Revelation: The Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament by Grant R. Osborne PDF Free Download
1 / 3/3
100%
Revelation: The Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament by Grant R.
Osborne. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003. Pp. xx + 869. $49.99 hardcover.
Recently, two very excellent full-length commentaries have been published
on the book of Revelation. The first was the commentary by G. K. Beale pub-
lished by Eerdmans in 1999, and the second is this commentary by Grant
Osborne. Beale’s commentary is the longer of the two (1150 pages) because it
provides a greater amount of background material and engages in more exten-
sive theological and exegetical argumentation with opposing positions.
Osborne’s commentary is somewhat briefer (800 pages) because he concisely
423
BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTICES
summarizes each of the major options in a sentence or two and is more con-
cerned with arguing for his own position than in extensively refuting others. In
addition, his quotation of background material is not as extensive as Beale’s. I
would guess that harried ministers may well like the relative brevity of
Osborne’s commentary as well as his section in each unit called Summary and
Contextualization in which he summarizes the essential teaching and presents
suggestions for application today. Osborne’s commentary reads like an inter-
esting class lecture, which is primarily an extended argument for the positions
he considers most probable.
Abook review on a commentary is not the place to note the instances of
exegetical disagreement between reviewer and author. The single most impor-
tant issue in interpreting the book of Revelation concerns the basic method-
ological approach. Osborne distinguishes his approach from that of G. K. Beale
in the following manner. Whereas Beale describes his method as “a redemptive-
historical form of modified idealism,” Osborne believes that “the futurist rather
than the idealist is primary” (22). As a characterization of the Augustinian (amil-
lennial) approach to Revelation, the term idealism,while common, can be con-
fusing. It sounds much like the Platonic distinction between transcendent truth
and historical event, a view that Osborne’s brief definition echoes. Idealism, he
says, “argues that the symbols do not relate to historical events but rather to time-
less spiritual truths” (20). However, the views of Hendriksen and Hoekema,
whom Osborne mentions as representing the idealist tradition, are much more
like Beale’sinaugurated eschatology,which interprets the symbols not as time-
less spiritual truths but as symbols applicable to multiple historical events from
Jesus’ ascension to his return. Inaugurated eschatology also expects a final his-
torical fulfillment whose finality will be revealed by Christ’s return.
What then is the precise difference between Osborne and Beale? On the
one hand, Osborne declares that his approach is similar to Beale’sbecause he,
too, believes that the symbols must be understood not only as designating the
final events (futurist) but also as being applicable to the events of John’s day
(preterist) and even to our own day (idealist). In addition, most of the princi-
ples for interpreting Revelation that areat home in the amillennial-idealist
position are affirmed also by Osborne; for example, narrative recapitulation
rather than straight-line chronology concerning the three series of judgments,
understanding the twelve tribes of Israel as a designation not of Jewish Israel
but of the universal church, recognizing that while symbols do apply to histor-
ical events only God knows how literally or not they will be fulfilled, and even
that the symbol of the beast is proleptically fulfilled in the Roman Empire of
John’s day. So, from this perspective the difference is indeed not great.
Yet, there is a difference because Osborne believes that the primary refer-
ence of Revelation’s symbolic world is to the final events of history. Although
granting that the amillennial and postmillennial positions arepossible,
Osborne believes that the premillennial position is exegetically more probable.
Of course, if premillennialism is adopted as the preferred position, a concern
424
CALVIN THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL
for the chronology of the final events necessarily becomes an important con-
sideration. Then, for example, the view that even chapter 20 could be a narra-
tive recapitulation, in which the destruction of Satan while narratively distinct
from the final destruction of the two beasts is not temporally distinct, is not
possible. This concern for chronology is not limited to chapter 20. Because
each of the three series of judgments brings the reader to the eschaton,
Osborne’s focus on the final events as the primary reference begins early in his
commentary. For example, the vision of the great multitude in heaven (chap.
7) is placed after the great tribulation of the final three and a half years. In
Osborne’s view, this temporal designation is applicable only to the very final
events of history and does not characterize the entire period of time until Jesus’
return. As a consequence, John’s own declaration of sharing in the tribulation
that is in Jesus (1:9) cannot be a part of this three-and-a-half-year period of the
great tribulation. Thus, Osborne’s focus on the final events as the primary ref-
erence of Revelation’s symbolic world leads him to a clearly articulated classi-
cal (not dispensational) premillennialism. This is the essential difference
between Osborne and Beale.
Nevertheless, whether one agrees with his premillennialism or not,
Osborne’s commentary is an important contribution to the interpretation of
the book of Revelation. He modestly presents his premillennial position not as
the standard for being orthodox but only as the more probable exegetical posi-
tion among other viable options. Osborne is a careful exegete, and his work can
help clarify the issues in the debate even whereone may not agree. In addition,
as mentioned earlier,therearewide areas of agreement both in methodologi-
cal approach and exegetical result between Osborne and exegetes holding an
amillennial or a postmillennial position. Thus, I highly recommend Osborne’s
work as a veryinteresting and useful commentarythat can contribute to a
richer understanding of the book of Revelation.
—David E. Holwerda
425
BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTICES
