I own the Baukham commentary on RevJohn. It’s… interesting. Not my favorite commentary on that book, but interesting.
(To be fair, I’m not sure if I have ever yet read a commentary on that book that I would regard as “my favorite”. Several interesting and helpful ones, but not any I would plonk down for other people. It’s possible that the closest I have to a favorite commentary so far is an obscure Roman Catholic one from the early 20th century!)
RB is explicitly well aware that several of his analyses and conclusions point toward Christian universalism, but I’ve forgotten why he doesn’t affirm that the text actually does add up to that. My vague impression (having slept several times since then) is that he doesn’t because he isn’t a universalist himself and doesn’t want to come up with a conclusion that would go against what he thinks the Bible elsewhere testifies to.
I wrote a short post around here somewhere a couple of years ago, after I finished reading it… {searching} There it is, in a thread discussing his 1979 “historical survey of universalism” article: “Baukham’s own exegesis of RevJohn (in his book on that topic) ended up being expressly universalistic in parts; a fact he repeatedly acknowledged and then kind of went back on for no clear reason in the text. (It helped, if one wants to call it ‘helping’ , that he either didn’t notice or avoided calling attention to several key portions of the text which would have strengthened the exegetical case in RevJohn even more.)”
Apparently I thought he did the same thing in Jesus and the God of Israel!–after adding up to Christian universalism in his text, he turns around at the end and explicitly disavows it.