Revelation

Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible

by Joseph Mangina

This commentary, like each in the Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible, is designed to serve the church--providing a rich resource for preachers, teachers, students, and study groups--and demonstrate the continuing intellectual and practical viability of theological interpretation of Scripture. In this addition to the series, Joseph Mangina offers a constructive ecclesiology for the role and mission of the church in the twenty-first century formed by a close examination of Revelation.

272 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2010

Reviews

[JonM · Rating 5 out of 5]

I knew nothing of Mangina before reading this commentary. Now I want to read more books by him, because this is, by far, the most insightful theological commentary on Revelation I've ever read (and I have read too many). The size of the commentary is deceiving, but that is because it is a THEOLOGICAL commentary, not a detailed exposition of the Greek text (as many others are).

[Caleb Smith · Rating 3 out of 5]

Too much idealism, no preterism. And while Mangina emphasizes something about the Church's existence in history and apparently does believe in something of a future eschatological conclusion, it's all very vague. Revelation is mostly treated as a book of general theological truths about the Church's existence in Christ. Its strength is precisely in these truths: they are almost all pretty solid and are similar to what I might use to apply Revelation today. But application is secondary to interpretation, and on the latter this commentary feels weak. One of the final passages sums up everything I find wrong with it:

The end did not come as prophesied for Daniel, nor did the final consummation arrive for John the seer by any human method of reckoning. This is an interesting problem, yet it is such only for those who see the Apocalypse primarily as a problem rather than as an act of witness. Indeed, the various theories of interpretation that have grown up around the book (preterist, futurist, church-historical, etc.) can be seen as a series of well-intentioned efforts to deal with the problem of the nonarrival of the end. Read charitably, they can be seen as different ways of relating the book to events in the ongoing history of church and world, a history that, no matter what the theory, remains under the sway and dominion of Christ the Lamb. Yet they still miss the point.

He goes on to explain that it's basically all just about telling the Church about Jesus as the apocalypse of God and what that means for Her life. There's a kernel of truth there, but it's far from the big picture. Revelation is about things that happened and will happen in particular times precisely because these things have a great deal to do with who Jesus is and what He is doing and what this means for the life of the Church.

Also, Mangina had an annoying habit in this book of saying, "What could symbol X mean except Y?" for an awful lot of possibly disputable things.

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

Appreciated Mangini’s insightful look into the text.

[Jeff Eicher · Rating 2 out of 5]

Although the Brazos commentary set is written in the service of the church and as a resource (even) for laypeople, it was difficult to see how an average layperson would benefit. Perhaps Mangina comes from more educated parishes; I think there are other commentaries that would serve the church in a more clear, accessible, and helpful manner.

I was impressed by the lack of scholarly citation (see the short bibliography), and although I admit I am not a NT scholar (I admire the author's same admission), I was surprised that this commentary from Brazos wasn't better informed by other Revelation commentaries.

The most interesting insight I gleaned was Mangina's comment on Rev. 12 that (possibly) the "birth" of the male child was actually referring to his death, given his immediate assumption into heaven. Mangina didn't connect this with the "first resurrection" debate in Rev. 20, but I think it nicely supports an amill reading there. I'm not sure, however, how strong an exegetical case can be made of this Rev. 12 insight.

I was impressed by the commentaries engagement throughout on DH Lawrence's book on Revelation, given he was not a Christian. I think these quotes offers pastors preaching/teaching on Revelation very helpful perspectives from a disbelieving reader. For instance, Lawrence sees the 144,000 as representing the culmination of Christian arrogance and antagonism -- to claim that *only* 144,000 would be saved shows Christians to be elitist! Or, that Revelation demonstrates the servile and weak nature of Christians (praising a slain Lamb? Nietzsche would not be happy!)