Book Review: The Revelation of Saint John by Ian Boxall

Special thanks to Kathy of Hendrickson Publishers for a review copy of this book.  I should note that paperback volumes of the Black’s series will be released in the relatively near future.  I have a hardcover copy.

I have a confession to make.  When I first saw this commentary a couple years back, I asked two questions: who is Ian Boxall and why is he replacing George Caird’s Revelation commentary in the Black’s series?  To address the second question, it’s not that Caird’s commentary is particularly outstanding.  But it was somewhat groundbreaking in its time (so I’m told, since I didn’t exist yet when it came out) and holds a rightful place as one of those older commentaries you ought to check out (of course, referring to it as “older” betrays a certain limited historical vantage point on my part).

As for Ian Boxall, a quick Google search lets you know that he’s a young Oxford scholar who has previously published on Revelation (or a personal fitness trainer, but I’m guessing it wasn’t him that wrote this book).  It wasn’t until relatively recently when I read a positive review of this commentary that I decided I’d check it out.  I’ve searched for a commentary to recommend to students without the requisite Greek knowledge to keep up with Beale and the like.  I own Ben Witherington’s commentary, which fits this category, but am not in love with it.

I have a second confession to make.  I was an idiot for passing over this a couple years ago.  Throughout the commentary I found myself impressed with Boxall’s interpretations (even when I disagreed) and thankful for his, at times unique, insights.

For instance, in the introduction alone I encountered three things I had not fully considered previously.  First, is the importance of Revelation as a visionary text.  Boxall does not deny “that the Apocalypse is also a carefully crafted document” (p4), but he does suggest that perhaps John’s “conscious intention cannot be the determining factor at every points” (p5).  A provocative suggestion, indeed.  I actually felt that Boxall could have explored the importance of the visionary experience in more depth.  What about the majesty of the throne room vision in chapter 4?  How ought this impact the reader?  I can’t help but wonder if, in the search for the meaning of little details, we lose sight of the sheer force of the imagery and its intended effect on the reader/listener.

Second, Boxall attempts to illustrate the importance of the John’s location: Patmos.  True, most interpreters note the importance of his exile (Bauckham being a notable exception) and the location of his readers, but Boxall is just as concerned with Patmos as the location of that exile.  He argues that the visual pagan imagery of Patmos may show up periodically in Revelation (specifically Artemis and Apollo).

Third is the importance of the call not to compromise in Revelation.  Boxall doesn’t discount the threat of persecution for John’s readers, but argues that not enough attention has been given to the threat of compromise.  I’ve already written about this here, so I won’t go any further down that road.

There are, to be sure, some things I disagreed with here and there.  I don’t agree with the contention that the 7 Spirits of 1:4 are angels rather than the Holy Spirit.  I’m confused why he thinks this view “may too readily assume a developed trinitarianism” (p31), yet he can frequently refer to the “Eucharistic” setting of Revelation.  It seems to me that assuming a Eucharistic liturgy is more anachronistic than a developed trinitarian theology.  I’m not at all convinced that the scroll John ingests in chapter 10 is the same scroll from chapter 5.  And so on.

I found myself nodding in agreement more often than not.  The 144,000 of chapter 7 are not only ethnic Jews, but to be understood by the vision of the multi-ethnic multitude.  The angel of chapter 10 is  not to be identified with Jesus.  The 2 witnesses of chapter 11 are “representative figures of the prophetic ministry of the Church” (p164).  Throughout the commentary I was grateful for his demonstation of the importance of Ezekiel for John’s vision, especially in the final two chapters.  Boxall even includes a helpful chart on page 255.  In fact, Boxall has convinced me of my need to beef up the Ezekiel portion of my library.  When you combine this with Beale’s emphasis on Daniel, I begin to wonder how I can understand Revelation without some working knowledge of these two OT books.

(Note: I’m intentionally leaving out reference to his interpretation of the millennium in this review, because in my experience this is the first place students look in determining the worth of a Revelation commentary.  Believe it or not, there is more to the book than 20:1-6)

This is one of the better non-technical commentaries on Revelation, alongside Witherington and Keener.  For those who have a long interest in Revelation, there is enough insight in here to be of great help- he packs a lot into a short space.  For those looking for a reliable guide as they learn the book, Boxall will prove to play the role well.  In my opinion, what the church needs in its books on Revelation is clarity, not cleverness.  Boxall’s commentary is remarkably clear and penetrating without trying to force anything.  And let us remember that there are excellent commentaries out there not written by men with names like Fee, Moo, Carson, Beale etc.  I hope to read more of Boxall’s work in the years to come.