The whole subject of Bible prophecy about the end time developments and events is a great mystery, is it not. In fact it is so shrouded in mystery that there can be, and are, many different interpretations, and that means that no one can be sure about what is the right interpretation – so we are often told. This is especially true when the subject is the rapture of the church, especially with respect to its timing. If such is true it raises a troubling question: why would God reveal important truths to us in a way that is so shrouded in mystery that no one can be sure they understand it right? Or, could it be that He has made it clear in what He inspired men to write, but the many different interpretations are the result of men, mostly with their own agendas, failing to follow proven rules of interpretation and exegesis, thus obfuscating or confusing what God has revealed? Could it be that what should be clearly understood in key passages on the subject, has been misunderstood and misinterpreted because men approach those passages with biasing presuppositions, which themselves are not based on accurately interpreted scripture?
Men do have a tendency to do this with almost anything spoken or written. In fact, it seems to be difficult for us to approach any serious consequential subject matter objectively with a truly open mind, with intellectual integrity – which is very understandable inasmuch as everything we see or hear or read is always going to be interpreted in a context. That context probably begins with a worldview, and involves previous knowledge and experience, as well as our own preferences as to what we want to see or believe. Thus, almost no matter how explicitly articulated a given speech or written communication may be, men will differ on how they interpret what it actually means – especially when translation of languages is involved. The variety of interpretations of the U.S. Constitution is an example of this, even though it does not involve any translation of language. In the case of scripture the problem is only greatly amplified.
When approaching key passages of scripture on this subject of end time prophecy, and the issue and timing of the rapture of the church, this human tendency becomes painfully obvious. While an unindoctrinated unsuspecting truth-seeking reader of such passages would probably find them rather clear and unambiguous, scholars and doctrinaires seem compelled to find ways to interpret them that do make them seem quite mysterious, or confusing without their very erudite clarifications and explanations – as if God had it written in code which only they can decode and translate. To arrive at their interpretations and translations, one has to know and accept their presuppositions and preconditions – such as their preconceived system of interpretation and doctrine. With respect to interpretation of words used in a given text, the allegorical versus literal approach makes a world of difference in the meaning derived from the text. The allegorical or symbolic approaches leave the door wide open to individual interpretations according to their preferences and presuppositions – usually a system of theology known as Covenant Theology. However, even given for example a literal approach, such as the Pretribulation Rapturists, those words are interpreted to accommodate their preferences and presuppositions – a doctrinal system of theology known as Dispensationalism.
The problem is not that men have systematized their understanding of biblical truth, or interpreted words and passages of scripture to be consistent with their Systematic Theology – that alone is exactly what they should do. But the problem is that the presuppositions associated with those systems of theology, and ensuing doctrines, are not themselves all based on accurate interpretations of the words and texts used in scripture. In fact, they tend to put the cart before the horse. Instead of letting the various texts speak for themselves and thus driving the formulating of those doctrines which become presuppositions, they use those a priori doctrinal presuppositions to interpret the text – from which the presuppositions should be derived, taken as literally as possible, without the biasing effect of such presuppositions.
Prime examples of this are the interpretations of Matthew 24, the “Olivet Discourse”, and many passages in Revelation, as discussed in the following. The passages themselves, taken as literally and naturally as possible, do not appear to be very mysterious or at all confusing, nor do they need to be qualified and explained based on doctrinal presuppositions, such as those insisted upon by men of the Pretribulation Rapture persuasion. The presuppositions which very much alter the interpretation of those key passages are: “the church is not in the Olivet Discourse of Matthew 24”, and “the church is not in Revelation 4-18”. By establishing such guidelines for the interpretation of those key passages, they effectively eliminate some of the scriptural arguments which contradict their preferred interpretations – such as the rapture occurring before the 7-year Tribulation Period, hence seven years before the second coming of Christ. The question is, where are these presuppositions and very biasing and delimiting guidelines coming from, and are they themselves scripturally accurate?
The Church is Not in Matthew 24
As stated above, a prime example of presuppositions dictating interpretation is the case of the popular interpretations of Matthew 24. Consider the clear and explicit wording of this key passage about the rapture, and in particular the controversial timing of that salient event:
“29 But immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers ofthe heavens will be shaken. 30 And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory. 31 And He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.” (Matthew 24:29-31).
Advocates of the Pretribulation Rapture position (which I will call PTR) must emphasize and warn the reader that “the church is not in Matthew 24.” That is without doubt because the unindoctrinated reader who takes Matthew 24 at face value without presuppositions, will very likely understand it to be saying that saved believers – “the elect” – will be going thru very trying times, descriptions of which parallel the events described in Revelation. Then, according to Matthew, “after the tribulation of those days,” immediately before the catastrophic “sixth seal” cosmic event referred to as “the sign of the Son of Man,” they will be raptured.
However, Dispensationalists emphatically insist this is not about the rapture of the church. This means that they also have to insist that the “elect” in verse 31 who are “gathered together from the four winds”, refers to saved Israel (see Pentecost, Things to Come), or only Tribulation Period Saints, not just all saved believers, and certainly not the church. The problem is they never interpret the “elect” as Israel or Tribulation Period Saints anywhere else where the same word is used in the New Testament (other than born again Jews which are part of the Church as in Romans 11). In fact, they understand Israel to be the “branches” of the “olive tree” of Romans 11:16-24 which are “broken off” – i.e. temporarily rejected by God in favor of the Church. Nowhere in the New Testament do we see Israel referred to as “the elect.” Even in the one case where Israel is the topic of the discussion, Romans 11:5-7, the “chosen” only refers to the “remnant” of Israel which are saved by accepting Christ, which are part of the Church.
They attempt to support this contention with logical arguments, which are not necessarily so logical when examined critically. Their a priori assumption, based on their Dispensationalism, is the presupposition that the Tribulation Period is a time when God is only going to be dealing with Israel (as explained and insisted upon by Dr. D. Pentecost in his classic work, Things to Come). Unfortunately, as we have already pointed out, such a premise is nowhere stated in scripture. Nor for that matter is it implied in scripture, when taken literally in its most natural sense – in fact the opposite is indicated, especially in Revelation, as we will demonstrate in the following. Aside from that they simply revert to circular reasoning, that since the church has already been raptured out before the tribulation period, thus the “elect” here in Matthew can’t be the church, hence the church must not be in Matthew 24 (this is assuming as a fact that which they are trying to prove).
Bible scholars who subscribe to this Dispensationalists PTR interpretation that this text is not written to or about the church tell us that Matthew was written mostly to a Jewish audience, as opposed to Mark and Luke, which were more for the Gentile readers. However, with the exception of this 24th chapter, they all apply the rest of what is written in this Gospel to the church, such as: the Great Commission of Matthew 28:19-20, or the “Beatitudes” of the Sermon on the Mount of chapter 5, or the Lord’s Prayer of chapter 6, or such often cited passages as Matthew 6:33, 10:38-39, 11:28, and many other parables and passages and teachings which are clearly as much for the Gentile church as are any of the other Gospels. Furthermore, we have the parallel passages in the other Gospels, Mark 13 and Luke 17 and 21, which are supposedly written to the Gentiles, which have the same warnings and promises, including this promise about the “elect” being raptured out:
“24But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened and the moon will not give its light, 25and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers that are in the heavens will be shaken. 26Then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. 27And then He will send forth the angels, and will gather together His elect from the four winds, from the farthest end of the earth to the farthest end of heaven.” (Mark 13:24-27 emphasis added)
Would they also have us to believe that Mark 13 is only written to and about saved Jews? Perhaps not but they still contend that it is only referring to the Israel, or the “tribulation Saints,” who will come to Christ after the rapture of the church, during the Tribulation Period. But the only rationale for such an interpretation of Mark 13 is their presuppositions – their “dispensational distinctive” (as Dr. Pentecost refers to it) or hermeneutic that the rapture just has to happen before the Tribulation Period begins – with no explicit scripture or logical arguments to support that presupposition.
The reality is that Matthew 24, and Mark 13, are excellent proof texts for the contention that the Church will not be raptured out before the Tribulation Period begins. The “elect” in those passages is the same as it is anywhere else in the New Testament where the term is used – it is the Church. The contention that it is a prophecy about the second coming of Christ is of course quite accurate. That is exactly when the Saints alive at that time will be raptured out, before God pours out His wrath on the Antichrist and his followers. But the contention that it is not the church because the church had already been raptured out seven years earlier, has no scriptural support – not one verse.
It might be noted that it is this “second coming” which is referred to in those passages which tell us that no one knows the day or the hour, only the season. This is an important tenet of the PTR view, related to their doctrine of “imminence,” discussed in another chapter which follows. Yet, if as according to their Pre-tribulation Rapture view the church is suddenly all taken out seven years before this second coming event, how will its occurrence be so imminent and unknown – one need only calculate seven years from that rapture event to know exactly what day that second coming will happen. Hence again we have another example of contradictions associated with this interpretation. The answer of course is that according to their view it is the rapture which is imminent and cannot be predicted, and that is of course true, but only because the rapture and the second coming are concurrent events. Hence there is obviously no scriptural support for a surprise rapture event seven years before the second coming event, simply because there is no mention in scripture of such a Pre-tribulation event, period.
Another problem with this contrived explanation is that the rest of that chapter is the passage that tells us that this coming will be like a thief in the night, when one is taken and the other is left behind. These same men try to use this “thief in the night” metaphor to support their doctrine of imminence of Christ’s return to rapture the church. They also often cite it to support their teaching that the world will be in chaos when the Christians are raptured and the rest of the world will be left behind (hence LaHaye’s Left Behind series of books and movies, or Dr. David Jeremiah’s book The Great Disappearance). If in fact the church is not in Matthew 24, as they tell us, then the rest of that chapter, verses 32-51, do not apply to the church and have noting to do with the rapture of the church, according to their definitions.
The rationale given for their interpretation follows the line of reasoning articulated by Dr. Louis A. Barbieri, Jr. in the commentary in The Bible Knowledge Commentary – The Gospels:
“Four disciples, Peter, James, John, and Andrew (Mark 13:3), plainly asked Jesus two questions: (1) When will this happen? That is, when will the temple be destroyed and not one stone left on another? (2) What will be the sign of Your coming and of the end of the Age? These two questions prompted the following discussion by Jesus, commonly called the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24-25). The questions related to the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem, and the sign of the Lord’s coming and the end of the Age. They have nothing to do with the church, which Jesus said He would build (16:18). The church is not present in any sense in chapters 24 and 25. The disciples’ questions related to Jerusalem, Israel, and the Lord’s second coming in glory to establish His kingdom. Actually Matthew did not record Jesus’ answer to the first question, but Luke did (Luke 21:20). The disciples felt that the destruction of Jerusalem, of which Jesus had spoken, would usher in the kingdom. They were thinking, no doubt, of Zechariah 14:1-2. (The destruction Jesus referred to in Matt. 23:38 occurred in A.D. 70, a destruction separate from the final one in Zech. 14.)
Dr. Barbier begins with true statements about the disciples questions, and the fact that the rest of the chapter is to answer those questions. He is also right in telling us that it is about the future destruction of the temple and Christ’s return in judgment at the end of the age. However, neither of these true statements support or make the case for his next allegation, which in fact is the crux of the whole issue: “The church is not present in any sense in chapters 24 and 25.” Again, all he has done here is restate what is actually his premise (his doctrinal presupposition) – which is the whole controversial question at the heart of the issue being addressed. Nothing he has cited, nor is there anything in this text, which tells us this, or even supports that contention.
As we go on we see his admission that he has to make this assumption or the text is telling us that the rapture of the church is actually posttribulational:
“Clearly the church, the body of Christ, cannot be in view in these statements. The Lord was not describing the Rapture, for the removal of the church will not be a judgment on the church. If this were the Rapture, as some commentators affirm, the Rapture would have to be posttribulational, for this event occurs immediately before the Lord’s return in glory. But that would conflict with a number of Scriptures and present other problems that cannot be elaborated on here (cf., e.g., comments on 1 Thes. 4:13-18 and Rev. 3:10). (Barbieri, op. cit.)
One reason why he doesn’t give the number of other scriptures with which the posttribulational interpretation would conflict would be because in fact they don’t actually exist. First, he conflates the rapture of the church with the judgment found in the relevant texts – at best a strawman argument, and nonsensical at that. However, if we examine the two proof texts he does cite to support this argument, we find that the first one actually supports clearly the very view he is arguing against – 1 Thess. 4:13-18, if we don’t take it out of context as he apparently chooses to do. The message of that passage does not just stop at the end of the 4th chapter but continues through most of the 5th chapter. And in fact, it is not until the verses in that 5th chapter that the whole question of when this rapture occurs is even addressed at all. Here is the complete text:
“But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers and sisters, about those who are asleep, so that you will not grieve as indeed the rest of mankind do, who have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose from the dead, so also God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep through Jesus. For we say this to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who remain, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord. Therefore, comfort one another with these words.
Now as to the periods and times, brothers and sisters, you have no need of anything to be written to you. For you yourselves know full well that the day of the Lord is coming just like a thief in the night. While they are saying, “Peace and safety!” then sudden destruction will come upon them like labor pains upon a pregnant woman, and they will not escape.But you, brothers and sisters, are not in darkness, so that the day would overtake you like a thief; for you are all sons of light and sons of day. We are not of night nor of darkness;
so then, let’s not sleep as others do, but let’s be alert and sober. For those who sleep, sleep at night, and those who are drunk, get drunk at night. But since we are of the day, let’s be sober, having put on the breastplate of faith and love, and as a helmet, the hope of salvation.For God has not destined us for wrath, but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us, so that whether we are awake or asleep, we will live together with Him.”
(1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:10)
It is pretty unmistakable to see that this rapture of the church description of 4:16-17 is connected with the judgment of the unsaved of 5:2-3, which even the PTR advocates recognize as the second coming of Christ. That is inarguably exactly what Barbieri is trying to argue against, Posttribulational.
Furthermore, his only other proof text mentioned is Revelation 3:10, which requires a very flawed and forced interpretation of one key Greek word, “ek”, to derive any support for that view. As is always the case in translations, any word can only be accurately translated and thus interpreted if it is kept in its context of associated words, and the text. This is especially true in the case of prepositions, such as this word “ek”. By itself, according to Strong’s in the KJV it is translated of (366x), from (181x), out of (162x), by (55x), on (34x), with (25x), and miscellaneous (98x). For men to assert that it can only mean “from”, or “out of”, as in “out of the Tribulation Period”, is simply intellectually dishonest.
As is always the case, the proper translation can in part be determined from the context, and even the grammatical context, meaning we have to look at the combination of words being used here. Then, keeping it in the context of the whole of scripture, and letting scripture explain scripture (as opposed to opinionated men and brilliant human scholars), we can look at other passages where the same combination of words are used, and from this we can gain insight as to what acceptable interpretations of those words may include.
In this case a renowned and highly respected Greek scholar, who is not unfriendly to the pre-tribulation rapture view, gives us an honest exegetical look at the use of this word in this passage. Dr. A.T. Robertson points out that this word “ek” is used here in conjunction with the word “tereo” translated “will keep,” and then cites another passage where the same construction is also used. That other passage is quite revealing with regard to the claims made above by many PTR theologians who have written on this subject:
“I do not ask Thee to take them out of the world, but to keep them from the evil one.” (John 15:17)
Here we find the exact same word, and the same grammatical construction. Could anyone argue from this passage that the words “keep them from” means to take them out of or away from “the evil one” such that they will not be exposed to or be in any way tempted by, or attacked by him? Apparently not as He begins by saying that such is exactly not what He is praying for – “to take them out of the world” (as these men are trying to make it say in Revelation 3:10). If Jesus was praying for a “keeping from” in that sense, as men like Levy insist is the way it must be taken in our text in Revelation, then He was praying against what scripture tells us was, is and will be the case. If this was what Jesus meant His prayer was very ineffectual in that His request has certainly not been granted. Jesus Himself told Peter that this same “evil one” was attacking him, and trying to sift him like wheat. Peter tells us that the devil is like a roaring lion seeking to devour us, whom we have to resist (1 Peter 5:8-9). Paul tells us that our warfare is against the spiritual forces of darkness, and specifically mentions the “flaming missile of the evil one” (Eph. 6:12-17). Thus, clearly the words “terero ek” do not necessarily mean to keep from as in the sense of “out of the midst of,” meaning that they will not be exposed to that from which they are being kept.
In fact, we know from that very verse itself that this is not what it means, as it begins by saying this is a promise to those who “… didst keep the word of the endurance of me”, which in context is about overcoming in the face of such testing and trials. Furthermore, taken in context, Jesus was also clearly saying that those for whom He is praying will be exposed to the very trials and temptations that He is asking God to protect them from. Clearly, He is praying for their protection in the sense that they will be victorious, overcomers, when tried and tested and tempted by that same evil one (and indeed, that request by Jesus on their behalf was ultimately granted). If LaHaye and many other PTR advocates are correct about the Greek preposition used there, then they must explain why “dia” was not used in John 17:15 instead of “tereo ek”, since in our text in Revelation the same words are being used in exactly the same way as they were in John. Even the issue is very similar, in that what God is promising here is that when this hour of trial comes upon the whole world, God is the one who will enable them to be the overcomers – which is the reoccurring theme throughout these two chapters of this book of Revelation. If the church was to be taken out of the world, overcoming and persevering would not even be an issue, much less the main theme of the text (another logical contradiction in their interpretation).
Dr. Robertson is not alone in his understanding of these words. Another respected and often cited Greek scholar, M.R. Vincent makes the following observation:
“From the hour (ek). The preposition implies, not a keeping from temptation, but a keeping in temptation, as the result of which they shall be delivered out of its power. Compare John xvii. 15.” (Vincent, Vincent’s Word Studies of the New Testament, “Revelation of John,” p. 466.)
Here, from the same Greek word we see Dr. Vincent drawing the exact opposite conclusion as that reached by the PTR advocates. However, like A.T. Robertson, he does so based on his examination of the other passage which he also cross-references, the John 17:15 passage discussed above.
Another renown Bible commentator and Greek scholar, Henry Alford, who is also sympathetic to the pre-tribulation rapture view, gives his honest evaluation of this Greek word as follows:
“from (from out of the midst of: but whether by immunity from, or by being brought safe through, the preposition does not clearly define)”. (Alford, New Testament for English Readers, “Revelation,” p. 1809).
Thus, as Alford points out, one cannot make a clear statement about what this passage in Revelation means, based solely on the preposition used. On the other hand, when we let scripture interpret scripture, as opposed to a presupposed system of theology (such as Dispensationalism) and a preferred eschatological view (such as Pretribulation Rapture theory), one would surely lean towards renown Greek scholars Dr. Robertson’s or Dr. Vincent’s interpretation as opposed to Dr.s Barbieri or LaHaye’s, who have no such reputation as authorities on the Greek – perhaps for obvious reasons.
However, even proponents of the PTR view are not all ignorant of the problems and issues discussed above. Dr. Walvoord, former president of Dallas Theological Seminary, often cited as one of if not the leading expert on this subject of Eschatology, and an ardent advocate of the PTR view, in his commentary on this passage makes the following admission:
“Other instances of the use of the same verb and preposition together, such as John 17:15 and James 1:27, would indicate that it is perhaps too much to press it to mean an absolute deliverance.” (Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ, p. 87)
However, Walvoord then goes on to argue that it must be understood as “absolute deliverance from” in light of everything else this book has to say about this “tribulation period.” Of course, what he means is that he believes we should interpret this verse in a way that fits in with his interpretation of the rest of the book. [1] What he fails to do here, unlike Robertson and Vincent above, is give another passage of scripture to support his contention. As we study further in this book, and examine his interpretations of it, we find other interpretations which involve very similar approaches to interpreting many other passages – very lacking in literal scriptural support but clearly driven by a preconceived doctrinal position (see Dispensationalism and Pretribulation Rapture Theory).
The Church is Not in Revelation
Here we go again – what works for Matthew 24 should work for the book of Revelation. At least the approach to reaching such a conclusion is about the same. By assigning the right definitions to the words used in the text, and applying circular reasoning, we can make the case for the presupposition that “the Church is not in Revelation.” Exactly as they must do for Matthew 24, they also must do for the whole Apocalypse.
Probably the mainstream teaching among Dispensationalists is the contention that Christ is going to return to rapture out the church before the seven years of tribulation begin. However, this does present them with a problem in that we do actually see the Church throughout the whole book of Revelation. We see that there will be a body of saved believers, who are following Christ, being persecuted by the Beast, the Antichrist, and his False Prophet (12:17; 13:7; 14:12). We see this same body of believers who have remained faithful to death appearing dressed in white robes before the throne of God in heaven, where we are told that they have “come out of the great tribulation” (Rev. 7:9-17). And finally, we see them resurrected and reigning with Christ during the Millennium after being martyred for refusing to worship the beast (Rev. 20:4). These are simply referred to as “saints,” or those who “have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb” (7:14), or those who “keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus” (12:17), or as those who persevere and “keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus” (14:12). Certainly, if there is any possible way to indicate or describe the church it could not be better articulated than it is in these passages in Revelation. By definition “the Church” is the body of believers who have put their faith and trust in Jesus, have been washed in His blood, obey His commandments, and hold to His testimony (never deny Him), and persevere in their faith to the end. What else could we add to define and describe the church?
Strangely enough, the mainstream teaching among conservative evangelicals who are literalists and futurists, is that “the church is not in Revelation” after the third chapter. This is like a mantra that is repeated over and over again by those who teach that the rapture of the church must happen before the beginning of the Tribulation Period. Of course, they do have to qualify this a little bit, as even they have to admit that the church is undeniably appearing at the “marriage of the Lamb” of 19:7 (though incredibly some even parse this text and words so as to deny that she is present at the “marriage supper of the Lamb” in that same passage (19:9))[2]
The only rationale given, or textual evidence cited to support this contention that the church is not in Revelation 4-18 is the fact that the Greek word translated “church” does not appear in that part of the book. And in fact, it does not appear again after the third chapter until the last chapter in 22:16 – not even in the 19th thru the 21st chapter where the same men would insist the church does appear, even though the word for “church” (ekklesia) does not appear there either.
This would seem to be a most disingenuous argument inasmuch as the word church does not appear in 8 of the New Testament books, nor in the Gospels of Mark, Luke or John, or in 1 John or 2 John or 1 Peter or 2 Peter or Jude. Surely no one would even suggest that the church is not in these other New Testament books because the Greek word translated “church” does not appear there. Jude uses the word “saints” to refer to the church, which appears 12 times in the part of Revelation where we are told the church does not appear. The fact of the matter is that John doesn’t use the word “church” in any of his works, except in 3rd John and Revelation. For that matter he doesn’t use either word, “church” or “saints” to refer to saved believers in his other works (the Gospel of John and the three epistles) but his descriptions match exactly what we see in Revelation – those who confess Jesus is the Son of God and who obey His commandments and overcome by faith (1 John 3:24 & 4:15 & 5:4-5).
Indeed, there is nothing in scripture when translated accurately and interpreted literally, taking the most natural and obvious meaning of the text in light of its context, which suggests that the church in Revelation is anything other than “the Church.” Only the presupposition that the Church has to be raptured out before the events prophesied in the book begin to occur would lead one to the notion that the Church in Revelation is not really “the Church,” the “elect,” the “bride of Christ,” as it is in any other book of the New Testament. But for one to hold to that preconceived belief it is necessary to explain away all the appearances of the church in the rest of the book – no matter how forced such interpretations may be.
The simple truth is that there are a number of references to the Saints and the Bride of Christ on earth during that Tribulation Period, even in Revelation 4-18 (as in 7:9-17, 12:17; 13:7; 14:12) – which will be the church then just as much as it is now, and was when this was written. And finally, we see them resurrected in Revelation 11:18, and reigning with Christ during the Millennium in Revelation 20, after being martyred for refusing to worship the beast (Rev. 20:4), with no scriptural reason to disqualify them from being “the church”, apart from the PTR presuppositions.
[1] This is another example of circular reasoning, or using an interpretation of a text to support a view which view is itself used to support the interpretation of that selfsame text.
[2] See Pentecost’s discussion of “The Marriage of the Lamb” in his book Things to Come.
end times revisited 