What is the millennium? And when should we expect it? Is it today? Is it a time yet to come? And where does it fit in relation to the “two ages” of biblical prophecy?
Hi, I’m Fred Zaspel, editor here at Books At a Glance, and these are the questions Dr. Matt Waymeyer takes up in his new book, Amillennialism and the Age to Come. Dr. Waymeyer serves on the pastoral staff at Grace Immanuel Bible Church and on the faculty of The Expositors Seminary, and he’s with us today to talk about it all.
Matt, welcome! Congratulations on your new book, and thanks for talking to us about it.
Waymeyer:
Well, Fred, thank you; I appreciate it. It’s good to be with you.
Zaspel:
First let’s clarify the discussion itself. What is the millennium? What is millennialism? And what are the major competing views?
Waymeyer:
Well, obviously, the word millennium just simply refers to a period of 1000 years in length, and when we are speaking in the context of Scripture, we’re obviously thinking about the thousand-year period of time that’s mentioned in Revelation 20. You see that specifically in verses 1 – 6 where the apostle Paul describes this vision in which Satan is bound for a thousand years, Christ reigns for thousand years. And there really are, in evangelical Christianity, three different views on the timing and the nature of the thousand-year reign. You have pre-millennialism, amillennialism and post-millennialism. Maybe just for the sake of simplicity, setting aside post-millennialism because really my book focuses specifically on a pre-millennial response to amillennialism. So, just thinking in terms of those views, pre-millennialism, the pre-millennial view of Revelation 20, that thousand-year period, is that it refers to a future reign of Christ on earth after the second coming. So it’s what you might call an intermediate kingdom between the present age and what we think of as the eternal state. Whereas the amillennial view of Revelation 20 is that this thousand-year period refers to the current reign of Christ throughout the present age. So, according to amillennialism, the thousand years is the present age. In premillennialism, the thousand years are yet future, after the second coming; amillennialism says that the thousand-year reign is a present day reality.
Zaspel:
Just to be clear, are you arguing specifically for a dispensational view of the millennial question? Or does your argument fit premillennialism generically?
Waymeyer:
Just generically. The focus of the book… I mean certainly dispensationalism and covenant theology are significant issues… But the focus of the book really just zeros in on the question of the timing and the nature of the millennium. Not so much on how, when, and in whom the covenants will be fulfilled and the role of the nation of Israel, those sorts of questions that come up in a dispensational context, but really it just zeros specifically in on – does the Bible teach that there is an intermediate kingdom in which Christ reigns on earth between the second coming and the eternal state?
Zaspel:
Explain for us specifically the point at issue in your book – how is the concept of “the two ages” a factor in this discussion?
Waymeyer:
That’s a great question. The terminology of the two ages, of course, is biblical terminology. You see this in the words of Jesus and the words of the New Testament writers who again and again referred to these two ages: this age and the age to come. Sometimes to one or the other and I think in five or six contexts they refer to both, setting them in contrast. So the terminology is biblical and for that reason all Bible believing Christians should believe in some sort of two-age model. They should believe in this age and the age to come. I’m using it in the book in a little bit more of a technical sense in the way that amillennialists tend to use it in recent years. I think it was in 2003 that Kim Riddlebarger published his book, A Case for Amillennialism, and I think you really could trace the popularizing of that terminology, the two-age model, to his work which a lot of amillennialists have followed up on and built upon that model. So there’s this two-age model which sees the two ages, not only as an eschatological framework, but also as an interpretive grit. That’s some of the terminology that Riddlebarger uses – an interpretive grid or a hermeneutical lens through which they understand eschatology.
The reason that the two-age model becomes an issue for premillennialism is that amillennialists tend to use the two-age model to argue against this intermediate kingdom that I’ve spoken of, in three specific ways. I’ll just briefly tell you what those are. The first argument is that the age to come will immediately follow this present age and therefore there is simply no gap of time between the two ages to allow for an intermediate kingdom as premillennialism would teach. Secondly, they would say as you look at Scripture and you see the qualities that are ascribed to the age to come in the Bible, these qualities are all eternal in nature and therefore, they would say, the temporal aspects of the millennial kingdom of premillennialism, such as sin and death and procreation, make it incompatible with the coming age and so they would argue against premillennialism in that way. And then, thirdly – and I think this is probably the most significant way – I think the strongest argument for the eschatology of amillennialism is this – they would say that because the second coming is the dividing line between these two ages, and because the second coming will be accompanied by things such as the resurrection and judgment of all mankind, the destruction and renewal of the cosmos, the final victory over sin and death, because all of these things are going to occur at the second coming, they say, at the dividing line between the two ages the amillennialist then argues that this precludes the possibility of an intermediate kingdom between the present age and the eternal state because the present age will give rise to the eternal state immediately without an intermediate kingdom between them. So, as you might imagine, that the purpose of my book, in fact, the subtitle is A Premillennial Critique of the Two-Age Model, that the purpose of my book is to respond to these arguments and to answer the question – does the two-age model, as taught in Scripture, preclude the possibility of this intermediate kingdom between the present age and the eternal state? And obviously, my answer would be ‘no.’
Zaspel:
Can you summarize your answer briefly? How ought the premillennialist understand the millennium with respect to “the two ages”?
Waymeyer:
Great question. I would argue, as I do in the book, that the millennium of Revelation 20, this thousand-year reign of Christ on earth immediately following the second coming, I would argue that it’s best understood as the initial phase of the age to come. In other words, certainly, I affirm the two ages as a biblical framework. As I mentioned before, the two ages are taught in Scripture. A Bible believing Christian must embrace these as some kind of biblical framework. And I also agree that this age is the present age, that it ends at the second coming and it immediately ushers in the age to come. So, as I look at the Bible’s clear teaching on these two ages, and I also look at the clear teaching of Revelation 20, regarding this millennial reign of Christ on earth, as I seek to harmonize those, I think the best way to be faithful to all that Scripture teaches is, again, to see this millennium of Revelation 20 as an initial phase of the age to come. Now, that said, I think that the biggest challenge for the premillennialist, really, are those passages which the amillennialist would use to argue that the second coming will be accompanied by the resurrection and judgment of all mankind, the destruction and renewal of the cosmos, the final victory over sin, no more sin, no more death. And so, the middle section of my book spends quite a bit of time seeking to be exegetical; it’s not so much a system-driven book. I hope that I was exegetical in my presentation, but asking the question – can these passages be harmonized biblically, exegetically, with Revelation 20’s teaching about this thousand-year reign between the second coming and the eternal state.
Zaspel:
Exegetically the question comes, then, to whether there are passages that identify a period of time, still future, that is better than today but not as good as the eternal state – what we might call a “silver” age of the millennium prior to the “golden” age of the eternal state – right?
Waymeyer:
Yes. That’s right.
Zaspel:
Tell us just briefly how Revelation 20 presents this. And when you’re done with that, I’m going to ask you about some other passages too.
Waymeyer:
Sure. Well, as you look at the end of the book of Revelation, regardless of how you interpret chapters 6 through 18 (and I realize there’s a lot of controversy and debate and disagreements on those), but regardless of how interpret those chapters,when we come to chapter 19, what you find in chapter 19, (and there is a consensus here between amillennialists and premillennialists), in the second half of chapter 19 you have very clearly the second coming of Christ. And I’m just going to read [09:43] through this quickly, but following Revelation 19, the second coming of Christ, the judgment that he brings, the beast and the false prophet, the unbelieving nations, what we then see in chapter 20 verse one is a vision of the binding of Satan in verses 1 – 3, where Satan is bound, he is imprisoned in the abyss, he is completely cut off from any activity or influence upon earth. So there’s this thousand-year period in which Satan is completely confined. In verses 4 – 6 you see what is often referred to as the first resurrection, that is, the righteous are physically resurrected from the dead and then come alive to reign with Christ for a thousand years. All of this, again, after the second coming in Revelation chapter 19. At the end of the thousand years you have Satan being released from his prison. He comes out to deceive the nations. He is decisively destroyed. He is then thrown into the lake of fire. At the end of chapter 20 in verses 11 – 15 you have, then, unbelievers raised from the dead. This is the second resurrection. Back in verses 4 – 6 it spoke of a first resurrection, then it said the rest of the dead won’t be raised until after the thousand years. Well, here’s that second resurrection – unbelievers being physically raised to stand before the great White throne judgment. Ultimately their names are not found in the book of life, they are cast into the lake of fire, and then what you find in chapter 21 is the beginning of the eternal state, new heavens and new earth, no more death, no more enemies of God. So you have this progression in Revelation 19, 20, and 21 where you have second coming, thousand-year reign of Christ, final judgment of unbelievers, the ushering in of the eternal state.
So obviously I am arguing, and I do in my book, for a sequential or chronological understanding of the events depicted in these visions. So Revelation 19, 20, and 21 become a very compelling argument. In fact, I would say this is the single most difficult question for amillennialism is to deal faithfully, in its context, with this thousand-year reign of Christ in Revelation chapter 20.
Zaspel:
Okay, tell us where this scenario of a coming silver and then golden age is reflected elsewhere in Scripture? Can you give us just a couple quick samples?
Waymeyer:
Yes. Well, I probably would start in the Old Testament. In fact, in the flow of the book there’s three sections. I start in the Old Testament and then I move into the two-age passages in the New Testament, and the final section deals with Revelation 20. But as you look at the Old Testament, the prophets look ahead to the coming kingdom. Which you find that several passages in the Old Testament seem to predict a period of time that is distinct from both the present age and the eternal state. I am thinking of passages like Psalm 72, Isaiah 2, Isaiah 11, Isaiah 65, Micah 4, Zechariah 14. Many of these are well-known in these discussions. But what you find in these passages is that during this time the Messiah will come and he will reign, these passages tell us, as king over the entire world. All the kings of the earth will bow down before him; all the nations will serve him; all peoples of the earth will be blessed by his reign, his rule. These passages tell us that knowledge of the Lord will fill the earth; the whole earth is filled with his glory; this King is reigning in peace, justice and righteousness; there is longevity of life; there is lasting peace and harmony among the nations. The point is the kingdom reign of Messiah in these passages clearly transcends what is taking place in the present age. I endeavor to show that in the book. If you look at these passages in their context, these passages do not have a present day fulfillment, but, interestingly, at the same time, these very same passages also contain features of the coming kingdom which simply are incompatible with the perfection of the eternal state. For example, this kingdom reign of Messiah, again, same passages, will include the existence of the poor, the wicked, the needy, the afflicted, enemies of God, victims of violence and oppression. You have physical birth and physical death, although, as I mentioned longevity of life, certainly. The nations are said to be learning the ways of the Lord. You see disputes continuing to arise between the nations. You see that those who refuse to worship the King being disciplined by the Lord. And so I would argue that these passages point to a future stage in the history of redemption which, on one hand, is far greater than the present age; but on the other hand, which still does not see that the removal of all sin and all rebellion and all death from the earth and as you might imagine I would identify future stage in redemptive history as the thousand-year reign of Christ in Revelation 20. I believe that Revelation 20 brings clarity to this prophetic tension that we see in the Old Testament.
And, just very briefly, in terms of a New Testament passage, I would say that the reign of Christ in I Corinthians 15:25 as the millennial reign which will take place between the second coming and that time when all the enemies will be defeated and Jesus hands the kingdom over to the father which, of course, ushers in the eternal state.
Zaspel:
Has this book been a project you’ve been working on for some time? How did it come about?
Waymeyer:
Well, in one sense, for a long time. Just because I’ve been wrestling with these issues for quite some time. I avoided eschatology altogether in the early years of my Christian faith because I had seen so many abuses of the study of it in terms of all the sensationalistic predictions. I was actually at a Presbyterian Church and embraced the doctrines of grace and started to wrestle with these issues and have done so for much of the last 25 years. But really, the book, itself, flowed out of my PhD dissertation which I wrote at the Masters Seminary. So in one sense, it came about, just in terms of me seeking to decide what to write my dissertation on. And I think that if I can trace it back, probably two experiences pointed me in this direction. The first one, I was listening to a lecture by a well-known amillennialist, and the title of his lecture had something to do with the millennium and Revelation 20, and I was interested to hear how he would explain it and interpret it and harmonize it with amillennialism. It was interesting because he spent the first about two thirds of the lecture setting forth this two-age model – this age and the age to come – and explaining that there is the present age, there is the eternal state, and there’s nothing in between. So by the time, in the lecture, you get to Revelation 20, to even read the passage, if you’re listening to him and following him and agreeing with him, you already know, as you come to Revelation 20, whatever Revelation 20 means, it can’t mean that there’s an intermediate kingdom. So as I was listening to that I remember the light coming, on and I realized that if I’m going to interact with amillennialists (at this time, of course, I was a convinced premillennialist), I realize- that if I’m going to interact with amillennialists and seek like-mindedness on this issue of the millennium, that is to say, if I’m going to persuade them, I am going to have to deal with this two-age model. It’s not going to be enough for me to sort of parachute into Revelation 20 and start there. I need to deal with the more fundamental issues of the two-age model.
Similarly, the other experience – I was watching a panel discussion on the Internet that was about this question of the millennium. It had panelists who were representing the different viewpoints. When they came to Revelation 20, and they called upon the amillennialist to comment, (and this was pretty deep into the panel discussion), the gentleman, and I won’t quote him exactly, but it was pretty similar to this; he made this comment at the front end: he said if Revelation 20 teaches premillennialism, then I have to abandon biblical inerrancy. And I realized what he was saying, he wasn’t speaking of any kind of weak view of Scripture that he held to; he certainly upheld a high view of Scripture and would never have abandoned biblical inerrancy, but the point he was making is that he is so convinced by the rest of Scripture and specifically, I know by his writings, by specific passages in the New Testament – these two-age passages, and Scriptures that will happen at the second coming – he is so convinced by the rest of the New Testament that a millennial kingdom between the second coming and the eternal state is not possible that by the time he gets to Revelation chapter 20 itself, and begins to study it, again, there is no way that it can teach, what I would argue, it very clearly teaches.
So, again, I find myself realizing it’s not enough simply for me as a premillennialist to parachute in to Revelation 20 – I need to go back and think through the two-age model. I need to respond to the two-age model. I need to exegete and seek to harmonize these various passages of Scripture and I hope that I have done so in a way that is fair to the amillennialists. That was my goal.
Those were pretty defining moments for me in realizing how critical this issue is – the hermeneutical underpinnings of amillennialism and how this two-age model relates to the millennial question.
Zaspel:
Who is your intended audience?
Waymeyer:
Well, I guess, in one sense, anyone who is interested in the issue; but, in the preface of the book, I identified two target audiences I have in particular. First audience or category are what I would call eschatological agnostics. What I mean by that is those who are sometimes referred to as pan-millennialists – however this pans out in the end, I will be happy with it. I do think that I couldn’t be more thrilled seeing the resurgence of reformed soteriology and the embrace of the doctrines of grace and how the church has united around the gospel, but I do sometimes get concerned that in the process of the exaltation of the gospel, that issues like eschatology are seen to be almost irrelevant to some. And so I would say, for someone who is may be eschatologically agnostic, who hasn’t really seen the value of the issue, that I would certainly hope to rouse their interest and help them in the process of differentiating between the views and the arguments for and against. And then the second category would be this: amillennialists who have never really studied the issue, but simply became amillennial because they see it maybe as an indispensable part of reformed theology. I’m not saying that amillennialists are the only ones guilty of just sort of believing what their tradition teaches. There’s enough of that to go around everywhere. But I do see, in some – let me put it this way – I think the common scenario is this, is that someone grows up in an Arminian church and, at some point in their life, they are exposed or introduced to the doctrines of grace. Maybe initially they respond in anger; they don’t like this idea that God predestines, that God chooses, that man is depraved. These sorts of issues rubbed them the wrong way. They are challenged though, and they are driven to the Scriptures. And they begin what, in many cases, is a very long process of seeking to study the Scriptures and to see whether these things are so. And over time they do indeed come to embrace the doctrines of grace; and they identify themselves as Calvinists. At that point, oftentimes it seems, at least in some of the experiences that I have seen, oftentimes what happens is the very ones who spent years and years wrestling through the doctrines of grace before identifying themselves as Calvinists, almost become amillennial overnight. Not because they have really wrestled with the Scriptures, but because of maybe the context they are in, the people they are around, amillennialism has been presented as just part of the reformed package. If you are a Calvinist, you’re a paedobaptist and you’re an amillennialist. And I would challenge anyone who is in that category, who says, yes, I embrace reformed theology and we are brothers in Christ and certainly would both agree that some issues are more central than others; I would challenge such a one to, if you are in the category of having embraced amillennialism simply because it’s part of the reformed package, to read the book, and to be driven back to the Scriptures; be driven into maybe a similar process that they went through in embracing the doctrines of predestination and total depravity.
So maybe in the back of my mind as I am writing, I would love for people who fall in either of those categories to pick up the book. My invitation would be for them to pick it up and again, as I mentioned, I really do hope, and I’m pretty confident that this would be the case, that the amillennialist who reads my book would be able to say, yes, that’s what I believe, in terms of my presentation of their position. That’s what I believe, that’s why I believe it and that’s how I would argue it. Because in polemics you must be fair to a position, you must understand a position you are arguing against, you must present it fairly accurately and really in the spirit of charity. Because this is an intramural debate, these are brothers in Christ and we certainly celebrate a sovereign God who saved us and we are certainly united around the gospel.
Zaspel:
And I think all sides will have to acknowledge that your approach in the book, your attempt, is to be very clearly exegetical in it all. Your presentation is through the biblical text itself and I think it commends it well.
We’re talking to Matt Waymeyer, author of the new book, Amillennialism and the Age to Come. It’s an important new study that will require a hearing from all sides, a valuable resource you’ll want to have in your study of biblical end-times prophecy.
Matt, thanks so much for talking to us today.
Waymeyer:
Thanks, Fred, it’s great to be with you.
Buy the books
Amillennialism and the Age to Come