Are there any comm's on Revelation with Logos that come from the Historic Premil viewpoint?
Whyndell, I don't have time for a more detailed post (still prepping for today's service!) but GE Ladd is well regarded, and Logos has some of his works, including a pre-pub on his NT Theology. Steve Greg has a commentary that lays out the four major millenial views side by side (in Logos). I know there are some others--but not off hand.
Whyndell, I have Revelation: Four Views in Logos and if you want me to email you some sample pages to see if it is what you are looking for I'll be glad to. My email is rick68 at vqme com I really enjoy Four Views though. Very thorough and neutral. The author, Steve Gregg, does his very best to remain neutral and simply give a parallel commentary that explains the views in the first several pages (pros and cons of each) and then a side-by side commentary that represents the main four views. http://www.logos.com/ebooks/details/REV4VIEWS
EDIT: If you are not interested in the other various views, are committed to one particular view, or have no interest in learning the school of thought on the other interpretations then Revelation: Four Views might be a bit of overkill. It is designed solely to examine and compare different views.
I don't have Ladd's work: http://www.logos.com/ebooks/details/LASTLADD but am including part of a review from Amazon:
<< Start Copy/Paste>> "Ladd's book is not primarily a critique of Dispensationalism. It is a good explanation of what is sometimes called historic premillenialism. This is the view held by many church leaders throughout the centuries well before Dispensationalism and it is still widely held today (this doesn't make it correct, but at least worthy of consideration). Ladd shows how eschatology was essential in the teaching Jesus most emphasized - "the Kingdom". Ladd uses examples from The Sermon on the Mount, Kingdom parables, and many others to show how the end times and the Kingdom Jesus said was already upon us are directly related. Paul's letters are also carefully examined for eschatological information. We should realize that we don't need to wait in a state of anticipation hoping for Jesus to bring the Kingdom - He already has! The Kingdom has already invaded this world but the work of final consummation is not yet finished, and it is God's work we are privileged to participate in. We will not be raptured out of hard times, but like so many saints before us we will live out our faith as citizens of a different order only bowing the knee to the One who is already reigning as King!Most of Ladd's books are more technical than this one and his "A Theology of the New Testament" is standard reading in many seminaries. Ladd has gone to be with the Lord, but his gifts and diligence made him one of the finest evangelical scholars of the 20th century. If you are a Bible teacher or aspiring Bible student looking for a well-informed introduction to post-trib rapture and Kingdom based eschatology, you will not find a better guide than Ladd. If you are pretty familiar with the Bible, you will find this book a quick, enjoyable read and it may help you see eschatology, and your role in it, in a whole new (and very Biblical) way." <<End Copy/Paste>>
I ran across a book called "A Case for Historic Premillenialism" with Craig Blomberg as an editor. I thought up till now that he was Amill. Oh well. Here are a list of contributors:
Oscar A. Campos
Sung Wook Chung
Helene Dallaire
Donald Fairbairn
Richard S. Hess
Don J. Payne
Timothy P. Weber
DA Carson is doing the upcoming Revelation Commentary in the Pillar series. I have been told his approach is Hist. Premill. But it ain't out yet! [;)] Walter Kaiser has done some books on prophecy, and I think he is HP too, but unfortunately no commentaries on Revelation.
EDIT: If you are not interested in the other various views, are committed to one particular view, or have no interest in learning the school of thought on the other interpretations then Revelation: Four Views might be a bit of overkill.
thanks for providing the link--and also, considering that there are few (that we know of) historical premill commentaries on Revelation, this would be a good book just to get a good handle on the HPrem. view on Revelation. You can always ignore the other three as needed.
You can always ignore the other three as needed.
I could not agree more Dan, very good advice. In my opinion, Four Views is a gold mine for the price. Keeping in mind that I have no formal Biblical training whatsoever, I believe that this book is easy to read and very thorough. It is not overly complicated nor elementary either.
Even if you do have your mind made up, this is an excellent reference to defend your position by learning what arguments others may use.
George Eldon Ladd did write a commentary on Revelation, A Commentary on the Revelation of John, reviewed here.
You might also want to look into Classic Commentaries and Studies on Revelation in pre-pub. Some of those might be historical premil, though you'd have to do your own research to find out which ones. Edward Bishop Elliot, author of Horae Apocalypticae, a four volume set in that collection, is classified as historical premil by the Preterist Archive (curated by Todd Dennis) here.
Another resource is the website for the International Conference on Historic Premillennialism that Denver Seminary put on in 2009.
Spurgeon was evidently historical premillennialist in his eschatology: http://www.spurgeon.org/eschat.htm. Though he didn't write a commentary on Revelation as far as I know, there are some of his sermons on it in My Sermon Notes, Volume 4.
According to a Wikipedia article on it, other proponents of historical premillennialism include John Gill, Benjamin Wills Newton, Clarence Bass, Francis Schaeffer, Gordon Clark, and James Montgomery Boice. I haven't taken the time to search all of their writings to see if there are any other commentaries among them.
According to a Wikipedia article on it,
yeah, i saw that and another--but I couldn't decipher any of those with Revelation commentaries, especially in Logos. J. Barton Payne is another, but his activity seems more OT (although he does have some Logos entries--Ezra/Nehemiah is one, in the EBC) He is mentioned in a book on 20th century interpreters, too. There are some more, but if you want to go down that rabbit trail, do yer own searchin'! [;)]
Peace. Happy deliberating, Whyndell.
Grudem's and Erickson's Systematic Theologies address the different millienial views as well. Good resources.
Elliott's 'Horae Apocalypticae' is considered the pinnacle of pre-mil Historicist interpretation. It is indisputably the largest and most comprehensive exposition of the book ever written by a single author. Its four volumes of almost 3,000 pages, with over 10,000 references is still used today as a rich source of commentary from a massive range of earlier expositors whose works are today extremely difficult to locate, or have yet to be translated into English.
For those interested in Spurgeon's opinion, he referred to Elliott's as simply 'The standard work'. That's saying something given that in his 'Commenting on Commentaries' he puts the boot into just about everyone else who wrote anything on the interpretation of Revelation (I'll show you some crackers he wrote, if you like). Elliott has pride of place in my own 900 page survey of Jewish and Christian prophetic interpretation (I have accumulated a list of over 600 Historicist expositors, and a collection of over 500 Historicist works).
Other Historicist pre-mils in the Classic Commentaries and Studies on Revelation are James Durham, John Taylor Dean, and John Cumming. Most of those listed are Futurists or Spiritualists/Idealists of some kind, though Moses Stuart was a Preterist. Still, some of the Futurists (such as deBurgh), were still pre-mils. You'll find Thomas Goodwin was a classic Historicist pre-mil, and his exposition of Revelation is in volume three of the works of Goodwin soon to be published by Logos.
Being of the historic Pre-mil persuasion myself, I really, really, really wish that George Ladd's commentary on Revelation was available in Logos.
Dan, that is interesting about Don Carson's forthcoming Pillar Commentary. I am not aware of what Don Carson's view of eschatology is, but I would be interested in whatever he wrote about it - no matter which interpretation he favors. He is very solid and helpful always. But if Carson is historic pre-mil, I would be even more excited. If the Pillar Commentary by Carson is from the historic pre-mil perspective, then it would likely become the standard commentary from that perspective. Again, from my perspective, I hope that is the case.
I just read an article that listed the following people as representing "Historic Premillennialism": John Piper, Albert Mohler, D.A. Carson, and Mark Dever, and the late James Montgomery Boice.
I was not aware that Piper and Carson were of that persuasion. I find that interesting.
Two possible reasons for that: 1) People do sometimes change their positions on eschatology over time (as witnessed by at least one of the posters above telling of their own transformations). 2) Some people don't have a particularly strong opinion about it one way or the other but other people like to put them in camps and will seize on any little hint to try to categorize them. Piper and Carson might not themselves want to identify a particular eschatology as the one they hold to unequivocally, but someone else might have categorized them that way.
Does someone with the Word Biblical Commentary set know the position that David E. Aune takes in his commentary on Revelation? I know sometimes authors in the academic community are hard to pin down.
Very True. My own view shifted over the years somewhat. I doubt many people in my congregation know my position on eschatology. Not that I try to hide it by any means, but it is not central to my preaching. I was just interested to find that (perhaps) Piper and Carson have come to the same conclusions that I have on this issue. I have great respect for both of them regardless of their persuasion on eschatology, but it is always fun if they happen to agree with you. Most of the time I read folks who do not agree with me.
The intersting shift I've seen in recent years is that more people seem to be open to an "I don't know for sure" stance and more people seem to tolerate other people who either don't know or have a different viewpoint than their own. It used to be when I was growing up that if you didn't hold to thus and such eschatological position and be absolutely certain of it, you were evidently not really a true Christian. Or at least you were someone to be wary of, dangerously deceived. There are probably still a bunch of people who think that way, but more and more are willing to dialogue with others about it and not be so stiff-necked about their own position, which I think is ultimately more helpful to us all. I think there are many things that are ultimately more important in following Christ than whether you know how it's all going to play out in the end...apart from "Jesus shall reign!" which is all I really know for sure.
The often mentioned website www.bestcommentaries.com has under NT books, Revelation an indication with every commentary Amil, Pre- or Postmil...
Rosie, with all due respect, but what you wrote ["Jesus shall reign!"] makes it seem as if Jesus will reign in the future. The Bible clearly teaches that Jesus IS already reigning, not that He will reign. Consider what will happen in the "end" -- 1 Corinthians 15:24-25, “Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign (present active) until he has put all his enemies under his feet. ” (1 Corinthians 15:24–25, ESV). We have also been translated (past tense) into Jesus' kingdom (Col. 1:13-14), ALL authority has been given to Him (Matt. 28:18), we have received a kingdom that cannot be shaken (Heb. 12:28) and even John considered himself a part of the kingdom (Rev. 1:9) because Jesus made of us a kingdom and priests (Rev. 1:6; cf. 1 Peter 2:9). Therefore, Jesus IS (present tense) reigning, and not "shall" reign (future tense). When all it's said and done all Jesus will do when the end comes is to turn over the kingdom (the Church) to the Father so He can reign forever and ever (1Cor 15:24). So "Jesus shall reign" (future tense) is wrong, you should rather say "Jesus IS reigning" and when the end comes "God the Father Shall Reign." This precious truth has nothing to do with what view someone takes on Revelation, it just is what it is, plain and simple Bible Truth. I hope you don't take my comment the wrong way, but I feel you and others are under the impression that some how Jesus is not reigning right now, but that He will do so some time in the obscure future. Jesus is already reigning and sitting on the Throne (Acts 2:28-36). Ok, that's all. Have a great day!
Giovanni
I just read an article that listed the following people as representing "Historic Premillennialism": John Piper, Albert Mohler, D.A. Carson, and Mark Dever, and the late James Montgomery Boice. I was not aware that Piper and Carson were of that persuasion. I find that interesting.
Hmm I thought Dever and Mohler were Amillennial, but I could be wrong. The difference between Historic Premillennialism and Amillennialism is quite small. Most in the Historic Premillennialist camp don't think there has to be a literal 1,000 year millennium. 5 seconds could separate Historic Premillennialism from Amillennialism.
I studied at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and Carson was my academic advisor. In order to teach there, you have to be Premillennial as part of the EFCA's doctrinal statement. I am sure he is Premil, and he certainly isn't dispensational as his Matthew commentary certainly explains.
The difference between Historic Premillennialism and Amillennialism is quite small. Most in the Historic Premillennialist camp don't think there has to be a literal 1,000 year millennium. 5 seconds could separate Historic Premillennialism from Amillennialism.
Jeremy, as one who is of the historic pre-mil persuasion, I must say that by far most in the Historic Premil camp would believe in a literal millennium. George Ladd certainly does. Ladd, perhaps the most prominent Historic Premil theologian, believes in a literal "Great Tribulation" and a literal Antichrist as well. It is hard to see how one is pre-mil at all if he (or she) doesn't believe in a literal millennium. That is one of the distinctions between the historic pre-mil and amil positions.
However, it is true that if I were not Historic Pre-mil, I would likely be Amil. Once I was dispensational pre-mil, but that is one view I could not see myself returning to again. So if you mean that Historic Pre-mil is closer to Amil than Dispensational Pre-mil, I would not argue. But I would not accept that I am any less pre-mil than any dispensationalist.
Hmmm... Do we sound like who among us is the true "Pharisee of the Pharisees"?
Honestly, I think all of the eschatological interpretations are probably wrong about something. We all see through a glass darkly on this. John Wesley said that we "may be almost as orthodox — as the devil, (though, indeed, not altogether; for every man errs in something; whereas we cannot well conceive him to hold any erroneous opinion,) and may, all the while, be as great a stranger as he to the religion of the heart." On matters like this a little humility is well advised.
Okay - read the guidelines. This is not a forum to debate personal theology ... to ask about the theological stance of a particular author or publisher, no problem. But let's at least make a effort to help relative newcomers (based on post count) understand the purpose and guidelines of the forums.
I studied at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and Carson was my academic advisor.
You mentioned in another post that Carson's commentary on Revelation will be available "soon". Can you give us a hint as to what year it might be expected? I've listened to Carson's teaching on Revelation on the Internet, some of which goes back into the 90's. Fascinating and sensible discussion on the symbolism. I've been waiting a long time to see his work in print and will do another study on Revelation when it is available. Maybe by then Somsel will have his commentary done and I can include it in the study too!
Also, I'm curious, who functions as editor when Carson writes in Pillar series?
BTW, I have been taking TEDS extension classes in Wisconsin.
Thanks in advance for any intel.
Scott
Carson used to be amil but is now historic premil
For those interested I found a pdf of Horae Apocalypticae all 4 volumes here. Maybe Logos would consider getting this into oue libraries
http://www.harvestherald.com/horae/Horae.pdf
Maybe Logos would consider getting this into oue libraries
D. A. Carson's views on Revelation can be listened to here.
D. A. Carson on the Book of Revelation – Justin Taylor
