Oversimplifying the Age to Come

I always enjoy a little light holiday reading, so in the last week I have been working my way through Matt Waymeyer’s heavily footnoted 2016 book Amillennialism and the Age to Come: A Premillennial Critique of the Two-Age Model.

I will probably review Waymeyer’s excellent and scrupulously thorough dissection of the two-age model at some point in the near future, but in the meantime, a few very general observations about the amillennialist system of interpretation that reading about it again brings to mind.

1. The literal/figurative divide. It is sometimes pointed out that the amillennial schema is largely figurative while the premillennial view is largely literal. This is basically true, in the sense that a non-literal 1,000 years is part of the amillennial package. It is also true in the most general sense of the entire prophetic system. However, when you get down to the nitty gritty of any given Bible passage, both systems of interpretation involve a combination of literal and figurative interpretation wherever their theology requires it.
2. The extent of the problem. In discussing different views of Bible prophecy, we are always reminded that the “other side” remain our brothers and sisters in Christ and the differences between us are comparatively minor. While the former is true, the latter is definitely not. Our view of the prophetic scriptures reveals a massive divide in the way we interpret the word of God. Amillennialism: (1) trivializes the importance of national Israel in the plans and purposes of God; (2) mutes or eviscerates the Old Testament prophets; (3) turns the Great Commission into a political mandate; (4) overemphasizes the role of the church; (5) substitutes speculation and fantasy for exegesis; (6) rejects the principle of progressive revelation in practice if not in theory; (7) repeatedly explains away the plain sense of the text; and (8) removes any possible reason to look and hope for the Lord’s imminent return. That’s just for starters. Amillennialists are my brothers in Christ, but the differences between the two systems are anything but trivial. I would not wish this belief system on my worst enemy, and I look forward to many puzzled faces when the trumpet sounds.
3. Binding that doesn’t bind. A glaring example of (6) above is the amillennial interpretation of Satan’s binding in Revelation 20, which basically leaves him rampaging through the cosmos doing as he pleases. (In case this is unclear, amillennialism teaches Satan is bound and falling into the bottomless pit during the present era.) An actual quote from William Cox: “Satan, though bound, still goes about like a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour. The chain with which he is bound is a long one, allowing him much freedom of movement.” A nice illustration, but one that ignores other aspects of the imagery of Revelation 20, where, in addition to his chains, Satan is also in freefall toward the non-existent bottom of the abyss with the pit firmly sealed over him. The longest metaphorical chain in the universe won’t help him much with that. Short of death, a more effective description of total incapacitation can hardly be conceived.
4. Coming and staying. The amillennialist gets rid of any prophetic room for a future, literal 1,000 year millennial reign by conceiving of the Second Coming as a moment rather than an era that begins in a moment and continues unabated into eternity. In fact, the primary meaning of the word parousia is “presence”, and the word is frequently used to refer to the quality of a person’s ongoing company, which in the case of Christ’s parousia will be eternal. There are indeed scriptures that highlight the abruptness and suddenness with which the parousia will commence, but these should never rob us of the truth that Immanuel means “God with us”, and that the Lord’s parousia is no mere moment in time. As such, there is plenty of room for all manner of events to occur “at his coming”, including a 1,000 year literal reign in Jerusalem prior to the ushering in of the eternal state, or two resurrections 1,000 years apart. When the Greek is properly understood, both resurrections are equally “at his coming”.
5. The parousia and David’s kingdom. It strikes me that the story of David’s gradual acquisition of the kingdom promised him by God serves as an apt illustration of the events leading into the millennial reign of Christ. It took seven and a half years after Saul’s death to unite Israel, and it takes four chapters of 2 Samuel to tell all that went into that process. The parousia will be inaugurated in a flash, but many events prophesied in both Old and New Testament must take place before the glories of the millennial reign may be fully enjoyed by the world. Amillennialism tries to collapse as many of these distinct movements in the plan of God into as few strokes as possible by conflating distinguishable judgments, battles and resurrections.
6. Oversimplification. It’s no wonder amillennialism appeals to so many Christian determinists. Calvinism is probably the biggest oversimplification of the teaching of scripture in all of church history, reducing the answer to everything to “God did it.” Modern amillennialism operates on the same principle, reducing prophetic scripture to a grossly oversimplified “this age and the age to come”. Amillennialist Samuel Waldron even entitled his book The End Times Made Simple, which is evidently more aspirational than achieved; already it has become a series. Simplicity of thought is a great thing when it accurately sums up what it is trying to describe. Simplicity acquired by throwing out whole swaths of scripture rather than reconciling them to one another is not terribly useful.
7. How niggling it all becomes. No average Christian could or should be expected to deal with the level of granularity with which amillennial expositors dissect the scriptures that teach premillennialism. And yet, if one side is doing it, the other is compelled to respond with a similar level of (often irrelevant and unconvincing) detail, which often verges on answering fools according to their folly. For all that amillennialism is a wild oversimplification of the prophetic scriptures, nobody can fault its expositors for lack of time and effort devoted to explaining things away or applying them fancifully to ourselves. One can forgive Christians who throw up their hands and decline to participate when exhaustive simply becomes exhausting. It’s hard to imagine anyone’s views are significantly modified by gazing at a half inch of tree bark when the problem is that they are standing in the wrong forest entirely.
8. The effect of the cross on history. Amillennialism wants to say that the full impact of the cross is realized in the present era, that believers are already reigning with Christ, that Satan is already bound, and that death is already conquered. But Jesus still awaits his enemies being made his footstool. The cross indeed conquered all, and made possible all the glories will follow. Nothing else is required. But the cross did not immediately usher in and fully manifest all the consequences that flow from it. Premillennialism tells us all that we have in Christ is as sure and certain as his resurrection from the dead, but it offers us the hope of entering into it more fully and completely in a future day, not merely in some vague, figurative sense in the present moment. That’s a lot more encouraging to me than looking at the world around us, vainly trying to find the slightest evidence that my dead relatives who loved the Lord are in this moment reigning with Christ. If we are honest about it, we can’t find much.