J. Ramsey Michaels, Revelation: The IVP New Testament Commentary Series. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2011.

ISBN 978-0-8308-4020-5
The complexities of the Book of Revelation have hindered commentators and readers since readers have attempted to examine the book. It is well known that many within the early Church were not fans of the book and it was excluded from many canon-lists. So, bold is the commentator willing to tackle it without drowning between Scylla and Charybdis1. And well equipped must such a hearty traveler be if he or she hopes to escape the charges of incompetence or ignorance or, worst of all dilettantism. Fortunately for readers of Michaels volume, he is neither ignorant nor incompetent and he is the least dilettantish soul one can imagine. The volume at hand is comprised of a general preface (to the series in which the volume appears), an authors preface, an introduction to the book of Revelation, an outline of Revelation, the commentary proper, and a useful bibliography. Unlike most commentaries (and Im not sure if this is true as well of other volumes in the present series as Michaels is the first of it Ive seen), this one doesnt actually contain the biblical text. It is absent altogether. Whether this was done for the sake of book-length or not is never indicated. The series, the preface suggests, is based on the NIV. But the text of the NIV isnt included. And it may well be for brevitys sake as Michaels remarks in his own preface Writing a book, like making a fine sculpture, is about knowing what to leave out (p. 11). Moving, then, right into it, in the introduction M. makes the quite true point that no one genre identifies the book of Revelation perfectly. If a label must be attached to it, perhaps it is best called a prophetic letter (p. 16). And so far as authorship is concerned, M believes that John, then, is the implied author and doubtlessly the real author as well. But who is John? The simple answer is that we do not know (p. 18). Which is precisely why M.s work is so valuable: he offers his views on what can safely be suggested and when there is insufficient evidence hes brave enough to say I dont know. This is a disposition many, many other scholars should adopt instead of rambling on speculatively.
1

According to Brittanica, In Greek mythology, two monsters that guarded the narrow passage through which Odysseus had to sail in his wanderings. These waters are now identified with the Strait of Messina. On one shore was Scylla, a monster with six snaky heads, who reached out of her cave to seize and devour six of Odysseus' companions. On the opposite shore was Charybdis, the personification of a whirlpool, who drank down and belched forth the waters three times a day. The shipwrecked Odysseus saved himself by clinging to a tree on the shore until his raft floated to the surface.

M.s hermeneutic is spelled out in the remainder of the introduction and his view of the book he calls qualified literalism. Just as chapters 2-3 are now read as pastoral messages to first-century congregations with implications for other churches in many different times and places, so chapters 4-22 should be read as a series of first-century visions containing promises and warnings to Christian believers always and everywhere (p. 26). The structure of the book, as M sees it, can be found in the four uses of in the Spirit. These four uses of in the Spirit punctuate the book as a whole, dividing it into four main sections preceded by an introduction and followed by a conclusion (p. 26). The Introduction concludes with some guidance for preaching the text of Revelation. M. intelligently observes The first rule for preaching from this book is not to stop after the first three chapters (p. 38). The commentary proper follows and Michaels folksy style and insightful observations make clear what is sometimes cloudy. When he arrives at chapter 20 he discusses the issue of dispensationalism (pre- post- and a-millenialism) and notes interpretation [of the 20th chapter] tends to become the litmus test by which our interpretation of the whole book is measured and classified (p. 219). He rejects all of those isms and instead insists that the book must be dealt with on its own terms: it is wise to deal with the text first of all simply as Johns vision before attempting to explore its possible bearing on how our world is actually going to end (p. 220). Left Behind this commentary is not. And it shouldnt be left behind by modern readers.

Jim West, Quartz Hill School of Theology