Revelation is one of the most controversial books in the Bible because of the variety of ways that it can be interpreted. Unfortunately, because of this controversy, I suspect that many Christians simply throw their hands up in the air and give up on ever hoping to understand Revelation.

Yet Jesus says there is a blessing for people who read Revelation (Revelation 1:3).

So in this post I want to make a case that Revelation should be read mostly literally and in a straightforward manner, just like how Christians generally read the rest of the Bible. This approach makes Revelation more understandable than all other approaches to it which, in one way or another, interpret large parts of Revelation non-literally.

Why does this matter? Because when this straightforward approach is taken, it should become clear that Revelation is speaking primarily about real events that have not yet happened, but which will occur in the future.

These events include the seven year Tribulation, during which the disastrous events of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 will literally occur, followed by the literal bodily return of Jesus Christ at his second coming to this world to set up his literal thousand-year Millennial Kingdom, the literal final judgment of all people, and the literal creation of the New Heaven and New Earth.

Therefore, if the events described in Revelation have not yet occurred, then some future generation of people will be the ones who will have to face them.

Yet Jesus warned that the Tribulation will be worse than anything that has happened so far in the history of the world (Matthew 24:21).

Just think about that: it will be worse than the worldwide flood (Genesis chapters 6 and 7), worse than the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19), worse than the plagues of Egypt (Exodus chapters 7 to 12), worse than the fall of the Roman Empire, worse than the plagues of the black death, worse than World Wars 1 and 2, worse than the Spanish Flu, worse than the famines in Mao's China, worse than whatever other horrible historical incident you can think of.

For this reason, the appearing of Jesus in the clouds in the pretribulation Rapture to take all true Christians to heaven be where he is (John 14:1-3), before the Tribulation begins, should truly be Christians' blessed hope (Titus 2:13).

In this case, Christians have a strong motive to evangelize now, in hope that even more people will be included in the Rapture.

And if this is true, then alternative views of Revelation which do not hold to a literal interpretation of the twenty-one judgments in this book, but instead ignore them, minimize their severity, or interpret them 'symbolically', may be doing a great disservice to Christians' motivation to share the gospel.

These other views also do not adequately warn unbelievers about what they may have to face in the near future, or provide them with knowledge about Bible prophecy so that they might at least change their minds and believe in Jesus once the Rapture does happen, and these prophecies begin to be fulfilled.

This is especially true now that it seems all the signs of the end times that we can expect to see before the Rapture are present, and so the Rapture could happen literally any day.

So although on the surface, the debate over the interpretation of Revelation might seem to be too obscure or purely academic, the outcome does actually have very practical consequences for both Christians and non-Christians today, and in the future.

What Genre of Literature is the Book of Revelation?

Commentators and scholars often begin their approach to Revelation by explaining that this book falls into an ancient genre of writing called apocalyptic.

Allegedly, this genre makes Revelation much harder to interpret than many other books of the Bible. Some portions of Daniel and other Old Testament books are also categorized as being apocalyptic.

The word apocalyptic comes from the ancient Greek verb apokalyptein which means 'to uncover' or 'to reveal'.1 Therefore, an apocalypse is defined as a writing that belongs to

A genre of revelatory literature with a narrative framework, in which a revelation is mediated by an otherworldly being to a human recipient, disclosing a transcendent reality which is both temporal, insofar as it envisages eschatological salvation, and spatial insofar as it involves another, supernatural world.2

Or in simpler terms, apocalyptic writings involve a recounting of how an angel or other spiritual being gave information to a human about the deeper spiritual realities that are going on behind the surface-level events in this world, with a focus on things like eternal salvation, and God intervening to save this world in the last days.

Thus, apocalyptic can be seen as an extension of the genre of Bible prophecy. The only subtle difference is that prophecy sometimes calls on people to change their ways to avoid a divine judgment, while apocalyptic is more 'pessimistic' because it prophesies that the situation will only get better for people after the divine judgment is over.3

None of what has been said about this genre, however, forces Christians to take a particular approach to interpreting Revelation.

Typically, approaches to interpreting Revelation as Bible prophecy (and not just as literature) fall into one of these four categories:4

• Preterist: This approach claims that most of the events described in Revelation have already been fulfilled in the past, soon after when John wrote it, or even before John wrote it. Some preterists still allow for the future fulfillment of the final chapters of Revelation regarding Jesus' second coming, the final judgment, and a New Heaven and New Earth, but other preterists think that even these things were fulfilled (presumably, 'spiritually'), in the past.

• Historicist: This approach claims that Revelation prophesies about the entire period of time beginning from when John wrote Revelation, all the way to the end of the world. The prophecies in Revelation are therefore seen as being in progress, such that some of these prophecies are claimed to have been already fulfilled by particular historical events.

• Futurist: This approach claims that Revelation's prophecies have never been fulfilled in the past but will be fulfilled in the future, generally literally, in a short period of time called the Tribulation, which occurs immediately before Jesus' second coming.

• Spiritualist (also called Idealist or Symbolic): This approach claims that Revelation is not talking about any particular events in this world, whether past or future, but is only talking about ongoing spiritual truths, such as the spiritual conflict between God and Satan, or between the saints and the world.

As will be discussed later, these approaches can be mixed and matched with broader perspectives on biblical eschatology that are known as premillennialism (which includes both pretribulationism and posttribulationism), postmillennialism, and amillennialism.5

Yet the fact that Christians have taken such a variety of views of Revelation should not undermine this book's authority:

Some readers may ask, "What about the fact that the Bible is interpreted in so many different ways even by conservative, traditional, orthodox Christians?" The implication is that the diversity of interpretations somehow undermines the authority of the Bible.... Diverse interpretations of the Bible, some of them equally legitimate and seemingly unresolvable, do not undermine its authority. It authority is why we continue to strive toward a unified, correct interpretation.6

So just because Revelation is apocalyptic and because there are a variety of views about how to interpret it does not mean that Revelation should be taken any less seriously than any other books of the Bible. Furthermore, we take Revelation seriously by trying to find the best interpretation of it.

Sometimes it is mentioned that the early church was not sure about whether to include Revelation into the canon of Scripture, as if this were a reason for Christians to take Revelation less seriously.

However, the early church Christians in the western half of the Roman Empire generally accepted Revelation as being authoritative right away, including important early church figures such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen. Revelation was also included in the earliest list of canonical books called the Muratorian Canon, which was created in the last half of the second century.7

If there was any debate over whether Revelation belonged in the Bible, it was primarily among theologians who lived in the eastern side of the Roman Empire. This is why Revelation was not included in the canonical list created at the Council of Laodicea in 360 AD. Yet Revelation was included in later canonical lists, such as the one made at the Council of Carthage in 397 AD, and was made an official part of the canon of Scripture at the Council of Constantinople in 680 AD.8

Christians typically believe that the Holy Spirit was guiding these early leaders as they finalized the canon of Scripture. Therefore, Christians should consider Revelation to be as authoritative, relevant, and useful for Christians today as any other book in the Bible.

But Wasn't Revelation Only Meant For the Early Church?

I've noticed that when commentators on Revelation start off by emphasizing how different apocalyptic literature is from other types of biblical literature, such as by saying that it is full of strange and bizarre symbols that make it difficult or even almost impossible to interpret, it is typically because these same commentators struggle to know what to do with these symbols.

As a result, these commentators tend to ignore the details of Revelation chapters 6 to 18, and focus instead on what they believe is the overall message of Revelation.

Such commentators frequently say that Revelation was primarily written to comfort the early church which was facing persecution of various sorts. As a result, some commentators say the main message we're supposed to take away from reading Revelation is that while Christians will face persecution in this world, God will win in the end and Christians will be vindicated, while their persecutors and false prophets will face God's judgment.9

While this overall message is certainly true, and it does make Revelation relevant to some extent to Christians of any era who face persecution, the claim that Revelation was primarily written to comfort early Christians who were facing a massive crisis of persecution is too simplistic:10

Nothing could be farther from the truth than to imagine the Christians in those seven Asian congregations as huddling wretches, holding onto their faith by their fingernails, with St. John, their pastor, reaching frantically for a desperate means (apocalypse!) to secure their endurance through the worst of times.11

When we examine the seven churches who were the initial recipients of John's letter that became the Book of Revelation, we actually see that they were facing a spectrum of situations.

On one end, the Christians in Smyrna, Pergamum and Philadelphia do seem to have been facing some persecution for their faith in various ways, but they were still standing strong, and they received Jesus' commendation for doing so (Revelation 2:8-13, 3:7-13).

In the middle, Christians in Ephesus and Sardis were becoming complacent, and so they needed encouragement to return to their once-vibrant faith and love, and to the good works they used to be doing (Revelation 2:1-7, 3:1-6).

Pergamum had some issues with false teaching and immorality (Revelation 2:14-17). Thyatira was also dealing with false prophets who were teaching immorality, but otherwise seems to have been doing well (Revelation 2:18-29).

On the other end of the spectrum, the Laodicean Christians were doing so well that their worldly success and material wealth was blinding them to the reality of their pitiful spiritual condition (Revelation 3:14-22).

So it is not true that the early church was being universally persecuted by the Roman Empire.

The infamous persecution of Christians in Rome by Emperor Nero that began in 64 AD when Nero needed a scapegoat to explain away the cause of a fire that burned down portions of his capital city was likely limited only to Christians in the city of Rome, although both the apostles Peter and Paul were likely killed at this time.12

Later persecution of both Christians and Jews by Emperor Domitian at the end of his reign seems to have occurred mostly only in the city of Rome and the region of Asia Minor. This is likely what was going on when John was exiled to Patmos and wrote the Book of Revelation,13 which the majority of scholars believe occurred around the year 95 AD.14

But in general,

throughout the second century, and well into the third, there was no systematic persecution of Christians [in the Roman Empire]. It was illegal to be a Christian, but those who followed the new faith were not sought out by authorities. Persecution and martyrdom depended on local circumstances, and particularly on the good will of neighbors. If for any reason someone wished to harm a Christian, all that had to be done was to present an accusation.15

There was certainly social pressure on early Christians who faced some discrimination for refusing to participate in some aspects of Roman life, but it came from a variety of sources, such as the expectation to honor the patron deities of trade guilds, for Christians who worked in these trades.16

Now, some preterist interpreters would say that John was not writing about current or future persecution, because the prophecies in Revelation had already been fulfilled in 70 AD when the Romans invaded Jerusalem and destroyed the second Jewish temple.

However, I don't understand this claim. Once Jesus was crucified and came back to life, the Jewish sacrificial system was no longer necessary or relevant, as it was only ever meant to foreshadow what Jesus would accomplish for everyone who believes in him (Hebrews 10:1-18). Thus, the destruction of the temple would have had no relevance to early Christians, many of whom had never even been Jewish in the first place.

Additionally, if the prophecies in Revelation had been completely fulfilled in 70 AD, then not only would Revelation be of no use to most Christians throughout history, but since John wrote it sometime around the late 90s AD, most of the Book of Revelation would have already been decades out of date even for the seven churches that were John's original audience!

Yet John clearly said that the things he was writing about in Revelation were "things that must soon take place" (Revelation 1:1, 4:1, 22:6). It would not make sense for John to have been writing about things that were long past, and had no relevance to his current audience.

Furthermore, we are told that "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:16-17, NRSVA). This must include Revelation.

This is the main flaw that I see with arguments that claim that the Book of Revelation was only meant for the early church.

Revelation would have had no meaning or usefulness for later generations of Christians if Revelation was primarily written to criticize the Roman Empire and encourage early Christians to not participate in the idolatrous Roman practice of emperor worship. Early Christians already knew that idolatry was wrong (e.g., Acts 21:25, 1 Thessalonians 1:9, 1 John 5:21), so they didn't need an entire book to explain that to them.

Likewise, if the only message that John's original audience was supposed to take away from Revelation was to hold onto to their faith despite any current or future persecution and hard times, this message is already found in Jesus' description of the end times in Matthew 24:3-51, Mark 13:3-27, Luke 17:20-37 and 21:5-36, and Jesus' warnings of future persecution for his disciples in John 15:18-27.

So for Revelation to be relevant and useful to Christians, Revelation must provide us with additional information about the end times that is not included anywhere else in the Bible.

Otherwise, the decision to include Revelation in the canon of Scripture would only have been to make a lot of unnecessary work for all of the Christians throughout history who spent hours and hours carefully copying and re-copying manuscripts of it by hand, in order to preserve John's words for later generations of Christians.

The same problem arises if Revelation was only meant for the early church. Why spend all that time and effort to preserve it, if this book has no relevance for future generations of Christians?

However, preserving Revelation for future Christians would have been an especially important task if there is still an important message in this book for Christians both today, and in the future.

Literal or Symbolic?

So if Revelation is still authoritative, relevant, and useful for Christians today, then it implies that Christians today should actually read it. Not only should we read it, but we should be able to understand it.

After all, God gave John the vision which he wrote in the Book of Revelation in order to communicate with John, and by extension, with all Christians who read this book. This means that Revelation must be fundamentally understandable, despite the use of symbolic imagery in a few portions of it.

Yet even then, these symbols must mean something, and they must also be able to be interpreted in a way that is consistent with their use throughout Revelation, as well as their use in the rest of the Bible. Symbols cannot simply mean anything that interpreters want them to, or else they would actually mean nothing, and they would not achieve God's purpose of communicating truth to his people.17

This presumably obvious fact that God intends to communicate with Christians through the Book of Revelation means that I believe we should apply the same principles of Bible interpretation to this book as to any other book of the Bible.

The 'golden rule' of Bible interpretation, as outlined by D. L. Cooper, says,

When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.18

It is this principle which means that the Bible should generally be able to be read and understood by average Christians, without needing to have special knowledge which is only available to the so-called 'experts' who have had the privilege of attending Bible college.

I believe that when we apply this 'golden rule' to how we read the Book of Revelation, it becomes clear that the various judgments and events depicted in Revelation chapters 6 through 20 are speaking mostly about literal events which have not yet occurred in the history of this world.

As just a few examples, all of the world's oceans and rivers have never been turned into blood (Revelation 8:8, 16:3-6), all of the grass and a third of the trees have not been burned up (Revelation 8:7), and all mountains, islands, and cities have not been flattened by an enormous earthquake (Revelation 16:18-20).

In comparison to other approaches to Revelation, only the futurist view can take these events literally, and all other approaches must interpret these events non-literally.19

Of course, this does not mean that every part of Revelation can be taken completely literally:

Futurists do recognize the presence of symbols in the book. The difference between the literalist and the spiritualizer is simply that the former sees the symbols as conveying a plain meaning.20

The most consistent way to handle the symbols in Revelation is either to let John explain them himself, or look at how these same symbols are used elsewhere in Revelation or in the Old Testament.

So as an example of where John explains a symbol, John says that the lake of fire represents eternal destruction, a.k.a., the second death (Revelation 20:14). See other examples of John directly explaining the meaning of some symbols in Revelation 4:5, 5:6, 5:8, 17:9-10, and 17:12.

When comparing with the Old Testament, we can see that the woman in Revelation 12:1-6 who is crowned with twelve stars, clothed with the sun, and who has the moon under her feet represents the people of Israel. This interpretation is based on Jacob's son Joseph's ancient dream of the sun, moon, and eleven stars bowing down to him, which represented his father, mother, and eleven brothers (Genesis 37:9-10). Together, Joseph and his brothers became the patriarchs of the twelve tribes of Israel, and Jesus is the Messiah who came from Israel who will rule the world with a rod of iron (Revelation 12:5, 19:15, Psalm 2:8-9).

Similarly, the seven-headed red dragon with ten horns in Revelation 12:3-4 represents Satan, who John connects back to the serpent in the Garden of Eden (Revelation 12:9, 20:1-2, Genesis 3:1-5). Here, God prophesied that Satan will be destroyed by the 'seed of the woman' (i.e., Jesus, who had no biological human father) (Genesis 3:15, Luke 1:30-35), which will finally occur at the end of the Millennium (Revelation 20:10).

In contrast, one 'allegorical' or 'symbolic' interpretation of this same passage in Revelation chapter 12 is:

The male child of Revelation 12:5 represents the baptized soul in which Christ is born; the dragon's seven heads are the seven greater sins; his ten horns are intended to contrast with the ten commandments; the beast is a symbol of fleshly lust.21

Yet this interpretation is taken completely out of any context of what the red dragon, or beast (which, like the dragon, is also scarlet-colored with seven heads and ten horns) do elsewhere in Revelation chapters 13 and 17.

There are also absolutely no hints within the text that these symbols should be interpreted as the allegorical interpreter does. Thus, this allegorical interpretation appears to be completely arbitrary, and is likely based on the interpreter reading into Revelation his own personal preoccupation with sin.

This allegorical interpretation is also not compatible with Daniel's use of the same imagery of multi-headed animals or horns in Daniel chapter 7. Yet as I demonstrate in my analysis of the symbolism of the beast that comes out of the sea, a proper comparison with the imagery in the Book of Daniel supports the futurist understanding of the seven-headed scarlet-colored beast with ten horns in Revelation 13 and 17 who receives his authority from the dragon as being the Antichrist, who will rule with his ten sub-leaders over the final Satanic world empire that will persecute and kill God's people.

I've written more in another blog post about problems with the allegorical interpretation of Scripture. There, I give more examples of how this approach takes verses completely out of their literary context, and also ignores how the author's original audience would likely have interpreted these verses.

Yet considering a verse's literary context, the original author's most likely intended meaning, and original audience's most likely interpretation of said verse are basic principles of Bible interpretation. These shared principles of interpretation help constrain possible meanings of verses so that Christians can actually hope to come to a common consensus about what God was saying to the original recipients of Scripture, and by extension, what God is saying to us today.

Using this same approach, we can easily argue that the prostitute who sits on seven hills and also rides the beast for some period of time (Revelation 17:1-18) represents a religion that had formerly been faithful to God but had since turned to idolatry. There are two major instances that support this interpretation. First, The prophet Ezekiel used the same metaphor to criticize ancient Israel (Ezekiel 16:14-63). Second, God told the prophet Hosea to marry a prostitute and to buy her back out of slavery as a real-world illustration of how God would redeem his unfaithful people (Hosea 1:2, 3:1-5).

The detail that this prostitute in Revelation is portrayed as being drunk on the blood of God's people shows that this religion will also persecute and kill God's people during the Tribulation (Revelation 17:6, 6:9-11, 7:13-14). However, this religion will only last until the Antichrist and his ten sub-rulers will destroy it (Revelation 17:16-17), likely before the false prophet demands that everyone worship the Antichrist by making the Image of the Beast and requiring everyone to take the Mark of the Beast (Revelation 13:5-18).

These are just a few examples of how the Bible equips Christians to be able to make sense of these symbols used in the Book of Revelation in a way that is not totally arbitrary.

Even with this method, though, there are a few gray areas where it may not be perfectly clear whether something in Revelation is meant to be literal or symbolic, such as the strange description of the demonic 'locusts' that are released from the bottomless pit in Revelation 9:1-11. However, these verses do not impact our understanding of anything else in Revelation, and so perhaps it is the case that this particular prophecy will only make sense to the people who will live through that judgment.

The same may be said regarding the exact identification of what false religion is represented by the prostitute that rides the beast in Revelation 17, the meaning of the number 666 in Revelation 13:18, or what city or entity referred to as Babylon is destroyed in Revelation 18 that causes all the merchants of the world to mourn. I have seen some plausible guesses about these things, but ultimately it may be that only Christians who are alive during the Tribulation will fully understand what is being referred to by these symbols.

But I believe that in general, the way to properly detect which parts of Revelation are literal versus symbolic is to apply Cooper's 'golden rule'. If we can take any particular part of Revelation literally and it makes sense to us, then we should do so.

Literal versus Non-Literal Views of the Tribulation

The main difference between alternative views of the end times is primarily a question of biblical interpretation regarding how we should read Revelation, as well as how to consistently interpret many other portions of the Bible which also speak about the Tribulation:

The interpretation of the Scripture relative to the coming Tribulation is important first of all as a strategic exegetical problem. The revelation concerning the Tribulation is found in many passages in the Old and New Testaments and includes a major part of the Book of Revelation. Until the nature of the Tribulation is established, these portions are left without intelligent exegesis. This spreads confusion in the whole prophetic program of the future.22

This interpretive problem becomes more difficult when different approaches to the Tribulation disagree on whether these passages about the Tribulation should be taken literally or non-literally. These different approaches will be summarized below, and I will explain some problems I see with the approaches which take a non-literal view of the Tribulation and Millennium.

Premillennialism

Premillennialism is the view that Jesus' second coming will occur before the Millennium, which is treated as a literal period of a thousand years when Jesus will personally rule the world along with his saints (Revelation 20:1-4).23

This view was held by some of the earliest church theologians, even though there may not have been universal agreement about this approach to Revelation.24

Premillennialism can be divided into two sub-categories, depending on where one locates the Rapture in relation to the Tribulation and second coming of Jesus: pretribulationism, and posttribulationism.25 I will examine both sub-categories of premillennialism before moving onto other perspectives of the end times.

Pretribulationism

The pretribulational approach to eschatology is most compatible with a futurist view of the end times.

This approach argues that the Rapture happens before the seven-year Tribulation, and the Tribulation ends with the second coming of Jesus, along with his raptured saints who will help rule Earth during the Millennium (Revelation 2:27, 4:4, 19:14-15, Jude 1:14-15, Luke 19:11-27). People who become Christians during the Tribulation and who end up being killed for not worshipping the Antichrist or taking the Mark of the Beast will be resurrected at this point to also help Jesus rule during the Millennium (Revelation 20:4).

This approach typically sees God as having a distinct, ongoing plan for Israel which is separate from the Church, which means the premillennial, pretribulational, futurist view could also be called the dispensational approach.26

Personally, I believe that this view is the most straightforward, literal approach to interpreting Revelation which follows the general flow of Revelation chapters 4 to 20.

In my view, Revelation chapter 4 begins with John's vision of the Rapture (compare Revelation 4:1 with 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 and Revelation 3:8-10) which takes John to heaven. There, he sees God, as well as raptured/resurrected Christians who are depicted collectively as a group of 24 'elders' wearing crowns and white linen garments, and sitting on thrones (Revelation 4:4).

Chapter 5 then takes place in heaven as Jesus receives the seven-sealed scroll that only he is qualified to open, and so begin the Seal judgments of the Tribulation in Revelation chapter 6.

Revelation chapters 6 to 16 then describe the events of the Tribulation, starting with the Seal judgments, with the Seventh Seal judgment unlocking the next seven Trumpet judgments (Revelation 8:1-2), and the Seventh Trumpet judgment unlocking the final seven Bowl judgments, up to the preparation for the battle of Armageddon in the Sixth Bowl judgment (Revelation 16:12-16).

Jesus' second coming occurs at this battle of Armageddon, which is described in Revelation 19:11-21. The Seventh Bowl judgment, which includes a massive worldwide earthquake that flattens all cities, mountains, and sinks islands (Revelation 16:17-21), seems to describe the effects of Jesus' second coming, since the Old Testament describes significant geological changes to the Mount of Olives when Jesus finally touches down there (Zechariah 14:4).

Then, in my view, Revelation chapters 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, and 18 contain symbolic descriptions of certain key end-times events and figures (i.e., the two witnesses, the beast/Antichrist, his ten sub-rulers, and his false prophet), and highlight their major actions during the Tribulation.

However, the exact timing of these events in relation to the twenty-one judgments of the Tribulation is not completely clear. That is, besides the fact that the two witnesses will be killed by the Antichrist 1260 days into the Tribulation (Revelation 11:3-13), and that the Antichrist will directly rule the world for 42 months (i.e. another 1260 days, or 3.5 years, using a 30 days per month 'prophetic' calendar — Revelation 13:5, 12:6, 12:14), presumably, during the last half of the Tribulation.

Although I have not cited any particular commentaries to support this view, my outline given above is based on my personal study of the premillennial, pretribulational, futurist view of the end times over the past 17 years or so.27

Posttribulationism

Posttribulationists claim that the Rapture occurs at the second coming of Jesus, at the end of the Tribulation. This approach is also called classical premillennialism, and it argues that the Church (i.e., all true Christians) goes through the Tribulation because it makes no distinction between the Church and Israel.28

Yet true Christians do not need to go through the Tribulation in order to be spiritually purified, unlike what posttribulationists sometimes claim.

And as I argue in my other blog posts, there are many good reasons to argue that the Rapture must happen at a time when life is going on like normal, just as Jesus prophesied in Luke 17:26-35.

Yet after the twenty-one judgments in Revelation, is is difficult if not impossible to imagine that people will be living normal lives, buying, selling, planting, building houses, getting married, and so forth (see Revelation 18:21-24). That is, if these judgments are taken literally.

Therefore, the only way that the posttribulational view could makes sense is if the judgments of the Tribulation are far less serious than the descriptions of them in Revelation chapters 6-18 make them appear, if these descriptions are taken literally.

Thus, the main difference between pretribulationism and posttribulationism is that pretribulationists uses a literal interpretation of the Tribulation, while posttribulationists often use a non-literal or 'spiritual' interpretation.29

The most serious problem for posttribulationism is that if the Rapture happens after the Tribulation, at the same time as Jesus' second coming, then there would be no reason for Jesus to have to judge the Tribulation survivors in the Sheep and Goats Judgment (Matthew 25:31-46). They would already have been sorted out into believers and unbelievers by the Rapture.

Furthermore, if the Rapture only happens at the end of the Tribulation, such that all believers are instantly changed from mortal to immortal (1 Corinthians 15:50-53), and all unbelievers are thrown into the lake of fire (Matthew 25:41-46), no one would remain alive in their regular, mortal bodies. This means there would be no one left who could get married and have children to repopulate the world during the Millennium.

After all, Jesus said that after people are resurrected/raptured, they will no longer get married (Matthew 22:30), and so presumably, they will not be having children, either. If the resurrected/raptured body is a 'spiritual' body that is no longer made of flesh and blood (1 Corinthians 15:44, 15:50), it would also be impossible for resurrected/raptured women to bear regular mortal children.

But we know the world will be repopulated by regular, mortal people during the Millennium, in order to set up the situation at the very end of the Millennium where there will be a vast number of unbelievers who will be led by Satan to rebel against Jesus' rule (Revelation 20:7-9).

I think this is a strong case that there must be enough of a time gap between the Rapture and the Sheep and Goats judgment for more people to become believers in Jesus after the Rapture, and to go on and demonstrate their faith by generously caring for other believers during the Tribulation (Matthew 25:31-46), so that they can pass the Sheep and Goats Judgment and be permitted to enter the Millennial Kingdom in their regular, mortal bodies.

Thus, posttribulationism does not consistently fit with what is taught about the Rapture, Tribulation, and Millennium in the rest of Revelation or other parts of the Bible.

Postmillennialism

Postmillennialism is the belief that Jesus' second coming occurs after the Millennium, which in this view, is generally interpreted as a long period of time where the Church somehow solves the problems of the world and brings in worldwide peace and righteousness. Jesus returns at his second coming only to pat the Church on the back and say "well done", and wrap history up with the final judgment.30

Thus, postmillennialism would be quite compatible with the New Apostolic Reformation movement, which claims it is Christians' duty to take over the 'seven mountains' of society: family, religion, education, media, arts and entertainment, business, and government.31

There are some larger theological issues with this perspective. For example, it seems very prideful to claim that the Church will achieve on its own what the Bible mostly credits to Jesus, who will rule the world with an iron rod to guarantee peace, justice, and righteousness (Isaiah 11:1-5, Revelation 19:15), even though it is true that redeemed saints will help Jesus with this task as sub-rulers, in proportion to how well Christians served Jesus in this life (Revelation 2:27, 4:4, 19:14-15, 20:4 Jude 1:14-15, Luke 19:11-27).

Furthermore, in this life, Christians are all still sinners (Romans 7:14-25, 1 John 1:8-10), so I don't see how anyone could reasonably expect still-sinful Christians to perfectly rule over the world.

Just look at the general state of how divided Christianity is currently, and the not-infrequent difficulties and interpersonal strife between Christians that lead to scandals or churches splitting apart. If we can't even get things always right within our own local churches, or reconcile all disagreements between the different denominations of Christianity, what chance is there that we'll somehow be able to create a unified, sinless Christian world government?

As far as postmillennial views of the end times,

The Tribulation, however, according to postmillennialism, is not very definite and its character is not sufficiently serious to interfere with the onward march of the church to a great climax of triumph at the second advent of Christ. The Tribulation is a minor phase of the closing events of the age.32

Thus, postmillennialism cannot interpret the events in Revelation chapters 6 to 18 literally, because they would be far too serious of an interruption to the progress of peace and Christian values. But the wide variety of interpretations of these judgments offered by postmillennialists are not consistent with one another.33

If postmillennialism can only be plausibly believed by ignoring or severely downplaying the details of the twenty-one judgments in Revelation, this should be a huge red flag that something is seriously wrong with this interpretation.

Furthermore, Revelation says that the beast/Antichrist will make war on the saints and will overcome them during his forty-two month rule (Revelation 13:5-10), primarily, by beheading everyone he can catch who refuses to worship his Image of the Beast or take his Mark of the Beast (Revelation 13:11-18, 20:4).

Jesus also warned that in the end times, his followers would be hated by all nations and would be killed for their faith (Matthew 24:9-14).

These warnings blatantly contradict the postmillennialist claim that the Church will become ever-more successful until Jesus returns, and this prevents me from seeing postmillennialism as being a credible eschatological option.

Amillennialism

Amillennialism typically argues that the thousand-year reign of Jesus and his saints, during a time when Satan is bound (Revelation 20:1-6) is allegorically speaking about the entire Church age, beginning from the early church and ending with Jesus' second coming.

For example:

The binding of Satan happened spiritually at the cross; the reign of the saints is the present age; the loosing of Satan is a final period of deception coming on the world in the end of the age; the fire from heaven that devours the wicked is the second coming of Christ.34

Historically, although at least several of the earliest church authors were premillennial and took a mostly-literal view of Revelation and the end times, amillennialism began to dominate approaches to Revelation with the rise of the non-literal method of interpretation of Bible prophecy which became popular thanks to the early church theologians Origen,35 and also Augustine:

It is generally agreed by all parties that one of the major differences between amillennialism and premillennialism lies in the use of the literal method of interpretation. Amillennarians, while admitting the need for literal interpretation of Scripture in general, have held from Augustine to the present time that prophecy is a special case requiring spiritualizing or non-literal interpretation. Premillennarians hold, on the contrary, that the literal method applies to prophecy as well as other doctrinal areas and therefore contend for a literal Millennium.36

As a result,

In Augustinian amillennialism, the present age is regarded as the predicted Millennium; and inasmuch as the Tribulation is said to precede the Millennium by so much, it must already be past. Often it is identified with the troubles of Israel in connection with the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.37

The amillennial view would therefore require all the judgments of Revelation to be interpreted non-literally, because they have never happened exactly as described.38

The preterist view that the Tribulation occurred during the destruction of the second temple in 70 AD has already been refuted earlier in this post, because this event would have had no relevance to John's original audience or Christians since then.

Supposedly, there are other sorts of amillennialists who do believe in some sort of a future Tribulation, although they place this Tribulation after the Millennium.39 Yet this view would rearrange the entire flow of the Book of Revelation, and if the judgments of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 are taken seriously, they would have to all be crammed into Revelation 20:9.

Amillennialists would also have to spiritualize the Bible's description of the Millennium, if it is believed that we are now in this Millennium, because it should be obvious to anyone that, for example:

• there is not currently such an abundance of food in the world that farmers cannot finish harvesting before it's time to plant again (Amos 9:13).
• animals are not living in peace with one another or with humans (Isaiah 11:6-9).
• all people with serious illnesses or disabilities are not healed (Isaiah 35:5-6).
• the world is not full of righteousness and worship of God (Isaiah 9:6–7, 11:1–10, Zechariah 14:16–21, Micah 4:1–8).

So for all the above reasons, I don't see amillennialism as being a plausible approach to eschatology.

Liberal Christianity

A variant of amillennialism which some contemporary Christians may encounter is advocated for by proponents of liberal Christianity.

At least the traditional amillennial position on eschatology generally holds to a literal future return of Jesus, the resurrection of the dead, the final judgment, and the New Heaven and New Earth. Yet today, liberal Christians go even farther with their symbolic interpretation of eschatology, and doubt that even these significant events will ever literally happen:

That Jesus Christ will return to earth has always been believed by orthodox Christians of all major traditions. The Apostles' Creed says that Jesus Christ will come again to judge the living and the dead. All Christians believed in Christ's return to earth to judge the nations and to open up heaven to those who embrace his love and grace — until the rise of liberal Christianity with [the 18th and 19th century theologian Friedrich] Schleiermacher. From Schleiermacher on, liberal theologians have generally regarded talk of the parousia — the return of Christ and events surrounding it — as symbolic, metaphorical, not at all to be taken literally or as actual events in the future.40

This problem arises from liberal Christians' approach to theology which elevates human reason above the authority of Scripture, allowing science and philosophy to dictate what parts of the Bible are true and what are false.41

Liberal Christians also generally accept the results of 'higher criticism' — a method of biblical interpretation which treats the Bible just like any other book, rather than trusting it as God's inerrant and authoritative word.42

Due to these views, liberal Christians generally read the Bible through a 'naturalistic' lens which says that miracles are impossible, and so is predictive prophecy.43 The divine inspiration of Scripture is denied, and the Bible is turned into an inspiring fictional classic that should be read much like a parable.44

As a result,

The return of Jesus Christ in glory, divine judgments, a fulfilled kingdom of God, a new heaven and a new earth free of sin, sickness, and death, where there will be no more tears, all get treated as myths or symbols.45

However, Christians simply cannot interpret Jesus' return 'spiritually' or 'allegorically', because when Jesus ascended to heaven, angels told Jesus' disciples that Jesus would return in the same way that he left, which was by physically ascending into the clouds (Acts 1:9-11). Therefore, Christians should expect Jesus to return physically, by literally descending out of the clouds.

And Jesus' return won't be in secret, since Jesus said that when he returns, it will be with such a dramatic display that it will be like lightning flashing from one side of the sky to the other, and so every person alive at that time will see him (Matthew 24:27, Revelation 1:7).

This is exactly what is described in Revelation 19:11-21, where Jesus returns on a white horse, with the armies of heaven following him, ready to destroy his enemies who have gathered at Armageddon to try to prevent Jesus' second coming (Revelation 16:12-16, 19:11-21, Zechariah 12:1-9, 14:1-15).

So at the very least, Christians should expect Jesus' second coming to be a literal, future event. This should be something that all Christians who study the end times can agree on, regardless of where we place Jesus' second coming in relation to the Rapture, Tribulation, and Millennial Kingdom.

Christians should also all agree on the literal future resurrection of the dead, just as Jesus was literally raised back to life at his resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:12-19).

Sadly, Roger Olson documents how many prominent liberal 'Christian' scholars go so far as to either question, deny, or spiritualize the biblical promise that Christians will experience immortality in a New Heaven and New Earth.46

Yet to deny this is to effectively deny the core of Christianity, and places the entirety of Christians' hope in this life only. Paul said that this view, if true, would mean that Christians "are of all people most to be pitied" (1 Corinthians 15:16-19).

To deny the reality of eternal life is to make Christians' faith in Christ completely pointless. The entire gospel message is that Jesus will one day bring everyone who have ever had faith in him back to life, and will give them literal eternal life (John 3:16, 6:40, Romans 6:23) in the New Heaven and New Earth, where there will be no more death, suffering, or pain ever again (Revelation 21:4).

Thus, Olson argues that,

Insofar as they have given up belief in bodily resurrection and the return of Jesus Christ to establish his fulfilled kingdom and a new heaven and new earth, free of sin, sickness, and death, liberal theologians have departed from Christianity. Theirs is a secularized, gutted, emptied eschatology with no recognizable continuity with biblical, historical, orthodox Christian eschatology.47

But ironically, it could be argued that liberal 'Christianity' is actually more consistent than traditional amillennialism is, because liberal scholars spiritualize all Bible prophecy about the future, rather than just some of it, even if doing so takes the liberals beyond the bounds of orthodox Christianity.

Perhaps traditional amillennialists did not think that anyone would dare to go that far, but there is nothing inherent in the 'spiritual' or 'allegorical' approach to Bible prophecy that limits it to interpreting only the Tribulation and Millennium non-literally, while leaving the prophecies about Jesus' second coming, the resurrection of the dead, final judgment, and the New Heaven and New Earth to be fulfilled literally.

Thus, I think amillennialism's non-literal approach to Bible prophecy is not only inconsistent, but it is also dangerous, because if applied consistently, then, as demonstrated by liberal 'Christianity', it can be taken as far as to deny the core of Christian hope for eternal life after death, which is the gospel message.

The Distinctiveness of the Premillennial Pretribulational View

Overall, I agree with Walvoord that,

Generally speaking, a literal interpretation of the Scriptures dealing with the Tribulation and taking into account all the factors revealed in Scripture concerning the Tribulation tends to support the pretribulational concept.48

So just to summarize, out of all of the above views, it is only the premillennial, pretribulational, futurist view of the end times which, thanks to its use of the literal method of interpretation of Bible prophecy, interprets the Tribulation and Millennium as being exactly as they are described in the Bible.

This is the only view of eschatology which does not have to spiritualize, ignore, or downplay the details of the twenty-one Tribulation judgments described in Revelation chapters 6 to 18, or the descriptions of Jesus' second coming and future Millennium in Revelation chapters 19 and 20.

Refuting Attempts to Discredit A Literal Interpretation of the End Times

Unfortunately, rather than engaging in this exegetical debate about the proper way to interpret Bible passages about the end times, some scholars and theologians prefer to tear down Christians who hold to a premillennial, pretribulational, futurist view of Revelation.

Often, this is done by implying that this view is not only unscholarly, but that it is also only the result of a few modern authors who have taken Revelation completely out of context.

For example, I have heard some critics imply that the only reason that many Christians today interpret Revelation from a mostly-literal futurist perspective is because these people have read the fictional Left Behind book series by Tim Lahaye and Jerry Jenkins, or (gasp!) — saw one of the movie adaptations of these books.

Personally, I don't know why any Christian should look down on the Left Behind series. Even though these books are obviously Tim Lahaye and Jerry Jenkins' fictional portrayal of their interpretation of the end times, it has been suggested that,

In terms of [the Left Behind' series of books'] impact on Christianity, it's probably greater than that of any other book in modern times, outside the Bible.49

So if the millions of people who read these books were inspired to believe in Jesus for the first time, or take their faith more seriously, or were moved to share the gospel with others out of concern that their loved ones might be 'left behind' at the Rapture, then I think that is a very good thing. It should not be looked down on by any scholars or theologians, even if they disagree with Lahaye and Jenkins' approach, or with the premillennial, pretribulational, futurist view of Revelation as a whole.

However, it is rather insulting to imply that the only reason anyone reads the Book of Revelation from a mostly-literal futurist perspective is because of the Left Behind books.

Clearly, Lahaye and Jenkins did not get their interpretation of Revelation from thin air.

Lahaye has written his own commentary on Revelation which, although it is not necessarily seen as being 'academic', I think actually does a decent job at interpreting Revelation from a premillennial, pretribulational, futurist perspective.50 And Lahaye is not the first Christian to have expressed such an interpretation of Revelation:

The futurist approach is held by the majority of the most popular contemporary evangelical writers and Bible teachers.... The best-known version of futurism today is that of dispensational theology. This is the camp of J. N. Darby, C. I. Scofield, Clarence Larkin, Charles Ryrie, John Walvoord, Hal Lindsey, and many others.51

The futurist view of the end-times was also held by some notable early church teachers, such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Hippolytus.52 Yet as seen earlier in this post, other early church authors like Augustine and Origen took a more 'spiritual' approach.

Despite this difference of views on the end times, we can say that in general, the early church believed that Jesus' return was imminent (i.e., that Jesus could return at any time):

The central feature of pretribulationism, the doctrine of imminency, is, however, a prominent feature of the doctrine of the early church. Without facing all the problems that the doctrine of imminency raises, such as its relation to the Tribulation, the early church lived in constant expectation of the coming of the Lord for His Church.53

At the same time,

It is true that the early church fathers were not always consistent, as on the one hand they held that the Lord could come at any moment and then perhaps in the next paragraph would intimate that something had to happen first.54

How the coming of the Lord could be a daily expectation as is indicated by the early Fathers and at the same time have a lengthy series of events preceding the Second Advent was apparently not resolved in the early church.55

Given that many far more important theological doctrines such as the two natures of Jesus (the hypostatic union) and the Trinity were not fully defined until later, and that historical theological disputes and debates focused on more critical theological issues, it is not surprising that the early church did not make it a priority to work out every detail of eschatology.56

Walvoord says,

Through much of the history of the church, the apparent conflict between the concept of imminency and the necessity of intermediate events before the Second Advent continued to be a problem, with no complete solution until pretribulationism — placing the Rapture before [all other] end-time events — was advanced.57

Of course, a common criticism of Christians who hold to the premillennial, futurist view of the end times that includes a pretribulation Rapture comes from the claim that the concept of the Rapture was invented by John Nelson Darby. Darby was a Bible teacher and evangelist who lived from 1800-1882, who was a member of of the Plymouth Brethren denomination.

Some critics even accuse Darby of getting his idea of the Rapture from a woman named Margaret McDonald who supposedly had some sort of a vision of Jesus' return. Yet Darby claimed to have derived his views on the end times from his own study of the Bible.58

However, Darby was not the first theologian since the time of the early church to advocate for the premillennial, futurist view of the end times. The Spanish Jesuit named Francisco Ribeira argued for the futurist approach to Revelation in 1585, and Samuel Maitland, the librarian to the Archbishop of Canterbury, introduced the futurist view to Protestants in 1827, which Darby later popularized.59

Yet to endorse or discredit an idea simply based on who else once expressed it, or who may have been the originator of it, is called the genetic fallacy.60 Judging whether an idea is true or not must occur based on evidence and arguments, not based on who else once believed it, or who currently believes it.

Or as Walvoord says,

The truth or error of pretribulationism must be settled on the exegesis of the Scriptures rather than by polling the early church Fathers or attempting to discredit the doctrine as originating from questionable characters.61

So if it should not matter who once put forward a particular view of the end-times, then likewise, it should not matter when a particular view of the end-times was first proposed.

After all, the accusation that the pre-Tribulation Rapture is a new understanding of the end times can also be leveled against the posttribulationist argument that the Rapture will only happen after the Tribulation:

It may be conceded that the advanced and detailed theology of pretribulationism of today is not found in the early church fathers, and there are some grounds for tracing this to Darby, who seems to have been the first to make this sharp distinction. What posttribulationists do not seem to realize is that the detailed arguments for posttribulationism as they are now advanced are even more recent than Darby; and if recency is an argument against pretribulationism, it is also an argument against posttribulationism. The fact is that the development of most important doctrines took centuries, and it is not surprising that even in the twentieth century new light should be cast on our understanding of Scripture.62

Christians should have no problem with the idea that there may be new theological discoveries and greater understandings of Scripture beyond what Christians believed in the past:

The charge that the doctrine of imminency is a new and novel doctrine is false, but the charge that pretribulationism has been developed and defined to a large extent in recent centuries is true. In any event, the thesis that the early fathers were omniscient and once-for-all defined every phase of theology is an unjustified limitation on the liberty of the Spirit of God to reveal the truth of Scripture to each generation of believers.63

The Bible itself seems to endorse the idea that Bible prophecy will become clearer as we get closer and closer to when the end times will occur.

The prophet Daniel did not fully understand some of his own prophecies, but was told by an angel that "the words are shut up and sealed until the time of the end" (Daniel 12:9). This implies that these prophecies will become un-sealed for believers to understand sometime either near to or during the end times.

This claim makes sense, since I believe that it is only now possible to understand how some of the prophecies in Revelation could be literally fulfilled because of the development of modern technology.

As just one example, the ability of people all around the world to see the bodies of the two witnesses lying in the streets of Jerusalem for three days (Revelation 11:9-12) would have been difficult to understand before the invention of the television. Now, with smartphones and satellite Internet, live video streams can be easily watched basically anywhere in the world.

Robotics, computer-generated imagery, and rapid developments in the field of artificial intelligence may indeed make it possible to create an image/idol of the Antichrist that will be able to speak and seem to be alive (Revelation 13:15), in contrast to all previous idols that were statues that could not see, hear, speak, or move (Jeremiah 10:5, 51:17, Daniel 5:23, 1 Corinthians 12:2, Revelation 9:20).

There was also never a case in history past where every person in the world was required to take some sort of a 'mark' in/on their forehead or right hand in order to be able to buy or sell (Revelation 13:16-18). Yet this is also now becoming a possibility thanks to the rise of technologies such as online banking, digital currencies, QR codes, RFID chips, and blockchain technology.

Even more importantly, the entire world has never been required to worship a single entity, whether a person, an idol, or a false god, or face the punishment of being beheaded (Revelation 13:11-15, 20:4).

Yes, there was one instance where, around 111-112 AD when Christianity was technically illegal, the Roman governor of the province of Bithynia would test whether someone who was brought to him was truly a Christian by asking them to pray to the gods, burn incense to a statue of the Roman emperor, and curse Christ, because these were things he had been told that Christians would never do.64

If the people being questioned did refuse to do these things, the governor would sentence them to death, not specifically for being a Christian, but simply for their "pertinacity and inflexible obstinacy".65

The early document titled "The Martyrdom Of Perpetua", perhaps written by Tertullian, recounts another famous instance of early Christian persecution in 202-203 in Carthage, during the reign of Septimus Severus. At this time, while it was not illegal to be a Christian, it was illegal for people to become new Christians. During her trial, the young woman Perpetua was asked to sacrifice to the emperor, but she refused. As punishment, she and several other new Christians who likewise refused were put in jail and were later killed in an arena by wild animals or gladiators.66

Perhaps the closest historical instance to what is described in Revelation 13:15-18 occurred in Rome under Emperor Decius from 249 to 251 AD. He wanted to restore and enforce the worship of the Roman gods, because he believed that the empire was facing problems because the people were neglecting to worship their gods.

As a result, Decius declared that worshiping the Roman gods was mandatory throughout the Roman Empire. Everyone was required to obtain a paper certificate that said they had offered a sacrifice to the Roman gods and burned incense to a statue of the emperor. Anyone who did not have this certificate was to be considered an outlaw. If Christians were found without their certificate, they would be arrested and tortured in an attempt to get them to recant their faith and follow the new law. To get around this law, some Christians bought false certificates in order to avoid persecution.67

So although the above instance could be seen as being somewhat similar to the requirement for all people to receive the Mark of the Beast in Revelation 13, there are also several significant differences:

• the paper certificates were not a mark that was printed in/on people's foreheads or hands.
• the certificates were not used to limit people's ability to buy or sell.
• it was possible to get around this law by buying or forging fake certificates.
• Christians were tortured for not having a certificate, not beheaded.
• this law applied only to people inside the Roman Empire, not to everyone in the entire world.

Furthermore, some Christians may have given in to this law, but later repented and reaffirmed their faith.

In the cases of Christians who had obtained fake certificates or who had repented, there was a debate about whether they should be allowed back into good standing with the church. In the end, it was decided that Christians who had purchased or forged certificates could be readmitted immediately, but others who had actually given in and sacrificed would only be allowed back in when they were on their deathbeds, or if they stood strong in a future instance of persecution.68

In contrast, Revelation clearly says that,

Those who worship the beast and its image, and receive a mark on their foreheads or on their hands, they will also drink the wine of God’s wrath, poured unmixed into the cup of his anger, and they will be tormented with fire and sulphur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up for ever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and its image and for anyone who receives the mark of its name. (Revelation 14:9-11 NRSVA)

So it does not seem that it is possible for anyone to repent for taking the Mark of the Beast. Those who do take it are guaranteed to face God's wrath, which, as an annihilationist, I would interpret as being some period of physical torment which then ends in eternal destruction.

Yet since all true Christians are sealed by the Holy Spirit the moment we first believe, which guarantees that we will be eternally saved (Ephesians 1:13-14), it must be impossible for anyone who is a true Christian to take the Mark of the Beast.

God's people are sometimes depicted in the Bible as being marked 'spiritually' on the forehead to protect them from divine judgment (Ezekiel 9:4-6, Revelation 7:3, 9:4, 14:1). The Mark of the Beast may be Satan's attempt to twist and copycat this spiritual reality.

Logically, then, it seems that there must be something about the Mark of the Beast that makes it so much worse than simple idolatry, which, as in this historical example, Christians can commit, and can be repented of and forgiven.

Even in the Old Testament, the Israelite people were repeatedly forgiven for turning away from God and worshiping idols — even in the famous and blatant incident of idolatry with the golden calf at Mount Sinai (Exodus 32:7-14).

So there must be something extremely specific or special about the Mark of the Beast that causes people who take it to become immediately worthy of facing eternal divine punishment, and which is beyond the sin of idolatry. The extreme seriousness of the Mark of the Beast is shown by how God actually has an angel fly around the world, directly telling the people at that time that they must not take the Mark, or they will face eternal punishment (Revelation 14:9-11).

As I discussed at the end of a previous post, it seems there is a strong possibility that the Mark of the Beast may perhaps genetically change those who take it in such a way that they would be no longer fully human. If so, it would be impossible for them to be redeemed through the death of Jesus Christ because, since Jesus was fully human, his death can only atone for humanity's sins (Hebrews 2:14-17).

But regardless of exactly what the Mark of the Beast will be, there has been no instance anywhere in history, either literally or symbolically, of it being possible for people to take some 'mark' in/on their hand or forehead which immediately dooms them to face eternal divine punishment that they cannot repent of and be forgiven for.

All of this is strong evidence that the Mark of the Beast has never been fulfilled by any historical instance of Christian persecution, and so it must be referring to something that will still happen in the future.

And if so, then all the other details surrounding this Mark must also be yet-future, such as the existence of some man symbolically referred to as 'the beast' who rules the entire world for 42 months (Revelation 13:5-8), and a false prophet who endorses this man by doing miracles for him, and calling on the people of the world to make the Image of the Beast and to take the Mark of the Beast (Revelation 13:11-18).

Therefore, because only the futurist perspective of Revelation can properly account for all of the details about the Mark of the Beast that we are given in Scripture, I believe this is strong support for the premillennial, pretribulational approach to the end times, in contrast to all other approaches discussed in this post.

Conclusion

As demonstrated in this post, the literal approach to reading the Book of Revelation which generally interprets the events in Revelation chapters 6 to 20 in a straightforward way, naturally leads to the premillennial, pretribulational, futurist approach to the end times.

The strengths of this perspective are that it:

• explains how Revelation is still relevant to Christians today and in the future, not just the early church.
• makes Revelation generally understandable to Christians though a straightforward interpretation of the divine judgments and other biblical symbols.
• is consistent with the rest of what the Bible teaches about the end times, the return of Jesus, and the Millennial Kingdom.
• makes sense of the unique details about the Mark of the Beast, and why those who take it will face automatic eternal destruction without any chance of forgiveness.
• provides hope for Christians that Jesus will literally return in the clouds to at the Rapture to transform all Christians from immortal to mortal and take us to heaven before the Tribulation happens.

In comparison, all other approaches to Revelation which take it non-literally end up having problems of one sort or another:

• Preterism has to believe that John was not talking about things that were in the future, even though this would make Revelation completely irrelevant to both his original audience and any future Christians. Preterism also has to interpret all the prophesied judgments of Revelation non-literally in order to claim that they were fulfilled in the past.
• Historicism has to allegorize the judgments of Revelation in order to claim that some of them have been fulfilled in the past. There is also no consistency among historicist interpreters about which past events fulfilled certain prophecies in Revelation.
• Posttribulationism cannot explain how anyone would be left to enter Jesus' Millennial kingdom in regular mortal bodies if the Rapture occurs at Jesus' second coming.
• Postmillennialism is too optimistic about the ability of sinful Christians to bring peace and righteousness to the world, when the Bible says this will only occur after Jesus' second coming during the establishment of his Millennial Kingdom. Plus, postmillennialism has to significantly downplay the seriousness of the judgments in Revelation 6 to 18 so that they do not interfere with the continual improvement they expect the Church to bring to the world until the time of Jesus' second coming.
• Amillennialism inconsistently allegorizes both the Millennium and the judgments of the Tribulation, but interprets Jesus' second coming, the final judgment, and New Heaven and New Earth literally. The allegorical/spiritual method of interpretation has no consistency and often takes Bible passages out of context or reads the interpreter's own desires into Scripture.
• Liberal Christianity ignores how Jesus promised that he would literally return to Earth in the future. By interpreting all Bible prophecy non-literally, liberal Christianity denies critical elements of the gospel message, such as the future resurrection of all Christians, and eternal life in the New Heaven and New Earth.

Of course, one criticism of the premillennial, pretribulational, futurist view of Revelation is exactly that Jesus and John said these things would happen "soon" (Revelation 1:1, 3:11, 22:6-7, 22:12, 22:20), yet here we are nearly two thousand years later.

However, God's sense of time is different than humanity's, and God is waiting as long as he has to bring the end times in order for as many people as possible to be saved before then (2 Peter 3:8-9, Psalm 90:4, Romans 11:25).

And if this is why God is waiting until the very last possible minute to start the end times, then this is a very good reason for Christians to prioritize evangelism. We shouldn't be like the scoffers who say that Jesus isn't returning for a long time (2 Peter 3:3-7), or claim that certain things still have to happen before the Rapture. We should not tempt Christians to feel complacent and put off sharing the gospel, especially if evangelizing is uncomfortable, awkward, or personally risky.

Thus, the teaching of the imminent return of Jesus in the Rapture, followed by the onset of the end-time Tribulation that involves all of the terrible judgments in Revelation chapters 6 to 18, should keep every generation of Christians focused on the great commission that Jesus gave us before he ascended into heaven (Matthew 28:19-20).

The warning given in Revelation that Jesus truly could return "soon" should provide Christians with a constant sense of urgency for us to reach our loved ones with the gospel message, since there is no guarantee that we will have time to do so in the future.

In this way, the teaching about the end times contained in the Book of Revelation has been relevant for every generation of Christians, simply because we do not know for sure when the Rapture will happen or when the Tribulation will begin (Matthew 24:36). In contrast, I do not believe that any other approach to the end times provides as much motivation for Christians to share the gospel message.

I hope that any Christians who disagree will make their own arguments for their own perspectives on the end times by addressing the potential flaws with these perspectives that I have highlighted in the above post. I hope they will truly engage in this exegetical and theological debate over the literal interpretation of Bible prophecy, rather than attempting to demean the proponents of the premillennial, pretribulational perspective for other reasons.

And if you are reading this and have not yet personally trusted Jesus' promise to give eternal life to everyone who believes in him, I would highly recommend for you to do so now.

Footnotes:

• 1. Stephen L. Cook, The Apocalyptic Literature (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2001), 22.
• 2. Stephen L. Cook, The Apocalyptic Literature (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2001), 26, quote from John J. Collins, "Introduction: Towards the Morphology of a Genre," in Apocalypse: The Morphology of a Genre, ed. J. Collins (Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 1979), 9.
• 3. "It is impossible to distinguish ultimately between prophecy and apocalyptic, for the latter is an extension of the former.... Certain differences do in part distinguish the two forms: prophecy tends to be oracular and apocalyptic visionary, and prophecy has a certain optimistic overtone (if the nation repents, the judgment prophecies [sic] will not occur), while apocalyptic tends to be pessimistic (the only hope lies in the future rather than the present). However, both center on salvation for the faithful and judgment for the unfaithful." Grant R. Osborne, Revelation, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002), 13.
• 4. Steve Gregg, Revelation: Four Views. A Parallel Commentary (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1997), 2-3.
• 5. "It should be remembered that the various approaches to Revelation are not linked inseparably to any particular millennial position, so that one's eschatology does not necessarily dictate which approach to Revelation is to be preferred." Steve Gregg, Revelation: Four Views. A Parallel Commentary (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1997), 28.
• 6. Roger Olson, Against Liberal Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2022), 59-60.
• 7. Osborne notes there were a few skeptics who argued that there were errors in Revelation. For example, it was objected that there was no church in Thyatira in the late second century, but these objections were answered by Epiphanius and Hippolytus. Grant R. Osborne, Revelation, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002) 23.
• 8. Grant R. Osborne, Revelation, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002), 23-24. Osborne notes that part of the reason these theologians on the eastern side of the Roman Empire did not accept Revelation right away was because the differences in language and style in Revelation made them question whether it was truly the Apostle John who wrote it. Yet scholars have argued that the grammatical irregularities in Revelation could be explained by it being written by someone who "is often thinking in Hebrew as he writes the Greek" (Osborne, 24). If John was exiled on Patmos, it is unlikely he had anyone around to help him write his letter or act as a secretary for him to smooth out his words. Plus, John was originally a fisherman, not a scribe or linguist, and if John was actively writing while having his vision, as a few places in Revelation may suggest (Revelation 1:11, 10:4, 14:13, 19:9, 21:5), I think it would actually be expected that his grammar would not be the best!
• 9. Osborne calls this the 'apocalyptic mindset': "The fundamental perspective of the book is the exhortation to endure persecution on the basis of the transcendent reality of God's kingdom in the present as grounded in God's control of the future.... The judgment of the wicked and the vindication of the saints are important elements in apocalyptic and dominate Revelation as well. In light of this, the ethical mandate to persevere or overcome is essential, for apocalyptic is ethical at heart and demands faithfulness on the part of the people of God." Grant R. Osborne, Revelation, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002), 14-15.
• 10. Stephen L. Cook, The Apocalyptic Literature (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2001), 31-32.
• 11. Stephen L. Cook, The Apocalyptic Literature, (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2001), 33, see also 217, quoting Eugene Peterson, Reversed Thunder: The Revelation of John and the Praying Imagination (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1988), 70.
• 12. "It is difficult to know the extent of the Neronian persecution. Christian writers from the latter part of the first century, and early in the second, recall the horrors of those days. It is also very likely that both Peter and Paul were among the Neronian martyrs. On the other hand, there is no mention of any persecution outside the city of Rome, and therefore it is quite likely that this persecution, although exceedingly cruel, was limited to the capital of the empire." Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, Vol. 1, Revised and Updated (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2010), 46.
• 13. Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, Vol. 1, Revised and Updated (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2010), 46-48.
• 14. Stephen L. Cook, The Apocalyptic Literature (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2001), 192.
• 15. Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, Vol. 1, Revised and Updated (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2010), 59.
• 16. At the time when John wrote Revelation, "While there was no official Roman persecution, Christians felt a great deal of economic and social pressure to participate in Roman life, including the trade guilds with their idolatrous feasts and cultic practices as well as the imperial cult.... When Christians refused to do so, a great deal of antipathy was naturally directed against them.... While there is no developed persecution in the book, there was a great deal of daily opposition as well as signs of intensification on the near horizon." Grant R. Osborne, Revelation, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002), 11.
• 17. Walvoord notes that, for example, "at least fifty different systems of interpretation (of Revelation) have arisen from the historical view alone." Thus, as Gregg admits, "if the prophecies' meanings cannot be identified with certainty, even after their fulfillments, the value of the prophecies to the readers of any period, whether before or following the fulfillments, is in serious question." Steve Gregg, Revelation: Four Views. A Parallel Commentary (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1997), 37.
• 18. D. L. Cooper, as cited in Jack Kelley, "How to Interpret the Bible", Grace Thru Faith, February 12, 2024. Accessed August 5, 2025.
• 19. Steve Gregg, Revelation: Four Views. A Parallel Commentary (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1997), 40.
• 20. Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Revelation (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1968), 9, as quoted by Steve Gregg in Revelation: Four Views. A Parallel Commentary (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1997), 41.
• 21. This interpretation comes from the early eastern church commentator Methodius. Steve Gregg, Revelation: Four Views. A Parallel Commentary (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1997), 30.
• 22. John F. Walvoord, The Rapture Question, Revised and Enlarged Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1979), 14.
• 23. Steve Gregg, Revelation: Four Views. A Parallel Commentary (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1997), 27.
• 24. The earliest commentary on Revelation that has survived, by Victorinus of Pettau who died in 303 AD, was "firmly premillennial". It is suggested that based on quotations in other people's writings, the early church writers Papias, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Lactantius also held this view. (Steve Gregg, Revelation: Four Views. A Parallel Commentary (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1997), 28). John Walvoord argues that "The early church was far from settled on details of eschatology, though definitely premillennial" (John F. Walvoord, The Rapture Question, Revised and Enlarged Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1979), 156). Charles Ryrie has also claimed that "premillennialism is the historic faith of the Church" (Gregg, Revelation: Four Views, 29, quoting Charles C. Ryrie, The Basis of the Premillennial Faith (Neptune, NJ: Loiseaux Brothers, 1953), 17). Others doubt whether this was true, since Justin Martyr, although stating that he held to premillennialism, admits that there were "many" other Christians who thought otherwise (Gregg, Revelation: Four Views, 29, citing Justin's Dialogue with Trypho.)
• 25.This specific distinction did not necessarily exist among premillennial early church authors, who had not developed detailed systems of eschatology. "It was actually impossible for the Tribulation question even to be discussed intelligently until the Protestant Reformation had restored a theological foundation that would support it. Unfortunately the Reformers went back to Augustine for their eschatology instead of the early chiliastic [i.e., premillennial] Fathers; and until premillennialism was again established in the post-Reformation period, the advance of the interpretation of prophecy had to wait. In a word, the early Fathers were not specifically pretribulational, neither were they all posttribulational in the modern meaning of the term. They simply had not raised the questions involved in this controversy" (John F. Walvoord, The Rapture Question, Revised and Enlarged Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1979), 156). See also Grant R. Osborne, Revelation, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002), 20.
• 26. Grant R. Osborne, Revelation, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002), 21. Revelation generally does not say much about Israel in comparison to the Church, except possibly if the male child in Revelation 12:5-6 refers not just to Jesus' personal ascension to heaven (Acts 1:6-11), but also to the rest of Jesus' body, the Church (1 Corinthians 12:12, 12:27) who will help Jesus rule during the Millennium with rods of iron (Revelation 2:27), but which is snatched up to heaven in the Rapture before the Tribulation, while unbelieving Israel is left behind to go through it. However, Israel will be protected by God during this time, and some of them will escape into the wilderness at the Abomination of Desolation (Revelation 12:6, 12:13-16, Matthew 24:15-28, Mark 13:14-23) when the Antichrist declares himself to be God in the rebuilt temple (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4). After this, the Antichrist will turn his attention to persecuting the Tribulation saints, i.e., all the new Christians who converted after the Rapture (Revelation 12:17, 13:7). The location of the battle of Armageddon will also begin in a place in northern Israel called Har Megiddo (Revelation 16:16), but the battle will make its way down to Jerusalem (Zechariah 12:1-14, 14:1-5). There, finally, the surviving one-third of Israel will recognize Jesus as their Messiah when he returns at his second coming to save them from the Antichrist's armies (Zechariah 12:10, 13:8, Revelation 19:11-21, Luke 13:34-35, Romans 11:11-24).
• 27. I have taken an academic course on Revelation during my Masters degree, read a number of different mainstream Christian authors' books about the end times, as well as both academic and non-academic commentaries on the books of Revelation and Daniel, and listened to various online pastors and other generally well-known and respected Bible prophecy experts who teach this perspective.
• 28. Grant R. Osborne, Revelation, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002), 21.
• 29. "In a somewhat less degree [as between premillennialism and amillennialism] the same hermeneutical difference is seen in the pretribulational versus the posttribulational positions. Pretribulationism is based on a literal interpretation of key Scriptures, while posttribulationism tends towards spiritualization of the Tribulation passages." John F. Walvoord, The Rapture Question, Revised and Enlarged Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1979) 54-55.
• 30. "Postmillennialists assert that the millennium will come by the spiritual and moral influence of Christian preaching and teaching in the world. This will result in increased conversions, a more important role of the church in the world, earthly prosperity, the resolution of social ills and a general adoption of Christian values. Evil will diminish until the time of Christ's second coming, which will mark as well the resurrection of the dead and the last judgment." Stanley J. Grenz, David Guretzki, Cherith Fee Nordling, Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 1999), 93.
• 31."New Apostolic Reformation" Wikipedia.org, accessed August 5, 2025.
• 32. John F. Walvoord, The Rapture Question, Revised and Enlarged Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1979), 16.
• 33. "It is a characteristic of postmillennialism that it does not attempt a literal interpretation of the Tribulation. Some [postmillennialists] less conservative than Hodge, such as Snowden, regard the Tribulation as any time of trouble, now largely past or associated with the apostolic period. Hodge himself did not offer any specific system of interpretation, as illustrated in his comment on the Book of Revelation: 'Some regard it as a description in oriental imagery of contemporaneous events; others as intended to set forth the different phases of the spiritual life of the Church; others as designed to unfold the leading events in the history of the Church and of the world in their chronological order; others again assume that it is a series, figuratively speaking, of circles; each vision or series of visions relating to the same events under different aspects; the end, and the preparation for the end, being presented over and over again; the great theme being the coming of the Lord, and the triumph of his Church'". John F. Walvoord, The Rapture Question, Revised and Enlarged Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1979), 15-16.
• 34. Steve Gregg, Revelation: Four Views. A Parallel Commentary (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1997), 28.
• 35. "The inroads of the spiritualizing principles of Origen, which caused the downfall of premillennialism in the third and forth centuries and the departure from the Scriptures and which characterized the organized church until the Protestant Reformation, were hardly a climate in which an intricate problem such as pretribulationism versus posttribulationism could be solved" (John F. Walvoord, The Rapture Question, Revised and Enlarged Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1979), 156).
• 36. John F. Walvoord, The Rapture Question, Revised and Enlarged Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1979), 54-55.
• 37. John F. Walvoord, The Rapture Question, Revised and Enlarged Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1979), 16.
• 38. "The tendency in amillennialism is to avoid specific details in describing the Tribulation. In effect, while admitting the fact of the coming Tribulation, amillennarians spiritualize the sequence of events that are prophesied. This is particularly true in the interpretation of the Tribulation section of the Book of Revelation." John F. Walvoord, The Rapture Question, Revised and Enlarged Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1979), 17.
• 39. "The fact that the Book of Revelation was written after this event [the destruction of the temple in 70 AD], however, and that a time of trouble is predicted to precede the Second Advent has led some [amillennialists], like Berkhof, to hold to a future Tribulation, placing the fulfillment of Scripture dealing with the Tribulation, including the battle of God and Magog, after the Millennium." John F. Walvoord, The Rapture Question, Revised and Enlarged Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1979), 16-17.
• 40. Roger Olson, Against Liberal Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2022), 146.
• 41. "For many, if not most, liberal Christians, the best of modern thought serves as a ruling norm for Christian belief. The Bible is still a source, but contemporary philosophy and science decide what parts of it are true and what parts are not." Roger Olson, Against Liberal Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2022), 48.
• 42. "Many liberal Christian theologians (and those influenced by them) have concluded from higher criticism that the Bible cannot be trusted to be what Christians believed about it for centuries. Higher criticism began in the eighteenth century in Europe but really took off among academic biblical scholars in the nineteenth century. And it evolved further during the twentieth century up to and including the Jesus Seminar of which Marcus Borg was a member. Higher criticism approaches the study of the Bible as ancient literature and refuses to engage in 'special pleading' for it. The practitioners of higher criticism set aside faith in the Bible as God's Word written and seek to examine its origins, evolution, and meaning using secular techniques of literary criticism. Higher criticism has not achieved much by way of consensus about the Bible, except that it is thoroughly human in origin and radically conditioned by cultures and traditions." Roger Olson, Against Liberal Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2022) 56.
• 43."Biblical scholarship is not the problem; the problem is higher criticism's naturalistic assumption, which colors and conditions how critics see the Bible. For example, most higher critics of the Old Testament assume that prophetic foretelling of the future cannot be real, so if a prophet is recorded as foretelling a future political event or war, that prophet's writing must not really be his. The book attributed to the prophet must have been written later — after the events foretold." (Roger Olson, Against Liberal Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2022), 56). "The problem with higher criticism is when it undermines the truth of the Bible using naturalistic assumptions about the impossibility of miracles and of God's supernaturally inspiring prophets to foretell future events" (Olson, 57).
• 44."By approaching the Bible with a naturalistic lens, liberal Christians strip it of supernatural inspiration and reduce it to a Christian classic that is fictional but nevertheless inspiring and even transforming. The Bible becomes primarily parabolic in nature" (Roger Olson, Against Liberal Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2022) 58).
• 45. Roger Olson, Against Liberal Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2022), 159.
• 46. Roger Olson, Against Liberal Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2022), 147-160. He examines the views of Friedrich Schleiermacher, Gary Dorrien, Washington Gladden, Henry Churchill King, L. Harold DeWolf, Delwin Brown, Donald E. Miller, Peter Hodgson, Marcus Borg, John Shelby Spong, and Douglas Ottati.
• 47. Roger Olson, Against Liberal Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2022), 161.
• 48. John F. Walvoord, The Rapture Question, Revised and Enlarged Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1979), 39.
• 49. "Left Behind", Wikipedia.org, accessed August 5, 2025.
• 50. Tim Lahaye, Revelation Unveiled (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1999), which is a revised and updated version of his older commentary that was formerly titled Revelation Illustrated and Made Plain.
• 51. Steve Gregg, Revelation: Four Views, A Parallel Commentary (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1997), 40. Gregg also lists Isaac Williams, Stern, Bisping, J. A. Seiss, Robert H. Mounce, and George Eldon Ladd as others who held this view (Gregg, 32-33). The pretribulation Rapture was especially popularized through the Scofield Reference Bible (John F. Walvoord, The Rapture Question, Revised and Enlarged Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1979), 19).
• 52. Grant R. Osborne, Revelation, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002), 20.
• 53. John F. Walvoord, The Rapture Question, Revised and Enlarged Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1979), 51.
• 54. John F. Walvoord, The Rapture Question, Revised and Enlarged Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1979), 51.
• 55. John F. Walvoord, The Rapture Question, Revised and Enlarged Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1979), 155-156.
• 56. John F. Walvoord, The Rapture Question, Revised and Enlarged Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1979), 50-51, 156.
• 57. John F. Walvoord, The Rapture Question, Revised and Enlarged Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1979), 54.
• 58. John F. Walvoord, The Rapture Question, Revised and Enlarged Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1979), 19, 50, 150-154. Walvoord says "The assertion that pretribulationism in its modern form can be traced to some extent to Darby is supported by Darby's own writings. In his search for premillennial truth, Darby arrived at the position that the church is a special work of God distinguished from His program for Israel, This, in turn, led to the position that the Rapture is a special event for the church itself" (Walvoord, 150-151).
• 59. Steve Gregg, Revelation: Four Views, A Parallel Commentary (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1997), 42, 32.
• 60. "Genetic Fallacy", Wikipedia.org, accessed August 8, 2025.
• 61. John F. Walvoord, The Rapture Question, Revised and Enlarged Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1979), 157.
• 62. John F. Walvoord, The Rapture Question, Revised and Enlarged Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1979), 50.
• 63. John F. Walvoord, The Rapture Question, Revised and Enlarged Edition (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1979), 53-54.
• 64. Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, Vol. 1, Revised and Updated (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2010), 50-51.
• 65. Alan Lauffler Hayes, Church and Society in Documents, 100-600 A.D. (Canadian Scholars' Press, 1995), 4.
• 66. Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, Vol. 1, Revised and Updated (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2010), 98-99, Alan Lauffler Hayes, Church and Society in Documents, 100-600 A.D. (Canadian Scholars' Press, 1995), 60, 64, 69-71.
• 67. Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, Vol. 1, Revised and Updated (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2010), 100-102.
• 68. Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, Vol. 1, Revised and Updated (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2010), 103.