Revelation

This one is my favorite commentary on Revelation. I actually prefer this over Beale’s, simply because as a historic premil guy, I agree with Osborne more. But also, Osborne gives various interpretations, and then gives his conclusion for what he thinks is best. I really like this approach because if I do find myself unconvinced by a particular take, I can go look up other authors and read up on them. It is quite a manageable commentary for a book as complex and long as Revelation. The uninitiated will appreciate both the breath and accessibility of Osborne’s analysis.

I have found this to be a very balanced and well written commentary. It has good historical, and linguistic work. It has great systematic theology and uses other scriptures well. And some (though not much) application work as well at the end of each section. Taking up a historical pre-mill view, he is able to tip the hat to the past implications, the present implications and the future implications. Also as a historic pre mill he is able to rightly divide historical implications and symbolic idealistic implications. He has a proper and firm grasp of Revelation as apocalyptic literature and thus interprets with that fully in mind. This means he is rightly able to identify when something is symbolism verses literal. I highly recommend this commentary. Osborne is accessible for the average teacher and is worth the purchase.

.

I've been using this for our small group study on the book of Revelation. Osborne has been one of my favorites. He explains his position well and also provides many other views on difficult passages. I think I have appreciated the detail that he goes into in order to explain views contrary to his own. This can be confusing at time but has helped me understand some of the less popular views.

Historic premillennial, eclectic approach (moderately futurist). Comparable theologically to the older (and still excellent) commentary by George Eldon Ladd. [Full Review]

Osborne’s commentary is far simpler than Beale’s and his strength is in laying out the various interpretive options. Keith Mathison says, “he takes an eclectic approach with an emphasis on the futurist position. Osborne’s commentary is particularly helpful in providing historical background information on the people, places, and things mentioned in the biblical text. Like most commentators, Grant too easily dismisses the arguments for an early date of the book, but the commentary is still well worth consulting.” [Full Review]

It is hard to imagine that an 800+ page commentary should be considered brief, but in comparison to Aune and Beale, Osborne’s commentary more efficient and user-friendly. I find his introductory material very well written and insightful, celebrating what he called the “hermeneutics of humility” (16). Osborne is aware that reading Revelation generates more questions than answers and advises students of Revelation to be humble in their exegesis, willing to not understand everything in the book. He includes about 18 pages on the theology of the book. He includes two pages on Mission in Revelation, a topic which is not among the first things one thinks of when reading Revelation! Osborne’s approach to the book is to combine futurist and idealist readings of the book, with an emphasis on the future. He defines apocalyptic as “the present addressed through parallels with the future” (22). In the commentary proper, Osborne moves phrase-by-phrase through pericopes, commenting on the Greek text with transliterations provided. Greek does appear in the footnotes, where he makes more detailed syntactical observations. After the exegetical section, Osborne offers a “summary and contextualization” section, drawing out theological insights of major sections. [Full Review]

I'm about half way through preaching Revelation. I've discovered that if I read Osborne's commentary first, I find very little in the others to make note of. Insightful, clear. I think it is rare to find a commentary that does both the technical and pastoral so well.

Excellent in every way except for the BECNT formatting, which of course Osborne did not design.

Grant Osborne, professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, Illinois, has written what will be for many students a standard reference commentary on the book of Revelation. Writing from a conservative theological perspective about the nature and authority of Scripture, Osborne correctly defends traditional conclusions concerning prolegomena issues. For example, he concludes that there is good reason to uphold the viability of the apostle John as the author (5). When it comes to addressing the issue of differences of vocabulary between the Gospel of John and the Apocalypse, Osborne attributes those differences to the genre of the writing, not as a sign of a different author (5). Concerning the date of writing, Osborne says that the date must remain uncertain; however, a date in the mid-90s under Domitian has the best evidence (9). Osbornes hermeneutical approach to Revelatio n is best described as eclectic. He says that the preterist, idealist, and futurist methods should be allowed to interact in such a way that the strengths are maximized and the weaknesses minimized (21). In this vein, Osborne is similar to other commentators who have advocated an eclectic approach (e.g., Morris, Johnson, Mounce, Beale), but for Osborne the futurist approach is primary or central. My study ... has led me to believe that Johns visions (esp. chaps. 422) were primarily intended to describe the events that will end world history (22). [Full Review]

An excellent commentary. I enjoyed the introduction in which Osborne puts both preterism (better explained as John's sitz em laben) and futurism together to come to his conclusions. I would have added that all four approaches (including historicism and idealism) leads an individual to the most sound understanding of the book. But this is a major breakthrough for any interpretor of Revelation in my opinion. His understanding of the book is great and although I have not agreed with all his theological representations I must say that it is the closest to a thorough biblical understanding of Revelation that I have read. I may sound biased as I hold to permillennialism too, as I am yet to be convinced exegetically that amillennialism or postmillennialism stack up. I like what George Eldon Ladd used to tell his students: "I would be amillennial if Revelation 20 did not exist." Having said all this I have not yet looked at Beale nor Mounce. Two commentaries I will have to sink my teeth into when time avails to see if they can convince me on their views. This commentary series is really easy to follow and not only provides the Greek and a translation but also a transliteration for those of us who are not Greek experts.

At the other end of the spectrum because it always has its eye on the church and on the preacher and on theology, see G. Osborne [Full Review]

Like Ladd, Osborne is a premillennialist, and like several recent authors, he takes an eclectic approach to the book of Revelation. In Osborne's case, he takes an eclectic approach with an emphasis on the futurist position. Osborne's commentary is particularly helpful in providing historical background information on the people, places, and things mentioned in the biblical text. Like most commentators, Grant too easily dismisses the arguments for an early date of the book, but the commentary is still well worth consulting. [Full Review]

[Full Review]