John Vs. Premillennialism
This is to point out some strange things that premillennialists seem to maneuver into Bible texts in an effort to give to them a desired doctrinal tint and taste. I shall begin with John's first statements in the book of The Revelation. However, before reference to any of John's statements and the contradictory elements found in premillennial interpretations of them; and without taking space at present for the proof, may I say briefly that the doctrine of premillennialism is squarely antagonistic to the principles of the gospel system as plainly given in the New Testament. This fact has been so plentifully proved, especially by current writers on the theme, that it must be considered axiomatic. Therefore, it is not a thing of no serious consequences, as many good people think. Conversely, it is not only a bar to the progress of the gospel, but is hazardous to the present, future and eternal interests of its proponents and millions of others. Being subversive it is actually hindering the accomplishment of all the purposes and ends designed for us through the vicarious death of our Savior. Hence, it must be met, not with compromise but, with Scriptures and arguments that show it up for what it is—a dangerous heresy!
John said: "The revelation of Jesus Christ which God gave him to show unto his servants, even the things which must shortly come to pass." (Rev. 1:1) But the meaning read into it by premillennialists is: "A revelation—prophecy'—of the future of the church, Israel and the coming kingdom which God gave him to show unto his servants the things which, after a lapse of many centuries, must come to pass." Any difference? Yes—anyone can see it. Now, if it means that, then it should say it. But it doesn't. Again John said: "And he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John who bare (past tense) witness of the word of God, and the testimony of Jesus Christ, even of all things that he saw." (Rev. 1:1, 2) But to premillennialists it reads: "And he sent and signified it unto his servant John who is now beginning to bear witness of the word of God, and the testimony of Jesus Christ, of all that he is about to see." Any difference here? Decidedly so clear to any not wearing theoretical blinders. Once more, John said: "Blessed is he that readeth and they that hear the words of the prophecy, and keep the things that are written therein; for the time is at hand." (Rev. 1:3) But to premillennialists it has to read: "Blessed is he that readeth and they that hear the words of THIS prophecy, and keep the things that I am about to write therein; for though the time was at hand about 30 A.D., it was postponed because of the hostile attitude of the Jews." Any variation at this point ? Indubitably! It "sticks out like a sore thumb"—the contrast is too plain, it seems, for any to be misled except the gullible. These are the conclusions they reach from these texts, believe it or not; and they cannot deny it, nor do they try. Yet, there are many who are content to blindly follow the wild speculations of the so-called interpreters (?) of what they love to speak of as "unfilled prophecies"—even "explanations" that for the most part are gleaned from between the lines, and which, but for the gravity of the questions, would be ludicrous. Think of the Lord's angel promising blessing to those who "keep the things that are written therein" (the prophecy)—when none of the "things" of John's book were then written—unless he began at the close and wrote it backwards.