Exegetical Toolkit, Part 8
Biblical Theology/Theological Interpretation
(avg. read time: 11–22 mins.)
Part 1: Introduction and Context
Part 3: Grammatical-Syntactical Analysis
This part concerns a reading strategy that should be integrative and extensive. That is, it incorporates and builds on insights drawn from using the other tools but goes beyond them. After all, many, many scholars can and have used all of the elements of the exegetical toolkit we have discussed to this point without concerning themselves with the normative theological significance of what they have read. They may not reckon with the Bible as a book of theological texts. But if the Bible is revelation from God, we cannot properly understand it unless we deal with it as theological in character.
Of course, the fact is that whether we refer to biblical theology or the more specific approach of theological interpretation of Scripture, we are going to need to get a sense of where we are in the midst of controversies. There are many volumes dedicated to this subject that I cannot possibly replicate here. As in the other parts of this series, I am simply aiming to provide some orientation.
First of all, to say that we are concerned with theology is to say that we are concerned with reasoned discourse about God and all that is related thereto. As such, theology can be concerned with God more directly—as in theology proper/paterology, Christology, pneumatology, or the Trinitarian integration of the same—or it can address other matters related to God, such as angelology, demonology, anthropology, hamartiology (theology of sin and consequences thereof), soteriology (theology of salvation), ecclesiology (theology of God’s people and their assembly/assemblies), protology (theology of “first things,” particularly of creation), eschatology (theology of final/last things), and so on. These subjects can be engaged with on a number of fronts, including natural theology reasoning from “general revelation,” historical theology charting the history of ideas in traditions, philosophical theology, practical theology, systematic theology, or biblical theology. What we are concerned with is biblical theology in that it is reasoned discourse about God and what is related thereto as it is derived from Scripture, it is based on what is articulated within Scripture, and the exposition of the same is built from Scripture.
The history of scholarship in biblical theology has seen an ongoing disagreement about whether the work of the biblical theologian is merely descriptive or if it is also normative/prescriptive. That is, does biblical theology only describe the theology articulated by the human biblical authors or does it involve articulating what should be normative theology for others? I maintain that a proper biblical theology should be both descriptive and normative. If Scripture is to be a canon, it must have normative authority, being the “measure” (or canon) by which we measure other things, including in its theological declarations. At the same time, we must remember that a normative approach should be integrative of insights drawn from using these other tools. A descriptive biblical theology can simply be descriptive, but a normative biblical theology requires building along with descriptive work. For a theology to be a (normative) construction consistent with what the Bible says, the theologian must have some idea of what the Bible (descriptively) says.
To take the Bible seriously as a theological collection of texts, and as the normative canon for theology, we also need an approach that takes seriously its theological character. Hence, we need some form of theological interpretation. Especially since the latter years of twentieth century, there has been an explosion of scholarly interest in articulating theological interpretation of Scripture (or TIS) and thereby revitalizing or reapplying old, traditional practices. There is especially no shortage of methodological, hermeneutical, and philosophical reflections on TIS, but this is unfortunately to the extent that TIS has rightly gained a reputation for navel-gazing, being so caught up in theory that it often fails to balance out with practice. It helps to have some notion of larger theories by which to read Scripture more generally, including in articulating what unifies the canon, but it must manifest in reading particular texts, as in our exercises in this series. With so much theoretical exposition, there is no non-controversial way to describe TIS, though this is more because of emphases and nuances different practitioners would use. Basically, it is an approach that reads the Bible as a canon of sacred texts having its origin from God as his means of self-revelation to his people, and it does this within the context of faith communities consisting of people in allegiance to this God (to adapt Joel Green’s description here). Moreover, they tend to emphasize that reading Scripture compatibly with the rule of faith/creeds, being synopses of the canon, is a legitimate way of understanding scriptural unity, as the canon and such summaries coinhered in the beginning (as in, e.g., some of the summaries of the gospel we have noted elsewhere). (Also see Kevin Vanhoozer’s ten theses here.)
Fredrick Long, whose book has provided a framework for my own approach, defines the following principles of theological interpretation, drawing from Michael Gorman:
1) Incarnational Principle: Scripture is both of Divine and Human Origin.
2) Universal Principle: As the church is universal/catholic, so Scripture is for all people.
3) Ecclesial Principle: The church is the proper location of the interpretation of Scripture.
4) Canonical Principle: Scripture must be read within its canonical context.
5) Coherence Principle: Despite diversity within, Scripture is unified in telling one story.
6) Charismatic Principle: God’s Spirit encourages and empowers theological interpretation.
7) Transformative Principle: Theological interpretation cooperates with Scripture to transform God’s people for performing and embodying Scripture.
8) Constructive Principle: Theological interpretation assists the church in articulating its beliefs, values, convictions, and life-giving practices.1
Again, these principles can be stated or nuanced differently, but they fundamentally convey the ideas informing this approach.
I refer to this part of the toolkit as both “biblical theology” and “theological interpretation.” I refer to it as “biblical theology” to emphasize that the theological reading must not only be grounded in what the biblical text communicates, but that it must give some sense of how the text is connected in theology to the broader biblical context. On the other hand, I refer to it as “theological interpretation” in that it is a reading strategy focused on theological elements and the theological character of the text as communication from God through human authors.
There are a number of ways of doing biblical theology and theological interpretation of Scripture that I cannot adequately review here. Joel Green is doing a series on his Substack helping to orient his audience to this subject that he knows a thing or two about (also see here and here). I would also recommend his other works on this subject, as well as those of people like Kevin Vanhoozer, Stephen Fowl, Daniel Treier, Jonathan Rowlands, R. W. L. Moberly, Francis Watson, and others. There is a dedicated journal, which I made a couple of contributions to, called The Journal of Theological Interpretation that the reader can consult for both theoretical reflections and actual engagements in practice. A number of biblical commentary series are also available, including:
Belief: A Theological Commentary on the Bible
Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible
Commentaries for Christian Formation
Evangelical Biblical Theological Commentary
Two Horizons Old Testament Commentary
Two Horizons New Testament Commentary
Beyond these, readers can find numerous commentaries that deal with theological matters, whether in series format (e.g., the Zondervan Exegetical Commentary series) or as individual volumes (as in works by my former professors Ben Witherington and Craig Keener). As one example, a few years ago, David Ford published The Gospel of John: A Theological Commentary. Paul McGlasson is another example of someone doing plenty of work on theological interpretation as he is in the middle of a six-volume series on the Bible titled Theological Exegesis of Scripture. One could also follow series like New Studies in Biblical Theology, Explorations in Theological Interpretation, and Studies in Theological Interpretation. Naturally, there are many other exemplars among pre-modern interpreters whose works are freely available today (such as at CCEL and Early Christian Writings).2 These and others are also available through translation series like Fathers of the Church and Ancient Christian Writers.3
Application to Rev 1:1–8
Since I have already commented extensively on this text for my work on the Trinitarian theology of Revelation, I will not reiterate all that I said here. I have also drawn links to other parts of Scripture, including in theological terms in Part 7, which is fitting as the scriptural correlations covered in Part 7 are especially helpful for the purposes of this approach (also see here). I have also commented on some significant points in Part 4, where studies and phrases necessitated engaging with other parts of Scripture.
Here, I will expand on work I have done previously (here and here) to expound the theological significance of its gospel summary used to identify Jesus (1:5–6) and the hope we have in him (1:7). Revelation 1:5–6 is in line with what we have seen of summaries of the three-stage narrative of the major gospel events elsewhere in the NT. This is an example of how these summaries developed alongside and within the actual texts of the NT. It also one of the earliest, but far from the only, examples of how Revelation is connected with Christian tradition of the NT era (also see here and here).
At the same time, this summary tagging the major events of the gospel narrative is crucial for identification both of the one John and his people worship and of the worshipers themselves. This similar dual identification function appears in summaries in Rom 4:24–25; 5:6–11; 6:1–11; 7:4; 8:9–11, 29–30; 1 Cor 15:20–28; 2 Cor 5:15; Eph 1:19–23; 2:4–10; Phil 3:10–11, 20–21; Col 1:15–20; 2:11–15; 3:1–4; 2 Tim 2:11–13; Heb 2:5–18; 7:23–28; 13:20–21; 1 Pet 1:2–7, 17–21; and 3:18–22. As with the exodus in the old covenant that anticipated it, the gospel story is the event by which God identifies himself and by which he establishes and constitutes the community of the new covenant. This is shown in this text by the fact that Jesus’s accomplishments, which are also revelatory, have effected our liberation from sins and made us to be a kingdom and priests.
The parallel with the exodus is especially apt here as this text is an example I have noted previously of reference to the hope for the new exodus. The imagery of our being released evokes the liberating exodus while being suitably amplified for the new covenant in that the liberation is from a more fundamental and enduring evil, being sin itself. This, too, is in line with the promises for the new covenant (see esp. Jer 31:31–34). Moreover, the language John uses signals this in how it draws from the identification statement of Exod 19:5–6 that described Israel as God’s kingdom of priests. Revelation will make other connections with the Exodus throughout, climactically in invoking the covenant formula in Rev 21:3 and 7, which was first introduced in Exod 6:7 that “They will be my people, and I will be their God” or some variation thereof (cf. Exod 29:45–46; Lev 26:12; Deut 26:18–19; Jer 11:4; 24:7; 30:22; 31:1, 33; 32:38; Ezek 11:20; 14:11; 34:30; 36:28; 37:23, 27; Hos 1:9; 2:23, 25; Zech 8:8; 13:9). The use of this language here is one of the early signals of Revelation telling the story of how all of God’s great promises will come to ultimate fulfillment and fruition.
It does this first by reference to the gospel events because it is the gospel events that are the primary demonstration of God’s faithful love to do as he has promised for his ever-expanding people (cf. Rev 7). Revelation’s concern with eschatology begins and is framed with its reference to the gospel because it is the gospel that has inaugurated the fulfillment of eschatological hope. These are the eschatological events that have already happened, and they are the necessary precursor to the other expectations coming true. The gospel story is itself the narrative foundation for everything else that follows. It is why this text operates with an inaugurated eschatology, and it is also one of the reasons for its shifts in chronological reference, as the text sometimes returns to emphasizing these details about what has already happened. Furthermore, the reference to this story provides the narrative framework for the reality that Jesus’s people participate in when they worship him in how they live a gospel-formed life.
We can also briefly consider here how John references the major events and how they function in the text. First, he describes Jesus as the faithful witness (1:5). In one sense, the reference to him as “faithful” can overlap significantly in its meaning with “true” (as in Greek translations of the Hebrew root of “amen”), meaning that Jesus is the true witness, the one with unimpeachable integrity. This seems to be the sense in the cases where the word pair “faithful” and “true” appear elsewhere in John, either in reference to Jesus (3:14; 19:11) or the message of the new creation (21:5; 22:6), where the word pair expresses the surety that this consummate promise will come to pass just as the others have come to pass through Jesus, God’s witness. In another sense, the adjective is applied to Christians who hold fast to their testimony in the face of suffering and death (2:10, 13; 17:14). This sense is also likely to be present in the case of Jesus, who was God’s witness unto death and paved the way for those who follow his path of witnessing to resurrection to everlasting life on the other side of death. Indeed, in other cases where a “witness” is referred to, apart from Jesus, the person(s) in question has faced or will face suffering and death for their testimony (2:13; 11:3; 17:6). In many cases, this is also true of the associated vocabulary of “testimony” (1:9; 6:9; 11:7; 12:17; 20:4). Thus far, these witnesses share with Jesus the testimony unto death, but because of what happened with Jesus—as Revelation itself will lay out in due course—these witnesses will also share in the resurrection of that prime Faithful Witness. While some of Jesus’s appellations apply to him alone, others, such as this one, are meant to link him with his followers to show them that they are participating in the story he has already enacted.
Moreover, this brief summary emphasizes a particular result of Jesus’s death: releasing us from our sins by his blood (1:5). This is conceptually related, though not lexically similar, to the message of John 1:29 that Jesus is the Lamb who takes away the sins of the world. One can also note similar texts like Matt 26:28; Rom 3:24–26; Eph 1:7; and 1 John 1:7–2:2. Other texts in Revelation will refer to other outcomes of what Jesus accomplished in his death (5:9; 7:14; 12:11; 22:14). This text highlights the element of liberation for the purpose of conveying what God has done in Jesus in inaugurating the promised new exodus. The further result of this liberation is our constitution as a kingdom community, drawing on the text of Exodus as did 1 Pet 2:5 and 9. Similarly, Col 1:12–14 links what Jesus accomplished in his death with our being incorporated into Jesus’s kingdom. Thus it is here that we were released and, as a consequence, were made a kingdom and priests to God by what Christ did in his death and all that followed.
Second, Jesus being the firstborn of the dead (1:5) evokes his resurrection, as in the similar phrase of Col 1:18, except that the latter adds the preposition ἐκ to the phrase to differentiate it further from the similar phrase in 1:15. The description of Jesus as πρωτότοκος does not in and of itself imply a relation to others who are born later, as the term is at times used to signify Jesus’s preeminence (as in Col 1:15, as well as Heb 1:6). Surely, both Col 1:18 and Rev 1:5 have this shade of meaning as well, as both texts have contexts that connect Jesus’s resurrection to his exalted authority. But in both contexts (as well as Rom 8:29), it is also clear that Jesus does indeed function as the firstborn of a family. In Col 1:18, this is indicated by the reference to Jesus as head of the body that is the church and that in a similar way his “birth” out of death is the first of others. In Rev 1:5, this is indicated by the reference to Jesus as the faithful witness, implying that other faithful witnesses will become like him in being born from the dead in the event of resurrection. This future is secured by Jesus already blazing the trail in his death and resurrection and by his blood that liberates those who follow him from their sins. Indeed, Jesus’s resurrection enables and ensures all of his action that brings about the future salvation, not least because his resurrection is connected to his exaltation to ruling over the world (as in Matt 28:18; Acts 1:3–11; 2:31–36; 5:28–32; 7:55–56; 13:30–39; 17:31–32; Rom 1:1–4; 8:34; 1 Cor 15:20–28; Eph 1:17–23; Phil 3:18–21; Col 1:18–20; 2:11–15; Heb 2:5–12; 7:23–27; 12:2; 1 Pet 1:18–21; 3:18–22). The future is in his hands. The believers simply must persevere in faithfulness to inherit that future.
Third, as indicated in the last paragraph, we must finally consider the third event of Jesus’s exaltation as signified by his ascension into and session in heaven. This is what Jesus’s death and resurrection led to, as indicated by the image of the slaughtered Lamb living, standing, and ruling in Rev 5:6, 12–13 (cf. 7:17; 17:14; 22:1, 3). The fact of his reign and of his making his people a kingdom and priests (1:6) is the basis for the rest of the story that follows (as in Rev 5:9–10). This is ultimately how and why God gives this revelation of Jesus Christ to us through John, giving us a peek behind the veil of empirical reality to see that Jesus truly is reigning on the throne with the Father (most often appearing as the referent for “the one who sits on the throne”) and that he is present with us in the Spirit. This is demonstrated visually later in chs. 4 and 5 with the vision of the Lamb resolving the dramatic tension set up therein, but it is first set up here. Likewise, the revelation in the vision of the risen-from-the-dead and exalted Jesus in 1:12–20 is the basis for his addressing the seven assemblies in chs. 2–3, as indicated by the constant referencing back to this vision in the identifications of Jesus.
The visions of transcendent reality, revealing that God is reigning and active in what the gospel story has revealed, function as a defense of Jesus’s exaltation. This revelation of Jesus Christ is meant, among other things, to provide a transcendent perspective to show that, even in the face of ongoing rebellion, suffering (particularly of the faithful), and the persistence and prosperity of evil, God is indeed reigning. This is similar to a common theme in the Psalms and various texts of the Prophets, but it is a framing concern of this entire book, and the climax and resolution of the same is a visual presentation of God reigning forever and ever after his final victory over evil, sin, and death. The three-stage narrative framework of the major gospel events that comes to its resolution with Jesus’s exaltation and session is also repeated for the faithful, per Rev 3:21. Despite the impression one might have based on the sufferings of the present world, God has shown in Christ Jesus what he will do for those who suffer in faithful obedience in faithful union with Jesus. (Also see here.)
The reference to the Lord God as the Alpha and the Omega, the one who is, the one who was, and the one who is coming, as well as the reference to him being the Almighty in 1:8 further uphold what is conveyed by Jesus’s exaltation. That is, they all signify his divine sovereignty and his encompassing the past, the present, and the future. All dimensions of time are in his hands as the Almighty one who is eternal. God has showed his sovereign will and his character of faithful love in the past through the gospel story and other events fulfilling promises, such as the exodus evoked here. He is showing it now in the outworking of the gospel story through the work of the Spirit. And he will show it in the future through the consummation of his promises, as this book will lay out, and as is encapsulated in the promise that he is “the one who is coming” (2:5, 16; 3:10–11; 4:8; 16:15; 19; 22:7, 12, 17, 20; cf. 2:5, 16; 3:10–11). This is in line with both OT promises of YHWH’s coming (Pss 50:3–4; 96:12–13; 98:8–9; Isa 4:2–5; 24:21–23; 25:6–10; 31:4–5; 35:3–6, 10; 40:3–5, 9–11; 52:7–10; 59:15–21; 60:1–3, 19–20; 62:10–11; 63:1, 3, 5, 9; 64:1; 66:12, 14–16, 18–20; Ezek 43:1–7; 48:35; Joel 3:16–21; Zeph 3:14–20; Hag 2:7, 9; Zech 1:16–17; 2:4–5, 10–12; 8; 14:1–5, 9, 16, 20–21; Mal 3:1–4) and the NT expectation of the Second Coming (John 14:3; 21:22; Acts 1:11; Rom 8:18; 1 Cor 1:7; 11:26; 15:24–28; 1 Thess 4:13–18; 5:2; 2 Thess 1:7, 10; 1 Pet 1:5, 7, 13; 4:13; 5:1; 1 John 2:28–3:2, among others).
As such, John is saying that Jesus has already accomplished—and will yet consummate this goal further in the anticipated future—making his covenant community into the fulfillment of God’s covenant community as stated in the Exod 19 text we have already referenced. God spoke these words to Moses to say to the Israelites after they arrived at Sinai subsequent to the exodus out of Egypt. As is typical in these statements of covenantal relationships, the statement of who God is and what God has done is the foundation for covenant communal identity and covenant communal responsibility. This is as true for the Revelation text as it is for the Exodus text. This connection between the holy rule of Christ and the holy rule of his people here is also similar to the scene in Dan 7 where the vindicated Son of Man represents the holy people of God and their rule over his world, along with the reception of glory and dominion. In the same ways, Jesus’s death (signified here by his blood), resurrection (signified here by being the firstborn of the dead), and exaltation (signified here by his being the ruler of the kings of the earth) establish this framework of the identity of believers as a kingdom and priests that will be relevant to everything else that John says about believers in this work. As in Exodus, the salvific event by God brings about the covenantal identity of God’s people. As in Daniel, those who share in the vindication of Christ (which also implies sharing in his death, as the suffering righteous in Daniel are eventually shown to experience resurrection as their vindication) will also share in his kingdom.
The connection with Dan 7:13–14 is particularly apt considering that it is one of the sources for the language of Rev 1:7, along with Zech 12:10. We have previously reviewed the significance of the use of these texts in Part 7. Their use here in reference to Jesus being exalted and having been pierced exemplify what the early Christians had been proclaiming since the first Pentecost after Jesus’s resurrection, which Jesus himself proclaimed beforehand. That is, the gospel story was, is, and will be God’s way of fulfilling Scripture and the promises he spoke long ago, including in these texts. At the same time, there is still a future dimension to every eye seeing him and the tribes of the earth mourning him. This is a reminder that the story is not yet finished and the God who has promised will yet do more of what he has promised. That is the essence of inaugurated eschatology. The climactic events of the grand story, which are also instrumental to the ultimate resolution of that grand story, have already begun, which means the last days are already underway (Acts 2:17; 1 Cor 10:11; 2 Tim 3:1; Heb 1:2; Jas 5:3; 1 Pet 1:20; 2 Pet 3:3; 1 John 2:18; Jude 18; cf. Eph 3:9–12; Titus 1:2–3). We are in the midst of this time of fulfillment begun with the gospel. The same God who promised is the same God who has shown his faithful love in the gospel, and this is our primary basis of confidence that he will bring this story to its consummation. He will do what he has promised, like he already has.
Fredrick J. Long, In Step with God’s Word: Interpreting the New Testament with God’s People, GlossaHouse Hermeneutics & Translation Series 1 (Wilmore, KY: GlossaHouse, 2017), 388.
I do not include here the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture series, because that consists of compilations of excerpts. It can be a useful resource for tracking down primary sources, but it is a step removed from them, unless the excerpts are all you are looking for.