What do you think?
Rate this book
Amillennialism and the Age to Come: A Premillennial Critique of the Two-Age Model
A passage-by-passage, exegetical look at the debate between amillennialism and premillennialism. Endorsed by scholars such as Thomas Schreiner, Walter Kaiser, Darrell Bock, and Michael Vlach.
326 pages, Paperback
Published October 4, 2016
27 people are currently reading
110 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews
February 16, 2024
A valiant effort. Waymeyer evinces a clear effort to accurately portray his interlocutors. There are some unhelpful tropes here and there, but over all this is a helpful—albeit unconvincing—presentation of a premillennial response to amillennialism.
January 25, 2019
Excellent book! Not only is this work thoroughly exegetical, comprehensive, well structured, and clearly written, but it is also written in a truly gracious and irenic way, something rarely seen on any side of the millennial debate. After reading Kim Riddlebarger’s ‘A Case for Amillennialism’, this book provided clear and detailed exegetical answers to all the arguments raised by Riddlebarger and other amillenial authors, while demonstrating that amillennialism in fact has much greater difficulties to deal with than the supposed problems of premillennialism. Highly recommended for anyone who desires to understand the exegetical foundations of premillennialism, as contrasted to amillennialism.
January 18, 2023
Likely the best refutation of amillennialism, and particularly its treatment of Revelation 20.
April 24, 2017
This is the best book on (and defence of) premillennialism I've read. Waymeyer actually seeks to understand the amillennial critiques of his position and to interact with them which goes above and beyond all of the other books I've read defending premillennialism. Ultimately, I found his exegesis of two-age model passages unsatisfactory, in that his explanations of them violate his own hermeneutic, or were at least far fetched. Also, there were a bunch of 'two age model' texts that I find compelling that weren't really addressed. As an idealist I obviously disagreed with his interpretation of the book of Revelation in part 3 (his argument were essentially the same as those from his other book on this subject but put in paragraphs rather than in a lecture-note format), but it provides a good set of arguments for those on my side of the debate to interact with.
Again, this is the best I've read from this position, and I recommend anyone trying to work out where they land on eschatology reading this in its entirety alongside something like Riddlebarger, Hoekema, or Storms' treatments on the subject.
Again, this is the best I've read from this position, and I recommend anyone trying to work out where they land on eschatology reading this in its entirety alongside something like Riddlebarger, Hoekema, or Storms' treatments on the subject.
December 20, 2020
Highly recommended. Written for a much needed purpose and with an irenic spirit. Regardless of your eschatological position Waymeyer’s book needs to be read. Regardless of the kind of premillennialist you might be (historic premill, progressive dispy, revised dispy, etc), you will benefit this book. Very helpful for the lay person, student, and pastor.
Thankfully the book has footnotes instead of endnotes. But the book sorely needs a bibliography, since Wehmeyer references numerous books from both the premill and amill positions. An annotated bibliography would greatly enhance the value of an already helpful book.
Thankfully the book has footnotes instead of endnotes. But the book sorely needs a bibliography, since Wehmeyer references numerous books from both the premill and amill positions. An annotated bibliography would greatly enhance the value of an already helpful book.
June 11, 2022
With this book, Waymeyer presents a premillennial response to many of the strongest arguments that have been put forward by ammillennialists over the past ~100 years. In particular, as the subtitle suggests, he attempts to respond to the two-age model that has taken a prominent place as the premier systematic defense of amillennialism.
Waymeyer is careful to properly represent those he is arguing against. I found very little to critique in this regard. Probably the worst thing I can say on this point is that Waymeyer overlooks an important minority view within the amill camp regarding the 1st resurrection of Rev 20. That he is familiar with Sam Waldron's book The End Times Made Simple is evident from his first footnote which references the book. But Waymeyer does not mention or deal with Waldron's position that the "first resurrection is Christ's resurrection that issues in His triumphant millennial reign" (Waldron, 104). Though this is an admittedly a minority position within amillennialism, it is not subject to Waymeyer's critiques of the other amillennial views and so Waymeyer fails to demonstrate that this important passage must be interpreted according to the premillennial view. Other than this apparent oversight, Waymeyer does an excellent job of fairly presenting the amillennial arguments before he critiques them.
Nevertheless, I found Waymeyer's critiques to be largely ineffective. As there are so many points to consider and so many other, excellent reviews of the book, I'll only mention a few of what I consider to be the more major points.
Waymeyer opens his book with an introduction to the two-age model and then proceeds to posit that his "critique must begin in the realm of hermeneutics" (8). Disappointingly, his hermeneutical beginnings cover all of two paragraphs and consist entirely of Waymeyer discussing the clarity of Rev 20 and the amillennial insistence of using clear passages to interpret unclear passages. He gives no biblical reasons why, as he claims, we must view Rev 20 as clear nor does he consider any arguments against his view. Ironically, this opens him up to the very critique he seeks to level against the amil position when he argues that the error of using clear to interpret unclear "is the subjectivity involved in deciding which passages belong in which category" (9). How do we know that Waymeyer's insistence of the (relative) clarity of Rev 20 is not merely his own subjective understanding? If, however, Rev 20 is one of the (relatively) less clear passages, then Waymeyer’s approach of reading that passage back into the rest of the New Testament is flawed from the outset. But rather than addressing this issue head on, Waymeyer simply declines to enter the discussion. In light of the arguments that amillennialists have offered to prove that we must take Rev 20 as one of the less clear passages, Waymeyer’s failure to even consider these arguments undermines the entirety of his book. If the amill position on this point is correct, everything Waymeyer argues falls on its face because it is predicated on the assumption that Rev 20 must be 1) read in a straightforward manner (8) and then 2) harmonized along with the rest of Scripture into a systematic understanding of the whole (9).
Waymeyer seeks to use the Old Testament to show that an earthly, millennial reign of Christ is a necessity. In doing so, he reverses the historic position of the Church that the New Testament interprets the Old. Here again Waymeyer’s arguments suffer from his failure to address the hermeneutical arguments. Further, Waymeyer’s attempts to take the Old Testament passages and read them as both literal and allowing for (or even requiring) an earthly millennium leads to contradictory statements. Regarding Isaiah 11, Waymeyer argues that “as the Messiah reigns over this coming [millennial] kingdom, He will . . . slay the wicked with the breath of His lips (v.4d)” (28). Waymeyer argues that this (and the preceding actions of judging the poor and defending the afflicted) indicates a continued existence of wickedness in the millennium and a continued action in these ways by the Messiah. However, when dealing with Zec 14:16-19, Waymeyer argues that the millennium will include some who live in open rebellion to Christ; “some will refuse to make [the] annual pilgrimage to worship the King, and consequently God will punish them by withholding rain and bringing drought upon their land” (55-56). How can there be openly rebellious enemies of Messiah in the Millennium who suffer anything less than death? Waymeyer’s argument from Isaiah 11 requires Messiah to continually be “slaying the wicked” throughout the Millennium but there must also be open rebellion that is punished by mere drought. If Christ does not kill those who are in open rebellion to his reign during the millennium which wicked does he kill? This goes directly to the larger problem of an earthly reign of Christ in which sin continues; does Christ reign perfectly, with a rod of iron (Rev 19:15) slaying the wicked with the breath of his lips (Isa 11:4) or does he rule as other human rulers, imperfectly and allowing sin and wickedness to continue?
The final arguments I will mention in this review is Waymeyer’s attempt to blunt the point of the two-age model. First, Waymeyer seeks to establish the meaning of the ages from outside of Scripture and pits this extra-biblical evidence against the plain words of Scripture. He says “[since] the two-age model of first-century Judaism included an intermediate kingdom between the present age and the eternal state, one should be slow to conclude that the New Testament’s use of the very same terminology precludes the possibility of such a kingdom, and one should require clear and compelling evidence before reaching this conclusion. Passages indicating the direct succession of the two ages–such as Matthew 12:32 and Ephesians 1:21–do not meet this burden of proof” (98-99). Here, Waymeyer abandons the ultimate authority of Scripture in favor of the doctrines of the Judaism that Christ so scathingly rebuked.
In response to the amillennial understanding of Luke 20:34-36 that here Jesus tells us the age to come is characterized by the resurrection and the absence of marriage, Waymeyer argues that this interpretation is pushing the passage too far and ignoring the context. He says that Jesus speaks only of those in the age to come who have been resurrected, not of the age generally–“because the question of the Sadducees focused exclusively on those who were resurrected, this was also the exclusive focus of the response of Jesus. . . . to make distinctions irrelevant to the argument of the Sadducees would not only fail to bring clarity to the issue, but it might also distract or confuse His listeners in the process” (105). Therefore “the focus of Jesus is not on everyone who attains to the age to come, but on everyone who attains to ‘that age and the resurrection from the dead’ (Luke 20:35)” (104, emphasis in original). At first glance, this argument seems to demolish the strength of the two-age model. But this argument actually proves the amillennial case. The Sadducees did specifically ask about the case of a woman who attains the resurrection (Luke 20:33); critically, they did not ask anything about the age to come. Why then does Jesus bring the age in to the discussion? If Jesus' answer regarding the resurrected woman is not characteristic of the age to come, then hauling the age in to the discussion would, to quote Waymeyer, “not only fail to bring clarity to the issue, but it might also distract or confuse His listeners in the process.” It is Jesus who brings up the two ages and he contrasts “this age” with “that age” purely on the basis of marriage and resurrection. Jesus views “that age” (v35) as synonymous with “the resurrection” (v33) or else he would not be speaking of it. Clearly, Jesus understood the coming age itself to be characterized by resurrection and a cessation of marriage.
These problems are only some that plague any attempt to shoehorn an earthly millennium into Scripture which never speaks of one. Though Waymeyer raises several important problems with specifics of the various amillennial arguments, he fails to convince that the system as a whole, and the two-age model specifically, is in any way contrary to Scripture.
Waymeyer is careful to properly represent those he is arguing against. I found very little to critique in this regard. Probably the worst thing I can say on this point is that Waymeyer overlooks an important minority view within the amill camp regarding the 1st resurrection of Rev 20. That he is familiar with Sam Waldron's book The End Times Made Simple is evident from his first footnote which references the book. But Waymeyer does not mention or deal with Waldron's position that the "first resurrection is Christ's resurrection that issues in His triumphant millennial reign" (Waldron, 104). Though this is an admittedly a minority position within amillennialism, it is not subject to Waymeyer's critiques of the other amillennial views and so Waymeyer fails to demonstrate that this important passage must be interpreted according to the premillennial view. Other than this apparent oversight, Waymeyer does an excellent job of fairly presenting the amillennial arguments before he critiques them.
Nevertheless, I found Waymeyer's critiques to be largely ineffective. As there are so many points to consider and so many other, excellent reviews of the book, I'll only mention a few of what I consider to be the more major points.
Waymeyer opens his book with an introduction to the two-age model and then proceeds to posit that his "critique must begin in the realm of hermeneutics" (8). Disappointingly, his hermeneutical beginnings cover all of two paragraphs and consist entirely of Waymeyer discussing the clarity of Rev 20 and the amillennial insistence of using clear passages to interpret unclear passages. He gives no biblical reasons why, as he claims, we must view Rev 20 as clear nor does he consider any arguments against his view. Ironically, this opens him up to the very critique he seeks to level against the amil position when he argues that the error of using clear to interpret unclear "is the subjectivity involved in deciding which passages belong in which category" (9). How do we know that Waymeyer's insistence of the (relative) clarity of Rev 20 is not merely his own subjective understanding? If, however, Rev 20 is one of the (relatively) less clear passages, then Waymeyer’s approach of reading that passage back into the rest of the New Testament is flawed from the outset. But rather than addressing this issue head on, Waymeyer simply declines to enter the discussion. In light of the arguments that amillennialists have offered to prove that we must take Rev 20 as one of the less clear passages, Waymeyer’s failure to even consider these arguments undermines the entirety of his book. If the amill position on this point is correct, everything Waymeyer argues falls on its face because it is predicated on the assumption that Rev 20 must be 1) read in a straightforward manner (8) and then 2) harmonized along with the rest of Scripture into a systematic understanding of the whole (9).
Waymeyer seeks to use the Old Testament to show that an earthly, millennial reign of Christ is a necessity. In doing so, he reverses the historic position of the Church that the New Testament interprets the Old. Here again Waymeyer’s arguments suffer from his failure to address the hermeneutical arguments. Further, Waymeyer’s attempts to take the Old Testament passages and read them as both literal and allowing for (or even requiring) an earthly millennium leads to contradictory statements. Regarding Isaiah 11, Waymeyer argues that “as the Messiah reigns over this coming [millennial] kingdom, He will . . . slay the wicked with the breath of His lips (v.4d)” (28). Waymeyer argues that this (and the preceding actions of judging the poor and defending the afflicted) indicates a continued existence of wickedness in the millennium and a continued action in these ways by the Messiah. However, when dealing with Zec 14:16-19, Waymeyer argues that the millennium will include some who live in open rebellion to Christ; “some will refuse to make [the] annual pilgrimage to worship the King, and consequently God will punish them by withholding rain and bringing drought upon their land” (55-56). How can there be openly rebellious enemies of Messiah in the Millennium who suffer anything less than death? Waymeyer’s argument from Isaiah 11 requires Messiah to continually be “slaying the wicked” throughout the Millennium but there must also be open rebellion that is punished by mere drought. If Christ does not kill those who are in open rebellion to his reign during the millennium which wicked does he kill? This goes directly to the larger problem of an earthly reign of Christ in which sin continues; does Christ reign perfectly, with a rod of iron (Rev 19:15) slaying the wicked with the breath of his lips (Isa 11:4) or does he rule as other human rulers, imperfectly and allowing sin and wickedness to continue?
The final arguments I will mention in this review is Waymeyer’s attempt to blunt the point of the two-age model. First, Waymeyer seeks to establish the meaning of the ages from outside of Scripture and pits this extra-biblical evidence against the plain words of Scripture. He says “[since] the two-age model of first-century Judaism included an intermediate kingdom between the present age and the eternal state, one should be slow to conclude that the New Testament’s use of the very same terminology precludes the possibility of such a kingdom, and one should require clear and compelling evidence before reaching this conclusion. Passages indicating the direct succession of the two ages–such as Matthew 12:32 and Ephesians 1:21–do not meet this burden of proof” (98-99). Here, Waymeyer abandons the ultimate authority of Scripture in favor of the doctrines of the Judaism that Christ so scathingly rebuked.
In response to the amillennial understanding of Luke 20:34-36 that here Jesus tells us the age to come is characterized by the resurrection and the absence of marriage, Waymeyer argues that this interpretation is pushing the passage too far and ignoring the context. He says that Jesus speaks only of those in the age to come who have been resurrected, not of the age generally–“because the question of the Sadducees focused exclusively on those who were resurrected, this was also the exclusive focus of the response of Jesus. . . . to make distinctions irrelevant to the argument of the Sadducees would not only fail to bring clarity to the issue, but it might also distract or confuse His listeners in the process” (105). Therefore “the focus of Jesus is not on everyone who attains to the age to come, but on everyone who attains to ‘that age and the resurrection from the dead’ (Luke 20:35)” (104, emphasis in original). At first glance, this argument seems to demolish the strength of the two-age model. But this argument actually proves the amillennial case. The Sadducees did specifically ask about the case of a woman who attains the resurrection (Luke 20:33); critically, they did not ask anything about the age to come. Why then does Jesus bring the age in to the discussion? If Jesus' answer regarding the resurrected woman is not characteristic of the age to come, then hauling the age in to the discussion would, to quote Waymeyer, “not only fail to bring clarity to the issue, but it might also distract or confuse His listeners in the process.” It is Jesus who brings up the two ages and he contrasts “this age” with “that age” purely on the basis of marriage and resurrection. Jesus views “that age” (v35) as synonymous with “the resurrection” (v33) or else he would not be speaking of it. Clearly, Jesus understood the coming age itself to be characterized by resurrection and a cessation of marriage.
These problems are only some that plague any attempt to shoehorn an earthly millennium into Scripture which never speaks of one. Though Waymeyer raises several important problems with specifics of the various amillennial arguments, he fails to convince that the system as a whole, and the two-age model specifically, is in any way contrary to Scripture.
May 25, 2021
This is the way a Believer writes a rebuttal to the sincere beliefs of other Believers! He correctly portrays the amillenialist view (having just read Waldron's book presenting the best argument for amillenialism) and presents both the strengths and weaknesses of each side. Though he clearly has decided which side he comes down on, he fairly explains each point using the relevant Scriptures and references. He accurately portrays the two-age model and is able to explain how even holding to such a belief, the Millennium cannot be ruled out or turned into a more than two thousand year period of the present age, as amillenialists tend to do. Waymeyer writes without the fluff or brashness of most modern writers. He has a humility yet backed by his thorough research, a certainty that helps readers to come to their own conclusions. A must read for all Believers seeking a Biblical exegesis of the whole Bible's eschatology verses.
May 24, 2017
Amillennialism and the Age to Come: A Premillennial Critique of the Two-Age Model by Matt Waymeyer is an excellent critique of Amillennialism and, in the process, an excellent defense of Premillennialism.
I learned a lot about Amillennialism and grew even more confident (if that's even possible) in Premillennialism. One of the key things that seems to mark the Amillennial view is that they apparently believe that many Old Testament passages that speak of a this-earth Millennium are symbolic, not literal in their content. They believe that the New Testament is the key to understanding Old Testament prophecies in their true symbolic meaning. In other words, you shouldn't take these passages at face value. The New Testament (excepting Revelation) is the section of the Bible that is the literal key to the symbolic Old Testament.
Waymeyer goes through and defends a literal interpretation of these OT passages, showing that the literal interpretation is the most biblical hermeneutic and the one that harmonizes best with the Bible as a whole.
He addresses many of the passages that Amillennialists think definitively rule out a 1000 year millennium on this earth (which includes death, marriage and births happening under the earthly reign of the Messiah). They think that these passages render it impossible.
One of their big proof texts is Matthew 12:32, "And whoever may speak a word against the Son of Man it shall be forgiven to him, but whoever may speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this age, nor in that which is coming.", they put a great emphasis upon "this age and the age to come" concept, basically saying that a this-earthly millennium would indicate that there are three ages, not two. But Christ only spoke of two, therefore there cannot be a 1000 year Millennial Kingdom and therefore we cannot take the passages that appear to be speaking of a Millennial reign on this earth literally, they must be figurative.
One of their other texts is in Luke 20 where the Pharisees try to trick Christ with a question about marriage at the resurrection of the dead. Part of Christ's answer is that there will be no marriage in the resurrection. The Amillennialists believe that this rules out a Millennial Kingdom that includes people getting married and having children. Waymeyer provides a good answer (I'll leave that for you to read when you get this book) and then in his conclusion says,: "If this were the only passage in Scripture describing the age to come one might understandably conclude that there could be no physical birth or death at any point during this time. But with the testimony of the Old Testament prophets regarding the existence of sin, death, and procreation I the coming kingdom……..the need to harmonize the entirety of biblical teaching leads to the conclusion that Luke 20:34-36 is compatible with the millennial kingdom of premillennialism."
The only real problem I would have with this book is that Waymeyer does not address the, apparently future, sacrifices in Ezekiel (the section with the chapters in the 40s) that are described as "sin offerings". He does address the sacrifices offered at the Feast of Booths that are mentioned in Zechariah, but he doesn't address the ones in Ezekiel, which are one of the major questions even I, as a premillennialist, wonder as to how they will work out. He doesn't even say, "I don't know what to make of them", which I would have preferred. We don't need to know the answer to every question, but I would rather he would have addressed that section of Ezekiel even if he didn't come to a conclusion as to how they would potentially harmonize with books like Hebrews.
Assuming that these Ezekiel passages are Millennial, I don't doubt that they are perfectly compatible with the Millennial Kingdom. I just don't know how they are - this side of the Millennium. The Premillennial view does have some questions that we do not know the exact answer to, but we know that these are paradoxes that will be explained at the time of Christ's 2nd Coming. Just as the paradoxes of the first coming of the Messiah were cleared up at that time (how would the Messiah be a Conquering King and yet be rejected, and be pierced? Rule as King over Israel, conquering her enemies and yet be rejected and "cut off from the land of the living? ) by the realization that the Messiah would come twice.
Overall though, I think that Waymeyer does a great job in his critique. One of the points that he thinks we should recognize is that "no single prophetic or narrative account is an exhaustive description of what has happened or will happen." The prophecies complement and build on each other, they do not contradict each other. And I think that that is one of the best arguments that Waymeyer makes throughout this book: that, because of the passages that speak of a Kingdom on this earth, it is our duty to try to harmonize them with other passages that give us more information about the future, it is not our duty to allegorize them away when we are not given any prerogative to do so in the Bible. We trust that somehow they all fit together perfectly, even if we do not see how at the moment.
I highly recommend this book, it is very well written (I read it in about two days), highly informative with intriguing and thought provoking arguments. It has a lot of footnotes too, which I like in a work like this (especially when one spots quotes from, and references to, other books one may one to read) . I think that it is very helpful and a great critique of the Amillennial position.
I learned a lot about Amillennialism and grew even more confident (if that's even possible) in Premillennialism. One of the key things that seems to mark the Amillennial view is that they apparently believe that many Old Testament passages that speak of a this-earth Millennium are symbolic, not literal in their content. They believe that the New Testament is the key to understanding Old Testament prophecies in their true symbolic meaning. In other words, you shouldn't take these passages at face value. The New Testament (excepting Revelation) is the section of the Bible that is the literal key to the symbolic Old Testament.
Waymeyer goes through and defends a literal interpretation of these OT passages, showing that the literal interpretation is the most biblical hermeneutic and the one that harmonizes best with the Bible as a whole.
He addresses many of the passages that Amillennialists think definitively rule out a 1000 year millennium on this earth (which includes death, marriage and births happening under the earthly reign of the Messiah). They think that these passages render it impossible.
One of their big proof texts is Matthew 12:32, "And whoever may speak a word against the Son of Man it shall be forgiven to him, but whoever may speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this age, nor in that which is coming.", they put a great emphasis upon "this age and the age to come" concept, basically saying that a this-earthly millennium would indicate that there are three ages, not two. But Christ only spoke of two, therefore there cannot be a 1000 year Millennial Kingdom and therefore we cannot take the passages that appear to be speaking of a Millennial reign on this earth literally, they must be figurative.
One of their other texts is in Luke 20 where the Pharisees try to trick Christ with a question about marriage at the resurrection of the dead. Part of Christ's answer is that there will be no marriage in the resurrection. The Amillennialists believe that this rules out a Millennial Kingdom that includes people getting married and having children. Waymeyer provides a good answer (I'll leave that for you to read when you get this book) and then in his conclusion says,: "If this were the only passage in Scripture describing the age to come one might understandably conclude that there could be no physical birth or death at any point during this time. But with the testimony of the Old Testament prophets regarding the existence of sin, death, and procreation I the coming kingdom……..the need to harmonize the entirety of biblical teaching leads to the conclusion that Luke 20:34-36 is compatible with the millennial kingdom of premillennialism."
The only real problem I would have with this book is that Waymeyer does not address the, apparently future, sacrifices in Ezekiel (the section with the chapters in the 40s) that are described as "sin offerings". He does address the sacrifices offered at the Feast of Booths that are mentioned in Zechariah, but he doesn't address the ones in Ezekiel, which are one of the major questions even I, as a premillennialist, wonder as to how they will work out. He doesn't even say, "I don't know what to make of them", which I would have preferred. We don't need to know the answer to every question, but I would rather he would have addressed that section of Ezekiel even if he didn't come to a conclusion as to how they would potentially harmonize with books like Hebrews.
Assuming that these Ezekiel passages are Millennial, I don't doubt that they are perfectly compatible with the Millennial Kingdom. I just don't know how they are - this side of the Millennium. The Premillennial view does have some questions that we do not know the exact answer to, but we know that these are paradoxes that will be explained at the time of Christ's 2nd Coming. Just as the paradoxes of the first coming of the Messiah were cleared up at that time (how would the Messiah be a Conquering King and yet be rejected, and be pierced? Rule as King over Israel, conquering her enemies and yet be rejected and "cut off from the land of the living? ) by the realization that the Messiah would come twice.
Overall though, I think that Waymeyer does a great job in his critique. One of the points that he thinks we should recognize is that "no single prophetic or narrative account is an exhaustive description of what has happened or will happen." The prophecies complement and build on each other, they do not contradict each other. And I think that that is one of the best arguments that Waymeyer makes throughout this book: that, because of the passages that speak of a Kingdom on this earth, it is our duty to try to harmonize them with other passages that give us more information about the future, it is not our duty to allegorize them away when we are not given any prerogative to do so in the Bible. We trust that somehow they all fit together perfectly, even if we do not see how at the moment.
I highly recommend this book, it is very well written (I read it in about two days), highly informative with intriguing and thought provoking arguments. It has a lot of footnotes too, which I like in a work like this (especially when one spots quotes from, and references to, other books one may one to read) . I think that it is very helpful and a great critique of the Amillennial position.
June 28, 2019
An absolutely excellent evaluation of the Amillennial view, exposing the various views held by this camp and showing very specifically the problems with such interpretations of Scripture. The author is oh so gracious but speaks directly to the hermeneutical approach of both the Amillennial view and the Premillennial view. Having embraced the Premill view many years ago, I have always wondered about several passages that the Amill view embraces so dogmatically. In all honesty, much of what the Amill view does to try to force a text to fit their theological system, is that they have to do a Hermeneutical dance and force, force, force a meaning into something that is oh so clear. In several points the author concedes that a passage is problematic, not only for the Premill view, but likewise, for the Amill view. Having now completed this incredible book, I am even more convinced, there's at least 1007 years left for this earth before the eternal stage begins. Kudos to Waymeyer. Every believer who cares about end times should read this book.
April 20, 2017
If you're interested in understanding what the Bible says about the millennial reign, this book is essential reading. Matt is very systematic in his exegetical approach, and I found his arguments to be well-reasoned and thorough. I previously listened to 40 hours of Kim Riddlebarger on Amillennialism, and Matt responds to every significant objection and argument you'll find in a work like Riddlebarger's 'A Case for Amillennialism'. When I listened to Riddlebarger on the topic, I was shocked by his arguments that essentially require us to label substantial portions of the Prophetic texts as un-inspired. Waymeyer provides more insight into the significant texts that show Riddlebarger's (and others) arguments for amillennialism and objections to premillennialism to be quite weak, and ultimately unsupported in the Biblical texts.
September 13, 2020
Extremely well written. For how technical the topic of this book is, it is surprisingly easy to read and follow the arguments Wameyer presents. This book is a thorough, exegetical critique to the two-age model it eschatology, but also ends up also being the best, most Biblical defense of premillennialism.
For the premillennialist, this book will greatly strengthen you in grounding your views on scripture. I expect for the amillenialist it will also do the same by making you think critically about your interpretation and harmonization of Scripture, and perhaps increase your respect for the premillennial view. I would love to discuss this with an amillenialist that had read this book to hear their thoughts on what Wameyer argues.
For the premillennialist, this book will greatly strengthen you in grounding your views on scripture. I expect for the amillenialist it will also do the same by making you think critically about your interpretation and harmonization of Scripture, and perhaps increase your respect for the premillennial view. I would love to discuss this with an amillenialist that had read this book to hear their thoughts on what Wameyer argues.
April 21, 2017
This is an excellent response to Amillennialism giving deep reasoned exegetical answers to the many challenges that Amil scholars propose. The two-age model of interpretation is challenged in its application to the Bible and Weymeyer clearly points out its deficiencies in being used as an interpretive grid. This is a must read book for all those working through eschatology and gives excellent support to a literal grammatical historical hermeneutic. Waymeyer systematically works through text after text, clearly representing Amil theology and giving a scripturely reasoned response that affirms the soundness of Premillennial teaching. Excellent
November 30, 2019
This book is primarily a critique of the two-age schema of amillennialism. Waymeyer works carefully through a number of issues pertaining to this framework. He gives copious footnotes and direct quotes. He presents the basic amillennial interpretation and gives space to differing views within the amill camp. He also presents the interpretation of premillennialists, and also notice the existence of different views within that camp. He attempted to present views fairly without misrepresentation. This is an excellent resource for some key issues of difference between amill and premill interpretations.
October 20, 2018
Very good treatment of the issues. It is a fair, honest, and substantial critique of the amillennial position. For the most part I found it convincing; there were a few places I found the amillennial arguments more persuasive. Overall, a careful study and a good overview of both the amil and premil perspectives.
April 13, 2017
Thorough examination
Well thought though and thorough examination of amilennialism and premillenialism.
Gives points and counter points. Well researched clear examination of the relevant biblical
texts.
Well thought though and thorough examination of amilennialism and premillenialism.
Gives points and counter points. Well researched clear examination of the relevant biblical
texts.
December 20, 2018
This is not a book for everyone. Unbelievers will most likely find little of interest or benefit in this book. Many believers tend to find the doctrines of the end times too speculative, complicated, and confusing for their spiritual palettes to digest. This particular book by Matthew Waymeyer is not necessarily an ideal intro to eschatology for everyone. While you don’t have to be a scholar to follow the discussion, it helps to at least be conversant in the discussions of the end times.
With that background, if you’re a believer who is interested in the end times - particularly the nature of the millennial kingdom and the debates concerning it - this book is an ideal work to interact with regardless of your millennial persuasion. Both major positions are presented and whether you agree with Waymeyer’s conclusions or not, it is worthwhile to consider his perspective as representative of premillennialism.
With that background, if you’re a believer who is interested in the end times - particularly the nature of the millennial kingdom and the debates concerning it - this book is an ideal work to interact with regardless of your millennial persuasion. Both major positions are presented and whether you agree with Waymeyer’s conclusions or not, it is worthwhile to consider his perspective as representative of premillennialism.
January 16, 2025
This is a well-researched, clearly written, thorough yet irenic examination of the arguments for and against amillennialism and premillennialism. Both sides are fairly presented and critiqued. The author holds to the premillennial position.
August 7, 2025
Excellent job providing a “steel-man” argument of the Amillennial perspective with adequate pre-millennial rebuttals.
July 3, 2025
Waymeyer has written this as a very readable book that considers arguments from the Amillenial viewpoint in light of Scripture and compares the same arguments to the Premillenial viewpoint. His chapters are well organized to compare Scripture prophecies from OT to NT evaluating how these Scriptures match with the Amil and Premil views. He comes across fair with the Amil view and quotes directly from many Amil pastors and theologians while also clearly advocating for why the Premi view matches Scripture more closely. He includes many verse quotes directly in the book and reiterates aspects of each verse. We found this to be a good book for group discussion.
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews