At the End of All Things: Identifying the Ideal Reader of Revelation

Chapter 1

The Canonical Approach in Retrospect

Introduction

Revelation presents a variety of interpretative challenges for the reader, primarily due to the focus upon the climatic end of the world and the obscure imagery. As a result, it has been viewed by some as a guide to understand the current events, whereas others neglect Revelation and do not view it as relevant for today. Therefore, the reader faces several hermeneutical questions to interpret Revelation, and these questions are only multiplied due to the apocalyptic genre of the book.

In what manner should the book of Revelation be interpreted? What necessary hermeneutical boundaries must the interpreter impose upon the reading of Revelation in order to arrive at a satisfactory, proper interpretation? These are valid questions that any interpreter must ask when they begin to mine the caverns of this book.

Martin Luther doubted the inspiration and authenticity of Revelation, citing Jerome as one of the early church fathers who rejected this book. ¹ After noting the lack of apostolic visions contained within the New Testament and emphasizing their contrasting clarity of speech, Luther saw similarity between Revelation and the Fourth Book of Esdras. [Those who read Revelation] are supposed to be blessed who keep what is written in this book; and yet no one knows what that is, to say nothing of keeping it. This is just the same as if we did not have the book at all. And there are many far better books available for us to keep. ² Luther concludes his preface by stating that he will stick to the books which present Christ to me clearly and purely. ³ Even John Calvin, another magisterial reformer, omitted the book from his commentary series. ⁴

Despite the conclusion of Luther, Revelation contains many biblical doctrines that, as suggested by some, were provided specifically for believers in the first century who faced significant persecution by Rome. This book, then, would provide a wealth of comfort and encouragement for first-century Christians as they faced times of uncertainty. Nonetheless, Revelation ends the New Testament canon with a victory for the people of God. Those who are sealed (7:4–8) and follow the Lamb wherever he goes (14:4) will dine at the wedding feast between the bride and the Lamb (19:7). Furthermore, the unholy trinity (12–13) will be vanquished (19:20; 20:7–10), and God’s dwelling place will be with man (21:3).⁵ This dwelling place is in direct fulfillment to Old Testament prophecy, as are many scenes employed by the author.

Likewise, the doctrinal content and relevance of Revelation suggest that not only was the author steeped in the literature of the Old Testament but also that many themes within the book are based upon a broad understanding of the Old Testament itself. For example, the vision in 1:12–20 is related to the Son of Man vision from Dan 7:13–14, and the locusts, from the fifth trumpet in 9:1–11, bear resemblance to the plague of locusts in Exod 10:12–15. ⁶ In fact, Revelation contains more references to the Old Testament than any other New Testament book. ⁷ Thus, one can infer that the writer of Revelation believed his readers were familiar with both Old Testament theology and the imagery that he used since he does not pause and explain the images in their context as they are developed. However, alongside the multiple allusions to the Old Testament, Revelation also appears to make several connections to New Testament passages and themes. It seems that John believed his work could employ a broader understanding of the New Testament and that his reader would understand the connections.

Accordingly, after a detailed analysis of Revelation’s usage of the Old Testament and possible texts based upon the Pseudepigrapha, R. H. Charles lists several passages from Revelation that suggest a dependence upon or are parallel with other earlier New Testament books. ⁸ This list includes passages from Matthew, Luke, 1 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Colossians, Ephesians, Galatians, 1 Peter, and James. For example, John’s epistolary greeting in 1:4 (χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη) is identical to Col 1:2; Rom 1:7; 1 Cor 1:3; 2 Cor 1:2; Gal 1:3; Eph 1:2; Phil 1:2; 1 Thess 1:1; 2 Thess 1:2; and Phlm 3. Titus 1:4 does not contain ὑμῖν but is otherwise identical. ⁹ Similarity also exists in 1 Pet 1:2; 2 Pet 1:2, and Jude 2 where χάρις is substituted for ἔλεος. Matthew Y. Emerson believes that the high correlation between these examples, and those listed by Charles, suggests a reading strategy for Revelation as the culmination of the exhortation to the churches of God. ¹⁰ This reading strategy is strengthened by the thematic connections as illustrated here and by the verbal connections between Revelation and the New Testament as a whole.

Such verbal connections provided by Charles would seem to suggest that the author of Revelation was dependent upon other New Testament texts. Furthermore, as Emerson has noted, the location of Revelation within the canon of the New Testament may be more intentional than previously suspected. Given the various connections to the rest of the New Testament, the position of Revelation at the conclusion of the New Testament canon may suggest a specific reading strategy for the book. Thus, what would this reading strategy look like considering Revelation’s usage of both the Old and New Testament texts?

The argument of this book is that a canonical approach of Revelation is a neglected aspect of current New Testament studies and that such a reading will provide the ideal-reader for interpreting Revelation. This last proposal suggests itself in light of (1) the location of Revelation within the canon of Scripture; (2) the intertextual links between Revelation and the Old Testament; (3) the intertextual verbal connections Revelation shares with other New Testament texts; and (4) the allusions and themes Revelation shares with the New Testament. In order to test the assumption of this approach, one must define specifically the canonical approach and examine the contributions it has made to the field of biblical studies.

What is the Canonical Approach?

For many years, the determinative method for interpreting the Old Testament was the historical-critical approach. Those employing this methodology sought to reconstruct the historical events behind the canonical text. The historical-critical approach became the prominent method for interpreting the Pentateuch and served as the basis for the documentary hypothesis theory proposed by J. H. Wellhausen. ¹¹ Walter Eichrodt observed this phenomenon, noting that:

There was no longer any unity to be found in the OT, only a collection of detached periods which were simply the reflections of as many different religions. In such circumstances, it was only a logical development that the designation ‘OT Theology’, which had formerly had quite a different connotation, should frequently be abandoned and the title ‘History of Israelite Religion’ substituted for it. Even where scholars still clung to the old name, they were neither desirous nor capable of offering anything more than an exposition of the historical process. ¹²

Thus, the study of the Old Testament quickly became not so much a study of the Old Testament itself, but rather of the events to which that text points.

However, the potential weakness of the historical-critical approach was the preoccupation with historical reconstructions to the neglect of the exegesis of the biblical passage. Thus, the canonical approach was formulated to offset the imbalance of the historical-critical method. ¹³ The canonical approach, or canonical criticism, introduces a method of Scriptural interpretation that focuses on the context of the received canon. Focusing on the received canon of Scripture frees the interpreter from the task of constructing the historical setting of the specific books of the Bible and allows the interpreter the freedom to understand the text in accordance with its surrounding context. In other words, the canonical approach examines the biblical text itself rather than allowing the text to serve as the entry point for a historical reconstruction of religious and socio-political identities.

Brevard Childs notes the importance of what is meant by context, since there are many different contexts by which the Scripture can be interpreted. ¹⁴ Childs believes that when the context of Scripture is referenced, it should be understood as the environment of what is being interpreted as well as the parts that form the text. ¹⁵ Although there are other contexts by which Scripture can be interpreted, Childs believes that the reference to canon as a context describes a context within which a dialectical relationship between the two Testaments is envisioned. ¹⁶

By focusing on the Christian canon, the canonical approach requires the interpreter to consider in-depth the idea that the Scriptures are a written text, and they are theologically relevant as to content and form. ¹⁷ Thus, a canonical approach presupposes that the arrangement of the books within the broader context of Scripture informs exegesis and does the latter on that basis. An example of this broader context is the interpretation of a verse within its proper setting of paragraph-section-chapter-book. ¹⁸

The canonical approach provides the reader with an overarching view (macro) of the Scripture as opposed to a narrow (micro) level interpretation. As a result, the canonical method explains the message of a particular passage in light of the passage’s canonical section. Thus, this approach highlights the text, its canonical section, and the message that the passage relates to the canon as a whole and what the message is that is presented to the reader. As Emerson remarks, Additionally, canonical hermeneutics seeks to show how the pieces of a particular passage (or book or corpus) fit into a canonical section (whether a book, corpus, or canon), and what message that canonical whole is attempting to convey. ¹⁹ This method of interpretation is done primarily from the text the church has received throughout the centuries. ²⁰

Intertextuality within the Canonical Approach

When one employs the canonical approach to interpreting Scripture, other methods of exegesis are suggested by implication. Since the primary focus is upon the received canon of the Christian church, the discussion of intertextuality will appear since the received canon includes writings that reference other portions of the canon. Intertextuality, in brief, understands how a later text uses an earlier text while retaining the same meaning. ²¹

To distinguish intertextuality from inner-biblical exegesis and inner-biblical allusions, Russell L. Meek draws from the 1966 essay by Julia Kristeva and provides three criteria. ²² First, texts, according to Kristeva, are a mosaic of quotations; any text is the absorption and transformation of another. The notion of intertextuality replaces that of intersubjectivity, and poetic language is read as at least double. ²³ Second, intertextuality is not concerned with the diachronic trajectory of a text’s relation to another. Rather, according to Meek, intertextuality is a synchronic discussion that focuses on the relation of many texts rather than one text.

What matters for intertextual theorists is the ‘network of traces’, not their origin or direction of influence. Furthermore, intertextuality is concerned with ‘a wide range of correspondences among texts,’ and it ‘examines the relations among many texts’ rather than the relationship between a narrow set of texts. Thus, intertextuality is a strictly synchronic discussion of wide-ranging intertextual relationships that necessarily precludes author-centered, diachronic studies. ²⁴

Third, intertextuality is not concerned with establishing criteria to determine the relationship between texts since there is little concern to prove a connection between texts was intended by the author. For Meek, the dilemma of labeling this endeavor as intertextuality becomes problematic when the interpreter claims authorial intention and has, thereby, entered another realm altogether, for intertextuality presupposes that the connection of texts lies solely with the reader. ²⁵ This other realm becomes reader-response based interpretation rather than exegesis that seeks to discover authorial intention. ²⁶ Thus, Meek argues that most studies on intertextuality would be more properly labeled as inner-biblical exegesis or inner-biblical allusion since these terms are more appropriate. ²⁷

However, for the purpose of the present volume the term intertextuality will be used to describe how one author of the Bible uses a text from a different source within his respective book. ²⁸ In other words, intertextuality is possible when a biblical author draws from another source outside of his book and uses the source in a way that is reflective of his context and the context of the source. An example of intertextuality is found in the way Amos utilizes the Torah in 2:9–11. ²⁹ Here, Amos applies the story of the exodus to his hearers’ present situation. In doing so, he uses the method of intertextuality. Paul Koptak notes that Prov 2–7 can be viewed as a commentary on Deut 6:7–9 and 11:19, and that Lev 25:3–7 is an explanation of Exod 23:10–11a. ³⁰

Shape and Its Influence Upon Interpretation

The usage of intertextuality shows the idea that the Bible should be viewed by the reader as a coherent book that has a consistent and sustained message, such that each document within it must be understood in light of the other documents, even at the level of exegesis, before doctrinal synthesis has even begun. The order of the books and their respective locations within the canon are significant for the overall theological message of the Scriptures. Thus, John Sailhamer argues, A canonical approach recognizes as a fundamental axiom of textual studies that the very process of forming the OT canon has made itself in the textual shape of the OT. ³¹

Shape is also another important term to consider when discussing the canonical approach, and the task of defining shape involves two challenges. First, scholars who employ the canonical approach understand shape in various ways. For example, Childs understands shape as that which sets the boundary for the canon of Scripture. ³² The second challenge is the literary structure of the passage and how this structure affects the shape of the content. ³³ Thus, for Childs, the canonical shape of Scripture establishes the boundaries of biblical interpretation more so than the giving of meaning to particular passages.

John Sailhamer disagrees with Childs and believes that the order of the Old Testament has been predetermined so that their canonical order leads to a certain hermeneutic. ³⁴ In the canonical approach, the position of a biblical book within the canon of Scripture should influence its interpretation. A canonical approach to OT theology focuses its attention on the shape of the OT text at the time of the formation of the Canon. A canonical approach recognizes as a fundamental axiom of textual studies that the very process of forming the OT Canon has made itself felt in the textual shape of the OT. ³⁵ Therefore, according to Sailhamer, shape is the particular arrangement of the books within the canon of Scripture that affects the emphasis of a particular text or story within the Bible.

The relationship between canonical criticism and the canonical approach are similar, although canonical criticism does not adequately convey the various methods employed by scholars. ³⁶ Both canonical criticism and the canonical approach seek to read Scripture within its particular shape and understand how shape affects the interpretation of the passage. Gerald T. Sheppard notes that what is clear is that canonical criticism is less a formal ‘criticism’ than an approach or series of approaches that seeks to raise neglected questions about the form and function of scripture, both Jewish and Christian. ³⁷ The desire of canonical criticism was to discover the author’s intent apart from the historical critical method since the literal sense of Scripture was equated with the results of historical criticism [and had] been seriously reexamined. ³⁸ This paradigm shift occurred because the literal sense of Scripture began to be defined with the intention of the first author. ³⁹ Where the interpreter seeks to find the literal sense of the text, the intent of the author, according to Sheppard, will only be labeled as pre-biblical, considering the fact that these authors never intended to write biblical traditions. The writings of these authors were only so labeled in this manner at a later time and were publically established as such when they were assigned a place within a scripture by editors. ⁴⁰

Scholars tend to define the canonical approach differently. Concerning this phenomena, Anthony Thiselton remarks that there is no single form for the canonical approach. Just as there is no single, uniform canonical approach, there is [no] single, uniform, ‘historical-critical method.’ In my judgment the term ‘the historical-critical method’ should be banned from all textbooks and from students’ essays." ⁴¹ Although strong similarities among canonical approaches may be found within the works of noted proponents such as Brevard Childs, John Sailhamer, Christopher Seitz, and Rolf Rendtorff, it would not be prudent to offer a single, unqualified summary of their methods. Thus, the canonical approaches of Brevard Childs and John Sailhamer will be discussed as examples of how an interpreter applies the canonical approach to the Old Testament. ⁴²

Brevard S. Childs

Brevard Childs developed the method known as the canonical approach, specifically as a reaction against the higher criticism that had overtaken Old Testament studies. Childs noticed that the focus of historical grammatical studies shifted from the study of the Bible to an entirely different concept of biblical studies.

I began to realize that there was something fundamentally wrong with the foundations of the biblical discipline. It was not a question of improving on a source analysis, of discovering some unrecognized new genre, or of bringing a redactional layer into sharper focus. Rather, the crucial issue turned on one’s whole concept of the study of the Bible itself. I am now convinced that the relation between the historical critical study of the Bible and its theological use as religious literature within a community of faith and practice needs to be completely rethought. ⁴³

Furthermore, Childs preferred to use the term canonical approach rather than canonical criticism since the latter shared a connection with other higher criticisms (Geschichten).

I have always objected to the term ‘canoni(ical) criticism" as a suitable description of my approach. I do not envision my approach as involving a new critical methodology analogous to literary, form, or redactional criticism. Rather, the crucial issue turns on one’s initial evaluation of the nature of the biblical text being studied. By defining one’s tasks as an understanding of the Bible as the sacred Scriptures of the church, one establishes from the outset the context and point-of-understanding of the reader within the received tradition of a community of faith and practice. ⁴⁴

Despite this preference, canonical criticism has been used to refer to the canonical approach. ⁴⁵

Childs disagreed with what is known as the historical-critical introduction to the Old Testament in three areas. First, since this discipline was developed by Johann Gottfried Eichorn, Childs believed that the goal of the historical critical introduction was not to establish the canonical literature of the church but rather the history of development of the Hebrew literature.

In the first place, the historical critical Introduction [sic] as it has developed since Eichorn does not have for its goal the analysis of the canonical literature of the synagogue and church, but rather it seeks to describe the history of the development of the Hebrew literature and to trace the earlier and later stages of this history. As a result, there always remains an enormous hiatus between the description of the critically reconstructed literature and the actual canonical text which has been received and used as authoritative scripture by the community. ⁴⁶

Childs, then, is more concerned with the canonical literature as the church has received it rather than the history of the Hebrew literature. This concern is significant for Childs since it not only influences his preferred method to introduce the Old Testament but also because it establishes his understanding of how the canon of the Old Testament was formed. ⁴⁷

Second, [T]he whole dimension of resonance within the Bible which issues from a collection with fixed parameters and which affects both the language and its imagery is lost by disregarding the peculiar function of the canonical literature. ⁴⁸ So, a critical introduction to the Old Testament fails to understand the various changes in the literature of Israel, its shape, and its structure. Third, the critical introduction "is constitutive of Israel’s history that the literature formed the identity of the religious community which in turn shaped the literature. This fundamental dialectic which lies at the heart of the canonical process is lost when the critical Introduction [sic] assumes that a historically referential reading of the Old Testament is the key to its interpretation." ⁴⁹ According to Childs, then, the critical introduction fails to relate the literature to the community to which it was written and show how the literature influenced its shape.

The historical critical introduction assumes that a political or social factor was determinative for the biblical text rather than the religious dynamic of the canon so that the issue is not whether or not an Old Testament Introduction should be historical, but the nature of the historical categories being applied. ⁵⁰ According to Childs, historical critical methods have posed the wrong questions of the biblical text because the methods attempted to establish the history of the literature rather than focus upon the theological shape of the text. ⁵¹ These methods sought to reconstruct the development of the Hebrew literature, disregard the peculiar function of the canonical literature, and ignore the tension between the literature’s role in forming the community and the community’s role in forming the literature in favor of always reading the text in terms of political, social, or economic influence. ⁵² Therefore, Childs focused upon the final form of the biblical text because the final form of scripture lies in the peculiar relationship between text and people of God which is constitutive of the canon. ⁵³ Thus, the primary method for interpreting both the