CBTS Logo
Amillennialism and the Age to Come—A Critical Review # 9

Amillennialism and the Age to Come—A Critical Review # 9

by | May 31, 2017 | Book Reviews, Eschatology

Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8

Second Criticism:  Hermeneutical Priority Must Be Given to the New Testament over the Old Testament and the More Literal New Testament Passages over the More Figurative. (Continued.)

In my last post I pointed out that Waymeyer’s priorities ignore and contradict the plain teaching of the Bible, that the prophetic genre of revelation is characterized as “dark sayings” (Numbers 12:6-8) and cannot be given priority over the clear and literal deliverances of the New Testament.  My third comment builds on this reality.

Third, and now to be more specific, it is clear that Revelation 20 is also a passage that comes to us in the visionary, prophetic, or apocalyptic genre.  It also, then, is by definition a figurative, less clear, and more obscure passage.  As such, it must not be allowed to trump the clear teaching of the rest of the New Testament.  On what basis do I say this?

I say it, first, because if anybody can actually read the rest of Revelation (especially chapters 4-19) and not find themselves scratching their heads again and again about the meaning of its prophetic visions, well, they are better than I am and almost all other Christians.  Yes, there are high points like Revelation 5 which deal with the high points of Scripture like the ascension and enthronement of Christ.  Nevertheless, even these passages are stated in what is clearly, highly and continuously, symbolic language.  Revelation 20 may thus seem clear from within a Premillennial perspective, but it certainly has not seemed clear to those coming from other perspectives.  It also could be shown that Premillennialism has its own many internal controversies about the meaning and implications of Revelation 20.

But the main and even more cogent point is this.  The Book of Revelation bears all the marks of prophetic vision and is, thus, what Numbers 12:8 calls “dark sayings.”  This includes Revelation 20.  On what basis do I say that?  One of the clearest markers of the prophetic, visionary, or apocalyptic genre is the use of the words, “I saw,” in its various forms.  This marker occurs three times in Revelation 20:1-10 (once in verse 1 and twice in verse 4).  These words frequently designate in Scripture a vision or dream seen by the inner eye of the prophet in his mind.  In those cases the vision does not refer literally to anything in the external or physical world.  There are simply symbolic parallels between the visionary world and the external world.

The Greek verb translated, “I saw,” in Revelation 20:1 and 4 actually occurs 63 times in the Book of Revelation and almost exclusively refers to the visions and dreams which the Apostle John saw as a prophet.  The peculiarity of the genre of the Revelation is illustrated by the fact that these 63 occurrences are almost 1/7th of its 483 occurrences in the New Testament.  The darkness or difficulty of such language as compared to normal or literal language is underscored not only in Numbers 12:8, but also in another book that is marked by this genre, Daniel.

In Daniel 8 Daniel sees the vision of the ram, the goat, the little horn, and the suspension of regular sacrifice in the temple.  The word used in the LXX of Daniel 8:1-2 to identify this vision is the same as that used in Revelation 20 and throughout the Revelation.  After the conclusion of the vision the difficulty of interpreting such visionary revelation is underscored in Daniel 8:15-17: “When I, Daniel, had seen the vision, I sought to understand it; and behold, standing before me was one who looked like a man.  And I heard the voice of a man between the banks of Ulai, and he called out and said, “Gabriel, give this man an understanding of the vision.” So he came near to where I was standing, and when he came I was frightened and fell on my face; but he said to me, “Son of man, understand that the vision pertains to the time of the end.”  Clarifying interpretation is necessary for such revelation as Daniel was given in Daniel 8 in order for it to be understood.  Such interpretive help is not necessary for normal speech and literal communication, but such interpretive help is necessary for visions like those seen in Daniel 8.

Hence, for Waymeyer to maintain the hermeneutical priority of Revelation 20 over the rest of the New Testament betrays great insensitivity to its literary genre and a refusal to acknowledge the comparative difficulty of interpreting such language as compared to the normal speech of historical narrative and epistolary discourse which dominates the rest of the New Testament.  We must in our interpretation of the Bible give hermeneutical priority to the clear before the difficult, the literal before the figurative, and the general before the detailed.

More to come…

Amillennialism and the Age to Come—A Critical Review # 9

Amillennialism and the Age to Come—A Critical Review # 8

by | May 26, 2017 | Book Reviews, Eschatology

Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7

Second Criticism:  Hermeneutical Priority Must Be Given to the New Testament over the Old Testament and the More Literal New Testament Passages over the More Figurative. (Continued.)

Having affirmed and qualified Waymeyer’s concern about a misuse of the analogy of faith, let me now critique his giving hermeneutical priority to Old Testament prophecy and Revelation 20 over the teaching of the New Testament.  This brings me to my second comment regarding Waymeyer’s hermeneutical priorities.

Second, and by way of explaining my incredulity at Waymeyer’s virtual denial that prophetic literature is less clear than other genres of literature found in the Bible, let me explain why I assume this is true.

Let me begin this explanation by making what I hope will be a straightforward distinction.  When I speak of prophetic literature in what follows, I am speaking of a genre of literature found in the Bible and not a doctrinal subject.  In other words, I am saying that there are many passages in the Bible which deal with a prophecy (or last things) as a subject, but yet do not come to us in the Bible in a prophetic genre.  The distinction I am talking about here is a distinction of literary genres.  I am contrasting the prophetic or apocalyptic genre with other literary genres found in the Bible.  Historical narrative and epistolary discourse are examples of other literary genres.  Thus, prophecy (the doctrine of last things) may be addressed in historical narrative or epistolary discourse, but that does not make such passages as to their literary genre “prophetic.”

Does the Bible itself identify a “prophetic” literary genre?  What is the nature of this literary genre?  Are we justified in judging it less clear and more figurative than other literary genres?  Let me attempt to answer each of these questions by turning to one of the pivotal passages with regard to prophets and prophecy.

In Numbers 12 Aaron and Miriam raise a complaint against Moses which included the question: “Has the LORD indeed spoken only through Moses? Has He not spoken through us as well?” (Num. 12:2 NAU).  Yahweh appears to them and defends His servant, Moses.  In so doing He makes clear the nature of prophecy as a genre of revelation.  Here are the key verses:

He said, “Hear now My words: If there is a prophet among you, I, the LORD, shall make Myself known to him in a vision. I shall speak with him in a dream. “Not so, with My servant Moses, He is faithful in all My household; With him I speak mouth to mouth, Even openly, and not in dark sayings, And he beholds the form of the LORD. Why then were you not afraid To speak against My servant, against Moses?” (Num. 12:6-8 NAU)

In this passage are found the answers to each of our three questions raised above.

Does the Bible itself identify a “prophetic” literary genre?  Yes, the Bible does identify a specific prophetic genre of revelation and distinguishes it (in this case) from the directness of the personal conversations with God connected to Theophany.

What is the nature of this literary genre?  The passage once more makes this clear.  Prophetic revelation is given characteristically through visions and dreams.  Visions and dreams are revelations made through vivid symbols appearing in the mental world of the prophet and not in the outward world, visible to all.

Are we justified in judging it less clear and more figurative than other literary genres?  Yes, the contrast between the theophanic, personal communication with Moses and the prophetic, visionary communication with Aaron and Miriam is emphasized in Numbers 12:8 “With him I speak mouth to mouth, Even openly, and not in dark sayings, And he beholds the form of the LORD. Why then were you not afraid To speak against My servant, against Moses?”

To put the problem for Waymeyer succinctly, he pervasively ignores the literary genre of the Old Testament prophecies to which he appeals against Amillennialism.  As visionary, prophetic utterances we must be prepared to understand them in a highly symbolic fashion.  The naively literal approach which boldly ignores their New Testament interpretation is both wrong-headed and misguided.

The great illustration of the disastrous results of such a naively literal approach can be seen from what it yields in connection with the great prophecy of the eschatological temple in Ezekiel 40-48.  Waymeyer does not quite affirm the typical Dispensational interpretation of this passage.  Indeed, at points he seems uncomfortable with this interpretation (61-63). Nevertheless, his literalistic interpretation of Old Testament prophecies and his pressing of them against the natural meaning of New Testament statements entails upon his view the disastrous Dispensational interpretation of Ezekiel 40-48 (105).  For interpreted with the same naively literalistic method that Waymeyer uses, Ezekiel 40-48 results in the re-erection of Judaism in the Dispensational Millennium.  I have documented this result in my critical review of Barry Horner’s Future Israel.  Let me, however, review them here.

A consistently literal interpretation of Ezekiel’s prophecies in Ezekiel 40-48 leads to the following necessary results:  in the future millennial temple there are tables for slaughtering burnt and sin offerings and the restoration of sin and guilt offerings and the sprinkling of blood on the altar (40:39; 43:18-27; 44:9-11, 13-15); there will be the restoration of the Zadokite Levitical priesthood (40:46-47; 43:18-19; 44:9-11, 13-15); the temple is a holy place to which no one “uncircumcised in flesh” may come (41:4; 43:12, 13; 44:9-11); there will be holy garments that the priest are to wear only when they minister in the Temple (42:14; 44:17-18); there is the restoration of the Shekinah glory overshadowing the Temple (43:1-14); this system will go on forever in the New Earth (43:7); there will be the restoration of the ceremonial law in which contact with dead bodies creates ceremonial defilement (43:7); the altar will have to be cleansed before being used (43:18-27); there will be special priestly laws about their haircuts, the consumption of alcoholic beverages and about marrying only virgins (44:20-22); there will be laws about ceremonial purity and defilement restored, taught by the priests, and enforced by their judgments (44:23-24); and, finally, there will be the restoration of the religious calendar of the Old Testament including seventh-day Sabbath observance, new moons, and the year of Jubilee (44:24; 45:17; 46:1, 3, 16-17).  These are the consequences of the hermeneutic which allows Waymeyer to interpret the visions of Old Testament prophecy in such a way as to appeal to it against what “one might understandably conclude”—his words (105)—from the New Testament.  Each of these contradict the plain deliverances of the New Testament.

Thus, I must protest against the kind of naively literal interpretation which lies under the hermeneutical priority Waymeyer gives the Old Testament prophecies over the New Testament interpretation of those prophecies.

Part 9

Amillennialism and the Age to Come—A Critical Review # 9

Amillennialism and the Age to Come—A Critical Review # 7

by | May 22, 2017 | Book Reviews, Eschatology

Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6

Second Criticism:  Hermeneutical Priority Must Be Given to the New Testament over the Old Testament and the More Literal New Testament Passages over the More Figurative. (Continued.)

In my last post I said that in a very real sense Waymeyer’s book constitutes an emphatic denial of (what I thought were) self-evident hermeneutical principles.  Those principles were that clear passages must be given priority over difficult passages, literal passages over figurative passages, and general truths about eschatology before the details of prophecy.  He does this by giving hermeneutical priority to Old Testament prophecy and Revelation 20 over the teaching of the New Testament.  I am incredulous, but let me respond to Waymeyer with something more than incredulity.

First, let me affirm a concern of Waymeyer’s which I believe has some validity.  He says: “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)  In general, it seems to me, this is a fair warning with regard to the use of the hermeneutical principle known as the analogy of faith.  Care must be taken not to silence the richness of divine revelation by a too facile assumption that we know what Scripture cannot say in light of our understanding of other indisputable truths of Scripture.  Divine revelation is greater and more mysterious than our finite and fallen minds may realize.  No doubt, the analogy of faith has been abused by those who have deduced contradictions where there was only supplementation by other plain truths of Scripture.  This is a danger of which Systematicians must always beware.

The real danger in our day, however, is the tendency of Evangelicals to interpret Scripture in a way uninformed by historical theology and detached from any recognizable systematic theology.  Thus, the danger about which Waymeyer warns is probably not the greatest danger we face today.  Instances could be multiplied of interpretations of biblical passages which simply refuse to confront the practical contradictions they impose on ordinary Christians.  One reputable theologian argues that the exegesis of Hebrews 3, 6, and 10 teaches the apostasy of genuine Christians.  Yet he refuses to show how this is consistent with other passages that teach the opposite and even refuses to interpret those passages in a way consistent with their exegesis of Hebrews.

Listen to Calvin R. Schoonhoven in the article entitled, “The Analogy of Faith,” in Scripture, Tradition, and Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 105: “Although the “analogy-of-faith” devotee may assert that whatever these texts say they cannot teach that a “saved” person could be forever lost so as never again to be able to experience repentance, this is precisely what is taught here.  These statements must not be interpreted in the context of other teachings; they must be interpreted in the context of Hebrews and from the perspective of this writer.  Such strong words should not be interpreted by some sort of “illumination” from other passages.”

Such exegesis is simply irresponsible.  The goal of all Christian teaching is to teach Christians to observe all that Christ commanded (Matthew 28:18-20).  It is simply impossible for the ordinary Christian to practice a theological contradiction.

This is not, of course, the practical error into which Waymeyer falls.  He believes that ultimately Scripture is self-consistent.  He actually uses the analogy of faith himself to argue that Revelation 20 must expand our understanding of Luke 20 and what we might naturally conclude it means.  (105)  I say these things, however, because we all need to remember the necessity and responsibility of providing a coherent interpretation of Scripture to the Christian church.  We may not wave aside the analogy of faith in our hermeneutics.  It is in principle perfectly legitimate for Amillennialists to argue that the clear teaching of clear Scriptures require something other than a Premillennial interpretation of Revelation 20.  If, for instance, the New Testament teaches—as it assuredly does—a general judgment of all men living and dead at Christ’s Second Coming issuing in the eternal state, then whatever Revelation 20 teaches it cannot teach Premillennialism.  I think that it is plain that the New Testament does teach such a general judgment in many places and in clear language and that such a judgment is legitimately part of the analogy of faith by which the interpretation of Revelation 20 must be controlled.

Part 8

Amillennialism and the Age to Come—A Critical Review # 9

Amillennialism and the Age to Come—A Critical Review # 6

by | May 17, 2017 | Book Reviews, Eschatology

Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5

Second Criticism:  Hermeneutical Priority Must Be Given to the New Testament over the Old Testament and the More Literal New Testament Passages over the More Figurative.

In my book, End Times Made Simple, I assumed with little argument that when it comes to interpreting the Bible as a whole (and, therefore, its eschatology in particular) that there were certain “self-evident” principles which must be followed.  They were that clear passages must be given priority over difficult passages, literal passages over figurative passages, and general truths about eschatology before the details of prophecy.  In a very real sense Waymeyer’s book constitutes an emphatic denial of these (what I thought were) self-evident hermeneutical principles.  What do I mean?

First, Waymeyer insists on giving priority to Old Testament prophetic passages with regard to the doctrine of the coming of the kingdom.  This is evident in the very order of the book in which Part 1 is devoted to a treatment of “The Intermediate Kingdom in the Old Testament.”  The problem is that this treatment of the Old Testament is deliberately un-informed by the teaching of the New Testament about the coming of the kingdom of God.  This approach is clear.  Waymeyer says that his approach 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) [Italics are mine.]  My response to this focuses on the statement later revelation “never changes the meaning of earlier passages.”  This assertion begs the whole question.  The very question at stake is the meaning of the earlier passages and whether this meaning can be understood fully and properly apart from the teaching of the New Testament.  I will show below that there is reason to view the Old Testament prophecies which Waymeyer discusses in Part 1 as both figurative and less clear than their New Testament explanations.

Second, Waymeyer insists on giving priority to Revelation 20 over the rest of the New Testament.  Once more this is clear in the very structure of the book.  He sandwiches the New Testament teaching before the Book of Revelation between his treatment of the Old Testament prophecies in Part 1 of the book and the treatment of Revelation 20 in Part 3.  This order does not indicate a prioritizing of the New Testament two-age grid over Revelation 20.  In fact, it indicates just the opposite.  It really represents Waymeyer’s desire to have Revelation 20 trump the rest of the New Testament, because it is the last card played in the Bible.  He makes this very clear by two things he says.  In one place he remarks: “The first problem concerns identifying Revelation 20 as an unclear passage.” (8)  In another he adds: “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)  Thus, denying that Revelation 20 is an unclear passage and so affirming that hermeneutically it is on a par with the literal passages in the New Testament, he then plainly asserts the superiority of Revelation 20 by saying that it is the fullest and most comprehensive presentation of eschatology.  Thus, it must be allowed to clarify previous revelation.

In this way Waymeyer contradicts the view which I and other Amillennialists take as self-evident that the teaching of the New Testament is both more clear and literal than that of either Old Testament prophecy or the Book of Revelation.  Frankly, I am incredulous at this contradiction!  Does Waymeyer really want to maintain Revelation 20 is more clear than Luke 20?  Does he really want to maintain that the visionary and apocalyptic character of prophetic literature is superior to the mainly literal language of the New Testament in its clarity?  I think it is plainly not. I also continue to think that it should be obvious that it should not be given this kind of hermeneutical priority.

But let me respond to Waymeyer with something more than incredulity.  I will do so in my next post.

Part 7

Amillennialism and the Age to Come—A Critical Review # 9

Amillennialism and the Age to Come—A Critical Review # 5

by | May 11, 2017 | Book Reviews, Eschatology

Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4

First Criticism:  Prophetic foreshortening must not be applied to New Testament prophecy. (Continued.)

In my last post, I promised to give my readers two conclusive arguments against Waymeyer’s idea that prophetic foreshortening is characteristic of New Testament prophecy.  Here is the first one.

First, it directly contradicts the assertion of Jesus that the one who is least in the kingdom is greater than John the Baptist (Matt. 11:11).  This is a confusing statement to many and little understood.  Its relevance for the present argument is immense.  Allow me some space to open up its true meaning.

John the Baptist gladly embraced Jesus as the one who would usher in the glorious and irresistible coming of the kingdom (John 1:29).  But when Jesus continued to preach the nearness of the kingdom and even preach the actual presence of the kingdom (Matt. 12:28f.) without the coming of the judgment of the wicked and the onset of the glorious consummation which he had prophesied (Matt 3:10-12), John the Baptist began to have doubts.  When John was arrested and imprisoned, the problem became acute.  How could the kingdom have come already in Jesus while John was rotting in Herod’s prison?  Prison was the last place John expected to be after the coming of the kingdom!  Thus, we read in Matthew 11:2-11,  “Now when John in prison heard of the works of Christ, he sent word by his disciples, 3 and said to Him, “Are You the Expected One, or shall we look for someone else?” 4 And Jesus answered and said to them, “Go and report to John what you hear and see: 5 the BLIND RECEIVE SIGHT and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the POOR HAVE THE GOSPEL PREACHED TO THEM. 6 And blessed is he who keeps from stumbling over Me.” …. 11 “Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has not arisen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.””

How could Jesus say that the one who was least in the kingdom of heaven was greater than John?  Verse 11 in speaking of the one “who is least in the kingdom” being greater than John the Baptist refers to John in his distinctive capacity as a prophet.  That is the capacity in which John is being considered in this context as verses 12-14 make clear: “And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and violent men take it by force. For all the prophets and the Law prophesied until John. And if you care to accept it, he himself is Elijah, who was to come.”

Prophets were distinguished for their knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom.  It is in this respect that Jesus ranks John as least in the kingdom.  It is in his capacity as a prophet—the last and greatest of the Old Testament prophets—that Jesus is referring to John.  It is, therefore, at the point of insight with regard to the mysteries relating to the coming of the kingdom that the one who is least in the kingdom is greater than John.

Old Testament prophets and prophecy had, as we have noted, what we may call a flattened perspective about the future.  To put it in other words, the prophets were given little depth perception about the future.  Sometimes, therefore, events that were widely separated in future time can be found predicted and mixed together in their writings.  Consider for example the prophecy of Micah about the exile of Israel to and their deliverance from Babylon (Micah 4:9f.) and how this is intimately connected to predictions of the birth and glory of the Messiah (Micah 5:2f.).  It is for this reason that the New Testament clearly teaches that prophets themselves did not at times understand clearly the things they were prophesying (1 Peter 1:10-12).

We learn from Matthew 11:2-6 that a godly and believing man like the great prophet John the Baptist struggled with the seeming inconsistency of Jesus’ preaching of the kingdom and with what the Old Testament itself had led the Jews to expect (Dan 2:44). Can we think, therefore, that Jesus’ disciples would be immune to the same doubts?  No, they would have to face the same question.  How could the all-conquering, glorious eschatological kingdom of God be present in this former carpenter and His Galilean followers?

The parables of the kingdom in Matthew 13 purport to explain the mystery of the kingdom.  Thus, the question addressed is how the kingdom could be present in Jesus, His preaching, and His disciples.   The common emphasis of these parables is Jesus’ response to this question.  This response is the theme of these parables.  It is that the kingdom has come and is present in a form unexpected by the Jews, but that this present form anticipates its future, glorious consummation.  To put this in other words, the theme of these parables is that the coming of the kingdom has two phases.  It unfolds in two stages.  It comes in a form unexpected by the Jews (and even John the Baptist), before it comes in its final glorious form.  It is in this two stage coming of the kingdom that the mystery of the kingdom is revealed.  Matthew 13 is the intended explanation of this mystery of the kingdom.  The one who is least in the kingdom now understands that the kingdom comes in two stages—something that the prophets including John the Baptist—did not understand.  The one who is least in the kingdom understands that Jesus is coming twice.

But in explaining the mystery of the kingdom in this way, Jesus brings an end to prophetic foreshortening.  He explains the mystery.  Thus, the least in the kingdom—then and now—is greater than John the Baptists and all the other Old Testament prophets.  To apply prophetic foreshortening to New Testament prophecy is to turn back the clock.  It is to put New Testament Christians in the same position as Old Testament prophets.  It is to say that Jesus really did not explain the mystery of the kingdom.  Virtually, Waymeyer is saying that the kingdom does not come only twice.  Mysteriously and in a way not explained in Matthew 13 by Jesus, it actually comes three times:  in the present age, in the millennial kingdom, and then in the eternal state.

And all this brings me to a second and consequent criticism.  The notion that prophetic foreshortening is to be applied to New Testament prophecy creates havoc with biblical eschatology.  Waymeyer substantially and virtually argues that in spite of the way certain passages sound (105), the principle of prophetic foreshortening allows us to see two resurrections, two judgments, and two ages to come where the Bible only speaks of one.

But this application of prophetic foreshortening to New Testament prophecy by Premillennialists is self-defeating.  If such gaps still exist, then why may there not be three resurrections, three judgments, and three ages to come, and for that matter three comings of Christ—something that Dispensationalists like Waymeyer already in a sense actually believe!  If it justifies Dispensationalism, why may not it justify a Super-Dispensationalism?  If Jesus’ explanation of the mystery is not in some sense its final explanation, then New Testament prophecy may mean or include virtually anything.  There is an end to the sufficiency of Scripture for prophetic interpretation if we accept Waymeyer’s application of prophetic foreshortening to New Testament prophecy.

There is an old hymn with this prayer: “Be darkness, at Thy coming, light, Confusion, order in Thy path.”  The above discussion is the first of many places in which I find the result of Waymeyer’s hermeneutic to be the exact opposite.  Its result is not light, but darkness; not order, but confusion.  It cannot, therefore, be divine.

Part 6

Pin It on Pinterest