Have you ever thought about exegesis and theology in terms of the old chicken and egg conundrum? Following the inductive approach, exegesis insists on the prior role holding that theology is merely the organization of theological insights gained from the work of the exegete. But the theologian recognizes the need of the larger picture which in fact leads the exegete to a proper understanding of the individual verse.
The identification of the “seven spirits” in Revelation 1:4 presents such a problem. The theological oriented interpreter reasons deductively that in a passage that speaks of God (“him who is and who was and who is to come”) and “Jesus Christ” (v. 5), certainly the Holy Spirit is the one intended by “the seven spirits.” The doctrine of a triune God almost demands it. At this point the theologian then searches for support. The immediate reference is Isa 11:2 which lists three couplets of of two virtues each. But wait, Isn’t that six rather than seven? Well, Yes, in the MT but go to the LXX and you will find an additional virtue added (eusebeias) which adds up to seven.
The argument— that it would be improper to bracket anyone less than deity with the Father and the Son—loses weight in view of such verses as Luke 9:26 (the Son returns “in his glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels” and 1 Tim 5:21 where Paul calls for obedience “in the presence of God and Christ Jesus and the elect angels.”
I guess I cannot escape the wisdom of the old adage that when the literal sense makes common sense, seek no other sense. There is no question that John is pronouncing grace and peace from the eternal God, from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, and from “the seven spirits who are before his throne.” What makes this conclusion even more certain for the exegete are the three others locations in Revelation where the same designation is found. In 3:1 Christ (the one who writes the seven letters) “has the seven spirits of God” as well as “the seven stars.” The latter group are the seven churches” (1:20) that he “holds . . . in his right hand” (2:1). But could it be said that Christ holds the seven-fold Spirit in his hand?
The other two verses are even less help for the theologically driven interpretation of the expression. Rev 4:5 identifies the seven spirits as “seven torches of fire” which burn before the throne, and 5:6 where they are said to be the “seven eyes” of a Lamb standing as though it had been slain.
So which comes first, chicken or egg; exegesis or theology? A balanced interpretation of the four locations in Revelation which speak of “the seven spirits,” moves me to opt for the inductive approach and give the nod to exegesis.
Comments
Bill, I haven't settled in
Bill,
I haven't settled in my thinking on a definitive interpretation of the "seven spirits" in Revelation. I do agree that the idea it refers to the Holy Spirit is not completely satisfying. I also agree that the inductive approach of exegesis is the beginning point. However, it doesn't seem to me to be the whole story. For example, in Rev 5:6 we first have to understand the symbolism of the "Lamb," "horns," and "eyes", then apply the theology of the number seven, before being able to make a connection with "the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth." One could (and should) do a inductive study of all these terms as they appear in Scripture, but John appears to presuppose his readers would already have an "organization of theological insights" from the OT and use these insights to interpret his writings. Doesn't this put the "larger picture" on some equal footing with exegesis? Perhaps the "chicken and egg" isn't the right analogy. Maybe something more like the scientific relationship between theory and experiment. Experiment validates and generates theories, while theory explains and drives experimentation - such that they cannot properly exist independent to each other.
Cheers,
-bh
First let me say that it was
First let me say that it was I Bob who wrote the blog, not my son Bill.
My use of the chicken and egg analogy was to say that neither one “comes first” in any sort of temporal arrangement. What I was suggesting is that theology must be careful about proposing an interpretation before the exegetical work is done.
I would question your point whether in Rev 5:6 we must understand “Lamb ... horn ... eyes” before we “can make a connection with ‘the seven spirits of God.’” The text clearly says that the seven spirits (not the arnion or the kerata, both neuter while ophthalmous is masculine) are the seven spirits. Granted, this is interpretation, but I see no plausible reason for taking the eyes of the Lamb as the Holy Spirit. This, for me, is a strong reason to question the aggressive nature of theology as it affects exegesis.
Sorry Bob, my mistake. I
Sorry Bob, my mistake. I wasn't reading carefully enough.
Your point about doing a thorough exegesis is well taken.
As for Rev 5:6, I wasn't suggesting that the "eyes of the Lamb" are the Holy Spirit. I was thinking about the phrase "which are" in the verse. A connection exists between that which precedes the phrase and the "seven spirits" that follow. Can we make sense of the connection without first understanding the symbolism of what precedes (whether it's the four living creatures, the elders, the Lamb, the horns, or the eyes)?
Is it possible that the eyes
Is it possible that the eyes of the Lamb are the believers as they are witnessing for Him together with the Holy Spirit? and that God sent out into all the earth with hornes? refer to Rev. 22: 17 "And the Spirit and the bride say, come!"
Zechariah 4 and the Source
Zechariah 4 and the Source of Grace
Thank you, sir, for leading me to wrestle again with this phrase (and passage and book). I should like to respectfully offer my opinion that spatial relationship in Luke 9:26 and 1 Timothy 5:21 does not compare to Revelation 1:4, which declares the seven spirits as a source of grace and peace. Do seven (out of the many) angels give us grace and peace?
Also, Revelation 4:5 and 5:6 do provide much help for "the theologically-driven interpretation" because they vividly unveil the Old Testament background of Zechariah 4. That prophecy is the answer to what came first. The meaning of the imagery of seven flames and seven eyes in Zechariah 4 is, "Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit," completing the rebuilding of the temple amid shouts of "Grace, grace!"
Lastly, Revelation 3:1 does not say Christ holds the seven spirits "in his hand," but we can say that Jesus "has," possesses, the seven-fold Spirit, since He received the promised Spirit from the Father (Acts 2:33) and became a life-giving Spirit (1 Cor. 15:45). There is also internal consistency to support Christ possessing the seven-fold Spirit: the description of flames of fire (Rev. 4:5) and eyes (5:6) matches the initial description of Christ's eyes like a flame of fire (1:14, 2:18). The Man Christ Jesus is perfectly full of the Holy Spirit, multiplying the Spirit's presence in a multitude of believers throughout the earth to complete the building of His temple, the Church. Thanks be to God for such grace and peace!
Again, I respectfully submit this in appreciation of your post. I pray it helps me become more careful to not presuppose theology into exegesis, or at least not to stubbornly maintain that presupposition, if a fair-minded exegesis proves it unwarranted. If I am wrong above, I would certainly like to learn and change my mind. Blessings to you and your family.
Add new comment