Customer Reviews

The Revelation of Saint John (Black's New Testament Commentary)

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

First, I would say that I found this commentary immensely enjoyable and readable. Ian Boxall is a young scholar at Oxford university as was the late G B Caird, whose commentary he is replacing in the Black's New Testament series. I used G B Caird's commentary some ten or more years ago. I would have to say that I was far more able to interact with Ian's commentary than Caird's. Caird's commentary was a far more reflective commentary than Ian's and Caird sometimes offers almost no comment at all. In Ian's commentary I can see a young scholar struggling with the difficulties that Revelation presents to all scholars as they grapple with the many difficulties that this book brings, and as a result I found it a delight to read. He does deal with most of the alternative views and in most cases he comes to a pretty orthodox solution at least to scholars, but not the popular world. The book of Revelation is about the Church, in all its imperfection, and about its enemies, persecution from the outside and seduction from the inside.

The books format is very good, key texts are in bold. He does use his own translation of the Greek text (he calls the lampstands "menorahs"). There is a good bibliography and three indexes. He also provides 8 very useful tables. There are no footnotes, and the Greek text is not transliterated (an oversight of the editor I think, although there is not much of it). The introduction is pretty short but he covers the key points.

Ian does get the plot wrong when he says that the olive branch in Ch 11 is an emblem of peace (surely it symbolises the Holy Spirit in the witness of God's people as in Acts 1:8). But, to his credit, he says that the mighty angel of Ch 10 is not Jesus but his angel, based on Rev 1:1 and 22:16, unlike Beale who insists on calling this angel Christ, and Beale is clearly wrong here because he relies too much on Daniel and not on the text of Revelation itself. The Ch 10 angel is clearly Christ's angel.

Here are some of his other conclusions. The rider on the first horse represents false Christ's, even the antichrist. The 144,000 is the church (those in allegiance to the slaughtered Lamb). The great multitude is a vision of the 144,000 after the great tribulation. (I think it was Brighton who summarised Ch 7 so well by saying it represents the "Militant church on earth and the church triumphant in heaven). The two witnesses are the church. Babylon is not Rome; rather Rome represents the latest incarnation of the oppressive and idolatrous city. He is somewhat agnostic on the millennium, but so was Caird (I also think the millennium is highly overrated). He also uses the liturgical motif and the exodus motif as did Caird. He also recognises the influence of Ezekiel in the book and he recognises some degree of recapitulation (as did Hendriksen). He also understands the symbolism of numbers in Revelation. He can also contrast the whore Babylon with the Bride the New Jerusalem.

As an evangelical I wish that he had gone a bit further on the missionary meaning of the four-fold message of the "great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages", which is one of the keys to evangelism and the great commission today.

So who should buy this? This volume is far more useful to the student than Caird was because it covers almost every important topic and gives the various arguments for different interpretations which Caird never did. While not so detailed as Osborne, I think that this would make a very useful starter for students, especially as he is so readable and students studying Revelation for the first time will not get bogged down with unnecessary detail. Scholars will like it because he interacts with a lot of the recent secondary literature. It is more difficult to decide if the preacher will find it useful, he does not really have the space in this volume to go into application, but suffice it to say that he does recognise that Revelation was written to complacent Christians as well as persecuted ones. From a preacher's perspective, I just wish he had gone a little bit further. Overall, another useful contribution, given its size, that will give students a good introduction to Revelation.

He has also published "Revelation Vision and Insight: An Introduction to the Apocalypse" (176 pp 2002)

John Glynn also recommends this as an expositional commentary in his Commentary and Reference Survey

Replacing George B. Caird's earlier volume, moderately conservative Oxford scholar Ian Boxall's has delivered a straightforward commentary of moderate length on The Revelation of Saint John* in the Black's New Testament Commentary series (Hendrickson). Far more learned than the usual non-technicality of most expositions, the introduction features an analysis of Revelation's first-century context (esp. Patmos). Boxall takes seriously the authorship of the apostle John and Revelation as prophetic-apocalyptic literature. Though mainly preterist in perspective (attaching key figures to first-century events), readers will be richly rewarded by Boxall's assertion that the apocalyptic genre is largely devoted to revealing heaven's mysteries rather than predicting future events (I consider myself a progressive dispensationalist, but the richness of symbolism evoked by Boxall enlarges my own understanding). Had I received this prior to submitting the revision of my commentary survey, I would have heartily endorsed its use; particularly together with the commentaries of Grant Osborne (evangelical, semi-technical), Stephen Smalley (moderate, technical), and Craig Keener (evangelical, expositional) until D. A. Carson's Pillar New Testament Commentary entry appears (Eerdmans). Other suggested conservative commentaries are: Greg Beale (technical), Robert Mounce (semi-technical), Alan Johnson (expositional), and Dennis Johnson (expositional).

This review originally appeared on [...] on 5/16/09.

Special thanks to Kathy of Hendrickson Publishers for a review copy of this book. I should note that paperback volumes of the Black's series will be released in the relatively near future. I have a hardcover copy.


I have a confession to make. When I first saw this commentary a couple years back, I asked two questions: who is Ian Boxall and why is he replacing George Caird's Revelation commentary in the Black's series? To address the second question, it's not that Caird's commentary is particularly outstanding. But it was somewhat groundbreaking in its time (so I'm told, since I didn't exist yet when it came out) and holds a rightful place as one of those older commentaries you ought to check out (of course, referring to it as "older" betrays a certain limited historical vantage point on my part).

As for Ian Boxall, a quick Google search lets you know that he's a young Oxford scholar who has previously published on Revelation (or a personal fitness trainer, but I'm guessing it wasn't him that wrote this book). It wasn't until relatively recently when I read a positive review of this commentary that I decided I'd check it out. I've searched for a commentary to recommend to students without the requisite Greek knowledge to keep up with Beale and the like. I own Ben Witherington's commentary, which fits this category, but am not in love with it.

I have a second confession to make. I was an idiot for passing over this a couple years ago. Throughout the commentary I found myself impressed with Boxall's interpretations (even when I disagreed) and thankful for his, at times unique, insights.

For instance, in the introduction alone I encountered three things I had not fully considered previously. First, is the importance of Revelation as a visionary text. Boxall does not deny "that the Apocalypse is also a carefully crafted document" (p4), but he does suggest that perhaps John's "conscious intention cannot be the determining factor at every points" (p5). A provocative suggestion, indeed. I actually felt that Boxall could have explored the importance of the visionary experience in more depth. What about the majesty of the throne room vision in chapter 4? How ought this impact the reader? I can't help but wonder if, in the search for the meaning of little details, we lose sight of the sheer force of the imagery and its intended effect on the reader/listener.

Second, Boxall attempts to illustrate the importance of the John's location: Patmos. True, most interpreters note the importance of his exile (Bauckham being a notable exception) and the location of his readers, but Boxall is just as concerned with Patmos as the location of that exile. He argues that the visual pagan imagery of Patmos may show up periodically in Revelation (specifically Artemis and Apollo).

Third is the importance of the call not to compromise in Revelation. Boxall doesn't discount the threat of persecution for John's readers, but argues that not enough attention has been given to the threat of compromise. I've already written about this here, so I won't go any further down that road.

There are, to be sure, some things I disagreed with here and there. I don't agree with the contention that the 7 Spirits of 1:4 are angels rather than the Holy Spirit. I'm confused why he thinks this view "may too readily assume a developed trinitarianism" (p31), yet he can frequently refer to the "Eucharistic" setting of Revelation. It seems to me that assuming a Eucharistic liturgy is more anachronistic than a developed trinitarian theology. I'm not at all convinced that the scroll John ingests in chapter 10 is the same scroll from chapter 5. And so on.

I found myself nodding in agreement more often than not. The 144,000 of chapter 7 are not only ethnic Jews, but to be understood by the vision of the multi-ethnic multitude. The angel of chapter 10 is not to be identified with Jesus. The 2 witnesses of chapter 11 are "representative figures of the prophetic ministry of the Church" (p164). Throughout the commentary I was grateful for his demonstation of the importance of Ezekiel for John's vision, especially in the final two chapters. Boxall even includes a helpful chart on page 255. In fact, Boxall has convinced me of my need to beef up the Ezekiel portion of my library. When you combine this with Beale's emphasis on Daniel, I begin to wonder how I can understand Revelation without some working knowledge of these two OT books.

(Note: I'm intentionally leaving out reference to his interpretation of the millennium in this review, because in my experience this is the first place students look in determining the worth of a Revelation commentary. Believe it or not, there is more to the book than 20:1-6)

This is one of the better non-technical commentaries on Revelation, alongside Witherington and Keener. For those who have a long interest in Revelation, there is enough insight in here to be of great help- he packs a lot into a short space. For those looking for a reliable guide as they learn the book, Boxall will prove to play the role well. In my opinion, what the church needs in its books on Revelation is clarity, not cleverness. Boxall's commentary is remarkably clear and penetrating without trying to force anything. And let us remember that there are excellent commentaries out there not written by men with names like Fee, Moo, Carson, Beale etc. I hope to read more of Boxall's work in the years to come.

I would like to thank Hendrickson for sending this review copy.

Ian Boxall is the Senior Tutor and Tutorial Fellow in New Testament and Greek at St. Stephen House, Oxford University.

The Introduction is a bit short at 20 pages for a book that has such important connection to its historical situation and the genre. While it is true that expositional or lay commentaries do not often include much introduction the nature of the apocalypse makes this need more pronounced. However, Boxall does offer a treatment of subjects such as "A Visionary Text", explaining the roles of John's vision in the book, "Author and Date", "The Patmos Context" and "The Setting of the Primary Addressees" and "Structure". The commentary begins with Boxall's translation with his comments to follow. His comments do not seek to explain too many critical problems but he does use historical critical analysis and techniques to arrive at his reading of the text. There is a good amount of material discussing the historical context especially in the letters to the seven churches. In addition, Boxall does a good job explaining the meaning and use of the apocalyptic symbols. Following the commentary Boxall includes a bibliography of English resources, showing a wide diversity of views, an index of Scripture and modern authors and also a subject index.

Like the other volumes in this series Boxall treats the text on a high level, and while it is clear from his discussion of exegetical problems faced throughout the Revelation that Boxall has based his interpretations on the Greek text. The series is not meant to be overly critical but to give a thoroughly engaged explanation of the text. Boxall however, does engage some critical issues throughout his commentary, even discussing textual critical materials in footnotes. His engagement is done in a way that a reader would almost not notice. The constant allusions to Old Testament texts are handled well, explaining the most important for interpretation and leaving others alone. Biblical and theological arguments are used for certain exegetical decisions and explained so that a Biblically literate reader could understand. The strength of this commentary lies where the strength of all the Black's NT Commentaries lies, in expositing the text and reflecting upon its Biblical-theology. This commentary does not break any new ground in the research of the Apocalypse, but it does provide a solid explanation on the text. Scholars, pastors, students and well-read lay people can benefit greatly from Boxall's engagement. However, the discussion at times may be beyond the bounds of lesser-informed lay people who might prefer the NIVAC or TNTC.