A Case for Historic Premillennialism Quotes

“Why, then, am I a premillennialist from a New Testament point of view? Because, no matter how many flashbacks or disruptions of chronological sequence one might want to argue for elsewhere in Revelation, it makes absolutely no sense to put one in between Revelation 19 and 20 as both amillennialists and postmillennialists must do. For the tribulation to refer solely to the church age or to a large portion of it, Revelation 20 must begin afresh (as Revelation 12 almost certainly does) at Christ’s first coming, so that the binding of Satan in 20:1–2 refers to Christ’s defeat of the devil on the cross at his first coming (and perhaps, proleptically, in the exorcisms that occurred during his ministry; see esp. Luke 10:18). The reign of Christians with Christ in Revelation 20:4, then, similarly begins with Christ’s first coming—with his resurrection.24 But the end of chapter 19 depicts how the great battle of Armageddon, with the armies of the earth gathered to fight just before Christ’s return, never gets off the ground. Christ intervenes by coming back, bringing his heavenly battalions with him and utterly destroying his opponents.”
― Craig L. Blomberg, A Case for Historic Premillennialism: An Alternative to "Left Behind" Eschatology