The Dangers of Theological Systems Illustrated
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
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.
Related posts:
Amen! This is such a valid post because many ministers fight the same battle in regard challenging certain practices of the congregations they serve. I am resonating with this on every level and take my seat next to you (or perhaps take a stand next to you). May the Church always look to God’s word and His Spirit for our guidance, not a system of any sort!
Thank you, Matt, for the affirmation. I discussed this issue with my “Scripture in Context” class on Tuesday morning since we are discussing the history of hermeneutics. One of the students asked me what were the reasons for our failing to be shaped by shaped by our own and community exegesis of Scripture and instead rely oftentimes blindly on a theological system to provide the answers and structures for what we believe and how we behave. My answers were the following: (a) Laziness. We do not want to do the hard work of Bible study (When I hear someone say, “Well it seems to me that this is what the passage is saying . . .” more often than not their conclusions are not based on a serious study of the text); (b) Ignorance. Many do not know how to study the Bible–and I hold those of us who are in an equipping ministry responsible for such ignorance; (c) Fear. We are afraid that we may have to change what we believe and therefore how we behave. There is a fear of being excluded by those who have accepted us because we are part of the “club” so to speak. We don’t want to be alienated. (d) Pride. Many of us are afraid to state: I have been wrong in my understanding of a particular passage of Scripture or wrong in adopting a certain theological system.
Thanks much Bob for your post. I am in total agreement with your insight into seeing Revelation as more cyclical than chronological, especially chapters 19-20. I do not believe there is a cogent answer (or rebuttal) to what you have said about “souls” and “thrones”. I believe you have also hit the nail on the head when you state that the issue here includes fear and pride as well as lack of hermeneutical soundness, laziness, and ignorance. Indeed it boils down to a heart/volitional issue. People must ask them selves, “Will I allow myself to be taught by God through His word or will I be simply be taught by men?” Thanks again!
Bob,
In your response above you touched on motivations for following systems rather than working things out for one’s self. I say “motivation” because often pride, ignorance and laziness disguise the fact that there are skills techniques involved that involve a level of work that many simply don’t want to aspire to. Modern tools can be both bane and blessing in this respect. It is easy to have logos spin up a word study for you, harder to see whether the data is organized correctly or even speaks to the questions one is asking. If we already know how to ask good questions of the text, if we understand how grammar and syntax interact to form resonances of meaning than computer tools can be a time-saving blessing. If we choose to blindly follow old paradigms and ask bad questions, new tools will only fill once again the old wineskins of worn-out assumptions and misguided systems. Exegesis, Exegesis, Exegesis. Not words isolated from one another but in relationship forms the bedrock o hermeneutics.