Amillennialism and the Age to Come—A Critical Review # 3

Amillennialism and the Age to Come—A Critical Review # 3

by | May 5, 2017 | Book Reviews, Eschatology

Part 1, Part 2

Overview

In my first two posts, I have attempted to introduce and express appreciation for Waymeyer’s Amillennialism and the Age to Come.  Here I want to provide an overview of the book and its argument.

Chapter 1 is introductory.  An overview of the entire book may be provided by an analysis of that chapter.  The headings found in that chapter usefully summarize it.

The Two-Age Model of Amillennialism speaks of it as “one of the strongest arguments for the amillennial view.  It also notes the importance of Riddlebarger’s A Case for Amillennialism in presenting it as an argument against Premillennialism.

The Two-Age Model of Amillennialism presents a summary of biblical evidence for the two-age model.

The Two-Age Model as an Interpretive Grid makes the point that “amillennialists have increasingly regarded this model as the hermeneutical lens through which the rest of Scripture, including Revelation 20, should be viewed.” (4)

The Two-Age Model as an Amillennial Argument affirms that amillennialism views it “as a decisive refutation of the kingdom of premillennialism.” (6)

The Need for a Premillennial Response draws the conclusion that Premillennialists must respond to this argumentation.  Waymeyer says: “Because any compelling defense of premillennialism must respond to the strongest and most recent argumentation of its theological opponents, a premillennial critique of the two-age model is long overdue.” (7)

Revisiting the Hermeneutical Foundation argues that “Such a critique must begin in the realm of hermeneutics.  Waymeyer finds two hermeneutical problems with the two-age argument for amillennialism.  “The first problem concerns identifying Revelation 20 as an unclear passage.” (8) “The second problem concerns the use of the two-age model as an interpretive grid.” (9)  He warns that such a use of the two-age model “silences the contribution of those passages by forcing them to conform to his theological system.”  He adds: “In this way, systematic theology is used to determine exegesis rather than vice versa.” (9)

Reconsidering the Starting Point states that the best way to approach this issue is “to trace the doctrine of the coming kingdom throughout biblical revelation. …. In the process, it must be recognized that later revelation often supplements and thereby clarifies previous revelation by providing broader context or additional detail, but it never changes the meaning of earlier passages in the process.” (11)

The Clarifying Role of Revelation 20 leads Waymeyer finally to say that Revelation 20 “as the fullest and most comprehensive presentation of the eschatological events surrounding the Second Coming … should be allowed to clarify previous revelation about the coming kingdom.” (12)

The Approach of the Critique provides, then, an overview of Waymeyer’s book after the introductory chapter.  “The first section (chapters 2-5) focuses on the Old Testament, with an exegesis of several prophetic passages which predict a period of time that is distinct from the present age and the eternal state. …. The second section (chapters 6-10) transitions to the New Testament and responds directly to the three ways that the two-age model is used as an argument against premillennialism.  …. The final section of his critique (chapters 11-14) focuses on Revelation 20:1-6.” (14-15) Waymeyer then states the conclusion of his argument: “If Revelation 20 clearly teaches an earthly reign of Christ between the present age and the eternal state, there must be some way to harmonize this intermediate kingdom with the two ages in the New Testament.” (15)

Part 4

 

Amillennialism and the Age to Come—A Critical Review # 3

Amillennialism and the Age to Come—A Critical Review # 1 

by | Apr 26, 2017 | Book Reviews, Eschatology

Introduction:

When someone writes a book which critiques a position that you hold deeply and dearly, and mentions you by name in his critique, I suppose it would be easy to react defensively and see nothing good in (and say nothing good about) said book.  I suppose that is the temptation which I and other Amillennialists face in regard to Matt Waymeyer’s volume entitled, Amillennialism and the Age to Come, published in 2016 by Kress Biblical Resources.  I have the “honor” of being mentioned in the very first footnote of this extensive (325 page) critique of Amillennialism.  Also mentioned in its footnotes (and perhaps even more frequently than I am) are the fine defenses of Amillennialism written by Sam Storms and Kim Riddlebarger.

Waymeyer holds a Ph.D. from the Master’s Seminary and serves on the faculty of The Expositor’s Bible Seminary in Jupiter, Florida.  He (according to the back cover of the book) also serves on the pastoral staff of Grace Immanuel Bible Church.  Before that he taught Hermeneutics at the Master’s Seminary for several years.  After reading his book, I was not surprised to hear him say in an interview with Fred Zaspel: “But really, the book, itself, flowed out of my PhD dissertation which I wrote at the Masters Seminary.” [http://www.booksataglance.com/author-interviews/interview-matt-waymeyer-author-amillennialism-age-come/] The book certainly does reflect the thoroughness of a doctoral dissertation.  On the other hand, Waymeyer deserves commendation, I think, because this volume is quite readable.

But let me return to my original point about the danger I am in of defensiveness and seeing nothing good in Waymeyer’s book.  I can honestly say that this is not my reaction to this work.  Oh, of course, I do not agree with him.  In fact, at a number of points I emphatically disagree.  Yet, the fact is that there are number of things about his book that deserve appreciation and commendation.  In my next post I will enumerate those things about his book for which I am thankful.

Part 2

Pin It on Pinterest