Guiding to a Blessed End: Andrew of Caesarea and His Apocalypse Commentary in the Ancient Church

10. Andrew's Technique and Sources

 anDrew’s Technique anD sources As we have seen, Andrew is familiar with levels of interpretation and techniques of historia, typology, anagoge, theoria, and tropologia. Oikoumenios is not. Although he allegorizes, Oikoumenios does not seem to apply allegory in a systematic or technical manner. Furthermore , he is unskilled or untrained in basic premises such as awareness of a biblical author’s purpose (skopos), the sequence of thought or expression (akolouthia), or how to use context (ta symphrazomena) to arrive at exegetical conclusions. In fact, such terminology is entirely absent from Oikoumenios. Although occasionally one of those words may be used it by Oikoumenios, is not applied in a technical manner. Purpose—Skopos Skopos (σκοπός) is the goal, purpose or aim of the biblical writer. Every book of the Bible has a skopos and this is the first observation an interpreter is expected to make. We see this practiced by Chrysostom , for example, who consistently begins his exposition of a given book with an explanation of the biblical author’s purpose for writing, the author’s skopos.1 Although skopos is an ordinary Greek word mean1 . See, for example, Chrysostom’s introductory argument to Paul’s Epistle to the Romans , or his discussion of Paul’s reasoning in 1 Cor. 15. Hom. on 1 Cor. 39.8. He also analyzes the sequence of the argument.  w Andrew’s Technique and Sources  ing “goal” or “end,” it is also an exegetical term of art. The awareness of skopos and consideration of a biblical author’s skopos when making exegetical decisions was regarded as fundamental and basic. Skopos is extremely important for understanding the overall message of the book as well as the meaning of individual pericopes. The interpreter is expected to constantly bear in mind the purpose of the book as a general guide for the evaluation of a passage. Exegetical conclusions which conflict with the author’s purpose must be reconsidered and are probably incorrect. Individual passages or details within a pericope also have a skopos and were expected to prompt the interpreter to ask why the biblical author included that detail. Andrew’s faithfulness to the skopos of Revelation is evident in his exposition. He mentions a spiritual purpose at the end of the commentary: Starting from these things by the vision and the enjoyment we might, by ardent yearning through keeping the divine commandments, acquire these in long suffering and meekness and humility and purity of heart. From which [heart] unsullied prayer is born free of distraction and offers to God, the Overseer of all hidden things, a mind devoid of every material thought uncorrupted by demonic deception and attacks.2 The original historical purpose of Revelation was to encourage hope and perseverance through tribulation, and this skopos was not lost on Andrew. His awareness of John’s skopos for Revelation directs his interpretation on many unexpressed levels and brings Andrew into direct conflict with Oikoumenios. Andrew sees the purpose of the book as spiritual : to encourage repentance, vigilance, and perseverance. If the skopos is perseverance through tribulations or admonishment by the warning of future punishments, then the disasters described by the bowls or the trumpets must be interpreted literally and should not be allegorized, which is what Oikoumenios does. Furthermore, Andrew sees the skopos of Revelation as prophecy, therefore it must relate primarily to the future . Events such as those launched by opening the seven seals cannot be an allegory of the life of Christ, as Oikoumenios believed. 2. Summary following Andrew, Chap. 72, Comm. 244.  Andrew’s Technique and Sources Context—Ta symphrazomena The first example of Andrew’s application of context as an interpretive technique is seen early in the commentary, in his treatment of “the one who is, was, and is to come” (Rev. 1:4). Oikoumenios believes the phrase represents the Trinity: the one “who is” being the Father (who said “I am” to Moses),3 the one “who was” is the Son, (the Logos “who was in the beginning” in John 1:1) and the one “who is to come” refers to the Paraclete. But Andrew concludes that this phrase in this specific context can only be referring to the Father since the very next verse mentions “Jesus Christ.” Therefore, the Son cannot be included as the one “who was.” For here the addition of “and from Jesus Christ” appears to confirm the understanding we have presented. For it would be unnecessary...