The Book of Revelation: Based on the Revised Standard Version

This was published in 1974 just before Mounce (1977), and as former Principal of Spurgeon's College, London and Professor of NT at a Southern Baptist Seminary he has impeccable credentials. I wrote a commentary on Revelation in about 1995 and Mounce was at the top of my clutch of about 8 commentaries then. I found a copy of Beasley-Murrey, but he never found it to my main list of commentaries that I then used. I am not sure why, as Beasley-Murrey has written a decent mid-length commentary. Since then, I looked at seven recent scholarly commentaries (1997-2005), and Beasley-Murrey was the sixth most cited author. So I clearly made a mistake in not using him more (but Mounce was the fourth most cited author). Note: the seven recent scholarly commentators are Mounce (2nd ed), Witherington, Keener, Osborne, Kistemaker, Beale and Smalley. These days, I would go for Osborne as my first choice, followed by Mounce and then Beale for reference (he is just too verbose, but you need him for the finer points). You can Google my commentary ("Commentary on Revelation"), shameless plug I know, it is a bit outdated, but it is free, it is 200k words.

This scholarly but accessible commentary on the Book of Revelation deserves to continue to be in print. Unfortunately, though, it is hard to find. If you can find it, I believe you would be wise to get it. This commentary provides much helpful interpretive information for understanding the Book of Revelation.

This is a reprint of the classic commentary by G.R. Beasley-Murray. An excellent exegetical work from a historical premillenial view-point [premillenial, but non-dispensational].