Robert Lowery

I am frustrated. Since the publication of my article on why I take an amillennial position (original article here; more detailed explanation here), I have received numerous e-mails as well as messages posted on my website, and not a few phone calls. Many have expressed agreement with my conclusions. But some have protested my conclusions, even questioning my view of inspiration of Scripture and my doctrinal orthodoxy. I don’t mind dialogue on this issue, but here is the frustration: alternative exegesis has yet to be offered.

Let me be specific.

I am afraid that many people have adopted a theological paradigm by which they interpret Revelation 20, specifically the issue of the millennium. And they have adopted the system without doing their own study. We can do this with any number of passages (Acts 2:38, Eph. 1:3ff., etc.). We are often guilty of forcing passages into our systems that we have adopted or inherited. I still await someone (anyone!) to respond to my overall emphasis on the structure of the book that suggests that Revelation is not to be read chronologically, including the connection between Revelation 19 and 20. I am especially awaiting a response to the word studies done on “souls” and “thrones” as well as John’s movement between “heaven” and “earth” that pervades Revelation as a whole. I encourage you to pull off the shelves some of the commentaries that approach Rev. 20 from a premillennial perspective and you will note that the issues I raised in the previous sentence are seldom and most of the time not even addressed. I have wondered: Did the author do a word study on “souls” and “thrones”? I have concluded that he probably did not. All I have received are rejections of the position I support with absolutely no exegetical response with regard to offering alternatives to the conclusions I reached in my word studies or my contextual and structural analysis. No argumentation against my exegesis has been offered, period.

Why is this the case? I think it is akin to talking to a Mormon about the interpretation of Jesus being the Word in John 1 or to a Jehovah’s Witness about the 144,000 in Revelation 12. (I am not implying that those who would reject my interpretation are guilty of perverting the message of Scripture the way the two groups cited above do.) People smile when they hear my arguments or support for why I disagree with them but they do not attempt to respond to the exegesis offered. Why? I ask again. I have reached a conclusion: The exegetical work has not been done by countless people because they are so committed to a particular theological system that they do not allow that system to be challenged by exegesis.

D.A. Carson writes about what I have observed repeatedly when writing or speaking on Revelation in general and the millennium issue in particular. I have experienced “cavalier dismissal.” We all must ponder what Carson writes: “The fallacy in this instance lies in thinking that an opponent’s argument has actually been handled when in fact it has merely been written off. . . . Often what is meant by such cavalier dismissal is that the opposing opinion emerges from a matrix of thought so different from a scholar’s own that he finds it strange, weird, and unacceptable (unless he changes his entire framework). If so, something like that should be said, rather than resorting to the hasty dismissal which is simultaneously worthless as an argument and gratingly condescending.” See Exegetical Fallacies, p. 120 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984).

In being written off by some I am ticked off. Such a response, I believe, hints at a lack of humility and more importantly, a profound lack of integrity.

Even after teaching all these years, I still find it hard to believe that people do not study the Bible and instead they rely on others to do their study for them. Of course, the Bible teaches that God has given as gifts to his people teachers who are called to be responsible for the accuracy of what they teach (Ephesians 4:11ff. and James 3:1ff., for starters). But I am bothered when we accept a teacher’s teaching without being Berean-like in our evaluation (Acts 17:11) This morning I was reminded once again of Christians who accept blindly what they hear or read. On one hand, I cannot fault people for accepting certain teachings because of the “credentials” of the ones who have taught them either directly (in the local church) or indirectly (via radio, television, or book). But on the other hand, I am frustrated when I raise questions challenging certain teachings and all I hear is “Well, yes, but . . . ” and there is no effort to examine the Scriptures for themselves.

Let me be specific. A man stopped by my office, a good man who loves Jesus and the Bible, and he began to probe about my belief about what would happen before Christ returns. He had recently heard me preach and teach, and some of my comments disturbed him. He made such comments:

“Surely you believe we are living in the end time don’t you?”

My response: “Nowhere does the Bible use the phrase “end time” so I am not sure how to answer the question.”

“Surely you believe we are in the last days?”

My response: “We’ve been living in the last days for nearly two thousand years, at least according to Scriptures like Acts 2:17ff. and Heb. 1:1ff. I am a bit uncomfortable taking a perfectly good biblical phrase and injecting it with new meaning.”

“When do you think there will be the rapture or ‘the gathering’ before the seven year tribulation begins?”

My response: “I don’t believe the Bible teaches a secret rapture, and I know that Revelation does not teach a seven year tribulation period.”

“Do you think the Antichrist predicted in Revelation is alive today?”

My response: “The Book of Revelation does not use the word Antichrist. Only I John and II John do and then they refer to the antichrist as someone denying Jesus coming in the flesh.”

He was puzzled by my answers. Even after I opened up a concordance to the Bible and found the word “antichrist” and he noted, “Nope, the word doesn’t appear in Revelation, it only appears in I and II John . . . ” and yet he still insisted that Revelation had to have the word “antichrist” in it because that is what he had been taught for years! I really heard him say: “Don’t confuse me with the facts!”

What do you do? I am often reminded of countless conversations I have had with members of certain so-called churches (e.g., the Mormons) and when I gave an alternative view to read a passage, they simply said, “Well that’s not the way I read Scripture.”

I am reminded of Peter’s reminder: “Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophets own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” The word of God is always true, on all matters. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about our interpretations, be those interpretations of the prophetic writings or any other genre of Scripture. I believe in the study of Scripture, a study that takes place in the privacy of my study as well as in the presence of other Bible students.

I lament: Why is it that so many preachers, teachers, elders, etc. have failed to teach God’s people how to study Scripture? And I lament also: Why is that so many disciples of Jesus appear to have no desire to study the Word on their own but rather they would rather have someone study it for them?

The November 18, 2007 issue of The Christian Standard published an essay of approximately 2000 words in which I explained why I am an amillennialist. Due to space limitations, I decided to post additional thoughts for those who are interested in reflecting on the matter more deeply. The remarks below are in no particular order with regard to significance, and at times one point may overlap with another.

1. It is incredible that so much has been written on and so much made of one single passage of Scripture. Some churches, colleges, seminaries, and denominations believe that this is such an important issue that you cannot be a part of their community or heritage unless you accept the view that Jesus is going to establish an earthly kingdom and reign for 1000 years. We must remember that if the scenes in Rev. 20:1ff. had not been given to John or recorded by John, there is absolutely no hint in any other passage in either the Old Testament or the New Testament of a one thousand year earthly reign of Christ. Hence, why is it that Bible students often use Old Testament passages to support the view of an earthly one thousand year reign when the idea is nowhere clearly expressed in any of those passages? I must ask: Could it be that many interpreters take an “obscure” passage and read it back into clearer passages which make no mention of an earthly reign?

2. I would never want to make one position on the millennium a test of fellowship (or other topics like Antichrist, Man of Lawlessness, the meaning of 666, etc.) There is room for disagreement. Indeed, anyone who has read the earliest Christians on this issue know that there were a variety of positions taken. We must be humble as we approach this subject. Yet a note must be made: Classical dispensational premillennialism as evidenced in the books by Hal Lindsay, Tim LaHaye, Jack Van Impe, and others was never known before the 1800s. I believe their writings have done significant harm to understanding Scripture as a whole and not just the book of Revelation.
Read more…

I recently purchased tickets to take my wife to see the Chicago stage production of Charles Dickens’s A Christmas Carol in December at The Goodman Theater. Second row seats, December 15, 2007! Past performances have received rave reviews. The tickets are a birthday present (hers is on December 14). Well, I guess I am giving myself a present as well! We are both excited because the drama is one of our favorites.

The purchase got me to thinking. Even though some scholars have organized the book of Revelation around Greek dramas (see J. L. Blevins’s Revelation As Drama {1984} or S.S. Smalley’s The Revelation to John {2005}), I want to place Revelation within the context of reading the whole Bible as “drama.” Consider the following quotations:

On this site I have stressed the STORY of the Bible is one about God’s saving actions so that we may have the relationship with him that he desires. Each Story (told in the books we divide into the Old and New Testaments) must be read in light of the STORY. And the stories we read in each Story must be read in light of THE STORY. And even our own s-t-o-r-i-e-s must be placed in the context of the stories, the Biblical authors’ Stories, and the grand STORY.

The Bible is primarily a STORY told in Stories with stories filling the pages. and we are talking about drama. The Drama of the Bible has God as both playwright and main actor. There is a plot that moves from creation to climax (or consummation). The cast of characters are innumerable. And the Drama is a live, ongoing production.

So next time you read through Revelation, please ask: What role are you playing in The Drama of all dramas, the Greatest Story ever told? And ask yourself another question: How will the Heavenly Critic evaluate your role?