The Reformation
Southwestern Journal of Theology
Volume 60, No. 1 – Fall 2017
Managing Editor: W. Madison Grace II
Revelation: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. By Craig R. Koester. Anchor Yale Bible. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2014. 928 pages. Softcover, $65.00.
Commentaries on Revelation come in all shapes and sizes, being written from numerous perspectives and with various structures and emphases. Some scholars privilege the (presumed) historical background underlying the book’s context and imagery, others the work’s theological contribution or even prophetic nature, and still others the reception of the book throughout Christian history or from a reader-oriented perspective. Craig Koester, a professor of New Testament at Luther Seminary in St. Paul, Minnesota, and a prominent Johannine scholar, attempts to address Revelation on all three of these fronts to varying degrees, with a pronounced emphasis upon the book’s history of interpretation and influence. By privileging Revelation’s reception history, Koester seeks ultimately to avoid the traditional labels attached to different interpretive approaches such as futuristic, timeless, church historical, and preterist (xiii).
While Revelation’s reception history is certainly the most pronounced contribution of this volume, the literary world of the book and its theological significance are also given significant attention. Koester wants to emphasize the literary world of Revelation, “the world within the text,” rather than simply how John’s visions relate to space-time events, focusing on how the various visions throughout the book relate to each other and create a narrative world not bound by the laws of space and time (xiv). Such an emphasis does not, however, lead Koester to eschew the importance of the socio-historical world within which Revelation was composed. His reception historical emphasis and literary reading of the text are complemented strongly by an extensive use of Greek and Latin inscriptions, Jewish and pagan literary works, and other relevant archaeological finds.
Koester’s introduction in and of itself constitutes a unique contribution to commentary writing on Revelation. Rather than simply launching into discussions of general debates about Revelation’s authorship, date, and literary features, Koester first devotes thirty-five pages to a diachronic tracing of the book’s history of inter-pretation and influence from AD 100 to the present (29–65). There are at least two benefits of such an approach. First, it causes the reader to consider the questions that have been asked and assumptions that have been made as people have read and sought to understand Revelation across two centuries. Second, reflection upon this history of interpretation reminds the modern reader to be cognizant of contemporary historical and social factors that may lead him or her to certain presuppositions, conclusions, or even questions about Revelation. Even when Koester does turn toward the traditional topics addressed in commentary introductions, he does so with an eye ever fixed upon Revelation’s history of interpretation and influence. In fact, he continues this practice even beyond the introduction, frequently rehearsing historical interpretations of significant issues in the text throughout the commentary.
Koester’s attempt to avoid traditional labels by emphasizing Revelation’s reception history appears largely successful. By and large, Koester’s emphasis upon Revelation’s reception history enables him to achieve his intended goal of transcending traditional labels and frameworks. This in turn helps him avoid pitfalls of certain traditional frameworks by not wholly identifying with any one interpretive “camp.” For instance, in Koester’s treatment of the millennium of Revelation 20, he is careful to trace the history of interpretations on the millennium (741–50), and is quick to identify aspects of certain positions he deems representative of the text itself (e.g., he appears to endorse certain features of a “premillennial” perspective with regard to the timing of Satan’s imprisonment in Revelation 20:1–3 [785]) without committing himself completely to any one theological position (787–88). Rather than arguing the finer points of each major millennial perspective, Koester seeks to focus upon the literary world of Revelation 20 to ascertain its meaning. While some may be frustrated at his reluctance to “pick a camp,” or to at least be more explicit on where he falls in the discussion among various “camps,” his desire to privilege the text’s original intent apart from the explicit influence of a theological position should be commended.
Koester’s dual emphasis upon the literary and social world of the text is also evident in his reading of the letters to the seven churches in Revelation 2–3. Again Koester seeks to let the text remain his central focus and to question modern approaches which have proven largely influential in scholarly and popular interpretations. On this particular point, Koester is critical of the approach popularized initially by Colin Hemer’s The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia in their Local Setting, which attempted to find in each of the seven letters descriptions alluding to specific traits of the ancient cities wherein the seven churches reside. This approach used knowledge of the cities’ topography, history, and institutions to identify specific historical referents for the descriptions, promises, and warnings in each of the letters (233). While it is not Koester’s intention to dismiss all such pursuits, he rightly insists that “in almost every instance, the images used for one city would fit other locations equally well.” What Koester deems to be more important is not the different character traits of the cities individually, but how the seven congregations responded to their social context (233).
What Koester has provided in his new commentary on Revelation is a stout treatment of an incredibly difficult book and a welcome alternative to commentaries on Revelation which only seek to read the book through a particular theological lens or framework. Koester clearly prefers a preterist reading of Revelation, though he does not dismiss entirely any futuristic aspects or relevance for readers throughout church history. In providing careful reception-historical surveys for each major sec-tion (and for the book as a whole), Koester has effectively demonstrated that the categories we so frequently operate with when seeking to understand Revelation did not emerge out of a vacuum, but rather, many of the same issues we wrestle with presently have plagued students of the text for centuries. Such an approach reminds us that we ought not develop a kind of superiority complex over our ancient brethren, but that we ought to do our work with humility, knowing that we are also a part of Revelation’s reception history. We too are attempting to understand this powerful and elusive book as best we can, with God’s help, in spite of (and in light of ) our own socio-historical context.
