M. Eugene Boring

A robust commentary on Revelation.

As fits the genre a large portion of the commentary introduces Revelation and seeks to explain not only how it came about but also some of the history of interpretation and the unique challenges of Revelation.

The author considers the text in a unitary, linear progression, with frequent foreshadowing of final judgment. He seeks to understand the text fully in its context and thus sees Rome as the primary "opponent" in view in terms of the beast and Babylon, etc. He would consider John as premillennial but the proper view of the millennium as amillennial (and does well to show its comparative insignificance in the text as compared to the attention devoted to it in Christendom).

Overall, though, worth exploring when engaging in a full study of Revelation.… (més)

I received this from Edelweiss in exchange for an honest review.

The very first paragraph brings into question the entire premise of this commentary:

"All meaning is contextual. “The” context of every biblical text is multidimensional. Four overlapping and interwoven aspects of the context of 1 Thessalonians call for recognition and exploration: (1) the reader’s context; (2) the canonical context; (3) the context in the history of interpretation; (4) the original historical context. In the lived experience of interpreting the Bible, these contexts overlap and interpenetrate, but for purposes of clarification and discussion, they may be distinguished—though they cannot be separated."

The reader's context must never be part of biblical interpretation. Doing so makes scripture relative rather than absolute. 2 Peter 1:20 tells us this: "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."

Since the author takes this view of reader's context and private interpretation, I cannot recommend this commentary at all.… (més)