Robert Lowery

Long-time readers may recognize the title of this post as the same title of a previous post. The Christian Standard has now published this essay, which can be found online, in the December 23 issue.

Many years ago I became intrigued with the image of Bethlehem and the sermon that is posted was a result. In fact, I eventually had the sermon published. I invite you to journey once again with me to that “insignificant village.”

NOTE: This sermon was originally delivered by Dr. Lowery in 1982.

 

 Standard Podcast [24:00m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (155)

The following Letter to the Editor was posted by Mr. Etz to The Christian Standard’s website on November 26, 2007. Since the Mr. Etz’ post will not be preserved indefinitely on that site, it is being reproduced here with Dr. Lowery’s response to follow.

Thoughts After Rereading Revelation 20
(posted 11-26-07)
My first reaction on looking at “Two Views of the Millennium” (CHRISTIAN STANDARD, November 18) was a question: Why no spokesperson for Postmillennialism? Are they politically incorrect? Couldn’t you find one?

Reading the premillennialism and amillennialism articles drove me back to Revelation 20 for another look.

To Professor Robert Lowery (“Why I Am an Amillennialist”), I must point out that Revelation 20:1-3 says that Satan is bound with a chain, then locked and sealed in the Abyss. From this description, I picture him helpless and out of circulation for the duration of the millennium. I can’t see this as a description of his career during the church age.

To Alex Wilson (“Why I Take a Premillennial View”), I must point out that Revelation 20:4-6 speaks only of those who were beheaded for their testimomy as reigning with Christ. I can stretch this to cover all martyrs, whatever the manner of their execution, but no farther. Also, nothing in this passage says that they reign on earth. In fact, when Satan is released (Revelation 20:7-9), and gathers his army on earth, Christ and the martyrs are nowhere to be seen. I assume they are in Heaven, from which the fire comes that destroys Satan’s army.

I would be glad to receive feedback from either author on these points.
—Donald Etz
Dayton, Ohio

I appreciate the opportunity to respond to Mr. Etz’s question. I must define what is meant by the “binding of Satan” in light of the immediate context and in light of other places where the word is used in connection with Satan being bound.

With regard to the verb’s use outside of Revelation, the only other place in the New Testament where Jesus is connected with the binding of Satan is Matthew 12:29ff. where Jesus states that in his healing of the demonized man, Satan has been “bound” or “tied up” (see v. 29). John and Matthew use the same Greek word to describe how Jesus restricts Satan. The contexts in both tells us the extent of the binding. In the miracle recorded in Matt. 12:29ff. (and parallels in Mark 3:27; Luke 11:17-22), we must not assume that Satan could not continue to carry out evil actions against other people. In this instance, Satan is bound in the sense that he cannot have influence in the man’s life due to the healing. Similarly, in Rev. 20:1ff. Satan is bound in the sense that he cannot deceive the nations. Note that 20:3 tells us that the purpose of the binding is that Satan cannot deceive the nations, and in light of 20:7ff., when Satan is no longer bound and is freed, he makes one last effort to deceive the nations so that they will make an effort to destroy the church. Even the postmillennial scholars I have read do not argue for a total cessation of Satan’s activities on earth during the 1,000 reign of Christ. Even during the earthly reign, Satan is not “out of circulation” (Mr. Etz’s words) because there will still be temptation, sin, death, and other consequences of the Fall. Other passages assert that Christ has defeated Satan decisively, and yet Satan continues to be at work (Luke 10:18; John 12:30-32; 16:11; I John 3:8; Col. 2:15)).

Paul Butler’s insight in Approaching the New Millennium (Joplin: College Press, 1998, pp. 238-39) is helpful: “In Old Testament times, the chain binding Satan was extended to greater length and his sphere of influence to deceive and destroy was wide. In New Testament times . . . God, through the Gospel of Christ, has shortened the chain binding the devil and has severely restricted the power of the devil.” The bottom line is this: Satan is restricted at this point in that he has not gathered the nations in order to destroy the church; someday God, in his providence, will give Satan an opportunity to do so but he will be defeated. Satan has been restricted but not eradicated. He has not been able to carry out his intention to destroy the church, and even though God will give him an opportunity he will fail. He can still kill, torture, punish, and deceive, but he cannot yet carry out his desire to destroy the church, and will not be given the opportunity until God decides to do so.

Even though I was not asked to respond to the translation of 20:4, the Greek grammar allows for either one or two groups. Again, context is crucial. The New International Version gives the impression that only one group is in view, the martyrs, whereas The New American Standard Version (1995) translates it as two groups, with the common thought of all faithful (be they those who died a “martyr’s death” or those faithful who died of other causes). Given the emphasis in Revelation on faithfulness expected of all Christians, I believe the NASB honors the overall context of the book more accurately.

Finally, I have discovered in reading commentaries or articles written from the postmillennial perspective that seldom is exegesis offered (doing word studies on bind, thrones, souls, etc.) to support their position. It is more often a philosophy of history approach that is taken–the Gospel will spread significantly ushering in a relative period of peace–than an exegetical approach.

A word on Bible study. For all of us it is not enough to challenge an interpretation but a response must be made to the work done by the interpreter. Proposing an alternative understanding is not sufficient in and of itself. The work that we are involved in demands that we study the grammar, the meaning of words, the author’s intended meaning, etc., and in all of these areas context is king.

I discuss these and other issues more fully at www.rlowery.com.