G.K. Beale Study Archive @ PreteristArchive.com - The Internet's Only Balanced Look at Preterism

Vern S. Poythress
“Idealist…recapitulationist…amillennialist…Beale clearly supports the Augustinian, Reformed position on God’s sovereignty. He argues the more effectively because his presentation arises organically from the text of Revelation and not merely from a system invoked from outside the text…Beale’s commentary is the best technical commentary available, and should find a place on pastors’ as well as scholars’ shelves. It provides an abundance of sound guidance to those struggling over the challenge of interpreting Revelation.” ( Westminster Theological Seminary)

STUDY ARCHIVE

Main Page

EARLY CHURCH

Ambrose
Ambrose, Pseudo
Andreas
Arethas
Aphrahat
Athanasius
Augustine
Barnabus
BarSerapion
Baruch, Pseudo
Bede
Chrysostom
Chrysostom, Pseudo
Clement, Alexandria
Clement, Rome
Clement, Pseudo
Cyprian
Ephraem
Epiphanes
Eusebius
Gregory
Hegesippus
Hippolytus
Ignatius
Irenaeus
Isidore
James
Jerome
King Jesus
Apostle John
Lactantius
Luke
Mark
Justin Martyr
Mathetes
Matthew
Melito
Oecumenius
Origen
Apostle Paul
Apostle Peter
Maurus Rabanus
Remigius
"Solomon"
Severus
St. Symeon
Tertullian
Theophylact
Victorinus

HISTORICAL PRETERISM
(Minor Fulfillment of Matt. 24/25 or Revelation in Past)

Joseph Addison
Oswald T. Allis
Thomas Aquinas
Karl Auberlen
Augustine
Albert Barnes
Karl Barth
G.K. Beale
Beasley-Murray
John Bengel
Wilhelm Bousset
John A. Broadus
David Brown
"Haddington Brown"
F.F. Bruce
Augustin Calmut
John Calvin
B.H. Carroll
Johannes Cocceius
Vern Crisler
Thomas Dekker
Wilhelm De Wette
Philip Doddridge
Isaak Dorner
Dutch Annotators
Alfred Edersheim
Jonathan Edwards
E.B. Elliott
Heinrich Ewald
Patrick Fairbairn
Js. Farquharson
A.R. Fausset
Robert Fleming
Hermann Gebhardt
Geneva Bible
Charles Homer Giblin
John Gill
William Gilpin
W.B. Godbey
Ezra Gould
Hank Hanegraaff
Hengstenberg
Matthew Henry
G.A. Henty
George Holford
Johann von Hug
William Hurte
J, F, and Brown
B.W. Johnson
John Jortin
Benjamin Keach
K.F. Keil
Henry Kett
Richard Knatchbull
Johann Lange
Cornelius Lapide
Nathaniel Lardner
Jean Le Clerc
Peter Leithart
Jack P. Lewis
Abiel Livermore
John Locke
Martin Luther
James MacDonald
James MacKnight
Dave MacPherson
Keith Mathison
Philip Mauro
Thomas Manton
Heinrich Meyer
J.D. Michaelis
Johann Neander
Sir Isaac Newton
Thomas Newton
Stafford North
Dr. John Owen
Blaise Pascal
William W. Patton
Arthur Pink
Thomas Pyle
Maurus Rabanus
St. Remigius
Anne Rice
Kim Riddlebarger
J.C. Robertson
Edward Robinson
Andrew Sandlin
Johann Schabalie
Philip Schaff
Thomas Scott
C.J. Seraiah
Daniel Smith
Dr. John Smith
C.H. Spurgeon
Rudolph E. Stier
A.H. Strong
St. Symeon
Theophylact
Friedrich Tholuck
George Townsend
James Ussher
Wm. Warburton
Benjamin Warfield
Noah Webster
John Wesley
B.F. Westcott
William Whiston
Herman Witsius
N.T. Wright
John Wycliffe
Richard Wynne
C.F.J. Zullig

MODERN PRETERISTS
(Major Fulfillment of Matt. 24/25 or Revelation in Past)

Firmin Abauzit
Jay Adams
Luis Alcazar
Greg Bahnsen
Beausobre, L'Enfant
Jacques Bousset
John L. Bray
David Brewster
Dr. John Brown
Thomas Brown
Newcombe Cappe
David Chilton
Adam Clarke
Henry Cowles
Ephraim Currier
R.W. Dale
Gary DeMar
P.S. Desprez
Johann Eichhorn
Heneage Elsley
F.W. Farrar
Samuel Frost
Kenneth Gentry
Steve Gregg
Hugo Grotius
Francis X. Gumerlock
Henry Hammond
Hampden-Cook
Friedrich Hartwig
Adolph Hausrath
Thomas Hayne
J.G. Herder
Timothy Kenrick
J. Marcellus Kik
Samuel Lee
Peter Leithart
John Lightfoot
Benjamin Marshall
F.D. Maurice
Marion Morris
Ovid Need, Jr
Wm. Newcombe
N.A. Nisbett
Gary North
Randall Otto
Zachary Pearce
Andrew Perriman
Beilby Porteus
Ernst Renan
Gregory Sharpe
Fr. Spadafora
R.C. Sproul
Moses Stuart
Milton S. Terry
Herbert Thorndike
C. Vanderwaal
Foy Wallace
Israel P. Warren
Chas Wellbeloved
J.J. Wetstein
Richard Weymouth
Daniel Whitby
George Wilkins
E.P. Woodward

FUTURISTS
(Virtually No Fulfillment of Matt. 24/25 & Revelation in 1st C. - Types Only ; Also Included are "Higher Critics" Not Associated With Any Particular Eschatology)

Henry Alford
G.C. Berkower
Alan Patrick Boyd
John Bradford
Wm. Burkitt
George Caird
Conybeare/ Howson
John Crossan
John N. Darby
C.H. Dodd
E.B. Elliott
G.S. Faber
Jerry Falwell
Charles G. Finney
J.P. Green Sr.
Murray Harris
Thomas Ice
Benjamin Jowett
John N.D. Kelly
Hal Lindsey
John MacArthur
William Miller
Robert Mounce
Eduard Reuss
J.A.T. Robinson
George Rosenmuller
D.S. Russell
George Sandison
C.I. Scofield
Dr. John Smith
Norman Snaith
"Televangelists"
Thomas Torrance
Jack/Rex VanImpe
John Walvoord

Quakers : George Fox | Margaret Fell (Fox) | Isaac Penington

PRETERIST UNIVERSALISM | MODERN PRETERISM | PRETERIST IDEALISM

Gregory K. Beale
AMILLENNIAL HISTORICAL PRETERIST IDEALIST

"He’s an idealist and he’s an evangelical. Almost all idealists used to be liberal, but now you want to be a scholar and all this kind of stuff." Tommy Ice

"If the contemporary church cannot exegete and do theology like the apostles did, how can it feel corporately at one with them in the theological process?" | "The use of the OT in the NT is the key to the theological relationship between the testaments.'

Peace and Mercy Upon the Israel of God: The OT Backgroun in Galatians 6:16 (1999) "This essay has contended that Paul’s reference to "new creation" and the pronouncement of "peace and mercy" on the readers in Gal 6,15-16 is best understood against the background of Isa 54,10 and the surrounding context of similar new creation themes elsewhere in Isa 32–66, which are echoed also earlier in Galatians, especially in 5,22-26. The analysis confirms those prior studies which have concluded that "the Israel of God" refers to all Christians in Galatia, whether Jewish or Christian."

“The kingdom ending is, of course, Israel, but this time it is her definitive end. Rome would destroy Jerusalem and her temple in AD 70. Joel’s language of the earth’s destruction in Acts 2 is also appropriate as a figurative portrayal of the temple’s destruction, since, as we have seen so often earlier, the temple itself and its parts symbolized the cosmos.” (p.214)

“G. Vos arees that the theophanies at these altar sites prepared for the more permanent theophany at the Jerusalem temple. He makes the astounding and, as far as I can tell, unique claim that these episodes not merely point to a future and greater temple but represent ‘the renewal of the paradise-condition and as such presages a full future paradise. It points to the new world’ (2001: 85-86) (32) (Beale, Temple, p.98).

“Just as the Genesis 1:28 commission was initially to be carried out by Adam in a localized place, enlarging the borders of the arboreal sanctuary, so it appears to be not accidental that the restatement of the commission to Israel’s patriarchs results in the following:

God appearing to them (except in Gen. 12:8; 13:3-4);

they ‘pitch a tent’ (literally a ‘tabernacle’ in LXX),

on a mountain

they build ‘altars’ and worship God (i.e., ‘calling on the name of the Lord’, which probably included sacrificial offerings and prayer [Pagolu 1998: 62]) at the place of the restatement;

the place where these activities occur is often located at ‘Bethel’ – the ‘House of God’ (the only case of altar-building not containing these elements nor linked to the Genesis 1 commission is Gen.33:20)

The combination of these five elements occurs elsewhere in the Old Testament only in describing Israel’s tabernacle or temple!(29) Therefore, though ‘occasions for their sacrifices were usually a theophany and moving to a new place’ (Pagolu 1998: 85), there seems to be more significance to the construction of these sacrificial sites. The patriarchs appear also to have built these worship areas as impermanent, miniature forms of sanctuaries that symbolically represented the notion that their progeny were to spread out to subdue the earth from a divine sanctuary in fulfillment of the commission in Genesis 1:26-28.(30) Though they built no buildings, these patriarchal sacred spaces can be considered ‘sanctuaries’ along the lines comparable to the first non-architectural sanctuary in the Garden of Eden” (Beale, Temple, pp.96-97,

“After the restoration from Babylon, God commands Israel to be a ‘witness’ to their ‘knowledge’ and ‘belief’ that God was the only true God, and that he will express his divine omnipotence by again delivering Israel out of a second bondage and performing a second exodus to the promised land (Is.43:10-12; 44:6-8).

“Another observation points to the equation of the new cosmos with the city-temple. Revelation 21:1 commences, as we have seen, with John’s vision of ‘a new heaven and a new earth’, followed by his vision of the ‘new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven’ (v.2), after which he hears a ‘loud great voice’ proclaiming that ‘the tabernacle of God is among men, and he shall dwell among them’. It is likely that the second vision in verse 2 interprets the first vision of the new cosmos, and that what is heard about the tabernacle in verse 3 interprets both verses 1 and 2. If so, the new creation of verse 1 is identical to the ‘new Jerusalem’ of verse 1 and both represent the same reality as the ‘tabernacle’ of verse 3.” (pp. 24,25)

"Likewise, we as the church will not bear fruit and grow and extend across the earth in the way God intends unless we stay out of the shadows of the world and remain in the light of God’s presence – in his word and prayer and in fellowship with other believers in the church, the temple of God. The mark of the true church is an expanding witness to the presence of God: first to our families, then to others in the church, then to our neighbourhood, then to our city, then the country and ultimately the whole earth…

We as individual Christians, as members of a local church and as part of Christ’s church throughout the world must not merely share our lives and God’s word with one another, but we need to get out of our own little fishbowls and manifest the presence of Christ through our words and lives, so that the boundaries of the temple, the church, will grow until the whole earth is encompassed with and manifests the presence of God… The mark of the true church is always to be outward-looking and expanding God’s presence and not obsessively introspective.

The main point of this book is that our task as the covenant community, the church is to be God’s temple, so filled with his glorious presence that we expand and fill the earth with that presence until God finally accomplishes the goal completely at the end of time." (Temple and Church's Mission, pp. 401-2)

WHAT OTHERS HAVE SAID

Tommy Ice
"Then there is Idealism. That is the view that the book of Revelation (or any other prophecy) is not related to timing. It’s basically inspirational things. Do you remember Greg Beale? - mid-70’s, Dallas graduate - he’s a professor at Gordon-Conwell now. He just came out with a huge, 1,200 page commentary - he’s an amill idealist.

It's maddening to read through it. I just bought it. It retails for $75.00, and I got a real deal for $60.00. I want to keep it because he has a lot of good information in there on what everybody believes. He’s an idealist and he’s an evangelical. Almost all idealists used to be liberal, but now you want to be a scholar and all this kind of stuff.

Again, an idealist is a person who believes that the book of Revelation doesn’t relate to timing. We don’t know when anything is going to happen. Days don’t really mean days - symbolism. So, what we get is basically a good sermon, "We’re going to win!, we’ve won and let’s go rally the troops to hang in there whenever it’s going to happen." It doesn’t try to deal with the timing issues. It’s atemporal." (The Destructive View of Preterism)

Dr. John Noe
"Idealism is the other symbolic form of interpreting the book of Revelation that is most often associated with the amillennialist position. In its pure form, idealism does not tie the prophecies to any particular post-New Testament event. Instead, it sees them as “basic principles on which God acts throughout history.” Thus, these principles relate to people of every generation.

Hence, Idealist G. K. Beale characterizes Revelation as “a symbolic portrayal of the conflict between good and evil, between the forces of God and of Satan. . . . a timeless depiction of this struggle.” But he also disclaims that “the problem with this alternative is that . . . [it] does not depict any final consummation to history . . . . [and] it identifies none of the book’s symbols with particular historical events.” This is the opposite of the problem faced by the preterist and historicist views. Beale advocates what he calls an “eclecticism” approach coupling idealism’s “transtemporal” applicability with “a final consummation”[79] and “an Antichrist who comes at the end of history.” (Exegetical Basis for Preterist-Idealism)

Duncan McKenzie
5a. (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) b. This is the first resurrection. Rev. 20:4-5 NRSV "As it stands, Revelation 20:5 does not make sense, 5a. reads “But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished.” 5b. reads “This is the first resurrection.” This makes it sound like the rest of the dead coming to life after the thousand years constitutes the first resurrection. Aune said the following about how verse 5a interrupts this passage, “Since the clause interrupts the thought of the passage, it may have been an annotation added at a final stage of composition.”^{^ix} Beale said the following on the awkwardness of Revelation 20:5a. The rest of the dead did not come to life… “is omitted by several good mss. [see footnote] because it was abrupt and seemed out of place or, more likely because a copyist’s eye skipped from ‘years’ at the end of v. 4 to the following ‘years’ [in verse 5]." (J.S. Russell's Millennium)

Grant Osbourne
"All things considered, Osborne is wise to take an eclectic hermeneutical approach to Revelation. As opposed to Beale's idealist-slanted eclecticism (which proves to be the wide-open hermeneutical front door for his amillennial conclusions), Osborne judiciously opts to allow the futurist element to have the upper hand in the mix. " (Revelation)

Vern S. Poythress
"Much of the value of a commentary on Revelation depends on its relation to the major interpretive issues for Revelation. What does Beale’s commentary do?

First, it is idealist. That is, it argues that the major visions of Revelation set out a general pattern of spiritual realities and spiritual war applicable throughout the period from Christ’s first coming until the Second Coming.

Second, it is recapitulationist. That is, it understands the cycles of judgment with the seals, the trumpets, and the bowls as not referring to three chronologically successive series of events, but traveling over some of the same ground from three different points of view. Each of the cycles culminates with the Second Coming and the Final Judgment. In addition, it understands the section from 12:1-14:20 or 12:1-15:4 as similarly looking over the whole interadvent period and culminating in the Second Coming (14:14-20).

Finally, it is amillennialist. It understands the reign of the saints in 20:4 as a description of the saints’ fellowship with Christ’s reign during the intermediate state.

On each of these issues, the commentary does not merely assert its conclusions, but considers the alternatives and includes detailed arguments for its own position.

In all three of these important areas, I believe that the commentary is fundamentally right.

Beale clearly supports the Augustinian, Reformed position on God’s sovereignty. He argues the more effectively because his presentation arises organically from the text of Revelation and not merely from a system invoked from outside the text…Beale’s commentary is the best technical commentary available, and should find a place on pastors’ as well as scholars’ shelves. It provides an abundance of sound guidance to those struggling over the challenge of interpreting Revelation.” ( Westminster Theological Seminary)

Kim Riddlebarger
"This is a marvelous commentary---although it presupposes some knowledge of Greek. Beale demonstrates that the Book of Revelation is a book about Jesus Christ and that the key to understanding it is to be found in the Old Testament (surprise, surprise), from whence its symbols and images are drawn. No longer will Revelation seem weird or frightening."

Ralph Smith
"According to Beale, the verbs translated "show" are "semantic equivalents," both used to describe the "role of the prophets in revealing what God has 'shown' them." The important matter to note is the change from the expression "in the latter days" to "quickly," which "appears to indicate that fulfillment has begun (that it is being fulfilled) or will begin in the near future. Simply put, John understands Daniel's reference to a distant time as referring to his own era and he updates the text accordingly. What Daniel expected to occur in the distant 'latter days' -- the defeat of cosmic evil and the ushering in of the divine kingdom -- John expects to begin 'quickly,' in his own generation, if it has not already begun to happen."[22]

Beale sees Revelation 1:3 as continuing the emphasis on near fulfillment: "This may be taken as an exaggerated expression of immanence: the time is not simply coming soon, but is actually here." Beale labels the expression "the time is near" a "fulfillment formula" and refers to the parallel in Mark 1:15. His conclusion is: "Given these strong textual and thematic parallels between Rev. 1:1, 3 and Daniel, the very least that can be said is that the wording of these texts refers to the immediate future."

Ross Taylor
"Very detailed, verbose, idealist interpretation. A must for the scholar and advanced student. He is usually quite readable, and he uncovers almost every stone, but most readers will find him too detailed. Most students will be better of with Mounce, Kistemaker, Osborne or Brighton." (Apocalypsis Review)

REVIEWS:

The Temple and the Church's Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God
Author: G. K. Beale

Reviewed by OP pastor Mark Collingridge.

The thesis of this book is that creation, patriarchal history, old covenant history, and new covenant history (in both its inaugurated and consummated phases) are unified by the theme of the temple as the dwelling place of God.

The world was created to be a temple, the sanctuary of God. Because of the Fall, God's temple-building process proceeded through promise and type, before reaching fulfillment in Jesus Christ. "The Old Testament tabernacle and temples were symbolically designed to point to the cosmic eschatological reality that God's tabernacling presence, formerly limited to the holy of holies, was to be extended throughout the whole earth" (p. 25).

He demonstrates his thesis in two ways. First, he works through the biblical evidence. The lasting value of this book is found in these sections. Secondly, he interacts with extrabiblical evidence.

Beale begins with Israel's temple. He demonstrates that it had cosmic overtones and dimensions in its structure, furniture, and other features. It was a localized heaven and earth, with its three portions corresponding to the threefold structure of creation. It was a type of the temple in John's vision, where God's glorious presence fills heaven and earth (Rev. 21).

He then considers Eden as the original temple in which God dwelt with man, the king and priest. He identifies the cosmic dimensions of Eden and the purpose of Eden to encompass the whole earth (Gen. 1: 28). Beale then traces with great insight the garden imagery of temples coming after Eden. His discussion of 1 Corinthians 3 is most helpful in this regard (pp. 245ff.). He discusses the relevant passages in the New Testament, from the Gospels to Revelation.

Beale also shows that these temples were intended to be expanded. The charge given to Adam to multiply and fill the earth by extending the borders of Eden (the first temple) was then given by promise to those in redemptive history. These two features (the temple and its expansion) account for the title of the book. God is building his church, and this is often pictured as an expanding and growing temple (Eph. 2; 1 Cor. 3).

The application of this second feature is the only weakness in the book. Beale applies the mandate to expand the temple to Noah and Israel. However, the Bible indicates that Noah's labors were related to common grace, not to God's temple-building program. And Israel is never pictured as expanding its temple outside the land of Canaan. Israel and the temple were never intended to be universal. Only when God announced the arrival of a new and better covenant did Israel (Christ) become a light to the Gentiles.

Pastors should read this book for its success in finding a unifying principle within the Scriptures. It shows the big picture of God's kingdom administration. Throughout this book are fine exegetical discussions and insights. Because Beale relies heavily on the original languages, more casual readers will struggle a bit. However, it would still be of great benefit to them to read it.

Book Review for the Westminster Theological Journal
by Vern S. Poythress

[Published in the Westminster Theological Journal 62/1 (2000) 143-46. Used with permission.]

G. K. Beale: The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Carlisle: Paternoster, 1999. lxiv, 1245 pp. Cloth. $75.00.

Vern Sheridan Poythress
Westminster Theological Seminary

Beale’s commentary on Revelation provides detailed argumentation and detailed consideration of background such as a technical commentary needs. 177 pages of introduction cover the issues of date, historical situation, authorship, genre, interpretive approaches, symbolism, text criticism, the use of the OT, grammar, structure, significance of Revelation 1:19, and the theology and goal of the Book. Building on Beale’s doctoral dissertation and on extended study of the use of the OT in Revelation, the commentary provides special detail on OT and intertestamental background, not only in the introduction, but in the commentary on individual verses and sections.

The body of the commentary is usefully divided into sections, following the structure laid out in the introduction. The beginning of a section usually furnishes a brief theologically-oriented summary that helps readers discern the point of the section, and reminds them of its applicability. A large number of excursuses allow the commentary to devote space to special interpretive debates that arise at particular points.

Much of the value of a commentary on Revelation depends on its relation to the major interpretive issues for Revelation. What does Beale’s commentary do?

First, it is idealist. That is, it argues that the major visions of Revelation set out a general pattern of spiritual realities and spiritual war applicable throughout the period from Christ’s first coming until the Second Coming.

Second, it is recapitulationist. That is, it understands the cycles of judgment with the seals, the trumpets, and the bowls as not referring to three chronologically successive series of events, but traveling over some of the same ground from three different points of view. Each of the cycles culminates with the Second Coming and the Final Judgment. In addition, it understands the section from 12:1-14:20 or 12:1-15:4 as similarly looking over the whole interadvent period and culminating in the Second Coming (14:14-20).

Finally, it is amillennialist. It understands the reign of the saints in 20:4 as a description of the saints’ fellowship with Christ’s reign during the intermediate state.

On each of these issues, the commentary does not merely assert its conclusions, but considers the alternatives and includes detailed arguments for its own position.

In all three of these important areas, I believe that the commentary is fundamentally right. It develops in greater depth, technical detail, and sophistication the commendable tradition that students could earlier find only in more popular-level commentaries—particularly William Hendriksen and Michael Wilcock.

The commentary shows special strengths in several areas. First, it devotes a large amount of attention to OT and intertestamental backgrounds to Revelation, and consistently uses the OT to provide significant clues for the interpretation of individual images in Revelation. In particular it finds in Daniel 2:28-29 and 2:44-45 the most significant background for understanding Revelation as a vision concerning inaugurated eschatology. What was far in the future from the standpoint of Daniel has now begun to be fulfilled through the death and resurrection of Christ, explaining how Revelation can speak of the fact that the fulfillment is “soon” and “near” (Rev. 1:1-3). In conjunction with many other observations, Beale’s use of Daniel provides a solid basis for thinking that Revelation prophesies not merely about the Roman Empire or about a final time of crisis, but about the entire interadvent period.

Second, the commentary gives more extensive attention than do many mainstream scholarly commentaries to currently popular alternative approaches within evangelicalism. It pays serious attention to dispensationalism in both scholarly form (R. L. Thomas) and popular form (Hal Lindsey). It interacts not only with traditional Roman Empire preterism but with fall-of-Jerusalem preterism as represented by David Chilton.

Third, the commentary does not flinch in expounding a difficult and unpopular aspect of Revelation, namely its predestinarian and punitive emphases. The commentary discusses these matters from a number of angles: the comprehensiveness of the plan of God; the sovereignty of God and human responsibility; God’s control over evil and Satan; determinate election and reprobation (for example, as represented by the “names not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world,” 17:8; see 21:27); punitive judgments; and eternal punishment (14:11). Beale clearly supports the Augustinian, Reformed position on God’s sovereignty. He argues the more effectively because his presentation arises organically from the text of Revelation and not merely from a system invoked from outside the text.

Some readers may be disappointed that, in spite of 177 pages of introduction, the commentary does not devote more space to issues of authorship, date, and source criticism. But it in addition to its succinct discussion in the introduction, the commentary refers readers to other works where they can follow those issues as thoroughly as they might wish. Beale wisely judged that issues of authorship, date, and sources should not in fact have that much effect on the interpretation of Revelation. Source critical approaches sometimes have startling influence, but only when the critic is carried away by his speculations and begins to interpret primarily the sources rather than the completed work as we have it. Beale is right to eschew such speculations and to concentrate on the clues arising from allusions in Revelation to the OT and to Jewish backgrounds.

In my judgment, Beale’s commentary is the best technical commentary available, and should find a place on pastors’ as well as scholars’ shelves. It provides an abundance of sound guidance to those struggling over the challenge of interpreting Revelation.

In a second book, John’s Use of the Old Testament in Revelation, Beale has developed at greater length reflections on the use of the OT. These reflections supplement and help to buttress the arguments in the commentary. After a critical survey of scholarly discussion in the introductory chapter, Beale tackles five major topics: various kinds of use of the OT (chapter 2); influence of OT eschatology (chapter 3); symbolism of Revelation (chapter 4); grammar (chapter 5); and the millennium (chapter 6). Each of these chapters offers significant insight.

Chapter 2 argues that Revelation uses the OT in a manner that is both creative and attentive to OT context. Revelation’s evocations of the OT make sense against the background of key presuppositions:

(1) Christ corporately represents the true Israel of the Old and New Testament; (2) history is unified by a wise and sovereign plan, so that the earlier parts of canonical history are designed to correspond typologically … to later parts …; (3) the age of end-time fulfillment has been inaugurated with Christ’s first coming; and (4) … the later parts of biblical history interpret earlier parts, so that Christ as the centre of history is the key to interpreting the earlier …. (pp. 127-128)
Chapter 3, like the commentary, builds on the perception that Revelation understands the church age as a period of inaugurated eschatology. OT prophetic predictions are in process of fulfillment.

Chapter 4 argues at length that Revelation invites a predominantly symbolic rather than literal reading.

Chapter 5 argues that many of the grammatical solecisms in Revelation are introduced in order to jar the reader into attending more closely to an OT allusion.

Chapter 6 develops further the amillennial interpretation of Revelation 20:1-10 found in the commentary.

Though the book’s overall judgments are both sound and insightful, a few areas could still receive improvement. First, chapter 1 appeals to E. D. Hirsch’s view of fixed meaning (pp. 51-56) in order to refute postmoderns who produce indefinitely many new meanings without boundaries. The book is right that Revelation does not support a boundless anarchy of meaning. But neither does it quite fit within the strict confines of Hirsch’s view. In a better moment the book recognizes that Christ-centered fulfillment interprets the earlier Scripture (p. 128) in a way not always expected beforehand, thus opening a richer view than most strict Hirschians would contemplate.

The book rightly argues for the dominance of recapitulatory and not merely chronological arrangement in Revelation. But in its zeal for undermining a purely chronological reading, it sometimes goes too far. For example, the book claims that the phrase “after these things” “indicates the sequential order in which John saw the visions but not necessarily the chronological order of their occurrence in history” (p. 196). This claim is valid in most cases, such as in 7:1, 9; and 18:1. Such verses attach “after these things” to an immediately following expression “I saw,” thus indicating a succession of visions. But the book incorrectly puts Revelation 4:1 in the same category (p. 196). 4:1 has the expression “what must happen after these things,” pointing to a succession in history, not in vision. It may be surmised on similar grounds that the book may have overstated its case concerning the key verse 1:19. The book rightly sees 1:1, 1:19, 4:1, and 22:6 as building on Daniel 2:28-29. But does the refutation of pure futurist, pretribulationist interpretation of Revelation 1:19 and 4:1-22:5 necessarily involve evaporating all sense of chronological progression from 1:19?

The book argues that the word “last” in 15:1 indicates that the plagues “come last in the sequence of formal sevenfold visions seen by the seer” (p. 196; see also p. 200). The book also offers an alternative understanding on p. 197, to the effect that the plagues are redemptive-historically “latter day” plagues. Yes, the plagues recapitulate rather than chronologically follow the trumpets. But still one must attend to the final clause in 15:1. The plagues are called “last” “because with them the wrath of God is ended.” Beale interprets the “end” or completion as the completion of the visionary sequence. The bowl visions brings God’s wrath to full expression, literarily speaking (p. 203). But this does not quite work, since after the conclusion of the bowl visions, there are more visionary expressions of wrath in Revelation 17-20, and these are in some ways even more intense and conclusive than the visions of Revelation 16. Moreover, the completion mentioned in 15:1b is a completion “in them,” a completion in the plagues, not specifically in the visions of the plagues. It seems more natural to interpret the word “last” as last at the event level, the level of the plagues, not last at the vision level. The book’s alternative “latter-day” understanding comes close to this conclusion, but still does not satisfactorily reckon with 15:1b. In fact, 15:1b supports Beale’s broader recapitulatory views, since it means that elements of wrath found in Revelation 17-20 recapitulate Revelation 16 (see p. 370).

In spite of a few lapses like this, the book is an excellent one. It takes its place as a worthy supplement to the commentary."

Jacket Description:

"Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth. . . . And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem. . . . And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, ‘Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man." (Revelation 21:1-3, ESV).

In this comprehensive study, G. K. Beale argues that the Old Testament tabernacle and temples were symbolically designed to point to the end-time reality that God's presence, formerly limited to the Holy of Holies, would be extended throughout the cosmos. Hence, John's vision in Revelation 21 is best understood as picturing the new heavens and earth as the eschatological temple.

Beale's stimulating exposition traces the theme of the tabernacle and temple across the Bible's story-line, illuminating many texts and closely-related themes along the way. He shows how the significance and symbolism of the temple can be better understood in the context of ancient Near Eastern assumptions, and offers new insights into the meaning of the temple in both Old and New Testaments.

"The importance of this book lies not only in the competent handling of its chosen theme but in three other things: its evocative unpacking of the theme of the temple and its relations to broader structures of thought, including the kingdom of God; its modeling of the way biblical theology is to be done; and its capacity to cause readers to perceive fresh and wonderful things in the Scriptures, and to bow in worship and gratitude."
D. A. Carson

Provides a comprehensive exposition of the theme of the tabernacle and temple across the span of Scripture

Contains helpful and illuminating discussion of many biblical texts

Makes connections with closely related themes (e.g. Eden, new creation, Jesus as the new temple)

Offers stimulating new insights into the meaning of the temple

Publisher: InterVarsity Press
ISBN#: 0-8308-2618-1
Binding: Paperback
Page Count: 458

The Use of Daniel in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature and in the Revelation of St. John
. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1974. xiv, 349. Paper.

Vern S. Poythress
" Gregory K. Beale's book on Daniel and Revelation is a revision of his doctoral dissertation at the University of Cambridge. It undertakes a massive examination of the allusions to Daniel and use of Danielic structures and themes in Qumran, 1 Enoch, 4 Ezra 11-13, 2 Baruch 36-42, and Revelation. The discussion proceeds slowly because of the mass of data and the number of minutiae that are weighed. But the results, I judge, are worth the effort, in particular in their illumination of the Book of Revelation.

In the first place, Beale shows convincingly that Daniel as a whole, and Daniel 2 and 7 most of all, is structurally the most dominant source behind Revelation 1, 4-5, 13, and 17, as well as for several themes and features of Revelation as a whole. The cumulative effect of this is to open the door to detecting the existence of more subtle and less obvious allusions to Daniel along side of the most obvious.

Next, Beale's investigation has highlighted some literary techniques in Revelation that are not so often recognized. Beale shows that Daniel itself, later Jewish apocalyptic, and Revelation employ irony in many cases in descriptions of eschatological conflict. The forces of evil are mocked by describing their defeat in terms earlier used to describe their temporary triumph (e.g., Rev 16:6). As Beale points out (p. 322), the destruction of evil forces is then an application of the OT lex talionis, "just as he has done, so shall it be done to him" (Lev 24:19). Likewise, the triumph of God and his people may deliberately be described in vocabulary similar to that used in describing the earlier apparent triumph of the beast.

This principle of irony is potentially a most fruitful interpretive insight from Beale's work, because of its prevasive presence in Revelation. It occurs above all in the antithetic contrasts between the forces of evil and the forces of God. Even the repeated phrase about "he who conquers (overcomes)" appears to be an ironic reflection on the way the beast overcame the saints in Dan 7:21. We may hope that Beale will later give us a book developing the implications of these ironies beyond what he has had space for here.

Two other interpretive insights also deserve attention. First, Beale argues (pp. 275-78) that the revelatory framework of Rev 1:1 is molded specifically on the pattern of Dan 2:28-29,45. The language of the two passages is indeed similar, and the contents of both visions concern the cosmic conflicts of the end times. Now if Rev 1:1 is related to Dan 2:28-29, the key phrases "soon take place" (Rev 1:1) and "the time is near" (Rev 1:3) of Revelation correspond to the "latter days" of Dan 2:28. The latter days of Daniel 2 are broadly the time of fulfillment of God's kingdom purposes, which can be identified as the period from the first coming of Christ onwards (cf. Mark 1:15). Hence Rev 1:1-3 hints that the prophecy of Revelation applies broadly to the whole interadvent period rather than finding fulfillment in a purely preterist or purely futurist manner.

Second, Beale notes that the apocalyptic visions of Daniel 2, 7, 8, 9, and 10-12 are parallel visions, covering roughly the same time period from different points of view. The pervasive allusions to Daniel 2 (and other parts of Daniel) through the book of Revelation lend some weight to the view that the cycles of visions of Revelation are likewise cases of "synchronous parallelism" (recapitulation), rather than being locked in strict chronological succession (pp. 283-85).

Though the technical nature of much of Beale's book will restrict its readership, the major interpretive conclusions deserve wide attention." (Published in In Westminster Theological Journal 47 (1985): 348-50.)

WHEATON FACULTY INFORMATION

Kenneth T. Wessner Chair of Biblical Studies
Professor of New Testament, Wheaton
On faculty since 2000

Phone: (630) 752-5280
Email: G.K.Beale@wheaton.edu

Education

Ph.D. - Divinity, University of Cambridge in Cambridge, England (concentrated in Greek and Hebrew exegesis) 1981.

Th.M. - Dallas Theological Seminary in Dallas, Texas, U.S.A. (concentrated in Greek, Hebrew, biblical and theological studies; graduated with honors in the Department of Semitics and Old Testament) 1976.

M.A. - History, Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas, U.S.A. (concentration in Augustinian and Reformation studies) 1976.

B.A. - Humanities at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas, U.S.A. (majored in Philosophy and History) 1971.

Professional and Personal Interests

Prior to joining the Wheaton Graduate School faculty in the Fall of 2000, Dr. Beale served as a guest assistant and assistant professor of Biblical studies in the Department of Religion and Philosophy at Grove City College in Grove City, Pennsylvania (from 1980 to 1984). There he taught courses in Old Testament, New Testament, and theology. He left Grove City College to become respectively an Assistant, Associate and full Professor of New Testament at Gordon - Conwell Theological Seminary from 1984 to Spring of 2000.

Dr. Beale was born and raised in Dallas, Texas. He is married to Mary Dorinda Beale and has three children: Stephen, Nancy and Hannah. He is ordained in the Conservative Congregational Christian Conference.

He enjoys baroque music, New England and English countryside, antique hunting, and aspires to become a gardener. His current projects are listed below, falling within his fields of interest, namely, the use of the Old Testament in the New, Pauline studies, Eschatology, Biblical Theology, and Apocalyptism.

Courses Taught

Principles of Interpretation (Hermeneutics)
The Use of the O.T. in the N.T.
First Semester of First Year NT Greek
Biblical Theology
Greek Exegesis of Ephesians
Greek Exegesis of Revelation

Membership in Professional Societies

Evangelical Theological Society
- President (2004)
- President-Elect, Program Chair (2004)
- Executive Committee (2005, 2002)
Institute for Biblical Research
Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas
Society of Biblical Literature
Tyndale Fellowship
Elected as Visiting Fellow, St. Edmunds College, Cambridge, England -(March, 2005)

Research

Apocalyptism
Pauline Theology
Biblical Theology
Use of the Old Testament in the New

Publications and Presentations

The Use of Daniel in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature and in the Revelation of St. John. University Press of America, 1984; 349 pp.

Editor of Right Doctrine From Wrong Texts? Essays on the Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994. 440 pages.

The Book of Revelation. New International Greek Testament Commentary Series; ed. by I. H. Marshall and D. Hagner; Grand Rapids, USA/Cambridge, England: Eerdmans and Carlisle: Paternoster, 1999. 1245 pages.

John’s Use of the Old Testament in Revelation. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 166. Sheffield: JSOT Press; January, 1999). 400 pages.

1-2 Thessalonians. InterVarsity Press New Testament Commentary Series. Downers Grove: IVP, 2003. 279pp.

The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God. New Studies in Biblical Theology 17. Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 2004. 458pp.

Essays Published

"The Danielic Background for Revelation 13:18 and 17:9," Tyndale Bulletin 31 (1980), 163-170.

"The Problem of the Man from the Sea in IV Ezra 13 and Its Relation to the Messianic Concept in John's Apocalypse," Novum Testamentum XXV (1983), 182-188.

"An Exegetical and Theological Consideration of the Hard¬ening of Pharaoh's Heart in Exodus 4-14 and Romans 9," Trinity Journal 5 (1984), 129-154.

"The Influence of Daniel Upon the Structure and Theology of John's Apocalypse," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Soci¬ety 27 (1984), 413-423.

"The Origin of the Title 'King of Kings and Lord of Lords' in Rev. XVII.14," New Testament Studies 31 (1985), 618-620.

"The Use of Daniel in the Synoptic Eschatological Discourse and in the Book of Revelation" in Gospel Perspectives 5, The Jesus Tradition Outside the Gospels,129-153, ed. David Wenham. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985.

"The Covenant of Redemption: Jesus Christ" (co-authored with J. Bibza) in Presuppositions of a Religio-Philosophical Dimension of Life, I, 49-70, ed. W. Andrew Hoffecker. Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1986.

"Biblical Epistemology" (co-authored with W. Andrew Hoffecker) in Presuppositions of a Religio-Philosophical Dimension of Life, 193-216.

"A Reconsideration of the Text of Daniel in the Apocalypse," Biblica 67 (1986), 539-543.

"The Use of the O.T. in Revelation," in It is Written: Scripture Citing Scripture. Essays in Honor of Barnabas Lindars, ed. D. A. Carson and H. G. M. Williamson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988, 318-336.

*Re-published in Right Doctrine From Wrong Texts? Essays on the Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament. Ed. by G. K. Beale. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994. Pp. 257-276.

** Also re-published in G. K. Beale, John’s Use of the Old Testament in Revelation. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 166. Sheffield: JSOT Press; January, 1999. Pp. 60-129.

"The Old Testament Background of Reconciliation in 2 Corinthians 5-7 and Its Bearing on the Literary Problem of 2 Cor. 6:14-7:1," New Testament Studies 35 (1989), 550-581.

*Re-published in Right Doctrine From Wrong Texts? Essays on the Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament. Ed. by G. K. Beale. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994. Pp. 217-247.

"Did Jesus and His Followers Preach the Right Doctrine From the Wrong Texts? An Examination of the Presuppositions of the Apostles' Exegetical Method," Themelios 14 (1989), 89-96.

*Re-published in Right Doctrine From Wrong Texts? Essays on the Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament. Ed. by G. K. Beale. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994. Pp. 387-404.

**Also re-published in Solid Ground. 25 Years of Evangelical Theology, ed. C. R. Trueman, T. J. Gray, and C. L. Blomberg; Leicester, England: InterVarsity, 2000), 155-171 (the preface to this commemorative volume for the journal Themelios says, “The essays collected here are only a snapshot of the numerous excellent articles that have appeared in the journal during the past quarter century ... it is hoped that this collection will serve a number of purposes [among which are] ... to celebrate the achievements and strengths of the past generation of evangelical scholars ... “).

"Isaiah 6:9-13: A Retributive Taunt Against Idolatry," Vetus Testamentum XLI (1991), 257-278.

"The Interpretative Problem of Rev. 1:19," Novum Testamentum XXXIV (1992), 360-387.

*Re-published in John’s Use of the Old Testament in Revelation. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 166. Sheffield: JSOT Press; January, 1999. Pp. 165-192.

"The Self - Sufficiency of God and His Purpose in Creation," Table Talk 16 (1992), 8-10.

"Review Article of J. W. Mealy's After the Thousand Years (JSNT Suppl.; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992)," Evangelical Quarterly LXVI (1994), 229 - 249.

"The Old Testament Background of Rev 3.14," New Testament Studies 42 (1996), 133-152.

*Re-published in G. K. Beale, John’s Use of the Old Testament in Revelation. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 166. Sheffield: JSOT Press; January, 1999. Pp. 273-294.

"Eschatology." Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments, ed. R. P. Martin and P. H. Davids (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1997), 330-345.

*Re-published in G. K. Beale, John’s Use of the Old Testament in Revelation. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 166. Sheffield: JSOT Press; January, 1999. Pp. 129-165.

“The Hearing Formula and the Visions of John in Revelation,” in A Vision for the Church. Studies in Early Christian Ecclesiology in Honour of J. P. M. Sweet, ed. M. Bockmuehl and M. B. Thompson; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1997, 167-180.

*Re-published in G. K. Beale, John’s Use of the Old Testament in Revelation. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 166. Sheffield: JSOT Press; January, 1999. Pp. 298-317.

“Solecisms in the Apocalypse as Signals for the Presence of Old Testament Allusions: a Selective Analysis of Revelation 1-22,” in Early Christian Interpretation of the Scriptures of Israel, ed. C. A. Evans and J. A. Sanders; Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 148; Studies in Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity 5; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997, 421-446.

*Re-published in G. K. Beale, John’s Use of the Old Testament in Revelation. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 166. Sheffield: JSOT Press; January, 1999. Pp. 318-355.

“The Eschatological Conception of New Testament Theology,” in ‘The Reader Must Understand.’ Eschatology in the Bible and Theology, ed. K. E. Brower and M. W. Elliott; Leicester: Apollo (Inter-Varsity Press), 1997, 11-52.

*Re-published in Eschatology in Bible and Theology, ed. K. E. Brower and M. W. Elliott; Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press), 1997, 11-52.

** An abbreviated and revised version re-published in Biblical Theology: Retrospect and Prospect; ed. Scott J. Hafemann. Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 2002.

“Peace and Mercy Upon the Israel of God: The Old Testament Background of Galatians 6, 16b,” Biblica 80 (1999), 204-223.

“Questions of Authorial Intent, Epistemology, and Presuppositions and Their Bearing on the Study of the Old Testament in the New: a Rejoinder to Steve Moyise,” Irish Biblical Studies 21 (1999), pp. 1-26.

"The Structure and Plan of John's Apocalypse," in Creator, Redeemer, Consummator, a Festschrift for Meredith G. Kline; ed. by H. Griffith and J. R. Meuther; Greenville, South Carolina: Reformed Academic Press, 2000. Pp. 117-152.

“The Theology of the Book of Revelation.” In New Dictionary of Biblical Theology; ed. by T. D. Alexander and Brian Rosner. Leicester: IVP, 2000. Pp. 356-363.

“A Response to Jon Paulien on the Use of the Old Testament in Revelation.” Andrews University Seminary Studies 39 (2001), pp. 23-33.

“The Garden Temple.” Kerux (The Journal of Northwest Theological Seminary) 18 (2003), pp. 3-50.

“Review Article: Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus by David W. Pao,” in Trinity Journal 25 NS, No. 1 (2004), 93-101.

“The Final Vision of the Apocalypse and Its Implications for a Biblical Theology of the Temple.” In Heaven on Earth. The Temple in Biblical Theology. Edd. S. Gathercole and T. D. Alexander; Carlisle, England: Paternoster Press, 2004. Pp. 191-209.

“The Concept of Eternal Punishment in the Book of Revelation,” in Hell Under Fire. Edited by R. A. Peterson and C. Morgan. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004. Pp. 111-134.

“Biblical Faith and Other Religions in New Testament Theology,” in Evangelical Christianity and Other Religions. Ed. David Baker. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2004. Pp. 77-105.

Book Reviews Published

"A Comparative Review of J.G. Baldwin, Daniel (TOTC; Leicester: InterVarsity, 1978) and André Lacocque, The Book of Daniel (London: SPCK, 1979)" in Themelios 5 (1980), pp. 27-29.

Review of John Piper, The Justification of God (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983) in Westminster Theological Journal XLVI (1984), 190-197.

Review of A. Y. Collins, Crisis and Catharsis: The Power of the Apocalypse (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984) in JETS 28 (1985), 354-358.

Review of C. J. Hemer, The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia in Their Local Setting (JSNTSupplement Series 11; Sheffield: JSOT) in Trinity Journal 7 (1986), 107-111.

Review of W. J. Dumbrell, The End of the Beginning. Revelation 21-22 and the Old Testament (Homebush West, Australia: Lancer, 1985) in Themelios 15 (1990), 69-70.

Review of D. Guthrie, The Relevance of John's Apocalypse (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans / Exeter: Paternoster, 1987) in Themelios 16 (1990), 25-26.

Review of J. Paulien, Decoding Revelation's Trumpets: Literary Allusions and Interpretation of Revelation 8:7-12 (Andrews University Seminary Doctoral Dissertation Series XI; Berrien Springs: Andrews University Press, 1987) in Journal of Biblical Literature 111(1992), 358-361.

Review of R. Wall, Revelation (NIBC; Peabody, MA: Hendriksen, 1991) in Themelios 21(1996), 23.

Review of J. Fekkes, Isaiah and Prophetic Traditions in the Book of Revelation (JSNTSupplement Series 93; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994), in Evangelical Quarterly 70 (1998), 156-159.

Essays Completed and Awaiting Publication

“The Old Testament Background of Paul’s Reference to the ‘Fruit of the Spirit’ in Galatians 5:22.” Bulletin for Biblical Research. Approx. 40 pp.

“The Descent of the Eschatological Temple in the Form of the Spirit at Pentecost: Part I.” Tyndale Bulletin. Approx. 30 pp.

“The Descent of the Eschatological Temple in the Form of the Spirit at Pentecost: Part II.” Tyndale Bulletin. Approx. 30 pp.

Major Book Publications in Progress and Forthcoming (Under Contract)

Contracted in 1993 to write a commentary on Colossians and Philemon for the Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Commentary Series (Grand Rapids: Baker).

Contracted in 1998 to write a New Testament Biblical Theology for Baker Book House (Grand Rapids, Michigan). 300-400 pages.

Contracted in 1998 to co-edit with D. A. Carson a volume titled A Commentary on the Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament. To be published by Baker Book House (Grand Rapids, Michigan). There will be eleven contributing authors. Approximately 1,100 pages.

Contracted in 2005 to write a commentary on the Pastoral Epistles for the Zondervan Exegetical Commentary series (Grand Rapids: Zondervan).

Publications of Essays in Progress and Forthcoming (Under Contract)

Contracted in 2002 to co-author an article with S. McDonough on “The Use of the Old Testament in Revelation,” in A Commentary on the Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament. Edited by G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson. To be published by Baker Book House (Grand Rapids, Michigan). There will be approx. eleven contributing authors.

Contracted in 2002 to write an article on “The Use of the Old Testament in Colossians and Philemon,” in A Commentary on the Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament. Edited by G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson. To be published by Baker Book House (Grand Rapids, Michigan). There will be approx. eleven contributing authors.

Translation Projects

Completed the revision of the Apocalypse for the revision of the Everyday Bible, the revised form of which is called the New Century Bible (Dallas: Word Publishers, 1991).

Revised the sections on the Johnanine Epistles and the Apocalypse for the revision of the Living Bible, the revised form of which is called the New Living Translation (Wheaton: Tyndale House Publishers, 1996).

Participated in a review of the NIV translation of 1 - 2 Thessalonians (for the International Bible Society).

Past Papers Read at Annual Academic Meetings

"The Eschatological Use of ho–ra ("hour") in the New Testament and Its Daniel¬ic Background." Read at the Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society (Nov., 1982).

"The 'Realized' Eschatological Scope of John's Apocalypse." Read at the Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society (Nov., 1984).

"The Interpretive Problem of Revelation 1:19." Read at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature (Nov., 1989).

"The Use of the Old Testament in Revelation 3:14." Read at the Annual meeting of the New Testament Group of the Tyndale Fellowship of Biblical Research at Tyndale House, Cambridge, England (Summer, 1993); also read at the Hebrews, Catholic Epistles, and Revelation Section at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in Washington, D. C. (Nov. 19, 1995).

"The Eschatology of the New Testament: Understanding Eschatology as Soteriology and Soteriology as Eschatology." Plenary Address to the Northeastern Section of the Evangelical Theological Society at Gordon - Conwell Theological Seminary in South Hamilton, MA (Oct., 9, 1995).

"The Solecisms (Grammatical Irregularities) of the Apocalypse as Signals for the Presence of Old Testament Allusions." Read at the Biblical Greek Language Section at the 1995 Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in Philadelphia, PA. (November 19, 1995).

"Response to Three Scholars' Papers on the Interpretation of Revelation 18." Read at the Hebrews and General Epistles, and the Apocalypse Section at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in Philadelphia, PA. (November 19, 1995).

"Response to Richard Longenecker's Plenary Address to the Institute of Biblical Research on 'Prologomena to Paul's Use of Scripture in Romans.'“ Read at the Annual Meeting of the Institute of Biblical Research in Philadelphia, PA. (November 17, 1995).

"Response to Scott J. Hafemann's Paul, Moses, and the History of Israel (WUNT 81; Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1995). Read for the Biblical Theology Group at the Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society (Nov. 22, 1996).

“The Eschatological Conception of New Testament Theology.” Read at the Triennial Meeting on Eschatology of the Tyndale Fellowship of Biblical Research in Swanik, Darbyshire, England (Summer, 1997).

“The Use of the Word ‘Mystery’ as an Indicator of Eschatological Fulfillment in the New Testament in the Light of the Old Testament and Early Judaism.” Read at the program unit Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in San Francisco (Nov., 1997).

“The Old Testament Background of ‘Peace and Mercy’ in Galatians 6:15-16.” Read at the Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society in Orlando, Florida (Nov. 20, 1998).

“Response to Two Papers on ‘Intertextuality’ by Elaine Philips and Robert Wall.” Read at the Annual Meeting of the Institute of Biblical Research in Orlando, Florida (Nov. 20, 1998).

“A Test Case for Hermeneutics in the Book of Revelation: the Interpretation of Revelation 11:1-13.” Read at the Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society in Danvers, Massachusetts (Nov. 17, 1999).

“Response to M. Hubbard’s Paper on “New Creation: a Pauline Motif in Biblical - Theological Perspective.” Read at the Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society in Danvers, Massachusetts (Nov. 18, 1999).

“A Biblical Theology of the Temple.” Read at the Annual meeting of the Biblical Theology Group of the Tyndale Fellowship of Biblical Research at Tyndale House, Cambridge, England (July, 2001);

“The Old Testament Background of ‘New Creation’ in Galatians 6:15 in the Light of Its Context.” To be read at the “Pauline Epistles Section” at the Annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in Denver, Colorado. (November 17-20, 2001).

“Biblical Faith and Other Religions in New Testament Theology.” A Plenary Paper read at the 54th Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society (November 20-22, 2002).

“The Descent of the Eschatological Temple in the Form of the Spirit at Pentecost.” Invited Annual Tyndale Biblical Theology Lecture; Read at the Annual Meeting of the Tyndale Fellowship of Biblical Research in Nantwich, England (June, 2004).

“The Old Testament Background of Paul’s Reference to the ‘Fruit of the Spirit’ in Galatians 5:22.” Read at the Annual Meeting of the Tyndale Fellowship of Biblical Research (for the New Testament section) in Nantwich, England (June, 2004).

“The Use of Old Testament Prophecy in the New: ‘Literal’ Fulfillment, Allegory or Metaphor? A Case Study of the Temple.” Presidential address at the 56th Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society (November 17-19, 2004)

Future Papers to Be Read at Annual Academic Meetings and Conferences

“The Use of ‘Mystery’ in the Epistle to the Colossians.” To be read at the “Disputed Paulines Consultation” Section at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in Philadephia, PA (Nov., 2005).

Invitation to deliver a paper at the biannual “Bible and Ministry” Conference at Calvin Theological Seminary on “Preaching Apocalyptic Texts” (June, 2005).

Invitation to deliver the Annual Tyndale Biblical Theology Lecture for 2004 (July) at the Tyndale House in Cambridge, England.

What do YOU think ?

Submit Your Comments For Posting Here
Comment Box Disabled For Security

Date: 01 Mar 2010
Time: 22:36:46

Your Comments:

Yes Beale's work on Revelation is outstanding. My one disappointment is how he handles REV 1:3 the "time is near" although he does say that it is pointing to the immediate future, he does not go far enough in considering that John says that he himself is already a companion in that coming tribulation!

Date: 22 Aug 2011
Time: 13:34:17

Your Comments:

So the way he intends to get around the clear teaching that there are two resurrections separated by a thousand years is to use the ole tried and true "Rev. 20:5a is probably not part of the original text" garbage. This diabolical technique of REMOVING words FROM REVELATION, OF ALL PLACES may land Beale exactly where John warned people who take away words from Revelation--out of the Bool of Life and into the Lake of Fire. That's what God thinks of this commentary. It is PERVERTED AND PERVERSE.