We Speak truth in LOVE

1. It conflicts with the timing indicators in the book of Revelation. Rev. 1:1 "must shortly come to pass." 1:3, "the time is at hand." 2:10, "ye shall have tribulation 10 days." 2:25, "hold fast till I come" (is there even still a church in Thyatira today that could "hold fast"?). 3:11 "I come quickly, hold fast". 6:10 "how long...yet a little while". 12:12 "a short time." 16:15 "Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments..." 17:10 "and they are seven kings, the five are fallen, the one is, the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a little while." (The events being described were in the midst of being fulfilled even as it was written). 22:6 "shortly come to pass" 22:7 "And behold, I come quickly" 22:10 "the time is at hand" 22:12 "Behold I come quickly". 22:20 "I come quickly." Certainly terms like "shortly" or "quickly" are relative time indicators. But one must find their meaning by considering the time context in which they are used. The addressees would surely think of a time period of 1900 years before their fulfillment as being a LONG time, rather than a short time. Which brings me to my second point...somewhat similar to the first.
2. It renders the meaning of the book as having much less practicality and personal significance to those to whom it was addressed. Given the amount and degree of direct persecution these churches were facing (or soon would be), there was a very pragmatic purpose to reassuring them that this fierce threat would be short-lived and the perpetuity of the church was certain. Were this book to be describing events 19 centuries (or more) into the future, it would seem unlikely that it would be addressed so specifically to the seven churches of Asia. Ask yourself, not what interpretation best "fits" OUR interests or OUR applicability...but what interpretation best fufills the purposes and needs of those directly addressed by John. We today of course can still benefit by making an indirect application to ourselves (as we must do with most of the prophecies and accounts of scripture). The modern Premillennial view would only have confused and frustrated those 1st Century christians. The images and figures used fit very well the characters and events of which they were familiar in their own time. But according to Premillennial, they would be wrong to understand them in that way.
3. Futurists claim to be "literal" in their interpretation of the book...but then arbitrarily pick and choose when to "go figurative." This need to interpret some of the images and events as being figurative is shared by BOTH the Past and Futurist views. Neither can claim superiority in ease of interpretation based on one being entirely literal while the other is figurative. The only reason the Futurist can maintain the assertion that there will be literal fulfillments of some of the wild and incredible scenes (if viewed literally that is) given...is because "anything is possible and could be literal in the future." But any Past fulfillment REQUIRES that many of the images be understood as being figurative.
4. It promotes the tendency for some to rashly and falsely prophesy that we are seeing fulfillment in the events of today. There have been probably dozens (if not hundreds) of announcements that Christ's coming is just around the corner as a result of this faulty interpretation. Yet, we are told that "of that day and hour no one knows" and it will come "as a thief in the night."
5. 5. It ignores the clear time indicators in other passages. Dan. 9:25-27 speaks of 70 weeks, which most agree refers to a time period of 490 years (70 "weeks of years" where 1 day = 1 year.) That amazing prophecy finds easy and clear fulfillment when one sees that the exact YEAR of Christ's beginning of His ministry and His crucifixion are identified. And yet, the Premillennial view must shortcircuit this approach when it comes to the 70th week. Rather than staying with the day = year methodology, the Premillennial must invent a "parenthesis" of time between the 69th and 70th weeks...a time period of 1900+ years! Daniel also identified that the establishment of Christ's ETERNAL kingdom would come during the time of the Roman empire, Dan. 2. To Premillennial's that did NOT happen and it awaits some mythical resurrection of the old Roman empire, thus requiring a twisting of plain scripture to fit their distorted view. John the Baptist informed that "the kingdom of heaven is AT HAND." Mk. 1:14-15. Yet Premillennial's would say the kingdom is yet to arrive. Jesus said the same in Lk. 10:9. Lk. 11:20, expresses that "the kingdom of God (is) come upon you" when Christ cast out demons...which He did in His lifetime. Lk. 21:31-32, "know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all things be accomplished." Mt. 24 predicts the coming destruction of the city of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. according to my view. To most Premillennial's it speaks of some future events near the time of Christ's Second Coming. And yet, 24:34 clearly identifies the time frame...ONE GENERATION from when Jesus spoke. "This generation shall not pass away, till all these things be accomplished." Mt. 10:23, Jesus speaks to His disciples saying, "Ye shall not have gone through the cities of Israel till the Son of man be come." Mk. 9:1 "There are some here of them that stand by who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God come with power." This was essentially repeated in Acts 1:6-7 "Lord, dost thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel? And He said unto them, It is not for you to know times or seasons, which the Father hath set within His own authority. But ye shall receive power when the Holy Spirit is come upon you." Clearly, the coming of the kingdom would be at Pentecost.
6. It denies Christ's present Kingship. We saw passages which looked FORWARD to the immanent establishment of Christ's kingdom before Pentecost. AFTER Pentecost, the kingdom is spoken of as being established...NOT awaiting some future establishment. Col. 1:13; Rev. 1:10; Heb. 12:28. Pilate asked Jesus if He was King of the Jews and He answered affirmatively, Lk. 23:3. He IS (not WILL BE) indeed, "King of Kings and Lord of Lords! (I Tim. 6:15). How can a King be a King NOW without having a KINGDOM NOW?
7. It makes Christ's kingdom an earthly one. He told us plainly that it was NOT. John. 18:36.
8. It disregards that scripture identifies for us that the "last days" had come with the events of Pentecost. Acts 2:16-17. That day was in fulfillment of Joel 2, a passage describing "the day of the Lord" when the "sun would be turned to darkness and the moon into blood." This is figurative language for the end of the Jewish order, rather than literal events at the end of time. We KNOW this because Peter told us when it was fulfilled.
9. It maintains a distinction between Jew and Gentile...with advantages given to Jews. Gal. 3:26-29 and Eph. 2:11-22 tells us that God no longer recognises differences between Jew and Gentile.
10. It denies the fulfillment of all of God's land promises made to physical Israel. Josh. 21:44-45.
11. It asserts that the OT order of animal sacrifices and temple worship will be reinstituted. Yet Christ's sacrifice was to do away with these. Heb. 9:10 refer to these as "carnal ordinances" which were "imposed until a time of reformation". 9:11- 10:10 described how Christ accomplished that "reformation." Premillennials would say that these "shadows" and "types" will once again be brought back to replace what Jesus instituted as "antitypes". Christ's was a sacrifice "once for all...there is no more offering for sin." To return to the bloody sacrifices of animals on a physical altar in Jerusalem is an insult to the blood of Christ.
12. It denies that the dead...good and bad...will all come out of their graves at the same hour. John 5:28-29. That will result in the righteous being taken to "ever be with the Lord" in heaven, I Th. 4:17, and the wicked being immediately destroyed, II Th. 1:6-9. THE day of the Lord is the same day that the earth will be destroyed by fire, II Pet. 3:10-13. There is no second opportunity after Christ's return for the wicked to repent as Premillennial asserts.
13. It poses the ridiculous idea that man could thwart the intent of God by rejecting Christ and His intention of setting up an earthly kingdom when He first came to earth. To a Premillennial, Christ had to go to "Plan B" after "Plan A" failed. That isn't very reassuring that "Plan B" will succeed either! Christ's first coming, His rejection and crucifixion was foreseen and was in accordance with the eternal purpose of God.
14. It belittles the glorious church which Christ purchased with His blood. To a Premillennial, the church was a substitute...a temporary "band-aid fix" for the failure of Christ to succeed in establishing his kingdom. The church is rather the ultimate fulfillment of God's spiritual purposes for His people. Eph. 3:10, "to the intent that now unto the principalities and the powers in the heavenly places might be made known THROUGH THE CHURCH the manifold wisdom of God, according to the ETERNAL PURPOSE which He purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord." :21, "unto Him be the glory IN THE CHURCH and in Christ Jesus UNTO ALL GENERATIONS FOR EVER AND EVER, AMEN."