In Participatory Biblical Exegesis, Matthew Levering writes about the path of pre-

modern exegesis and how it was grounded in time. Taking this reading strategy (combined with

modern Historical-Criticism) provides for a more robust reading of scripture. His main task is

surrounds the idea of a participatory vision of history, interpreted through christological and

metaphysical pathways. Over the next few pages, I want to engage two of Leverings broad

strokes in light of a contemporary reading of Revelation.

A Timeline of Participation
One of the largest brushstrokes that Levering produces is his argument for the functionary

existence of time as it relates to the experience of revelation. The modern notion of a linear view

of time, founded in enlightenment rationalism and begun in the 15th century should not hold the

place of priority that it does in exegesis. As a tool it is not as problematic as when it becomes a

reality among the minds of those interacting in the world that the text creates. This view is

flawed because the place of historical-critical interpretation comes out of a relationship. “ The

realities recognized by linear historical-critical research as thus illumined also by the

participatory understandings of reality which flow both from faith and from metaphysical

reflection.”1

To take the community that is responsible for out of the text takes away from its meaning

and further contributes to a singular linear reading. It is the personalities responsible for writing

the text that make it participatory. The Bible is the story of a relationship between a people and

God, and this should not be taken out of the interpretive strategy. How do we believe a text

should cause us to interact with God when we do not allow the interaction that formed it to be

part of the discussion?

1Levering, Matthew. Participatory Biblical Exegesis: A Theology of Biblical Interpretation. 1st ed. University of
Notre Dame Press, 2008. pg.6
 This shift is not entirely contemporary. Levering points out that this development begun

under Scotus2, as part of the discussion of how the human will relates to God’s will. Ultimately,

because of the social shift in thought, humanity does not interprete its’ interactions with God

under the terms of divine love and relationship, but instead turned into divine power and

authority. Human time becomes marked by events and is no longer in the language of

relationship. By breaking the relationship between humans and God and placing us inside a

tension of authority, the concept of the individual arises. A privatized religion creates a linear

and logical view of viewing God, not a relational view.

A Christian’s eschatological hope (like Israel’s) is only possible through a “participation

own God’s own reality, described by the Greek fathers as deification.”3 Levering notes how

Matthew Lamb sees the death of participation, and this creates a “soft evolutionary eschatology”

instead of one founded in apocalyptic expectation.4 All of these issues within the study of

eschatology inside of modern theology lead us to question our Orthodoxy. Is a christian faith that

is not decidedly eschatological even Christianity?

The Church and her contribution to our current society is to define the beginning and

ending in a narrative and non-linear fashion. The story that the church tells has its temporal

boundaries in relationship, in the creating of a world and humankind in the imago dei and its’

ending culmination of God coming to dwell with us (Rev 21:3). This is not a critical story of

progress, but a liturgical story of fulfillment.

In Revelation, one of the ways that we see modernities failure in the biblical text is in the

ordering of the book. The traditional numbering is not wrong, but the idea of a linear framework

2 ibid pg 18
3 Harvey, Barry. Can These Bones Live?: A Catholic Baptist Engagement with Ecclesiology, Hermeneutics, and
Social Theory. Brazos Press, 2008. pg. 77
4 Levering pg. 21
in the text has been used to shore up late 19th century eschatology. The phrase Meta» tauvta

can be found 6 times in Revelation; serving as a traditional marker of narrative change in

4:1,7:1,7:9, 15:5, 16:1, 18:1 and 19:1. The phrase’s accusative tense tells us that it is seen as a

before/after marker instead of a within (the genitive usage). While those seeking a premillieneal

reading of Revelation would use this to mark a distinct linear vision sequence, another school

interprets this phrase inside the sequence of visions. The expansion of the phrase to Kai« meta»

tauvta ei•don (after this I looked/saw) gives us a better idea of what John was trying to

accomplish. Following the traditional framework of introducing a prophetic vision, each

sequence is then ended by a celebration of the triumph of God. In each sequence, whenever evil

seems to be at its highest, we are taken into the presence of God. We can think of these visions

as an ever expanding spiral, with each vision bringing a fuller sense of the triumph of Christ and

ending with the God and humanity dwelling together again, the supreme place of the history of

humans. This comes from the desire to read Revelation as its own book, and to not skip around

the entire canon trying to interpret events. The distinct visions almost serve as the separate

movements in a grand symphony, each hinting and building towards a final climactic event that

brings everything together.

A Community of Interpretation
Another piece in Levering is the idea of an interpretive community in the text. Looking

at Jewish scholarship, Levering shows that the idea of interpretation divorced from a faith

community is dangerous task. Interpretation must happen from within a living community. Our

own exegesis is the “complex blends of traditum and traditio in dynamic interaction,

dynamic interpenetration and dynamic interdependence”5 and comes from a variety of voices.

5 ibid pg 103
Belonging to the community of faith greatly informs our exegesis and it is impossible to not

allow that to inform our reading.

A participatory reading of scripture views the reader in concert with both the Divine (as

teacher in Levering) as well as the traditioned sense of Christian community. You could say that

the behavior of the interpretive community shows the truth to the message as much (if not better)

than the accuracies of the linear historical-critical message. If something is truly an accurate

statement to the formation of religious values, it will be easily exegeted from the behavior of the

church. Robert Jenson refers to this reality in How the World Lost Its Story6. Jenson

speaks about an embodied eschatological message “It is the whole vision of an Eschaton that is

now missing outside the Church. The assembly of believers must therefore itself be the event in

which we may behold what is to come...its assemblies must be unabashedly events of shared

apocalyptic vision.”

The beginning of Revelation places us in the context of specific communities, the first

three chapters are specific messages to seven churches. The book is full of an image bank that

can only be interpreted with the knowledge of the Roman world in the 1st century, replete of not

just Jewish images, but various pagan symbology as well. In our current society, we cannot

proclaim an eschatological message and interpretation of hope when our own churches appear to

not need anything. The intertwined reality of mission and eschatology will bring the liturgical

activity of Come Lord Jesus. By actively engaging in the world, the reality of the need for an

immanent eschatology will let communities once again participate with Revelation. Instead of

the only mention and knowledge leading to disengagement, Jenson’s picture of an apocalyptic

6 Jenson, Robert W. 2010. "How the world lost its story: as our changing culture struggled to define itself, the
theologian Robert W. Jenson mourned the missing narrative of a universe gone postmodern and mad." First Things
no. 201: 31-37. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed December 6, 2010).
community will cause Christians to engage. This is separated from the various apocalyptic

fringe groups by the character of Christ being at the forefront instead of the character of man.7

Matthew Levering wrote a complicated piece that is an important entry for understanding

the changing nature of interpretation and the ongoing evolution that it has in our time. It is

faithful to the past but also looking to the future. My brief engagement is just that and I hope

that in time more thought is taken to Revelation in discussions of current textual strategy and

reading.

7 The Character of Humanity is key in many more sensationalist eschatologies. This is wrought out in ideas of
judgement, Zionism, the search for an anti-christ, and the gathered few who escape and maintain faith.