Towards a new
spatio-temporal
macrostructure for Revelation - methodology
2) Methodology
Defining the method to be used in this study is difficult because, as an oceanographer/ marine geologist and then a theologian, the present author’s mind went to the Scientific Method for the methodology, i.e. observe the situation, define the question, research the topic, formulate and test an hypothesis, analyse the data and report the conclusions. Theological methodology, on the other hand, describes how a person approaches an interpretation of the Bible and its doctrinal implications. Underlying the theological methodology in this study is the philosophical approach of the theological variant of critical realism, i.e. recognising that every reader cannot help but put their own interpretations on what John’s intentions may have been when he wrote Revelation.[1] Both approaches set the scene for a literary-historical, exegetical analysis of the text; each step incorporating the hermeneutical ‘triad’ of history, literature and theology;[2] unfortunately, John’s relationship to history[3] and the surrounding culture is ambiguous. In other words, this study is a literary-historical study of the text that is exegetical (the systematic search for ways to comprehend the text) and hermeneutical (the theory of how to interpret the text on a higher level of reflection). Revelation is a piece of prophetic and apocalyptic literature and it represents a transcendental reality which moves through the cosmos, i.e. through space and time (so Thompson, 1990: 31), so a spatio-temporal interpretation is appropriate. In theological methodological terminology, I call this approach the ‘hermeneutic of spacetime’ and it yields a macrostructure for the book.
This study aims to uncover a methodology and macrostructure that are objective (i.e. independent and reproducible), chronologically and spatially consistent, theologically sound and accessible to the current generation. The works of Leonard Thompson, Steven Friesen and Richard Bauckham are particularly influential in this study; Thompson because his approach is spatial and yet so different to the method used in this study that it challenges preconceptions, Friesen because his emphasis is on the local culture and the different kinds of space and time in Revelation and Bauckham emphasises a literary and contextual approach. The study follows Bauckham’s advice to try to understand John’s prophecy by making the images more accessible today rather than by replacing them with a message about what the images might express (Bauckham, 1993a: 451). It is hoped others will investigate the method and macrostructure and use them as a basis for their own interpretations or literary investigations.
[1] Beale, 1998: 53. Wright defined theological critical realism (i.e. prioritising theology) as: ‘the process of “knowing” that acknowledges the reality of the thing known, as something other than the knower (hence ‘realism’), while also fully acknowledging that the only access we have to this reality lies along the spiralling path of appropriate dialogue or conversation between the knower and the thing known (hence ‘critical.’)’ (sic) i.e. knowledge ‘although in principle concerning realities independent of the knower, is never itself independent of the knower.’ (Wright, 1992: 35). Knowles chose McGrath as critical realism’s most significant biblical studies supporter. (Knowles, 2010: 99). Knowles was referring to: Alister E. McGrath, A Scientific Theology: vol.1, Nature; vol.2, Reality; vol.3. Theory, (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2001-2003).
[2] This is the ‘proper grid’ for biblical interpretation, and it implies that critical realism is ‘the notion that texts can and do accurately represent external objects, properties, and events’. (Köstenberger and Patterson, 2011: 23, 27; 24).
[3] ‘History’ is used in a modern sense here; how Jews in the first century A.D. understood history is uncertain but Halbwachs distinguished it from collective memory, which is how the first Christians outside Palestine would have remembered Jerusalem and the temple and its traditions (rituals etc.), Halbwachs, 1992: 222).
2a) The cosmic setting and spacetime rules
The cosmic setting within Revelation is widely accepted and linear plot progression is recognisable (Resseguie, 2009: 59) but this study is unusual in proposing that the relative timing and location of events within John’s visionary cosmos are the structural components of its macrostructure. Spatio-temporal analysis maintains the relationships between location and relative time, and spacetime is a modern metaphor or mental image for John’s visionary cosmos. In a non-physicist’s interpretation of a mathematical concept, spacetime considers the cosmos as a 3-dimensional volume and the passing of time moves in one direction only, like an arrow into the future. An event in one place cannot be witnessed in another place before that event occurs so, in the physical cosmos, consequences follow causes. This methodology is unusual in Theology, but not unexpected; both a first century A.D. understanding of the cosmos and its modern equivalent describe the same physical observations, but this study interprets Revelation using the spacetime discipline. In other words, following this interpretation, verse order (the possible chronology) remains unchanged so verses behave like beads on a piece of string within each space (they cannot jump over one another).
There are a few simple rules for this type of analysis: notations and interpretations can change, but verses and chapters cannot interrupt or inter-weave earlier or later chapters in the same space because this creates temporal paradoxes. For example, events in chapters 12-14 either occur after chapters 1-11 or they must be in separate spaces/ dimensions. This ‘spacetime rule’ was used to trace John’s journey through the cosmos and verses were allocated to the spaces according to their literary cosmic location. This supports the traditional view that Revelation follows chronological time (i.e. past, present, future), which in this analysis is more appropriate for understanding the structure of the vision than defining time by what happens while it passes (like Friesen[1]) or by its unknown nature.
[1] ‘Present time’: before the destruction of the Roman Empire; ‘worship time’: spans heaven and earth; ‘vision time’: ecstatic experience; ‘vindication time’: in the 1000 year earthly reign of Christ; ‘new time’: in the New Order (Friesen, 2001:157-161).
2b) In practice ...
In practice, the verses were copied into an MS Excel spreadsheet, key words denoting subjects and locations were highlighted and text sections moved along the horizontal axis into the column which represented their cosmic location; Space is the x axis and each column represents a location in John’s literary cosmos; the y axis is Relative Time. Verses were moved up and down the column until those with the same subject matter were on the same row and verse order was strictly maintained. If Revelation follows a chronologically linear structure, the first actions John writes about (from 1:1) are at the top and the last ones (22:21) are at the bottom of the diagram, so the text “flows” down the page. Maintaining verse order is important so any relationship between a relative chronology and the verses is preserved, and so space and time can remain in tension.
The structural analysis began with the search for the first and last unique events which impact every cosmic space in the story and then see how all the other events fit into this pattern. The method is iterative, like an hermeneutical circle i.e. a series of repeated attempts to understand the whole structure by investigating how its parts relate to one another. The proposed model is a product of using the spacetime rule to eliminate every paradox in a way that is justifiable theologically and according to concepts of ancient Near East cosmology. The study follows the advice to keep it simple when developing a theory, because the simplest solution is probably the best one (Occam’s Razor); this supports using the least possible number of columns (spaces) to illustrate the structure. Generic spatio-temporal modelling guidelines indicate that: if there is no recorded activity in a space, until John states or implies that the last event in that space ceases, that event may continue. The absence of a space from the model does not imply the space vanishes. For example, there is no activity recorded in heaven’s environs after 12:12, but the space does not disappear (see the Macrostructure Model).
The sequence of events happening within each column (space) is the time-line. An operational aim of the analysis is to avoid temporal paradoxes by moving verses up and down the y axis within each space, so that all references to the same event (such as the immediate consequences of the shedding of the blood of the Lamb (and the resurrection i.e. the Cross) or Babylon) are on the same row on the y axis. By tracing John’s journey through the cosmos, it became clear that multiple references to the same event are the result of John stepping back in relative time four times during his journey (at 4:2, 12:1, 12:13, 15:1; see Macrostructure Section 4c).
Contemporaneous references (‘time-parallels’) are like text parallels but they have a chronological component; these are shaded in the proposed macrostructure (Macrostructure Model, Figures 1-5). Time-parallels include references to: the Cross (5:6-9, 12:10-11, 12:17); opening of the abyss (9:2, 13:1); open sanctuary (11:19, 15:5); fall of Babylon (14:8, 16:19, 18:2, 19:2). Eighteen time-parallels are recognised but the exact number is not significant because some may be sub-divided or combined. The Cross is the only absolute point in time in Revelation, all other events occur relative to this or relative to one another.
This spatio-temporal method was tested on the classic models (linear /recapitulation/ telescopic/ chiasms[1) but each one created paradoxes (see Framework 2A.b). Throughout the study the model was validated by comparing it with events described within the Gospels, particularly Lk. 17 and Lk. 21/ Mt. 24/ Mk. 13 and Acts 1 because these describe sequences of eschatological events; a separate chapter on Revelation/ the Gospels is in preparation. Some references to Daniel and Isaiah are included but a comprehensive comparison with eschatological texts in the Hebrew Bible or with other extant apocalypses is not attempted.
[1] Chiasm: a symmetrical repetition of phrases, for example phrases A, B, C whose meanings are repeated using different words in A’, B’, C’ – often
with a climactic center (D); see Towards… 3a – it is like a symmetrical literary sandwich. See Towards … 3a.
2c) A single vision?
It is reasonable to suppose that every theological interpretation and doctrinal implication will be dependent to some degree upon the perceived structure of the book. If the study can show that Revelation was a single vision of events from Creation to the New Order which is consistent with spacetime as a hermeneutical interpretation, then all of salvation history is included in the vision. The difference between an historical interpretation of the text (the hermeneutic of salvation history) and the proposed hermeneutic of spacetime is that history is about how time affects people and spacetime is about how time affects the people and the places with which they interact. Together they describe how the universe and its inhabitants relate to one another. Revelation, as prophetic- apocalyptic literature, is the prism through which history and spacetime can be viewed.
The only absolute point in Revelation is the immediate impact of the shedding of the blood of the Lamb and John refers to it three times (5:5-7, 12:9-12, 12:17) so the structure of Revelation is not linear. Some macrostructures accommodate this sort of repetition by dividing the text into separate visions, stories or reports, but this study suggests they are the result of the story stepping back in relative time four times (at 4:2, 12:1, 12:13 and 15:1) within the vision’s overall forward movement in time (see 4b). What happens before and after these relocations indicate John describes a single experience. In Framework 5 it is suggested that John’s experience was a single, waking vision.
The proposed macrostructure anchors the vision to an earthly time-scale without insisting on a Preterist, Historicist, Futurist or Idealist interpretation.[1] In traditional terms, the proposed macrostructure is a pre-millennial interpretation (i.e. Christ appears before the Millennium) that is also an eclectic (diverse or mixed) interpretation because the seal torments may have affected John’s era (a Preterist interpretation) and the Parousia has not yet happened (a Futurist interpretation). All the interpretations are valid in different parts of the story, but whereabouts in history or on the spacetime continuum an individual reader may be located is unknown. Who or what most of Revelation’s characters may represent is even more uncertain, so no attempt is made here to put modern names to the characters or events. The Cross is the only fixed, absolute point in the model.
[1] Different possible interpretations: Revelation’s prophecies were fulfilled in the first century A.D. (Preterist or fulfilled in the past) or through Church history (Historicist). Alternatively, they await fulfilment (Futurist) or they contain time-less truths but they are not historical (Idealist) (see Pate, 2009: 7).
2d) A symbolic journey
Revelation is the story of a journey set within a literary universe and it includes all the narrative elements for a literary framework: plot, setting, characters, themes and narrator’s point of view, style and repertoire. Its overall literary structure is ‘a literary progression with one event folding into another until the end is reached and everything and everyone is in their proper place and the messianic repairs of the cosmos are complete’ (Resseguie, 2009 : 59). Eugene Boring described Revelation’s pictorial language as a ‘gestalt of simultaneous images’ (Boring, 1989: 58), but the key to interpreting Revelation’s symbolism in the way that John may have intended is obscure today. For example, if reference to the dragon (‘that ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world’, 12:9) refers to the story of Adam, Eve and the snake (Gen.3:1-15), then this reflects biblical Creation myths. The alternative suggestion that chapter 12 refers to the Church is also considered later.
The progression of symbolic, multi-dimensional events in the literary cosmos represented in Revelation may be a metaphor for (or analogous to) real events happening in the physical cosmos, for example Babylon (a great city and a harlot: 14:8, 16:17-21, 17:1-18:24) may be first century A.D. Rome, or not Rome at all. This study proposes that Revelation describes events from Creation to the New Order, but no one can be sure where we should be placed on this time-line, nor our relationship to the eschaton (i.e. ‘the last days’). These ideas are discussed in the Framework chapter (eschaton 1 and 2) .