Rating: 
Summary: an up-to-date but not exhaustive work concentrating on OT
Review: Although narrow in its interpretative framwork, this commentary is a goldmine of references to the OT allusions contained within Revelation. Its Greek commentary is solid. The author does not fall into the trap of being too exhaustive to be of use to busy pastors, yet too shallow to be of use to the experienced Greek student. Although I did not agree with his basic interpretation, his text and language work made this commentary of more use than most. The symbolism of Revelation is well-handled. Any interpretative framwork will have to come to terms with this solid work on Revelation and provide solutions to the many difficulties presented by the text of this most difficult of all NT epistles.
Rating:
Summary: an up-to-date but not exhaustive work concentrating on OT
Review: Although narrow in its interpretative framwork, this commentary is a goldmine of references to the OT allusions contained within Revelation. Its Greek commentary is solid. The author does not fall into the trap of being too exhaustive to be of use to busy pastors, yet too shallow to be of use to the experienced Greek student. Although I did not agree with his basic interpretation, his text and language work made this commentary of more use than most. The symbolism of Revelation is well-handled. Any interpretative framwork will have to come to terms with this solid work on Revelation and provide solutions to the many difficulties presented by the text of this most difficult of all NT epistles.
Rating: 
Summary: Brilliant Amillennial Evangelical Perspective
Review: Dr. Bill Mounce (son of Dr. Robert Mounce, who wrote another Revelation commentary, also colleague of Dr. Beale at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary) once joked and said that "you know it's good when it's so thick."I took a New Testament Interpretation class with Dr. Beale, and also have his Revelation class notes. Indeed, this is a brilliantly written book, which is well-written and thoroughly done from an amillennial perspective. Although this camp is not particularly big within evangelicalism (the predominant view being premillennialism), this particular camp has some advantages of being supported by strong scholarship. Beale's book is one of the best in terms of applying interpretational methods. Beale starts off with about 69 pages of background on symbolism of numbers and the symbolic nature of Revelation. His main premise is that the beginning of the book of Revelation (Rev. 1:1) begins with "he revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants what must soon take place; and he made it known by sending his angel to his servant John..." The word "made it known" (RSV) in greek is esemanen (aorist active indicative, 3rd singular for semaino ... which should be rendered "to be communicated in symbols"). Thus, Beale takes the view that the book of Revelation should be read primarily symbolically unless there is ample evidence that it should not be rendered symbolically. He would note some of those symbols include numbers, lampstands, sword, etc. Thus, because of the symbolic nature of the book, the "1000 years" of Rev. 20:4-6 is to be understood symbolically rather than a literal 1000 years, rendering his view as "amillennial". Beale does a great job in scholarship in interacting with other views, namely the premillennial and postmillennial views (especially readings of Revelation 20:4-6 ... close to 100 pages here), and also with other theories of the horsemen (e.g., Beasly-Murray, etc.) He even interacts with other commentaries and papers written on Revelation, as well as incorporating other literature (e.g., Jewish apocryphal writings) to analyze the text. Excellent scholarship! To utilize this commentary well, you will need some basic Greek training (as Beale does utilize the Greek New Testament a lot, including doing textual criticism analysis, sentence flow analysis), like at least a first-year biblical Greek course. This is indeed the best amillennial commentary (and probably the best commentary) that I've seen of Revelation. The two that are typically suggested by scholars include Dr. Robert Mounce's and this one!
Rating:
Summary: Solid contribution.
Review: Greg Beale's contribution to the study of Revelation is no doubt one of the best ever. Easily on par with Aune (WBC), greater in detail than Mounce (NICNT), the standard Evangelical commentary. Yet Beale is not without its flaws. One of the most serious is that Beale simply brushes of any preterist readings and more than this; often does not interact with the preterist (first century context) at all! We still await some recent commentary that takes the first century context seriously, (D. Chilton not withstanding). Hopefully, Ken Gentry will soon fill this gap. H.S Bultmann.
Rating:
Summary: Solid contribution.
Review: Greg Beale's contribution to the study of Revelation is no doubt one of the best ever. Easily on par with Aune (WBC), greater in detail than Mounce (NICNT), the standard Evangelical commentary. Yet Beale is not without its flaws. One of the most serious is that Beale simply brushes of any preterist readings and more than this; often does not interact with the preterist (first century context) at all! We still await some recent commentary that takes the first century context seriously, (D. Chilton not withstanding). Hopefully, Ken Gentry will soon fill this gap. H.S Bultmann.
Rating:
Summary: Get it !
Review: I was a Full - Preterist but now hold a view similar to Beale. I think he has the right idea. I would add a few things, that is that Revelation is fulfilled in the firstfruits and now we must follow that same path. But Beale pretty much seems to be saying the same thing for the most part, which is Christ is "the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter". And since Christ does not change after the cross neither shall His revelation. So in that he likes to think Revelation was written in 90 AD is not a problem. Get the book, you will not be sorry you did.
Rating:
Summary: Get It ! ! !
Review: I was a Full - Preterist but now hold a view similar to Beale. I do think he has the right idea. I would add a few things, that is that Revelation is fulfilled in the firstfruits and now we must follow that same path. But Beale pretty is saying the same thing for the most part, which is Christ is the "Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending . . . which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.", Rev. 1 That He always will be "God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come", Rev. 4. And since Christ does not change after the cross neither shall His revelation, Rev. 1:1. So in that Beale likes to think Revelation was written in 90 AD is not a problem for me. Get his book, you will not be sorry you did! Donald James Perry
Rating:
Summary: Get it !
Review: I was a Full - Preterist but now hold a view similar to Beale. I think he has the right idea. I would add a few things, that is that Revelation is fulfilled in the firstfruits and now we must follow that same path. But Beale pretty much seems to be saying the same thing for the most part, which is Christ is "the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter". And since Christ does not change after the cross neither shall His revelation. So in that he likes to think Revelation was written in 90 AD is not a problem. Get the book, you will not be sorry you did.
Rating:
Summary: A massive and scholarly commentary
Review: There are a lot of great things to say about this commentary. First of all, from reading it, it is easy to see that there are few things to do with the book of Revelation that Beale has not thought long and hard about. He is especially helpful at elucidating how much John utilizes Old Testament imagery in describing his revelatory visions. The commentary's introduction is 180 pages long and deals with the symbolism in the book of Revelation as well as the grammar and the theology and the political and cultural life setting. But there are a number of points where the reader will definitely want to question some of Beale's conclusions. Not everyone will follow him in his interpretation of the word 'show' in Rev 1:1, or follow him in his idealistic amillennial understanding of Revelation. The reader may question Beale's reluctance to interpret literally at certain points in the commentary as well. But you can't possibly come away from a careful reading of this volume without learning something. For the educated clergyman, this is a great commentary to get, alongside the more accessible volumes of Craig Koester and Robert Mounce.
Rating:
Summary: One of the definitive commentaries on Revelation
Review: This book is a scholar's dream on Revelation. Beale is to be commended for offering both the current scholarly range of interpretation on Revelation and for lucidly giving his own point of view -- many commentaries today only offer one or the other. The reader will come away with an appreciation of the major interpretive views of Reveltion as well as an excellently argued defense of Beale's idealist viewpoint. Those who do not share the Idealist bias should still be able to benefit from the wide range of differing viewpoints that Beale mentions, although any serious study of Revelation in the future will have to account for Beale's scholarship. Beale uses the Old Testament as his primary (although not only) key for interpreting the myriad puzzling passages in Revelation, and what results is a convincing analysis of a very confusing book. The only problem I could find with this commentary was its length: it is so exhaustive that its length is somewhat prohibitive against frequent usage (researching any passage is a major undertaking). However, this is a small criticism, as a shorter treatment of the subject matter would have prevented Beale from analyzing the text with such impressive depth. If you can afford the expensive cover price you will get all of your money's worth, and more, with this brilliant work.
| 
