According to the premillennialist, the seven churches of Asia spoken of in the second and third chapters, are seven periods of history from John's time, down till the time of Christ's return. The fourth chapter begins the Tribulation period at the beginning of which the righteous dead are raised and together with the pious living are caught up into the air to be with Christ while the Tribulation is on the earth.
There is not one syllable in the book that conveys such information, and we are not justified in making types out of plain, historical and didactic statements at the pleasure of the interpreter. The Scriptures do indeed contain many types. They are legitimate in their place; but the habitual type-maker is the despair of interpretive science.
Now according to the premillennialist all the chapters four to eighteen inclusive describe the Tribulation. No matter that Jerusalem, and the temple, and the altar are there, still unfallen; no matter that Rome is there on her seven hills, with her seven kings; no matter that the angel said: "And the harlot is that great city that reigneth (or is then reigning) over the kings of the earth." The premillennialist just disposes of all that with his usual facility. He just whips it all off into the future as something that has not yet come to pass, notwithstanding the plain indications of the book.
Now when the premillennialist comes to this nineteenth chapter he concludes that the Tribulation period, said by some to be seven years, is over. And that Christ and the church who have been in the air during these seven years, now descend to the earth, and that is what is meant by the rider on the white horse and the armies that follow him. So that the world is conquered not by the gospel, but by the second coming of Jesus Christ. And the beast is the Tribulation king, or Anti-Christ, which is to rule the world in some future age and which Christ will destroy when he comes. What are the objections to this view of the nineteenth chapter?
1st. The coming of this rider on the white horse is accompanied with a good deal of description and detail. It indicates a process rather than an event. When Christ comes it is said to be sudden, in the twinkling of an eye, like the flash of lightning from one end of heaven to another. When you read through the chapter you will see no suddenness to any of these events, but rather deliberate progress. It is unlike the Second coming in this respect.
2nd. The writer insistently holds it before us that the sword is in the rider's mouth. This sword is the weapon of conquest. Paul in describing the Christian armor says: "The sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God." All this picture and all its related phraseology teaches us that the weapon that conquers the world is the word of God, or the gospel of Jesus Christ. We are not to look for the world to be converted by some spectacular cataclysm, but by the preaching and teaching, and testimony of the church that is clothed in the fine linen of righteousness. That is the way the Roman Empire was conquered for Christ as a matter of history and that is the way it will be till the end of time.
3rd. The absolutely conclusive fact comes out in the end that John shows, yea says in so many words, that this conflict of the rider was with the beast and false prophet — that same old beast that we have been dealing with through all these chapters, the beast of the seven hills, and the seven kings, the beast that bore the harlot woman which was "that city," and the false prophet associated with him, viz. pagan Rome. No one unbiased by a theory could drag this out of the historical past and put it into a hypothetical future to which not one of these historical references bear any allusion. The book clearly fixes who these personages are, fixes their place in geography and history, and we would have to disrupt the whole story to admit the premillennial interpretation.
4th. The revealer repeatedly declared to John that he was to see visions of things that "must shortly be done." We submit that it is straining the meaning of words too much to make shortly mean several thousands of years.
For these reasons we conclude that the premillennial interpretation is utterly out of the question.
Taken from D.. S. Clark's Commentary on Revelation, "Message from Patmos"
There is not one syllable in the book that conveys such information, and we are not justified in making types out of plain, historical and didactic statements at the pleasure of the interpreter. The Scriptures do indeed contain many types. They are legitimate in their place; but the habitual type-maker is the despair of interpretive science.
Now according to the premillennialist all the chapters four to eighteen inclusive describe the Tribulation. No matter that Jerusalem, and the temple, and the altar are there, still unfallen; no matter that Rome is there on her seven hills, with her seven kings; no matter that the angel said: "And the harlot is that great city that reigneth (or is then reigning) over the kings of the earth." The premillennialist just disposes of all that with his usual facility. He just whips it all off into the future as something that has not yet come to pass, notwithstanding the plain indications of the book.
Now when the premillennialist comes to this nineteenth chapter he concludes that the Tribulation period, said by some to be seven years, is over. And that Christ and the church who have been in the air during these seven years, now descend to the earth, and that is what is meant by the rider on the white horse and the armies that follow him. So that the world is conquered not by the gospel, but by the second coming of Jesus Christ. And the beast is the Tribulation king, or Anti-Christ, which is to rule the world in some future age and which Christ will destroy when he comes. What are the objections to this view of the nineteenth chapter?
1st. The coming of this rider on the white horse is accompanied with a good deal of description and detail. It indicates a process rather than an event. When Christ comes it is said to be sudden, in the twinkling of an eye, like the flash of lightning from one end of heaven to another. When you read through the chapter you will see no suddenness to any of these events, but rather deliberate progress. It is unlike the Second coming in this respect.
2nd. The writer insistently holds it before us that the sword is in the rider's mouth. This sword is the weapon of conquest. Paul in describing the Christian armor says: "The sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God." All this picture and all its related phraseology teaches us that the weapon that conquers the world is the word of God, or the gospel of Jesus Christ. We are not to look for the world to be converted by some spectacular cataclysm, but by the preaching and teaching, and testimony of the church that is clothed in the fine linen of righteousness. That is the way the Roman Empire was conquered for Christ as a matter of history and that is the way it will be till the end of time.
3rd. The absolutely conclusive fact comes out in the end that John shows, yea says in so many words, that this conflict of the rider was with the beast and false prophet — that same old beast that we have been dealing with through all these chapters, the beast of the seven hills, and the seven kings, the beast that bore the harlot woman which was "that city," and the false prophet associated with him, viz. pagan Rome. No one unbiased by a theory could drag this out of the historical past and put it into a hypothetical future to which not one of these historical references bear any allusion. The book clearly fixes who these personages are, fixes their place in geography and history, and we would have to disrupt the whole story to admit the premillennial interpretation.
4th. The revealer repeatedly declared to John that he was to see visions of things that "must shortly be done." We submit that it is straining the meaning of words too much to make shortly mean several thousands of years.
For these reasons we conclude that the premillennial interpretation is utterly out of the question.
Taken from D.. S. Clark's Commentary on Revelation, "Message from Patmos"
