Robert Lowery

Logos Bible Software, publisher of the electronic edition of Revelation’s Rhapsody, recently “reprinted” (for lack of a better term) Dr. Lowery’s post entitled “Why Both Print and Electronic Editions?” Some additional commentary has been posted on the Logos Bible Software Blog as well.

As the article points out, there are many benefits afforded by the electronic edition–instant access to related Biblical texts, easy endnote access, and more. If you have the book on your notebook computer, it goes wherever your computer goes.

If you don’t yet have Logos, you can purchase Logos Bible Software at Amazon or from Mr. Books. The Revelation’s Rhapsody e-book can be purchased directly from Logos.

In a recent post, Doug offered some observations about Ecclesiastes, focusing on the pessimism that is perceived by many. Let me respond by offering some additional links between Solomon’s work and Revelation.

Ecclesiastes demonstrates the meaninglessness of a world view that does not press beyond the limits of human experience to include God. It seeks to show that meaningful satisfaction may be attained in a universe that seems to be nothing more than a succession of wearying cycles—a universe in which people are locked with no apparent means of escape. According to the book, freedom can be achieved by fearing God and believing that God will ultimately judge everything fairly.

Revelation also shows that history is not a succession of wearying cycles; it is heading toward a goal in which God will bring judgment, completely and irrevocably.

Ecclesiastes shows that life has a goal and purpose that it will reach, although in the course of history and the processes of the physical world it may not look at way. The book’s chief tenet is that God is not disinterested in the course of human events with its gross injustices. He will judge every deed. Life therefore has a purpose, and human deeds have meaning, for they will be judged by the ultimate standard—the mind of God himself.

Revelation concurs with this perspective. God is involved in human history, and he will have the final word, a final word that reflects his holiness and majesty.

Ecclesiastes is often accused of having a pessimistic view of life (1:12-14, 18; 2:1-9, 18-23). When you read these passages cited, one can get a feeling of helplessness borne out of a sense of empty existence. But the author’s pessimism has to do with life apart from God. To him such a life had no meaning.

Revelation affirms that those who dwell upon the earth are ultimately helpless because they are homeless because of their life apart from God. Life has meaning only for the saints, those who have a sense of a higher calling and a richer homeland.

Ecclesiastes does not reflect utter pessimism. There is an absolute good for people as they live in a seemingly meaningless world. That good is the enjoyment of God’s gifts to his people. When the author lifts the horizons of his world view to include the hand of god at work in the world, he becomes an optimist. But when he looks at life without God he is pessimistic, for such a view offers only despair.

Revelation is one of the most hopeful while at the same time most desperate books in the Bible. For those who do not look to the eternal horizon, all is lost. For those who “Behold” (trace the use of this word in Revelation), there is solid certainty.

Finally, the key to understanding Ecclesiastes is the recurring phrase “under the sun.” That phrase defines the author’s perspective. He is not judging all human experience as vain. Rather, he is observing life “under the sun,” or apart from God, as vain.

Revelation, like Romans (see 8:28), teaches that God uses all things in his world to work out good results for his people.

The bottom line? Both Ecclesiastes and Revelation teach that satisfaction can come only as one fears God. Life without God is the ultimate vanity.

Technorati Tags: Bible, Ecclesiastes, Revelation

What in the world does Revelation have to do with Ecclesiastes? Consider the ending of both books:

Fear, judgment, worship, obedience are brought together by these two wise men.

Technorati Tags: Bible, Revelation, Ecclesiastes

Dr. Lowery was recently quoted in two stories in the Peoria Journal Star this week:

“‘Left Behind’ novels full of ’scare tactics’” (18 August 2007)
“It’ll be like heaven on Earth” (18 August 2007)

In addition, Journal Star writer Michael Miller maintains a religion blog for the newspaper. Two of Dr. Lowery’s blog posts here were mentioned on Miller’s blog:

Call for study bibles (8 August 2007)
Revelation Row (18 August 2007)

“I have done, in the main, exactly what I wanted to do.
Its possible effects on other people have interested me
very little. I have not written and published to please
other people, but to satisfy myself, just as a cow gives
milk, not to profit the diaryman, but to satisfy herself.
I like to think that most of my ideas have been sound
ones, but I really don’t care.”

“I’m sorry!” I heard my three year old granddaughter say to her fifteen month old sister. And then she ran off to play. It was an evening in which news shows were flooded with the “I’m sorry” statement from the current celebrity who had uttered something that had offended people. “I’m sorry” has been spoken by a diverse group of individuals in recent months–Mel Gibson, Michael Richards, Ted Haggard, and most recently (as of the writing of this piece), Don Imus. The recent cycle of stories involving the sentence seems to be briefer and briefer. I am certain you can think of some well-known personality or even some personally known individual who has said: “I’m sorry for what I said . . . for what I did.” And yet far too often the confessor goes off to play like a little child.

Recently on the morning news I heard about “I’m Sorry” legislation. It is an emerging medical malpractice strategy. The law, sponsored by U.S. Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, would permit a doctor to say to a patient “I’m sorry” in order to explain unforeseen outcomes and making early settlement offers because what has happened so that a lawsuit would not be filed.

I have begun to wonder if we need to put a moratorium on speaking the sentence or allowing it to be broadcast. Why? Because far too often it has become a disingenuous way to avoid personal responsibility or a desire not make a commitment to truly change our beliefs and behavior. Should we impose on ourselves a ban on speaking the words until we determine what we mean by these words? Should we not first consider what course of action we will take to put flesh and blood to the words “I’m sorry” before we confess?

Sorry. What does the word mean? When you look the word up in Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, you read the following definition: “feeling sorrow, regret, or penitence.” The last word, “penitence,” grabbed my attention. And then I looked it up and read that the term “implies sad and humble realization of and regret for one’s misdeeds (absolution is dependent upon sincere penitence. Repentance (a synonym) adds the implication of a resolve to change (repentance accompanied by a complete change of character . . . ”

Sorrow and penitence and repentance–weighty words these are. Their meanings challenge a culture of flippancy. Far too often adults mimic three year old children. There is a lack of sincerity and integrity by those who should know better. The seriousness of the situation is not quite grasped. And so our culture becomes jaded, illustrated in such pronouncements by those who hear the confessor: “He says he is sorry, but he doesn’t mean it . . . He is sorry he got caught . . . She is sorry because she lost her job . . . She is sorry because her reputation or pride have been attacked . . . He is sorry because he is embarrassed . . .” And the seeds of cynicism, suspicion, and mistrust are sown. The harvest is a bitter one in our country. The notion of community breaks down even more, and personal relationships are forever altered.

Far too often “I’m sorry” becomes a statement of narcissism. Children often say it to protect themselves from discipline. And a childhood statement in all its shallowness is carried over into adulthood. “I’m sorry. We say it to protect ourselves, promote ourselves or prop us up until the storm blows over and we hope that people will forget what we say or do. We don’t say it and show sorrow for the sake of the one who has been hurt by what we have done. We wallow in self-pity and feel sorrow only or primarily for ourselves. We are so absorbed in ourselves and the pain we have self-inflicted, that we ignore the distress of the one who has been wronged. The one who has been abused be damned or at least be ignored we think to ourselves.

Years ago John Denver penned a song built on this sentence. It is about lost love and his sorrow over it. But if we ponder the words, we see how self-centered the song is:

I’m sorry for the way things are in China
I’m sorry things ain’t what they used to be.
But more than anything else,
I’m sorry for myself,
‘Cause you’re not here with me.

“I’m sorry” focuses on the desires of the one who sings or says it and not on the one who deserves to see the fruits of sorrow, repentance, and penitence. No wonder the statement sounds so hollow, so emaciated. When we utter the statement people are really hearing us say: “More than anything else, you’re sorry for yourself . . .”

So how do we restore the power of what should be one of the most powerful statements we can make to someone? True sorrow leads to change in thinking and a change in behavior. It is a matter of the heart as well as the head. To say “I’m sorry” must be costly. Genuine sorrow demands changes in our character and conduct. Frankly, I don’t think we get it!

In our lives what should be a period of confession becomes a time of containment of the damage that can be done to our egos. What should be a genuine apology becomes an occasion for asserting ourselves. What should be a time of contrition is betrayed by our efforts to control the damage done to our pride.

Decades ago there was a movie in which one of the main characters rebuked another when she said: “Love means never having to say you’re sorry.” Maybe self-love and self-preservation but not love as a commitment to seeking the best for people no matter how unlovely, un-lovable, or how unlike they are from us.

Perhaps the power of a poem written in the first century would restore the power of uttering “I’m Sorry” to someone we have injured if we would live out the radical truths the poet expressed:

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding going or a clanging cymbal.

Love never fails.

Such is the power of love. And such will restore the power of saying “I’m Sorry.”

Perhaps I am writing on this topic, albeit a short entry, either because of:

(a) weariness (I need to take a break from reading final exams and essays!),
(b) a sense of cynicism, or
(c) a desire to provoke in a positive way.

This afternoon I visited our campus bookstore and noted that we are now selling a women’s study Bible. What does this mean, I wondered? Will this edition be of no value to me? And yet if you visit Christian bookstores across our land, you will find men’s study Bibles, young people’s study Bibles, layman study Bibles, feminist study Bibles (I haven’t seen a chauvinist one yet!), and the like. Perhaps someday we’ll have an AARP or a gender-neutral study Bible!

I thought of an interview that Christianity Today conducted in the 1980s with the respected New Testament scholar, F.F. Bruce, now deceased. He was asked if he was an “evangelical Christian.” His response: Why not be “an unhyphenated Christian”? Over the years, I have chuckled at that keen retort. Am I a liberal Christian? A conservative one? An evangelical one? A middle-of-the-road believer? A “Baptist” Christian? A “Christian Church” Christian? Why not simply: A disciple of Jesus?

And so we impose labels on our Bibles now. I am particularly disturbed at study Bibles that, at least to me, imply that what a text meant and means as discussed in a men’s study Bible would differ from one prepared for women. Now I am not talking about being insensitive to the way we should apply Scripture. I think the disciples in early days and even in later centuries beyond would be puzzled by such designations. What the text meant and what it means was not and should not be limited to one’s gender or theological perspective.

When we come to the book of Revelation we have study Bibles named after C.I. Scofield or C.C. Ryrie. Why not simply A Study Bible? Why not a study Bible that has no theological or gender or national ax to grind or cause to plead or theological system to defend or promote? Why not a study Bible that offers to the best of the editors’ and contributors’ abilities the best attempts to understood what the text meant and means along with showing what the text has meant through the centuries?

Why this posting? See (a), (b), and (c) in the first paragraph.

Technorati Tags: Bible