Waymeyer’s book opens with a brief presentation of both the Amillennial two-age theory of eschatology and the Premillennial Messianic Kingdom theory of eschatology. Amillennialists hold that the Bible uniformly teaches that there are two ages “this age,” and “the age to come.”[1] “The present age” includes all of human history through Jesus’s first coming, the church age, and will end at the Second Coming of Christ.[2] At that point, history will transition into “the age to come” which is eternity.[3] The primary biblical justifications of this view require the adoption of the hermeneutical principle called “the analogy of faith,” which utilizes “clear passages” to interpret “unclear biblical text” resulting in the rejection of the “literal sense” of the passages in question.[4] There are three strong arguments for Amillennialism that Waymeyer critiques in his book. First, Amillennialists claim that Scripture is unified in its teaching that there is no time gap between “this age” and “the age to come.”[5] Second, Amillennialists claim that the age to come is described in eternal qualities, thus it could not be referring to a physical Millennial Kingdom where sin and death are not permanently dealt with.[6] Third, the Second Coming of Christ marks the transition from the present age to the future age. Amillennialists hold that the Second Coming is “accompanied by” world ending events and judgments that preclude a literal 1,000 year gap.[7]
In contrast, the Premillennial view holds that Revelation 20 is the most clear, elaborate, and descriptive passage of Scripture concerning the future age.[8] Premillennialists challenge the idea that Revelation 20 is not straight forward and argue that it should be interpreted literally and without reference to symbolism except when absolutely necessary.[9] Additionally, Premillennialists affirm that no one portion of Scripture categorically holds authority over any other part. Rather, Scripture must be taken as a whole and more detailed parts should be used to fill in condensations or summaries found elsewhere.[10] Thus, Premillennialists teach that Scripture states that the Second Coming of Christ will set off a series of events that will end with the nations being judged, the Earth being restored, and the institution of Jesus’s theocratic government in which many of the worlds problems like death and disease will be weakened but not fully destroyed.[11] After the final battle at the end of the 1,000 years, Premillennialists believe that Jesus will finally defeat death, sin, and demonic forces and usher in eternity with the creation of the New Heaven and New Earth.[12]
Waymeyer divides his arguments into analyses of biblical data centered around three sources, (1) the Old Testament, (2) the New Testament, and (3) Revelation 20. In each of these sections, Waymeyer presents the Amillennialist interpretation of the relevant Bible verses and then critiques that understanding, presenting a Premillennial rebuttal. The most common critiques are as follows. First, Amillennialists tend to ignore the possibility of prophetic telescoping in prophetic statements and affirm that if something was left out, it means that it positive evidence that it doesn’t exist.[13] Second, Amillennialists also merge any references to the Millennial Kingdom into the eternal state or the present age by allegorizing statements that do not agree with their eschatology.[14] Overall, Premillennial eschatology treats the gamut of biblical evidence better than amillennial eschatology.
The most difficult passage for Premillennial eschatology is Matthew 25:31-46. The statement “when the Son of Man comes in His glory,” is a clear reference to the Second Coming of Christ which initiates a judgment.[15] The Amillennialist argues that this judgment is the Great White Throne Judgment of Revelation 20:11-15 during which people are judged and sent to the lake of fire. If this is the case, it would absolutely preclude any possibility of the Millennial Kingdom as the eternal state starts after the final judgment.
However, a close look at the judgments in Matthew 25 and Revelation 20 reveals that the judgments predicted by these passages are not the same. First, the target of God’s judgment differs dramatically between the two. In Matthew, Jesus returns to judge “all the nations;” in contrast, Revelation states that the judged are “the dead,” specifically those who were dead in “the sea” and in “Death and Hades.”[16] Waymeyer points out that the word for “nations” is “never applied either directly or indirectly to those how have died.”[17] Second, in Matthew, people are judged not for their sins, but for how they responded to those who were “hungry,” “thirsty,” “stranger,” “poor,” and “in prison.”[18] In context, these people who needed help were “brothers” of the “King.”[19] Thus, the people who were being judged were not being judged for sins in general, but for the treatment of believers. This differs substantially from Revelation 20:12 which asserts that the “dead were judged according to their works.”[20] Third, the reward differs between the two passages. In Matthew 25, the rewards for those who passed the judgment was to “inherit the kingdom prepared for you” and to go “into eternal life.”[21] Contrarily, punishment for failing the judgment was to “go away into eternal punishment.”[22] However, Revelation 20:11-15 states that all those who face the Great White Throne will fail its judgment and be “thrown into the lake of fire.”[23]
Taking this data into consideration yields the following results. Matthew 25 predicts the Second Coming at which Jesus will judge the nations and people of those nations who were not believers. The goats from this group, those who persecuted and neglected believers, will be executed and sent to either hell or the lake of fire directly.[24] Those who treated the believers properly will be able to receive Jesus, become believers, and enter the Millennial Kingdom.[25] The only argument that the Amillennialist has at this point is that the goats are said to be throne into the lake of fire as according to the Premillennial view, this happens at the Great White Throne judgment, not at the initial judgment of the nations. As Waymeyer points out, this does pose a challenge to the Premillennialist understanding of this verse, it is only one issue. The Amillenialist has a series of exegetical problems when attempting to merge the two judgments into one including the three issues previously mentioned. The easiest way to reconcile this apparent discrepancy is to resort to prophetic telescoping whereby those who were judged guilty will eventually find their way to eternal punishment. This is evidenced by the statement that those who pass the test will both inherit the kingdom as well as eternal life. There is both a present and future reward as a result of the judgment of the nations, thus the negatively judged people have both an implied present judgment “death” and a future judgment “thrown into the lake of fire.” In summation, Matthew 25 does not present a significant counter to the Premillennial position.
One of the central differences between Amillennialism and Premillennialism is the necessity for Amillennialists to resort to symbolism in order to maintain their view. Symbolism in and of itself is not bad as it is present in the Bible, however, Amillennialists seem to utilize symbolism where it benefits them most and abuse Beale’s fifth “telltale sign” indicating the presence of figurative language.[26] The fifth sign states that “context that renders a literal interpretation improbable” indicates that the language used is figurative. Of Beale’s six signs, this is the only one that allows for significant subjective assessment in rendering a judgment. The other five have a high degree of objectivity in that they are measurable e.g. “formal linking of two words of totally different meanings.”[27]
Waymeyer rightly points out that the the Amillennial argument for the “thousand years” relies heavily if not solely on the fifth sign. Additionally, Waymeyer argues that it only meets the fifth sign if one reads the text subjectively and without regard to authorial intent.[28] However, the Amillennialist argument that if “everything associated with [the “thousand years”] is symbolic” it is difficult to see how the “thousand years” could be literal.[29] Consistency certainly seems be on the Amillennialists side; however, a closer examination reveals excellent reasons to maintain the literal nature of the “thousand years.” First, the statement that Revelation 20 is full of symbolism is categorically false. All of the following must be taken literally or the passage completely loses its meaning: (1) the existence of the angel from heaven, (2) the existence of an abyss, (3) the ability to deceive nations, (4) the reality of martyrdom by beheading, (5) the bodily resurrection, and more. To simply say the thousand years is literal because the passage is symbolic is a grievous exegetical error. Equally an issue is the presence of symbolic linking language to define the true symbols used in the passage. If the author of Revelation saw fit link “the dragon” to “the Devil and Satan,” and link the “number” of fighters to “the sand of the sea” then why did he not link the 1,000 years to anything if it truly represented something else?[30] To interpret the 1,000 years as symbolic is to run contrary to how the author delineates symbols in the passage.
Finally, overreliance on symbols creates serious problems for fulfilled prophecy. For example, Isaiah 7:14 states that “The virgin will conceive, have a son, and name him Immanuel.” Using the Amillennial argumentation for symbolism, it is impossible that this could be a prophecy describing a literal virgin birth. First, such a literal interpretation would seem to be unintelligible (how could a virgin give birth?).[31] Second, a virgin birth also fits the criterion of being “contradictory if taken literally.”[32] Third, it could be argued that the context renders “that literal interpretation improbable” because King Ahaz would not live to see the child resulting from the virgin birth. Thus, the hermeneutic that Amillennialists use to symbolize the 1,000 years could easily be used to symbolize any Messianic prophecy like this one that seems to defy common sense. Any hermeneutic that leads to the degradation of prophecy and central Christian doctrine should be rejected as a valid hermeneutic.
Finally, Amillennialists hold an unnecessary and unwarranted presupposition that allows them to marginalize Revelation 20 and reject the Millennial Kingdom. The first prong of the presupposition is that statements made by Jesus in the gospels and statements made in the non-apocalyptic epistles are a priori more clear than apocalyptic literature and due to being more numerous deserve an overriding authority over the Book of Revelation. Second, though “amillennialists typically acknowledge the existence of telescoping” they a priori reject it in the case of Revelation 20 affirming that, if taken literally and authoritatively, Revelation changes eschatology so much that it no longer resembles the rest of the New Testament.[33]
One of the most problematic aspects of the Amillennial view is that it comes dangerously close to either (1) denying biblical inerrancy, or (2) denying the Book of Revelation a place in the canon of Scripture. There is no question that eschatology is a major topic throughout all of the New Testament writings. However, the detail that various authors and even Jesus Himself explicate varies considerably. In order to maintain biblical inerrancy and the orthodox canon, each book of the Bible must be given the opportunity to speak on the topics it does to the degree of detail that it does without duress and attempts to curtail the message. For example, say ten books of the Bible all mentioned the age-to-come as being the eternal state and one book provided further detail explaining that the age-to-come was to be ushered in via a two step process. In light of these differences, an orthodox hermeneutic would affirm that all of the statements are true, but may need to be harmonized in order to provide a clear picture of future events. The verses that provide less detail would be seen as presenting a shortened or summarized view of the age-to-come and the one passage that was more detailed would be given the room to fill in the details of the eschatological events. This is not an example of “making the rest of the Bible “bend to the standard of one text” and “dance to the tune of Revelation 20.”[34] Rather, this is allowing for the reality of prophetic telescoping.[35]
Under the Amillennial hermeneutic, the judgment against Revelation is that literal understanding is contrary to the rest of Scripture, thus it must be allegorized. Unlike other accusations of contradiction which revolve around the details of Scripture, the Amillennial accusation is that the Book of Revelation amounts to a theological contradiction. Such an accusation is dangerous as on some level it gives inspiration or inerrancy to a specific interpretation of Scripture or theological doctrine. In other words, it is highly likely that theology is being given a higher place of authority than Scripture in the Amillennial framework.
Additionally, by letting the rest of the Bible’s summaries dictate what the more detailed passages in Revelation state, the Amillennialist relegates the Book of Revelation to a sub-canonical place. In other words, Revelation is not inspired enough to actually base doctrine on it. It must not be viewed first on its own, but initially through the lens of the rest of canon. This way of biblical analysis comes dangerously close to a semi-Marcionite view of Scripture where there are certain books that are categorically better than others. Overall, the Amillennial hermeneutic through which Revelation is a priori held to be symbolically confusing should be rejected in favor of a position which affirms the progressive revelation of the Book of Revelation.
Waymeyer, Matt. Amillennialism and the Age to Come: A Premillennial Critique of the Two-Age Model. The Woodlands, TX: Kress Biblical Resources, 2016.
[1] Matt Waymeyer, Amillennialism and the Age to Come: A Premillennial Critique of the Two-Age Model (The Woodlands, TX: Kress Biblical Resources, 2016), Kindle, 180.
[2] Ibid, Kindle, 193.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid, Kindle, 212.
[5] Ibid, Kindle, 250.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid, Kindle, 259.
[8] Ibid, Kindle, 268.
[9] Ibid, Kindle, 283.
[10] Ibid, Kindle, 300.
[11] Ibid, Kindle, 913.
[12] Ibid, Kindle, 3879.
[13] Ibid, Kindle, 2840.
[14] Ibid, Kindle, 4074.
[15] Matthew 25:31 (HCSB).
[16] Matthew 25:32; Revelation 20:12 (HCSB).
[17] Waymeyer, Amillennialism and the Age to Come: A Premillennial Critique of the Two-Age Model, Kindle, 2923.
[18] Matthew 25:35-26 (HCSB).
[19] Matthew 25:40
[20] Revelation 20:12 (HCSB).
[21] Matthew 25:34,46.
[22] Matthew 25:46
[23] Revelation 20:15.
[24] Waymeyer, Amillennialism and the Age to Come: A Premillennial Critique of the Two-Age Model, Kindle, 2969-3027.
[25] Ibid, Kindle, 2977.
[26] Ibid, Kindle, 6658.
[27] Ibid.
[28] Ibid, Kindle, 6684.
[29] Ibid, Kindle, 6674.
[30] Revelation 20 (HCSB).
[31] Waymeyer, Amillennialism and the Age to Come: A Premillennial Critique of the Two-Age Model, Kindle 6658.
[32] Ibid.
[33] Ibid, Kindle, 8118.
[34] Ibid, Kindle 8118.
[35] Ibid.
Comments