Robert Lowery

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.

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 the rest of this entry »

As I continued work on my commentary on Revelation during the summer months, I often wonder what people will be saying about our preaching, teaching, writing, etc. when they review manuscripts a hundred years from now. This morning I took a book off of my shelf and re-read a section from it, a section written that summed up the author’s evaluation of exegesis in medieval times. F.W. Farrar’s History of Interpretation (1886) is a classic (I read it many years ago and have returned to it from time to time). On pp. 300ff. he offers some helpful reflections:

“It is always an evil to create any discontinuity between ourselves and the past. It has not been my object to hunt out the details of ancient error; still less to glory in the superiority of modern insight. If we are compelled to study and to point out errors of the past, it should be in a spirit of humility, and not of malice; it should be that we may faithfully learn, not vainly triumph.”

After referring to a number of medieval scholars, Farrar continues: “If they had left nothing else to the Church, they have left the best of all legacies–the legacy of holy lives and an immortal example; the legacy of men who during years of unselfish sincerity spurned delights and lived laborious days. The writings of some of them will be always valuable for the spirit of deep devotion which they breathe, for high moral teaching, for profound philosophical and theological investigation. But their lives were better than their learning. They had found Christ, even though they read His name by wrong methods. . . . {Their} exegesis demonstrates the amazing vitality of error; the fatally stupefying effects which result from the attempt to crush free inquiry under the leaden weight of authority and tradition; the hopeless insecurity of super-structures, even when they have been elaborated with the utmost care and skill, which have been based on shallow, imaginary, or untested foundations. But the sadness of these facts is irradiated by one truth of which they furnish the strongest evidence. It is that the Bible may be obscured for centuries by bad translations, and buried under mountainloads of valueless and erroneous exposition; that it may be withheld from the ignorant, and grossly mis-interpreted by the learned; that it may even be abused as a bulwark of immense follies, and a pretext for enormous crimes; and yet there is in the truths which constitute its essence so divine a preciousness, so innate a force, that never in any age has it ceased to teach men the way of salvation, never has it lost the power to brighten happiness and to console affliction, to inspire men with courage for the amelioration of social wrongs, for the overthrow of popular idols, for the assault on ancient errors, for the restatement of forgotten and neglected truths. Men may still continue to misunderstand and misrepresent it; to turn it into a grim idol or a mechanical fetish; to betray it with the kiss of false devotion, and to thrust it between the soul and the God Whom it was designed to reveal; but to the end of all time–and herein consists is divine authority–it shall guide the souls of the humble to the strait gate and the narrow way which leadeth to eternal life . . .”

I almost stopped typing out such a long quotation for this post, thinking that it was taking too much time, but the more words I typed, the faster I typed. Why? Because I needed to revisit them. My spirit was touched by such kind and bold words. Indeed, I wished I had written these words. What I can do is remember them and hide them away in my head and my heart and bring them out into the daylight when I think I have arrived in total understanding of anything.

NOTE: Since this post has special formatting, the first paragraph is posted here. The entire document may be downloaded at the link below.

When interpreting any symbol in Revelation, we must evaluate the images in light of layers of context: (a) The symbol may be a part of a cluster of symbols when taken together the sum is greater than the parts ; (b) The symbol, perhaps as part of a cluster of symbols, must be interpreted in light of the larger unit(s) in which it appears; and (c) The symbol’s contribution to the overall context of Revelation must be discerned (For example, often a symbol in one passage surfaces again in a later passage, perhaps more fully developed.). The purpose of this essay is not to provide answers, but I want to elaborate on a methodology for studying symbols by using the images found in Rev. 7:1ff. as a case study.

Download the entire post (PDF)

I have lost track how many times I have been asked this question. The question is neither legitimate nor good; it is vague and misses the point. Why? Because I do not know what the inquirer means by “literal.” In fact, every time I have been quizzed on this issue of interpretation, the person has never been able to offer a correct definition of the word. Why? It is a slippery one. We have forgotten the history behind the word.

In the book Alice in Wonderland, there is an exchange between Humpty Dumpty and Alice over the way that the former has misused a word. Alice challenges him about him using a word incorrectly, and Humpty responds: “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.” Alice responds: “The question is . . . whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

Frankly, when I am quizzed if I interpret Revelation literally, the question is frequently asked in a scornful tone, as if I am some kind of “liberal” (whatever that word means!). Bob, one of the readers of my postings, wrote: “I have tried to scrap entirely the use of the word ‘literal’ in describing the exegetical process. It is shorthand for all kinds of presuppositions about the truthfulness of the text . . . It is a shame that so many think that bland, literalistic ‘left-behind-ism’ could ever offer anything more profound than the depth, color and spatial palate that John . . . actually paint from . . . ” Point well made. I like his use of images!

On those occasions in which I have been asked the question about a “literal” interpretation of Scripture, I decided to offer a bit on the history of hermeneutics (the history of the way Scripture has been interpreted). For nearly a thousand years (during medieval times, roughly 500-1500), interpreters of Scripture said that there were four different senses found in a passage of Scripture:

• literal (the original meaning)
• allegorical (a method in which the characters, events, or places signify “deeper” meaning{s} than their literal meaning)
• anagogical (discovering what the text said about the future life)
• moral (lessons from Scripture we can apply to our behavior)

Reformers like Martin Luther and John Calvin rejected the fourfold approach and stressed the first level, “the literal sense” of the Bible. I use the word the way they used the word and not the way we use it in our day when we try to differentiate between “figurative” and “literal.” We turn these two words into opponents, like boxers in a ring (a powerful metaphor expressing a truth!). Luther, Calvin, and others emphasized the first of the four senses. The word “literal” means “the sense of the letter.” Therefore, if “the letter” refers to the actual words used by the original authors is metaphorical or symbolic, so be it. Consider this observation by N.T. Wright (see The Last Word, p. 73):

The Reformers were careful to explain this point when arguing for what they saw as the metaphorical sense of Jesus’s words at the Last Supper (”This is my body”) over against what to us would be called the “literal” sense–i.e., the view that (as we say) Jesus “meant it literally,” which would support a rather crude notion of transubstantiation. For them, the “literal” sense was the sense that the first writers intended, which in this case, they argued, was some kind of figurative meaning. . . . We need to note carefully that to invoke “the literal” meaning of scripture, hoping thereby to settle a point by echoing the phraseology of the Reformers, could be valid only if we meant, not “literal” as opposed to metaphorical, but “literal” (which might include metaphorical if that, arguably was the original sense) as opposed to the three other medieval senses. . .

The question of “literal” interpretation must be linked with the issue of genre. As I note in Revelation’s Rhapsody (see pp. 67ff.), John used genres that could express truth in symbolic and non-symbolic ways. An author’s original intended meaning could be expressed in both symbolic and non-symbolic ways!

In a nutshell, when I am asked “Do I interpret the Bible in general and the book of Revelation in particular, literally?” I first explain what I mean by the term and then I summarize by saying: “I interpret a book of the Bible or a passage in a book naturally in light of the book’s genre.”

Technorati Tags: Bible, Revelation, interpretation

5 July 2007
Haus Edelweiss
Heiligenkreuz, Austria

The class on New Testament Eschatology has ended. All of the students did amazingly well on their final exam. It was an oral exam, and I was able to ask each student twenty-five questions. They interacted with each other well. Not one made below an A in giving any answer. Quite remarkable! I am blessed to be able to participate in such a remarkable ministry. However . . .

One student lingered after all the others had left. He wanted to talk with me about one of my postings, the one on Matthew 24 and the principle of interpreting the obscure by the clear. As we were discussing Matthew’s account, something struck me more clearly than ever before. There is irony in the discourse. The disciples ask Jesus to provide signs when the destruction of the temple/the end of the age=the final coming would occur. They had mistakenly blended these two events together, and Jesus corrects their misunderstanding. But here is the irony: Jesus provides signs when Jerusalem and the Temple would be destroyed, and the signs would lead up to the destruction in their lifetime, that first century generation. In 70 A.D. Matthew 24:1-35 was fulfilled. But Jesus does not provide any signs concerning his final coming. In fact, he goes so far as to say there will be none and that we must always be prepared. Isn’t it fascinating, I asked the student, that many today turn the signs associated with events leading up to and including 70 A.D. have mistakenly been applied to the end of the world? Many have missed the point. The student from Bulgaria did not. But then he has not been confused by the prognosticators that bring much confusion to Christians in the United States.

I pray that the time is quickly approaching when people will grow weary of those who use the Scriptures to predict the future. Such individuals need to end their subscriptions to news magazines, newspapers along with ending their listening to or watching modern day prophets and spend more time in the Word.

Technorati Tags: Bible, interpretation, Revelation, end times