Dr. Couch, I just read a review of your wonderful and helpful Handbook
of Revelation (Kregel) in which the reviewer blasts premillennialism and
pretribulationalism. He says such works are influenced by the Left
Behind series, and by Hal Lindsey. Why is there such hatred against the
premillennialism of the early church?
ANSWER: This is a question that is hard to understand. There is one thing I have
noted about the Preterists and the Amils, and that is, it is impossible
for them to exegete both OT and NT prophecies. They are long on
criticism, and short on exegesis and biblical explanation.
They are also foolish to think we get our eschatology from the Left
Behind series, Hal Lindsey, John Darby, C. I. Scofield, or any other
Bible teacher of the past. (I personally have never read anything from
Darby.) We get our eschatology from sound, consistent exegesis, and
detailed observation, of the biblical texts. Church history shows that
in the past 175 years there began a growing return back to
premillennialism by some of the greatest scholars of both England and
America. Many were carefully observing that the church had to do
something about what the Bible said about the regathering of the nation
of Israel. No longer could the argument simply be that the church
replaces Israel, or that God is finished with the Jews. The great OT
passages about the return of the Jews to the land, the great
tribulation, and the literal coming of the Messiah, could no longer be
ignored.
Reformed folks are stuck in a time-warp with the great Reformers, in
regard to eschatology. I admire these men and we all owe them a great
debt of gratitude. But while they espoused literal interpretation, they
did not apply their own principles of literalness to prophecy. Their
inconsistency is glaring! And yet in other areas of theology they are
basically biblical (except in their made-up and un-biblical Covenant
theology!).
Thanks for asking.
Dr. Mal Couch
