of knowing the author for some years and can attest to the quality of his academic skills put forth in this title. My wife and I obtained a number of copies as presents to friends and relatives over time. If that says anything about how highly we regard this text, I hope that you will consider obtaining a copy for yourself.

[Ricky Beckett · Rating 3 out of 5]

Perhaps the only positive thing about this commentary is that our brother Louis Brighton stays true to amillennialism. There’s a good amount of helpful commentary and excursuses as well. However, he tends to add textures to the vision of Revelation that just aren’t there in the actual scriptural texts. He is too speculative about these textures. The psuedepigraphical texts he utilises throughout the commentary are important to be aware but they should not be our primary aid of interpretation. The Old Testament Scriptures are sufficient. Did the pseudepigraphical authors know more than John? No. Also, while emphasising apocalyptic symbolism throughout the commentary according to its literary genre (that the symbols are not literal descriptions of their intended referents), Brighton breaks his own interpretative methodology and interprets too literally many times when—according to the amillennial view he adopts—we’re not supposed to interpret Revelation literally. (This does not mean we cannot see TYPES of the symbols, however. For example, John in his day would’ve seen Rome as the first beast whereas we can see other governments in our own day as the first beast as well, such as the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and China. BUT THE LITERALISM ENDS THERE AS A TYPE OF THE BEAST AND NOT THE FINALITY OF THE SYMBOL. Brighton breaks this rule several times.) He also breaks his interpretative methodology when he makes linear interpretations after correctly stating that Revelation’s timeline is not linear but cyclical. Lastly, seeing Old Testament connections is of critical importance for interpretation, but even here we mustn’t become speculative but rather just let the obvious OT connections stand. He does too much conjecturing here as well.