A Commentary on the Revelation of John
This book appears in the following featured collections.
- Building an NT Commentary Library by Invitation to Biblical Interpretation (Kostenberger & Patterson)
- Recommended New Testament Commentaries for Evangelical Pastors by Thomas R. Schreiner
Simple to the point explanations of symbols in the text. Great help.
A tad out of date now, and preoccupied with defending a historic premillenial dispensationalist reading, but still a worthwhile read. His work on Chapters 4 & 5 are particularly helpful, without being bogged down in the minute details. He gets the key points and doesn't get sidetracked with the rest. For it's age and size, it's still a helpful resource. Very accessible, and well composed.
If the measure of a classic commentary is wear and tear, then Ladd’s commentary on Revelation certainly qualifies for me. My copy 1983 reprint is fairly well marked, the spine is broken and pages are falling out. I suppose it is possible that the paperback binding was not designed to last, but I have used this book often over the years. This is a brief, easy to read commentary, but there is a great deal of depth to the book as well. With only 14 pages of introduction, Ladd is focused on the text rather than method. (In his defense, he treats the theology of the book of Revelation in his New Testament Theology.) He blends preterist and futurist methods as a representative of what is now known as ‘historic premillenialism” (see page 261 for his millennial position). Ladd reads the books as applicable to the first century, but also as a prophecy of the return of Jesus in the future. Occasionally he weighs alternate views of the book in the commentary, as he does in treating the measuring of the Temple in Rev 11, for example. The commentary proper is on the English text, only rarely does he deal with Greek directly and always in transliteration. This makes for an easy-reading commentary for the laymen. [Full Review]
Some readers may be surprised that I would recommend Ladd's commentary since Ladd is an historic premillennialist. Despite differing with Ladd's millennial view, I believe his commentary still contains a wealth of interpretive insight. Ladd describes his interpretive approach as a blending of the preterist and futurist methods, which means that he recognizes the relevance of the immediate historical context. His dating of the book during the reign of Domitian, late in the first century, causes some problems, but this classic commentary is still worth consulting. [Full Review]