Book of Revelation- Historic Premil

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>>

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.

Grant Osborne's commentary on Revelation in the BECNT is written from a Historic Premil viewpoint

Just to clarify, If you have the Platinum or Portfolio package you have this commentary.

Mounce's in the NICNT series

In Logos you must buy the series to get this commentary. 

I am waiting patiently for the Pillar commentary to arrive and would like to see Ladd's commentary on Revelation available in Logos (but may buy it in paper sooner if it don't show up)

Whyndell, if you have Baker's Exegetical commentary on Revelation and you look at the index of authors, you can see authors he quotes often and how he views their writing.  This might lead you to further research.

Grudem's and Erickson's Systematic Theologies address the different millienial views as well. Good resources.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

It seems unlikely to me that Jesus would return when His bride is in so much confusion about these issues.  So I would take an increased openness and clarity as a sign of the nearness of His coming.  Of course He can do whatever He wants.   

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.

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.

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.