The concept of Telescoping in relation to Rev.12

Renold Burke

I really appreciate Logos AI. Pairing it with another AI transforms the experience completely.

• I'm studying the concept of telescoping in Scripture (Revelation 12).

I raised numerous observations and questions, and both AIs saved me significant time and energy by keeping me from chasing tangents. I’m now on a path that helps me stay focused on my main point without getting sidetracked.
Here's something I want to share:

My prompt in Logos(Smart Search):

Does NT Wright use the concept of telescoping?

Logos says, that he doesn't.

I doubt that. Because when I listen to Wright teachings, he talks about pointing to, pointing on and pointing forward when it comes to interpreting the Bible.

Logos is searching for the exact phrase of my question but doesn't figure out that Wright can indeed give an implicit approach to that concept.

Logos response:

Based on the provided articles, there is no direct mention of N.T. Wright using the concept of telescoping. The articles discuss telescoping in the context of biblical genealogies and interpretation of Revelation[1][2], but they do not specifically link this concept to N.T. Wright's work. The articles that mention N.T. Wright focus on his background in music and classics[3], and his views on the political interpretation of Jesus' actions[4], without any reference to telescoping. Given the limited information in these articles, it's not possible to definitively answer whether N.T. Wright uses the concept of telescoping in his work.

[1] Block, D. I. (1979–1988). Table of Nations. In G. W. Bromiley (Ed.), The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Revised (Vol. 4, pp. 708–709). Wm. B. Eerdmans.

[2] Shields, M. A. (2016). Genealogy. In J. D. Barry, D. Bomar, D. R. Brown, R. Klippenstein, D. Mangum, C. Sinclair Wolcott, L. Wentz, E. Ritzema, & W. Widder (Eds.), The Lexham Bible Dictionary. Lexham Press.

[3] Jones, K. (2014). N. T. Wright: In Tune: Developing an Ear for the Word with N.T. Wright. In J. D. Barry, R. Van Noord, & J. Strong (Eds.), Study the Word: 12 Christian Leaders on Bible Study. Lexham Press.

[4] Gledhill, T. (1991). Readers’ Responses. Themelios, 16(3), 19.

Disclaimer: (I've checked both AI responses with my study and the resources in my library). Please, you do the same and make up your own mind.

Grok Response

Your question—whether N.T. Wright uses the concept of telescoping in his biblical interpretation—is a nuanced one, and I appreciate your skepticism toward the Logos Smart Search response. The Logos result suggests that Wright doesn’t explicitly use the term "telescoping," based on a narrow search of specific articles that don’t directly address this concept in his work. However, as you’ve pointed out, Wright’s interpretive approach often involves ideas like "pointing to," "pointing on," and "pointing forward," which align closely with what telescoping entails, even if he doesn’t label it as such. Let’s explore this thoroughly, as a professor might, by defining telescoping, examining Wright’s methodology, and assessing whether his work implicitly employs this concept.

Defining Telescoping

Telescoping, in biblical studies, refers to a narrative or interpretive technique where events, periods, or perspectives from different times are compressed or layered into a single framework, often blurring chronological distinctions to emphasize theological or thematic unity. It’s common in apocalyptic literature (e.g., Revelation) and genealogies, where vast spans of time are condensed to highlight a larger story or divine purpose. Your intuition that Wright’s language of "pointing forward" might connect to this is a sharp observation, as telescoping often involves seeing earlier events as anticipating or merging with later ones.

N.T. Wright’s Interpretive Framework

N.T. Wright, a prominent New Testament scholar, is known for his narrative-historical approach to Scripture. He views the Bible as a grand, unfolding story of God’s covenant with humanity, centered on Israel, fulfilled in Jesus, and extending to the church and the eschaton (the end times). His work—spanning books like The New Testament and the People of God, Jesus and the Victory of God, and Paul and the Faithfulness of God—emphasizes how this story progresses through stages while maintaining continuity. Wright often speaks of Scripture "pointing forward" to Christ or the kingdom, "pointing back" to God’s promises, and "pointing on" to their ultimate fulfillment, as you’ve noted from listening to him.

Does Wright Use Telescoping Explicitly?

Wright doesn’t frequently use the term "telescoping" in his published works or lectures, which may explain the Logos result. A search through his major writings (e.g., Surprised by Hope, Paul and His Recent Interpreters, or his commentaries) shows no explicit reference to "telescoping" as a technical term. This absence could stem from his preference for other descriptors—like "narrative substructure," "covenantal continuity," or "eschatological fulfillment"—that convey similar ideas without adopting that specific label. Scholars like Wright often develop their own vocabulary, and he might avoid "telescoping" to sidestep its associations with narrower contexts (e.g., genealogical compression) that don’t fully capture his broader narrative focus.

Implicit Use of Telescoping in Wright’s Work

Despite the lack of explicit terminology, Wright’s interpretive method frequently mirrors telescoping in practice.

Here’s how:

1. Compression of Salvation History
   Wright often collapses the distance between Old Testament promises, their fulfillment in Jesus, and their ongoing implications for the church. For example, in Simply Christian and How God Became King, he describes how the Gospels present Jesus as the climax of Israel’s story—where events like the Exodus, the monarchy, and the exile are not just historical precursors but are telescoped into Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection. The past (Israel’s covenant) and present (Jesus’ ministry) are fused into a single narrative moment that also points forward to the new creation.
2. Eschatological Layering
   In Surprised by Hope, Wright argues that the resurrection of Jesus is both a past event and a future promise, compressing the "already" and "not yet" of God’s kingdom into a unified reality. He writes about how early Christians saw Jesus’ resurrection as the "first fruits" (1 Corinthians 15:20), simultaneously a historical fact and a proleptic (anticipatory) sign of the general resurrection. This layering of time—where a single event bridges past victory and future hope—functions like telescoping, even if he calls it "eschatological tension" or "inaugurated eschatology."
3. Pauline Interpretation
   In Paul and the Faithfulness of God, Wright interprets Paul’s theology as seeing the Abrahamic covenant (past), Christ’s work (present), and the inclusion of Gentiles (ongoing/future) as part of one continuous story. For instance, in Romans 4, Paul links Abraham’s faith to believers’ justification, effectively telescoping centuries of covenant history into a single theological point. Wright’s emphasis on Paul "pointing forward" to Christ’s ultimate reign aligns with telescoping’s tendency to merge temporal horizons.
4. Revelation and Apocalyptic Texts
   While Wright doesn’t focus heavily on Revelation in his major works, his discussions of apocalyptic literature (e.g., in The New Testament and the People of God) acknowledge how such texts collapse time. He might not analyze Revelation 12 as we did earlier, but his broader approach to Daniel or Mark 13 (the Olivet Discourse) treats these as events (like Jerusalem’s fall in 70 AD) that point both backward to Jewish hopes and forward to cosmic renewal—another telescoping-like move.

Comparison to Telescoping in Revelation 12

In our earlier analysis of Revelation 12, telescoping compressed Christ’s birth, the church’s persecution, and Satan’s defeat into one vision. Wright’s method shares this trait: he often sees biblical events as multi-dimensional, carrying meaning across time. However, Wright’s focus is less on apocalyptic compression and more on narrative continuity—how the story builds toward a climax (Jesus) and resolution (new creation). His "pointing" language reflects this dynamic progression rather than a static collapse of time, but the effect is similar: past, present, and future are interwoven.

Why Logos Might Miss This

The Logos Smart Search likely failed to connect Wright to telescoping because it searched for the exact term rather than its conceptual equivalents.

• Wright’s implicit use of telescoping—through phrases like "pointing forward" or his narrative framework—doesn’t match a keyword-driven algorithm.

Your doubt is well-founded: Logos is looking for a label Wright doesn’t use, not the underlying idea he embodies. This highlights a limitation of AI-driven searches versus human intuition, which can recognize patterns beyond literal phrasing.

My Take

I’d argue that N.T. Wright does use the concept of telescoping implicitly, even if he doesn’t name it. His approach to Scripture consistently compresses and layers time—linking God’s promises to their fulfillment in Christ and beyond—in a way that mirrors telescoping’s effect. For example:

• When he says the Gospels "point forward" to the kingdom, he’s collapsing the distance between Jesus’ first-century actions and the eschatological future.
• His view of Paul’s theology often merges Abraham’s era with the church’s, seeing them as one covenantal arc.

The difference is emphasis: telescoping in Revelation 12 is a dramatic, visionary compression, while Wright’s version is a narrative-theological one, focused on continuity and fulfillment. He might not say "telescoping," but his method achieves a similar outcome—unifying disparate moments into a coherent divine story.

Conclusion

Yes, Wright employs a form of telescoping, though not explicitly under that term. His "pointing to, pointing on, and pointing forward" language reflects a telescoping-like perspective, where biblical events are not isolated but part of a compressed, forward-moving narrative. The Logos result misses this because it’s too literal, while your instinct, honed by listening to Wright, catches the deeper pattern.

John

Does Grok know the Bible?

Which AI service does Logos use, and does it know the Bible?

Is there any AI that has been trained using Biblical/theological sources?

DAL

🤨🧐🤓🥸

Donovan R. Palmer

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1363266#Comment_1363266

I am uncertain about what Grok has been trained on, but from what I gather, most models have been trained on a vast corpus of publicly available materials, which would include many things from the Bible.

As a critical reader, I have observed that recognising AI-generated materials is not particularly difficult at present. Unless heavily edited, these materials are often neither succinct nor do they possess a degree of personality that reflects the author's writing style voice.

Furthermore, when I use AI, I look for it to cite its sources. Often, the sources it provides are disappointing on multiple levels. This necessitates fact-checking, which we should all carry out, yet I am frequently shocked by how often basic facts are incorrect. It may seem satisfactory to the casual reader, but we would expect more from any other source of information. Some platforms are better than others. (I like Perplexity)

For instance, I recently used AI to troubleshoot a problem with my car. The sources were adequate, and the instructions were mostly correct. However, when I asked it a basic troubleshooting question about Logos Bible Software, it even failed to reference fundamental elements of the UI right. In any other circumstance, we would likely never return to that source of information again.

My personal opinion is to avoid blindly following it and refrain from copying and pasting for others to do the same. This does not benefit a community like ours, as we can all easily retrieve bulk standard answers from AI if we choose to. It is more beneficial for someone to research a topic, even if using AI, verify the results, and publish something as their own work.

Furthermore, as a courtesy, please cite any instances where you are heavily relying on AI for a section of text. In this information age, it is also vital to keep your content short and succinct. (I like Perplexity, and I think MJ does a great job illustrating its use and rigour in fact-checking)

It is crucial to maintain the human personality and element in our contributions. This fosters a more engaging environment community. The absence of humanisation, fact-checking, and unnecessary padding in AI-generated text is unhelpful and merely creates noise that individuals must sift through. 

Again, my personal opinion (written without AI) and not necessarily the position of Logos!

How much the world has changed. We would not have had this conversation even two years ago!

DMB

Well, at least Grok appreciates Renold's skepticism about Logos's Smart Search. These AI guys know about each other! And more seriously, probably so.

Renold Burke

Hey everyone,

Thanks so much for chiming in with your thoughts—I’m truly grateful for the conversation! I get the skepticism; it’s healthy and keeps us sharp. I really appreciate Logos AI, and pairing it with Grok has been a game-changer for me. I tossed out a bunch of questions and observations, and both AIs saved me heaps of time and energy—keeping me from chasing rabbit trails and helping me stay focused on my main point.

To John’s question: Does Grok know the Bible? From what I’ve seen, it’s been trained on a massive range of public texts, which likely includes biblical material, though I don’t have the specifics. Logos’ Smart Search is its own beast, and I’d guess it’s got some theological juice in there, but I’m not privy to the recipe. I’d love to hear if anyone knows more!

DMB, I chuckled at your nod to Grok catching my skepticism about Logos—AI camaraderie, right?

Donovan, you’re spot-on about the vast training data, and your critical eye is inspiring. I agree—AI stuff can feel stiff or lack personality, and the sources can be hit-or-miss. I’ve had Grok nail some things and stumble on others, like when I asked about techy theology mashups. It’s why I lean on it as a tool, not a guru. Fact-checking’s a must, and I love your Perplexity shoutout—MJ’s rigor is a gold standard.

Here’s where I’m coming from, with love and a little pushback: Think of the blackberry analogy. Not the fruit, but the phone—remember when it was the thing? Buttons, emails, BBM—it ruled. Then smartphones swooped in, and clinging to Blackberries became like riding a donkey to Egypt when you could hop a plane. Tech moves fast, and theology’s got to wrestle with it, not just watch from the sidelines. Wesley Huff’s YouTube vid on theology and technology (check it out!) nails this—how we adapt shapes how we live our faith in this wild information age.

A quick reminder: I’m no expert here. My disclaimer still stands—I’m a learner, digging into how theology and tech, especially AI, dance together for my thesis project. I’m not preaching “AI is king”; I’m exploring what it means. Donovan, your call for human voice and brevity? I’m with you—it’s why I’m not just pasting AI sludge. Even your skepticism is gold for me—it’s fuel for my work. So, keep it coming, folks!

We’re all adapting, whether we like it or not. I’d rather wrestle with this now than be stuck in the dust later. Here’s a peek at some books I’m chewing on—maybe they’ll spark something for you too:

• Harris Bor, Staying Human: A Jewish Theology for the Age of Artificial Intelligence
• Kirk A. Bingaman, Pastoral and Spiritual Care in a Digital Age: The Future Is Now
• Jason Thacker, The Age of AI: Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Humanity
• John C. Lennox, 2084: Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Humanity (I’d recommend Lennox’s talks too—he’s big on AI and faith!)
• Brian S. Hilbush, In Silico Dreams: How Artificial Intelligence and Biotechnology Will Create the Medicines of the Future

Thanks again for the pushback and insight—it’s all part of the journey. What do you think about riding the AI wave versus sticking to the donkey?

Cheers,
Renold

DMB

I don't even donkey… hiking's for me (the anology).

Renold Burke

@DMB

Haha, fair enough—hiking beats donkey-riding any day! Love how you flipped the analogy. It’s like telescoping in Rev 12: skipping the slow trudge to see the whole trail—past, present, future—at once. You’ve got me rethinking my transport!

RJ

I guess I'll be watching the surfers ride the AI wave from shore. While it's quite exciting to follow the lightening-fast development of AI, I can't think of a single thing I'd want to ask it. But then, I'm not a scholar or minister or preacher or apostle or prophet; I'm just a little kid with a great big God. But, you go for it, by all means!