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: 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.
Mal Couch, Ph.D., Th.D.