I've used this commentary for my Sunday School class and it's received good feedback from laypeople who want a brief and clearly written exposition of Revelation. Leon Morris adopts a non-dispensationalist viewpoint in his commentary. It was hard to discern whether he was amillennial or historical premillennial. He believes that Rev. 20 describes the reign of the martyrs rather than the reign of all the saints. A very interesting perspective. In any case, he interprets the 144,000 and the great multitude in Revelation 7 as representing spiritual Israel (the church) rather than literal Israel.
Here are some of my assessments of this commentary.
Good points:
1) It is easy to read and the explanations are clear
2) Morris provides an excellent outline of the whole book of Revelation
3) Morris reminds the reader that we need to adopt a humble and open-mind when reading the book of Revelation
Weak points:
1) Explanations are too brief or vague at points. Examples:
"hidden manna" (Rev. 2: 17) -- Morris is somewhat ambiguous in his explanation of what exactly it is; "white stone" (2:17) -- Morris offers different suggestions on what it could mean and concludes "we simply do not know what the white stone signified, though clearly it did convey some assurance of blessing"; it is frustrating to read a commentary when the commentator says "we don't really know what this means." It is honest but not very helpful! (it is better for Morris to make a decision on what he sees as the most likely explanation)
2) Insufficient explanation for why certain things should be interpreted
Example: Morris states that the "Two Witnesses" in Rev. 11: 1-14 should be interpreted symbolically rather than literally. He states that "difficulties multiply" when one takes the "Two Witnesses" literally. What difficulties? To me, the symbolic interpretation of the "Two Witnesses" as representing the church has more difficulties than the literal interpretation. How does one interpret the dead bodies lying in the street if the two witnesses represent the church? How does one interpret the 3 1/2 days, and then the witnesses being caught up to God?
Yes, chapter 11 is one of the most difficult chapters in Revelation to interpret. I was expecting Morris to do a more complete job of explaining his interpretation, but he didn't do an adequate job in explaining his reasons for interpretation other than giving blanket statements.
3) Morris should clearly state what his position is. For example, in the introduction of the commentary, he explains 4 different approaches in interpreting Revelation (preterist, historicist, idealist, and futurist). He states that one should incorporate several of these approaches and not just one approach. Yet, Morris fails to tell the reader which approaches he adopts.
I noticed this throughout the commentary; Morris sometimes would present different options or suggestions on what a phrase or passage means, and then would not clearly state what his position is. I appreciated it when he did take a position.
This aside, I still found this commentary to be helpful, in spite of its brevity. If you want to read a more complete expositional commentary, you can't go wrong with reading Robert Mounce's excellent commentary in the New International Commentary of the New Testament (Eerdmans). I find Mounce's viewpoint to be similar to that of Morris, but he gives a much more complete explanation both in his commentary and in his interpretation of certain passages. George E. Ladd's commentary on Revelation also offers a similar viewpoint as Morris' but a fuller explanation as well. If you want an excellent and more technical non-dispensationalist commentary on Revelation, read G.K. Beale's commentary on Revelation (which requires the reader to be familiar with Greek).
There is a plethora of outstanding commentaries out there on Revelation. What I've mentioned above are two excellent expositional commentaries on Revelation that hold a similar viewpoint and non-dispensationalist interpretation as Morris.
Morris is a good introductory commentary but you need to consult other commentaries which offer a more complete and satisfactory explanation on the whole book.
