Randy
- M. Eugene Boring’s commentary on Revelation doesn’t try to build a timeline of future events. He warns readers not to force the book into fixed theological systems. Still, he admits that if someone insisted on labeling his view, it could be considered “amillennial.”¹ He prefers, however, that Revelation be understood the way the first-century church would have heard it—as a symbolic letter meant to encourage struggling believers, not a blueprint for the future.¹ Boring stresses that the prophecies in Revelation were either about what was soon to happen to John’s original audience or about God’s final victory, which John believed was near.² He does not believe Revelation foretells specific modern-day events. In fact, he calls that kind of interpretation a “fundamental misunderstanding” and warns that it can become “insidiously dangerous.”² ³ He wants readers to focus on the message of endurance and hope, not to treat the book like a puzzle to predict headlines. The book, he says, still has something to say to our time—but its meaning comes through its original context and symbolic language, not in literal predictions.² Boring also makes an important point about resisting cultural pressure. In writing about the letters to the churches in Revelation, he says the figures of the “Nicolaitans,” “Balaam,” and “Jezebel” promoted “the ‘progressive’ doctrine of accommodation to the culture around them.”⁴ His warning is clear: compromising the truth to fit in with society is a danger for the church. Yet Boring served as a professor—and is now professor emeritus—at Brite Divinity School, an institution that openly promotes the very kind of cultural accommodation he criticizes. Brite publicly supports LGBTQIA+ ideology, aligns with the Disciples of Christ's full affirmation of LGBTQ participation in all areas of church life, and advocates for progressive policies that conform to modern culture.⁵ This makes Boring’s critique of cultural compromise in Revelation seem at odds with the environment he helped represent. --- ¹ M. Eugene Boring, *Revelation*, Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1989), 205. ² Ibid., 23–24. ³ Ibid., 49. ⁴ Ibid., 93. ⁵ Brite Divinity School, “Pride Statement,” accessed April 19, 2025, https://brite.edu/pride-statement.
- It's not clear (to me) whether you are criticizing the commentary or the man (the one star rating). I find all your comments of value. And I agree it is important to appropriately draw attention to hypocrisy. But it comes across that your rating is evaluating the author's consistency rather than the commentary itself.
- --Decent for a one-volume commentary. It's a good place to start your studies, and doesn't shy away from difficult passages. At today's sale price, it's a sweet deal.
- Is it dispensational? What's the difference between this commentary and the Bible Knowledge Commentary, please? Thank You
- Yes, it is dispensational.
- Can I get this at a dynamic price in my previously purchased set of Christ Centered Exposition commentaries, or has that option been eliminated nowadays?
- Over the years, we have often been able to update collections so that users can benefit from gaining new volumes at a dynamic discount in the updated set. Typically this does not happen as soon as a new volume is released. Our ability to do that depends on the agreement with the publisher, so this has always been handled on a case-by-case basis. But we have not done away with the practice.
- "Essays on Women in Earliest Christianity" is edited by Carroll Osburn. As I understand it, Carroll produced these volumes according to his Egalitarian viewpoint. This means Carroll thinks passages like Galatians 3:28 establish that gender and role distinctions between women and men should be removed in the church. Since in these volumes, Caroll does not seem to recognize that Christ serves as the ultimate and eternal example of the fact that equality in your position (He is equal to God) doesn't eliminate the need for roles of submission between equals (Jesus always voluntarily subjects Himself to the will of the Father), or that Paul (1 Timothy 2:11-15) specifically based the prohibition of women teaching or exercising authority over a man on God's timeless design and order in creation as well as Eve's role in the fall (not on contemporary circumstances), I cannot endorse the editorial decisions Carroll made in publishing these volumes.