introduction to revelation, part 2
01.20.2013
This message was first preached at New Testament Christian Fellowship in Conover, NC on January 20, 2013. It is the beginning of an expository study on the Book of Revelation and concludes matters of introduction.
INTRODUCTION TO REVELATION, PART 2
Last week, I began to introduce the Book of Revelation. We considered the title, some characteristics of the book, and a little background concerning John the Apostle and the historical context in which he wrote. I also talked a bit about why Revelation was slow to be “officially” accepted by the Church and why such things need not hinder us from believing and trusting what God has clearly preserved for the churches down through the centuries. Today, I want to wrap up this introduction by considering the typical methods of interpretation that have historically been applied to the Book of Revelation.
There are basically four ways in which this book has been interpreted in the past and is interpreted today. Of these four methods, three of them have serious problems; and the one remaining seems plain common sense. It's helpful to know these methods because you may encounter people who have weird ideas about what's taking place in these prophecies, some of them Christian leaders. I preach with people on the streets who proclaim a solid Gospel message, but when it comes to eschatology or their understanding of end times, it just seems to be way out there. Oftentimes, this is because folks fall into one of these camps of interpretation that were held by different groups of Christians in the past (i.e. who lived in a different historical context), and they feel like they have to stick right with it for tradition's sake. Before we actually get into the text, let’s briefly examine the four typical methods of interpretation historically applied to Revelation.
The Allegorical Method of Interpretation
First, there is the allegorical method. An allegory is a literary device, a story or a recap that's not necessarily literal. It’s telling is simply meant to explain or explicate a grand idea or theme. An allegorical method of interpreting Revelation would approach the book as a symbolic metaphor of the age-old conflict between good and evil, or between God and Satan. It's not prophecy per se, just a giant metaphor that explains to us the eternal battle between righteousness and wickedness. This method of interpretation is dualistic: good and evil are presented as if on an even scale; and all of history can be boiled down to one versus the other.
There is a big problem with this dualistic approach, however. The Bible is not a tale of good versus evil. You see, God is above all of that. Satan never had a chance; he never will have a chance to actually overthrow God's plan and purpose. He thinks he does, but the Almighty exists and governs above all such ploys. The Evil One cannot do anything the LORD does not allow. Read the Book of Job. Even the Antichrist, Satan’s seed, is no more than the rod of God’s anger upon a disobedient and rebellious Israel (Isaiah 10:5). A dualistic mindset is philosophical, not biblical. Plato and the ancient Greeks believed in all that stuff. The Apostle Paul confronted this thinking atop Mars Hill (Acts 17) and warned the believers at Colossae about its dangers (Colossians 2:8).
The allegorical method of interpreting Revelation treats the book as one big symbol, a huge metaphor that is mysterious and cannot be understood in terms of specifics or details. If this were true, the blessing John bestows in 1:3 upon “he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein” makes no sense. If this method were correct, the clear warning John inscribes at the end of the book, concerning those who add or take away from WORDS of the prophecy (22:18-19), makes little sense.
An allegorical interpretation of Revelation would have had no specific value to the readers contemporary with John, believers in the seven churches who are specifically addressed (1:11), because it would have been an overall picture speaking in generalities. It wouldn't have benefited them in any specific or practical way. Unfortunately, a lot of professing Christians follow this method, and they tend to view the prophetic Scriptures as a collection of dark sayings and symbols than cannot be fully understood or explained. In other words, whether knowingly or unknowingly, these treat Revelation as if it is no different than the mysticisms, allegories, and confusing symbols of other religious texts.
If you read the Quran, for example, what you find is an exercise in randomness. In the Hindu writings, it’s the same thing. I was called this week and asked a few questions about an article that was to be posted to a Christian media outlet. The writer wanted my reaction to a Hindu religious group in America seeking to place copies of the Bhagavad-Gita in hotel rooms alongside the Gideon Bibles typically found. These Hindus have seen that the Bible, being placed in hotel and motel rooms, has had an effect on people. Therefore, they want to place their own religious text in these venues so as to “raise awareness” of Hindu teachings. I was asked, "What are your thoughts on this?" I replied in a way this person did not expect:
“Well, I don't really have a problem with it, nor do I consider it to be even a minuscule threat to the Bible. If you were to place all the religious books of the world beside the Bible in a hotel room, and if someone honestly seeking truth were to compare them all side by side, such an one would see very quickly that there is no comparison to be made.”
The Hindu writings are no threat to the Bible. If anything, placing them beside a Bible only exposes that Hinduism is nothing more than a collection of myths, Disneyland characters going back and forth, Harry Potter stories that make no sense and are nothing but dark allegory. “By all means,” I declared to this reporter, “put them in the motel rooms.” It’s almost funny. The motive behind such a strategy cannot be “conversion” to Hinduism, for Hindus don't seek to make converts. One has to be born into Hinduism. The motive behind these demands isn’t making converts; it’s to prevent or discourage Hindus from leaving their caste religion and following the Bible. Hindus forsaking Hinduism is as great a threat to the gurus and sadhus as Catholics forsaking “Holy Mother Church” is to the priests, cardinals, and the pope. A lot of folks from India or South Asia who immigrate to America, it has been discovered, actually drift away from their traditions and superstitions. And some of these actually come to Christ. That is the biggest threat to the Hindu religious organizations.
Notwithstanding, the Bible is not in the same category as the allegorical religious writings of man. It’s not even in the same stadium, the same colosseum. By all means, put them beside each other and let the people see. Biblical prophecy, including Revelation, isn’t dark allegory that cannot be understood, it’s prophecy, history written beforehand.
The Preterist Method of Interpretation
There is a second method of interpretation typically applied to Revelation, that of the preterist. This word is derived from a Latin source which simply means “past.” A preterist would consign the fulfillment of the prophecies of the Book of Revelation to the past. In other words, John’s vision is simply a parabolic record of the conflicts between the Early Church of the first century and its chief persecutors: Rome, Rabbinic Judaism, and paganism. Revelation, according to the preterist, was pretty much fulfilled in the Early Church. It is fanciful and metaphoric history, not future prophecy; it is simply a symbolic way of describing how the earliest Christians had to suffer for the cause of the Gospel.
The year AD 70 is very important in this preterist interpretation. In that year, the Romans under General Titus marched upon Jerusalem, besieged it, led people away captive, destroyed the Second Temple, and ransacked the city. And since that time, Israel, in terms of having control over the whole city of Jerusalem and possessing a temple, a sacrifice, and a priesthood has ceased to exist. The Book of Hosea prophesies that Israel would exist many days without a king, without a priest, without a temple, without a sacrifice (Hosea 3:4). Those days began in AD 70 and continue to this day. Therefore, the preterist would argue that most of Revelation’s prophecies are centered around Titus, the Roman general. He, they say, was the antichrist figure; the Roman Empire was the great beast; and there were these primarily first century problems. It is all in the past.
Now, if such a ridiculous notion were true, then the Book of Revelation has no specific value or application to us today. Under the allegorical interpretation, it would have no value to John's readers. Under this preterist interpretation, it would have no value to us. It’s just a big metaphor, and it happened in the past. The allegorical method says it’s just a big metaphor, and it is happening today and will continue to happen in the future. Both see nothing beyond an overbearing and dualistic theme of good versus evil.
In response, I find it quite interesting John states, at least seven times in the Book of Revelation, that he is writing PROPHECY, not history. He says himself that he is writing future prophecy. And yet, the preterist would look at such things and then attempt to interpret prophecies in light of historical events. What results is a whole slough of conflicting ideas about what the text means or what it doesn't mean, as well as a plethora of applications to a plethora of different events in history. It’s all quite talmudic and rabbinic—“vain and profane babblings” (II Timothy 2:16). And such interpretations do ultimately break down.
Consider a case in point. Revelation 12 reveals a great red dragon, Satan. The dragon and his angels war with Michael and his angels; and Satan is kicked out of heaven. He is cast down to earth “having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time” (Revelation 12:12). The preterist would say this was fulfilled at the cross of Christ, that Satan lost the war in heaven at the cross and was subsequently cast down to earth sometime around AD 30. For nearly 2,000 years, therefore, he has been very angry and going after the Church. The problem with such an interpretation is that right there in Revelation 12:10, the dragon is identified as “the accuser of our brethren, which accused them before our God day and night.” Who are the brethren? Is it Israel? Is it the Church? There was no New Testament Church in AD 30 at the foot of the cross. The Church wasn’t born until Pentecost, fifty days after Christ’s resurrection and ten days after His Ascension. How could Satan be an “accuser of the brethren” that didn’t exist, per se, until Pentecost and yet be kicked out of heaven weeks before Pentecost even happened? Such an interpretation in light of all Scripture ultimately breaks down.
Another typical preterist interpretation of prophecy that breaks down comes out of Daniel 9. There, in verses 24-27, God reveals to Daniel a very specific future timeline of the years it will take to accomplish His plans and purposes for the nation of Israel. It is often called Daniel’s Seventy Weeks Prophecy. God declared that He would take seventy weeks of years (i.e. 490 years) to finish everything He had purposed to do with Israel. A plain sense reading makes it clear that sixty-nine of the seventy weeks of years have already been fulfilled. One week, a period of seven years, remains future. Now, because this prophecy is specifically addressing the nation of Israel, it naturally makes no reference to the present Church Age. Presently, we are living in a period of time, a gap per se, between Daniel’s sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks. We shall cover this in detail later. For now, suffice it to say that we are in the Church Age, a time when God is pulling out a people from amongst the Gentiles for Himself until such time as the fullness of the Gentiles comes to fruition. As the Apostle Paul says,
“Blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob” … (Romans 11:25-26).
At the end of the Church Age, God will turn again to the nation of Israel and complete His plan and purpose for them, fulfilling all His promises to the Patriarchs, all the prophecies in the Old Testament about the Messiah, His reign upon the Throne of David, etc. These days, we are living in what I could call a great parenthesis in God's program, as concerns the Gentiles.
The preterist, however, would look at Daniel's Seventy Weeks and take a clear reference to what is antichrist (Daniel 9:27; Matthew 24:15; Mark 13:14) and apply it to Christ. The preterist would argue that these seventy weeks of years have all been fulfilled. He may even point to AD 70, the destruction of the Second Jewish Temple, as the time of complete fulfillment. But, there’s a big problem with this when one considers the six things listed in Daniel 9:24 as being finished or accomplished at the end of the seventy weeks:
“Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.”
God has purposed seventy weeks of years to deal with Israel as a nation and to accomplish six things, including an end of sins, the arrival of everlasting righteousness, and the fulfillment of all prophecy. Now, is there still sin in the world? Is there everlasting righteousness dwelling amongst us in society? Has everything in the Word of God been finished? Of course not. So, how could this prophecy have taken place in the past?
Preterist interpretations of prophecy always break down. Like the allegorical method, I would say this method simply doesn't stand up. It's wrong. Moreover, I find it interesting that it was originally espoused by a Jesuit priest in the 1600s. In other words, it’s very Catholic and contrary to a plain-sense reading of Scripture.
The Historic Method of Interpretation
A third method of interpretation is called historic. This method seems a blending of the first two. It would approach Revelation as mostly history with some unfulfilled prophecy, some future prophecy. The historic method is inevitably post-millennial. In other words, it is the Church that brings in the millennial kingdom. She is responsible for taking over the world with the Gospel, for ushering in peace, for inaugurating the golden age. At that time, Christ or the Spirit of Messiah will come. In other words, the historic method would view the “Universal Church” as responsible for growing, for spreading the Gospel through political power, for bringing about world peace.
Once again, this is primarily Catholic teaching that has bled over into some Protestant traditions. The Roman Catholic papacy has used this method of interpretation throughout church history to justify its efforts toward world domination. It seeks to find parallels in Revelation to events in church history, and just like the preterist method, these interpretations always break down, fomenting contradictions.
During the Protestant Reformation, when Martin Luther and John Calvin and other prominent reformers broke away from the Roman Catholic Church, speaking out against the evils of papal doctrine, many of them embraced a historic interpretation of Revelation. These looked at the world around them and saw the Pope as the Antichrist, the embodiment of the son of perdition. They viewed the Tribulation as a period when the Catholic Church was persecuting the Reformers and true believers. They saw the Reformation itself as the beginning of that great triumph over evil. And so, they were wont to interpret Revelation’s prophecies in terms of the days in which they lived, wholly ignorant of human history that has since transpired.
Those who hold this position today would typically call themselves reformers would hold to what they call reformed doctrine. In terms of prophecy, such typically take what the Reformers interpreted to be happening in their day and simply embrace it, ignoring or lightly esteeming what is happening in our day and five hundred years of church history since the Protestant Reformation. Sadly, for a lot of those who profess themselves reformers today, what a plain-sense reading of the Bible says today is not as important as what Martin Luther or John Calvin had to say centuries ago. Even more sad is that the Reformers today’s reformers elevate so highly, the same who exhorted men to read and study the Scriptures for themselves, would shun such pedestals, rebuke such attitudes, or roll over in their graves if they could hear such flatteries.
Again, this historic position on the Book of Revelation is Catholic at its core. And with even the Reformers, you have to be careful. Though men like Luther and Calvin were certainly used by God to proclaim the Gospel and to bring back to the forefront the justification by faith and the Bible for the common man, they were by no means infallible. These men had been steeped in Catholic doctrine and came out of the Roman Catholic Church. That’s a really hard break, and its quite difficult to let go all traits of one’s spiritual mother. Sometimes, these stalwarts of biblical justification by faith and sola scriptura retained traits of their Catholic mother in other areas (e.g. infant baptism, the idea of a state church instead of independent local assemblies that were not under the authority of other churches). The historic approach to Revelation and end-times prophecy is an example of such a trait, one very hard for the Reformers to let go.
The historic method of interpretation views Revelation as mere metaphoric prophecy or a strange mixture of history and prophecy. Most of it was in the past, some of it is for the future. We really can't know, such a position maintains. Therefore, Revelation had no specific value to the believers of John's day, and it has no specific value for us today. It follows that we need not spend much time studying it, reading it, or trying to apply it.
All three of these methods of interpretation (allegorical, preterist, historic) have a common problem: There are prophecies in the Scriptures that have already been fulfilled. In fact, if you look at the entire Bible, almost two-thirds of it is prophetic in character. And of all of these prophecies, about half of them remain unfulfilled. HALF OF THEM HAVE BEEN FULFILLED.
In the person in work of Jesus Christ, there were over 40 specific details about His life that were prophesied long before he was born. And when these prophecies were fulfilled at His first advent, were they not literal? When it was written around 700 BC that Christ would be born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2), was he born in Bethlehem of Judea? Or, was Bethlehem a symbol of some state of mind or a symbol of some earthly kingdom? No, it was literal, an actual place. All such prophecies in the Scriptures that have been fulfilled in history were fulfilled literally. They weren't metaphoric history; they weren't metaphoric prophecy. Some espousing one of these three methods of interpretation would consent that fulfilled prophecy has been fulfilled literally, but the Book of Revelation, they argue, must be different. I find this almost comical. In fact, I know people who espouse these positions, some I have preached with on college campuses. These folks would argue in the open air for the authenticity of Scripture by drawing attention to fulfilled prophecy, by drawing attention to the literal fulfillment of details in Christ's life that were prophesied years before His birth. And yet, when it comes to eschatology, they would say Revelation’s prophecies aren't literal. They are dark metaphors or symbols that we simply cannot understand. It’s profoundly contradictory.
If the first advent of Christ was fulfilled literally, why wouldn't His second advent be fulfilled literally? There is nothing in Scripture indicating it to be any different. In fact, the first coming of Christ and the second coming of Christ are so tied together in Old Testament prophecy that they cannot be separated. They are not two different subjects. They are inextricably tied together. Just as sure as His first coming transpired, His second coming will happen. Moreover, the first coming without the second coming would not have taken place as it did. As mentioned, these three methods of interpreting Revelation are ridiculous and should be tossed aside.
The Futuristic Method of Interpretation
There is a fourth method of interpretation, and such is the plain sense avenue by which I am going to approach the Book of Revelation in this exegetical study. It has been called futuristic, and it is quite simple: Revelation is PROPHECY. Because it is future prophecy, it has specific value to believers at all times in the Church Age—the seven churches in John’s day, down the corridors of church history, and today. Naturally, it would have special relevance to those living on earth in the last days.
I believe we are living in the last days. There are many indications from both the Old and New Testaments that point to this conclusion as reasonable. Therefore, Revelation has special relevance for us today, especially when we see what is happening before our very eyes in our own country and around the world. The Jews have come back and continue to pour back into the Land of Israel, a very important threshold in prophetic history. The Middle East is a flashpoint. Such things shout loudly that this book has specific relevance, and that is why we should study it. So, the futuristic interpretation of Revelation treats the text as it claims to be, future prophecy; and it follows the simple three-point outline given to John in 1:19:
“Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter.”
Yes, there are symbols, but the symbols are explained either right there in the book or throughout Scripture. There are no dark metaphors that cannot be understood.
The Bible is for the Common Man
So, there you have a little background concerning how people typically approach Revelation, and it's an interesting exercise to try to understand where folks are coming from when you encounter these disparate views. And yet, I cannot in such considerations too much emphasize: THE BIBLE WAS WRITTEN FOR THE COMMON MAN. By default, said conviction must govern our hermeneutic, a big theological word that means: an expounding, or interpretation with application. If the Bible is for the common man, our hermeneutic must be literal, grammatical (i.e. taking words at face value) and in consideration of the text’s proper historical context. I wouldn’t dare preach or teach the Book of Revelation without considering the proper historical context in which John wrote it down. I wouldn’t dare teach or preach this Book without considering it in light of other prophetic Scriptures, in the light of all Scripture.
God revealed His word to all people, not just to those with a special knowledge or a hifalutin education. It is given to all people, even to the least esteemed among men. The Roman Catholic Church would claim that the common man possesses no right to interpret the scriptures because he is simply not smart enough, not educated enough. Therefore, the papacy once openly declared that the commoner shouldn't even have the Bible in his possession. From AD 500-1500, the Roman Catholic Church slaughtered people who were instrumental in translating the Bible into various languages, or who were caught possessing copies of the Scriptures. William Tyndale, who gave the English-speaking world a Bible in English (a faithful text that was preserved down through those the years in those English translations that were further refined and standardized in the King James Bible) was a criminal in the eyes of Rome. That good old King James Bible, that saint-used, time-tested Authorized English Version of today is 75% Tyndale’s work. This righteous man was pursued by the Catholic authorities and burned at the stake for the “crime” of translating the Bible in vernacular for the common man. Rome declared it a crime because Rome says the commoner cannot properly comprehend the Scriptures or biblical truth without the Church’s interpretation under the authority of the Pope. This is a wicked spirit of antichrist and a vile contradiction to the very existence and purpose of Holy Scripture, the very blunt truth declared in the introduction of this Book of Revelation:
“Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand” (Revelation 1:3).
William Tyndale said, and boy did it make the Pope angry: "If the Lord will allow, I'll make sure that even the plough boy here in England can understand and apply the Scriptures better than the Pope." And through his hard work, God saw it done. As Tyndale was burning at the stake, with his dying breaths, he uttered a last prayer: O LORD, OPEN THE EYES OF THE KING OF ENGLAND.
The Lord did indeed open the eyes of the King of England. The Puritans approached James I and remonstrated, "We need a standard English translation for the churches.” King James approved it. This body of Puritan men (many whose parents had suffered persecutions at the hands of Catholics and the state churches, some who had experienced it themselves) sat down and were used of God to complete the work of William Tyndale, Miles Coverdale, Thomas Matthews and the faithful labors of others who had strived to make the Bible available for the common man in English. They brought all that together in 1611 and standardized if for the English-speaking commoner in a language destined to become the international language of these last days. It was all because these saints understood that the Bible and all its books were written for the common man; and therefore, it can be understood by the common man with the help of the Holy Spirit.
I believe that, and because I believe it, my approach to the Book of Revelation must be with the common man in mind. In other words, it’s plain; it means what it says; it is what it claims to be at least seven times—FUTURE PROPHECY. Again, this doesn't mean everything is exactly easy to be understood. But, we can rest assured in an important truth, truth once uttered by the Baptist theologian Clarence Larkin:
There is no form of evil doctrine or practice that may not claim apparent scriptural sanction and support from isolated passages taken out of their context. But no erroneous doctrine can ever find support in the Word of God when the whole united testimony of the Scriptures is weighed against it.
Those who approach Revelation via allegorical, preterist, and historic methods of interpretation inevitably take isolated and difficult passages out of their context and ignore the whole counsel of Holy Scripture, particularly Old Testament prophecy, ignoring those for whom the Scriptures were revealed—the common man.
Because I believe that isolated and cherry-picked passages should never form a basis for doctrine or theology apart from the whole counsel of plain Scripture, I must approach Revelation as it claims to be—FUTURE PROPHECY. We must interpret it as in agreement with abundant Old Testament prophecy concerning the coming of Messiah. We must interpret it as being in agreement with all the detailed prophecies fulfilled literally at Christ’s first advent. This must be our position on Revelation not simply because we think it a better option, but because we believe the Bible is the Word of God revealed to the common man.
A Very Simple Outline
If we let the Book of Revelation speak for itself, it can be understood by a very simple outline. In chapter one, verse 19, John is plainly instructed:
“Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter.”
Jesus Christ gives us common people the outline for this book, the abstract. We don't have to come up with an outline. There it is, right there. Revelation 1:19 is the concise theme of the entire prophecy. John was told to write down THREE THINGS: the things he HAD SEEN, the things which ARE, and the things which would be HEREAFTER (i.e. after the things which are). This three-point outline, as given by Jesus Christ to John through a heavenly messenger, confirms the Book is exactly what it claims to be—future prophecy.
With these three points in mind, Revelation breaks down quite simply:
The Things John HAD SEEN (Chapter 1)
The Things WHICH ARE (Chapters 2-3)
The Things Which Shall Be HEREAFTER (Chapters 4-22)
As you can see, about 80% of the book is “SHALL BE HEREAFTER.” How can we not approach it by a futuristic method of interpretation? Now, when I say a futuristic interpretation, that doesn't necessarily mean that all twenty-two chapters are distant future. John had the vision of Chapter 1 in the past, relative to the command of 1:19. The churches he addressed (Chapters 2-3) were actual churches at the end of the first century, but everything in Revelation points to future fulfillment of prophecy.
Another way we can look at this is in terms of setting or events. This will help as we proceed through the Book. Chapter 1 takes place in John’s day. The Apostle was on the island of Patmos, and he saw a vision. Chapters 2-3 are the CHURCH AGE. These letters are addressed to seven representative churches in Asia Minor that existed in John's day. They are also TYPES of churches that exist throughout the Church Age. Moreover, as two millennia of fulfilled history have revealed, these messages from Christ are indeed a prophetic fore-view of church history, the things which are. We shall look at this in much greater detail when we arrive at the text. Chapter 4 thus begins, “after this,” that is, after the Church Age (the seven letters of Chapters 2-3). Until Chapter 22 are described prophetic settings and events that follow the Church Age, including the Tribulation Period, the Second Advent of Christ (Chapter 19), Messiah’s earthly millennial reign (Chapter 20), and the consummation of new heavens and a new earth (21:1-22:6). Revelation 22:6-21 sets us back to John’s day where the Apostle is given a concluding exhortation for the churches regarding the importance of the entire prophecy.
So, the reader begins in John's day, moves down through the Church Age (most of which was future from John's perspective), the Tribulation Period, the Millennial Kingdom, into the eternal state, and is then is whisked right back to Patmos for a concluding charge to all Christians across church history. Revelation follows a very simple timeline; it’s chronological.
Keep in mind, the chapter and verse divisions of the New Testament, including Revelation, were not originally part of the Scriptures. In fact, the verse divisions, as we have them today, weren’t laid down until the 16th Century. It’s interesting, the man responsible did most of them on horseback while traveling around Europe. Robert Stephanus then printed his 1550 edition of the Greek New Testament with these verse divisions, and this edition was subsequently used by the King James translators in 1611. Though not original, God has seen fit to preserve these chapter and verse divisions so that they are now standard. For our purposes in Revelation, it is interesting how they contribute to the simplicity of the book’s outline.
Thus, we have a ready-made framework for an exegetical dive into the text.