Amillennialism and the Age to Come—A Critical Review # 16

by | Jul 20, 2017 | Book Reviews, Eschatology

Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, Part 10, Part 11, Part 12, Part 13, Part 14, Part 15

Concluding Thoughts

It is time to bring this lengthy critique of Waymeyer’s volume to a close.  I want to do so by making four brief comments.

First, I will not attempt to delve into Waymeyer’s treatment of Revelation 20.  It is tempting to do so, but this blog series is perhaps already too long.  Fine, Amillennial treatments of this passage are, furthermore, easily available.  I recommend William Hendriksen’s treatment for clarity and accessibility.  I also and especially recommend G. K. Beale’s massive and impressive treatment of Revelation 20.  It is 61 pages long!  In it he seems to give evidence of having read almost everything ever written on the passage.  He also seems to respond to every Premillennial objection to the Amillennial reading of Revelation 20:1-10.

Second, I also want to repeat my conviction that hermeneutical errors are at the root of Waymeyer’s mistakes.  These involve especially the illicit introduction of the double fulfillment character of Old Testament prophecy into New Testament prophecy; his failure to recognize the highly figurative character of prophetic literature; and his failure to allow the clear teaching of Scripture, especially in the literal portions of the New Testament, to exercise a normative influence on the interpretation of the figurative and shadowy teaching of Old Testament prophecy and the highly figurative, apocalyptic language of Revelation.

Third, it must also be stressed that Waymeyer and the kind of Premillennialism he represents are guilty of (what Jay Adams someplace calls) eschatological diplopia.  That is, they have a kind of prophetic double vision.  What I mean is that the Bible teaches an interim kingdom to which they seem blind.  It is the spiritual kingdom of the reigning Jesus during the inter-advental period.  This is the true, interim kingdom.  When Waymeyer insists on the necessity of a future, Jewish, millennial interim kingdom he is unnecessarily inserting a second interim kingdom after the one in which the church exists today.  No such re-duplicated interim kingdom is necessary to explain biblical eschatology.

Fourth, and finally, I want to stress in conclusion that perhaps the greatest error of Waymeyer and his fellows is their failure to understand the true scope of Scripture (scopus scripturae) and biblical prophecy.  That center is not the future of national Israel, but the future of Christ and His church.  Ultimately, the question is really just this.  Is the New Testament vision of Christ and the Church the fulfillment of the Old Testament?  Or is it the Premillennial vision of a millennial kingdom centered on National Israel?

Follow Us In Social Media

Subscribe via Email

Sign up to get notified of new CBTS Blog posts.


Man of God phone
Is the covenant of works biblical? | Tom Hicks

Is the covenant of works biblical? | Tom Hicks

The Reformed confessions of faith all affirm that God made a “covenant of works” with Adam in the Garden of Eden. For example, The Second London Baptist Confession 20.1 explicitly refers to this covenant: “The covenant of works being broken by sin, and made...

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This