Paul Hoskins is Associate Professor of New Testament at SWBTS. I took several classes from him during my masters’ work, including New Testament Theology and Johannine Theology. Interpreting John’s writings, especially through a biblical-theological lens, is Hoskins’ specialty. He’s now blessed us with a new commentary on Revelation that is different from what’s already out there in several helpful ways.
First, Hoskins has the traditional introductory material, but he also includes a useful overview of the four common approaches to interpreting Revelation. Most people, and even many pastors, aren’t familiar with at least two schools of interpretation, much less four or more. Even a brief exposure to various ways of interpreting Revelation will save Bible students from making confident yet misguided assertions about the future based on some difficult passage in the Apocalypse. Hoskins surveys preterist, historicist, and idealist approaches together, and then groups amillennial, premillennial dispensational, and historic premillennial approaches together as futurist. Hoskins himself admits that he writes from a historic premillennial position. In accord with inaugurated eschatology, he tries to distinguish between events in Revelation that are already occurring, and those events that are reserved for the future (e.g., the millennium).
Second, this commentary is different from others in that it does not proceed by individual verse. He takes sections of the book as wholes and describes them together. Of course this usually means explaining the passage in sequential order, but the essay-like approach to the commentary allows him to explain entire passages at once. The entire commentary spans about 480 pages, so it’s not overly large or verbose. Explanations are succinct, and the writing style is simple and easy to follow (and a pleasure to read, really).
Third, Hoskins gives far more attention to the use of OT traditions than to second temple parallels. Many critical commentaries will focus more on the latter to the exclusion of digging around OT contexts to see what John was getting at in his use of that material. Hoskins has written two other works on typology (The Scripture Might Be Fulfilled and his published dissertation, Jesus as the Fulfillment of the Temple in the Gospel of John), so he’s well versed in this hermeneutical approach of the apostles. I would have personally wished for a little more interaction with second temple parallels, if for nothing else, to see how other Jewish authors handled similar OT traditions.
As for specific positions and arguments in the book, I am not concerned in this post to go through them. I’m more concerned to highlight this new work as a useful commentary that gives you something different from a traditional, critical commentary. It would be ideal for preparing sermons or a class on Revelation, especially if you combine it with a larger critical commentary for checking small exegetical issues that you need to dig deeper on.
Personally, I’ve been reading through Revelation in Greek and reading this commentary alongside as a companion. Hoskins confirms some of my interpretations, challenges others, and adds a lot of depth to some of my shallow understandings of passages. For a commentary that you can easily read through within a week or two, and which will also expand your understanding of Revelation and its use of OT traditions, I highly suggest Hoskins’ work.
Buy it here on Amazon.
