Survey of Revelation

How y 'all doing this evening? We are gathered for what would have been our last class, but I have been urged by a few to make this two parts. And so tonight will still be the official last class of the semester, but next Thursday I am going to do a special class on my particular understanding of Revelation, which I will not have the time to seek to prove tonight because I'm going to be going over the various perspectives.

And generally I don't, in these classes, really try to put forward my own ideas or my own positions. Generally I just give a broad overview of the various positions. But Revelation is one of those things, one of those books that certainly causes a lot of interest and folks want to know.

And honestly, in my many years being here as the pastor, I've never preached on the book of Revelation. I've never really taught on it, except one time I did a very, very short series on the seven churches of Revelation, but that was it.

And that was, you know, it was only a few months of looking at those passages. So I've never, the only time I've ever taught on Revelation is I was invited to a conference and the conference was four perspectives on Revelation.

So they had four pastors come, four, well not even four pastors, it was basically four scholars come because it wasn't, not all of us were pastors, but it was four of us came and each gave a particular viewpoint on how to understand Revelation.

And I gave my position and posted it and immediately started getting responses because a lot of people never heard of it, had never heard of the position that I teach. And so that's what we'll do next week.

I'll be alluding to some things tonight, but next week we will have the real lecture on that. May not be an hour and a half. I don't know. I don't know what next week will look like. It may be a little shorter because it's just my lecture on why I take the position that I take, but it won't be an official class.

So if you do miss it, it won't affect your grade at all. It's not necessary, but if you do want to come, we'll start 6 .30 next week and we'll have that as an additional class. Also I'm looking at having a seminar class sometime between now and the end of the year.

That will be a class on a Saturday. It will probably be 9 to 3, maybe 9 to 4 depending on what subject matter we choose to go over. That will be a certificate class. You will be able to earn a certificate for that class.

It's based on something our seminary used to do, the seminary I attended. We had a lot of people who came from out of town and they couldn't always come to the eight-week sessions, so they would cram everything into one day and then you had like two months to do independent research to finalize that class.

So it's not part of the eight core classes that we have to receive your diploma in this week. You know, it's a two-year program for one year, for the next year, and you receive your diploma. It's not part of that, but it basically is like an extra credit.

The subject that we're looking at is the textual variation in the history of the New Testament text. That's the subject I'm considering, but if you have something else that you would like me to consider, let me know and I will let you guys know what day that will be.

We'll probably start at 9, go to 11, have lunch together, like go out to lunch and then come back and maybe do like 12 .30 to 3, something like that. So it'll be a long day of study, but it will be a fruitful day, I'm sure.

And then we'll come back in January to start our next semester. Next semester is Survey of Biblical Doctrines. We've done the Survey of the Old Testament, we've done the Survey of the New Testament, so you will have a new book to purchase in the new semester, and I'm still trying to determine what book will be best, I'm thinking possibly Concise Theology by J. I. Packer or the shorter version of, I think there's a shorter version of Grudem's Systematic, because Grudem's Systematic Theology is pretty long, but isn't there a shorter one?

So that may be the one we do, I'm still trying to decide which one I want to use as the textbook. So I'll let you know closer to time, we certainly have plenty of time before now and then to get it. You guys ready to dive into Revelation?

The Apocalyptic Nature of Revelation and Its Early Reception

Alright, when you walked in tonight, you were given three handouts, ordinarily the handouts are secondary to my lecture, you didn't get it? They're right over there, sorry. Ordinarily the handouts are secondary to my lecture, tonight they are the lecture.

You will have the same notes that I have. The first note, the first page, Perspectives on Revelation and the Millennium, this is a handout that I actually created myself for this class. The second page should be Four Views of the End Times, that is printed out of the Rose Book of Charts, the one that you and I were just referring to, John.

So if you have the Rose Book of Charts and you want to use that, you can actually open the book and see it better because this is a condensed, smaller version of that. And then the last page is taken out of the other book of charts that I mentioned that I was using.

No, I'm sorry, this is also from Rose as well. So both of these are from the Rose Book, excuse me, I was wrong. So there is your handouts for the evening. So let's begin by simply addressing what type of literature we are looking at when we look at the book of Revelation.

If you have your Bible, turn your Bible to Revelation chapter 1, notice what it says. The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants, the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant, John, who bore witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw.

Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear and keep what is written in it, for the time is near. All right. The word revelation is the Greek word apokalipsis.

It's where we get the word apocalypse, and it simply means a revealing of something. Generally, when we think of apocalypse, what do we think? Zombies? Well, you're not wrong, but the end of the world.

If you watch an apocalyptic film, there was a few years ago where there were a lot of apocalyptic films, 2012. Everybody thought because of the Mayan calendar, the world was going to end in 2012, and what I realized recently was it was actually just off by eight years.

It's really 2020. All the crazy stuff that's going on this year. But no, everybody remember that, the movie 2012, and it was based on the idea that the world was going to end in 2012, and then you go back 12 years before that, and it was the Y2K.

Everybody thought something was going to happen when the year 2000 came. There were all these people who were collecting food and setting up bunkers and preparing themselves for the Y2K problem, which never really amounted to anything.

Back in 1984, there was a man who wrote a book entitled, excuse me, back in 1988, there was a book published, 88 Reasons Why Jesus Will Return in 1988. That book is still available, but it's certainly not as popular as it was before 1988 because Jesus did not return.

And so, the concept of the apocalypse, the concept of end times has certainly been a popular subject both in Christian circles and outside of Christian circles. It seems as if people have a natural, somewhat instinctive understanding that all of this is going to end one day.

Somehow, someway, everything is eventually going to come to an end. And what we find is that there are people in the church particularly who get so fascinated with the apocalypse, so fascinated with the end times, that they make everything in their theology based on their understanding of the end.

And their whole worldview becomes focused on the end. And they begin to read the daily newspaper with Bible verses in mind. And they start to say, oh, well, Russia, that's Gog, and Iran is Magog, or whatever.

You know, I don't keep up with it enough to know what they're saying today, but it's always some kind of reading the news in view of Scripture and trying to find something that is to take place. Back in the 1940s, the Jewish people returned to Israel.

That became a huge moment in the minds of many people because they believed that was the turning point of history where God was going to bring his people back and begin the end. They thought that, what was it, 47?

Was that the year? They thought 1947 was the beginning of the ending, and so there was the apocalypse. But you go back 100 years before that, the mid -1800s, and you have the rise of dispensational thinking and the rise of what were known as the Adventist movements.

Adventist means the arrival. And every year we celebrate Advent in church, Christmas time, we celebrate Advent. It's about the first arrival of Christ. But the Adventist movements were about the second coming, the second arrival of Christ.

And so we have the Seventh-day Adventists, and we have the Jehovah Witnesses, which were actually an Adventist movement. It was based on some form of understanding of the apocalypse. And I would say this.

I would say a lot of the bad theology that arises out of Seventh-day Adventists, a lot of the bad theology that arises out of Jehovah Witnesses is based on a faulty eschatology. Oh, and by the way, let's do a little, just very quickly, just in case you are not familiar with this word.

The word eschatology is the word for the study of last things, or more simply put, the study of the end times. The eschaton means the last things, and from a biblical perspective, one could argue that we have been in the eschaton since Jesus Christ ascended into heaven.

Because since Jesus Christ ascended into heaven, what have we been awaiting? His return. Therefore, we are in the eschaton. And when people ask, pastor, are we in the end times? Yep. And we have been for 2 ,000 years.

Now that's not usually the answer they want. They want to know if it's going to happen in the next 2 weeks, not in the next 200 years or the next 2 ,000 years. When people ask, are we in the end times?

They want to know if some, like for instance, a few weeks ago, there was some peace deal that was signed between Israel, and there was the idea that Trump was being used by God to bring peace, and that peace would usher in the end times.

Again, reading the newspaper with one hand and the Bible with the other hand, and trying to interpret the Bible through the lens. And the thing is, we are not the first generation to do that. Every generation fancies themselves as the last.

Every generation figures, well, not going to get any better than this. They figure, this is the end, right? I'm at the last part. And I think part of the reason for that thinking is we all have a personal eschatology, because all of us have a last day coming.

When I teach eschatology, the first thing I teach, the first class, in fact, we'll be doing this on our Wednesday night, whenever we get through this. We're in ecclesiology now, but the next lesson series is eschatology, and the first class we do is the class on death.

Because death is the eschatology that everybody has to look forward to. And whether or not Jesus returns in my lifetime doesn't change the fact that my life's going to end. Am I in the end times? Yes.

Fifty years from now, I probably won't be here anymore. A hundred years from now, none of us will be. So we're all in our end time. And that's why I said, I think that's part of the reason why it becomes so fascinating for people.

They know their end is a coming, so they just figure, we'll take it all with us. And maybe I'm being a little facetious there, but the idea is, well, my end's coming, it must be the end of all things.

We tend to look very myopically at the world, and we tend to see the world through our lens. So, when we talk about the end times, certainly Revelation comes to our mind, because Revelation discusses the subject of the end, but Revelation is not a book that is altogether easy to interpret.

The people who say Revelation is easy to interpret tend to take very simplistic views, which are often easily proven false. Revelation is apocalyptic literature. It is written in the same vein as Ezekiel, and the latter half of Daniel, neither of which any sane person would say are easy reading.

I mean, genuinely, read Ezekiel, go home, spend the evening doing your devotions in Ezekiel, and it's not that easy. The latter half of Daniel, not that easy. The first half of Daniel is narrative, the second half is apocalyptic, therefore it's not easy.

And so, when we talk about Revelation, we have to understand that we're diving into a book. This book was not universally accepted by the church immediately. In fact, if you remember a few weeks ago when I talked about, actually at the beginning of this class, we talked about canon and how the canon was recognized, and we said that there were certain books that were not universally accepted.

One was Hebrews because of the question of authorship, but what was the other one? Revelation. I mean, when you've got ten-headed dragons and all of these things that are going on, it arises many questions, vials of judgment and seals and trumpets.

It's quite difficult. But thankfully, it was accepted and it was rather recognized, and part of the reason why is because of the author. Who does it say is the author? But it doesn't tell us which John.

Verse 1 tells us these things were given to his servant John, but it doesn't tell us specifically which John. History does, but not the text, so we do have to rely a little bit on extra-biblical history.

Extra-biblical history tells us that it was almost certainly John the brother of James, the disciple of Jesus, the same one who wrote the Gospel of John, the same one who wrote the three epistles of John.

Did you all do your homework? Did you all do your reading? This was argued in the reading, right? Most likely based on the external evidence. There is some internal evidence to suggest John did not write it.

For instance, it does have a different pattern than does his other writings, and so that's some of the internal evidence that he didn't write it. However, as you read, hopefully in your reading, it doesn't preclude him as the author, and I think that part of the reason why it's written differently is it's a different genre of literature.

This is apocalyptic literature. It's not going to be the same as a gospel or an epistle. It's going to come much differently. When we come to Revelation, we need to understand that there are at least four perspectives for interpreting Revelation, and we're going to go through those four perspectives.

If you have your handout, this is the first sheet. I'll just read it as I wrote it. This subject deals with how we begin the process of interpreting the content of Revelation. Before we can understand what it means, we have to use the proper hermeneutical lenses.

Each of these perspectives looks at Revelation differently, and thus the interpretations of the content varies greatly from one perspective to another. When I say hermeneutical lenses, how many of you took a survey of the Bible Study Methods?

Do you guys remember what I mentioned about hermeneutical lenses? Basically, that means the context that you're looking from. If I put on a pair of red glasses, everything in here that is red would turn white because it would change the way that my eyes see what's in front of me.

Rose-tinted glasses tend to take things that are red and make them white. When we read Revelation, we're going to be reading from one of four perspectives. Here are the perspectives, and I'm going to explain each one, but I'll give you the overview very quickly.

The first is called Preterism. This says, basically, that most of the content of Revelation was fulfilled during the lifetime of the original audience prior to and during the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70.

Preterism says that most or all of Revelation has already been fulfilled, and it was fulfilled in the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. Now, you'll notice there's an asterisk next to the word Preterism that takes you down to where I put a distinction should be made between full Preterism and partial Preterism.

Full Preterism, sometimes called hyper-Preterism or consistent Preterism, argues that all of the prophecies regarding Jesus' second coming and resurrection of the dead were fulfilled in the first century.

Full Preterism, I believe, is heretical. Here's why. Full Preterism, essentially, makes everything promised already fulfilled, and therefore, the consistent historic view of the church would be made void, because the consistent historic view of the church is that we still look forward to Christ's second coming.

And full Preterism would say, no, he's already returned. He returned in AD 70 in judgment, everything's over. Okay, so full Preterism, I do not accept. I think that it is, it violates, that one of the earliest creeds of the church is the Apostles' Creed.

And by the way, when you talk about end-time stuff, if you notice the earliest creeds of the church, they don't give us perspectives on the end time, they just say Jesus is returning to judge the living and the dead, that's the consistent testimony.

So as long as someone believes that, they are within the bounds of orthodoxy, that Jesus will return, he will judge the living and the dead, and those who are saved will go to heaven, those who don't will go to hell, but that's the consistent testimony of Christian history.

If you look at full Preterism, it denies that, therefore, I would say it is heretical. But partial Preterism, which I actually have dubbed orthodox Preterism, remember orthodox meaning straight theology or straight teaching, orthodox Preterism argues that many, if not most of the prophecies of Revelation were fulfilled in the first century, but we still have some yet to come.

That is very orthodox, and that will be the position I will be defending next week, just so you know. My position is what I dub orthodox Preterism, not, I hate to call it partial, so I just call it orthodox, because it's the only view that would be consistent with the orthodox understanding of the end.

But there are three other views. So Preterism says everything or most of Revelation was fulfilled in AD 70. Real quick, before we even go to the next thing, what would be required for that to be true?

What major thing would be required for Preterism to be true? Revelation would have to be written before AD 70. I believe it was. It was? Absolutely. This is where I disagree with your textbook a lot. It makes no sense.

Yeah, well, the textbook's wrong. I told you to get that book so that I could prove it wrong. Let me explain this to you, though, on that. This textbook, when it comes to end times view, is very different than what I teach.

But that's part of the reason why I had you get it. Because I am not simply trying to force feed you my position. I want you to have to deal with this on your own. This position that is in this textbook is the Futurist position, which we haven't gotten to yet.

But that is the position argued in your textbook. I was a Futurist for a very long time. So I understand that position. It is the position held by most Baptists because of the Scofield influence of the Scofield Reference Bible, which was very influential.

And I'll get to that when we get to Dispensationalism. But the point of the matter is, I take the Preterist position. The book will say I'm wrong. I will say the book's wrong. And seeing as I'm the living person here, I'll get to make my point.

But I am giving you the ability. If you want to write a really great paper, prove me wrong. I always say, if you want to write a really great paper, take a position that I don't agree with and make me believe it.

All right, but let's move on. Preterism, we understand that. Historicism says that most of the content of Revelation is being fulfilled gradually throughout Church history and is still being fulfilled today.

This would be the position of the Reformers because the Reformers saw the Pope as the embodiment of the beast, the Antichrist. So they saw not that Revelation was being fulfilled in the first century, but that it was being consistently and constantly fulfilled throughout history.

And I will say this, I'm sympathetic to that position. I can see how someone could arrive at that conclusion. In fact, I think Preterism and Historicism can have some overlap, and next week I'll explain why I think that's the case.

But Preterism says it was mostly fulfilled in 80 -70. Historicism says it's being fulfilled in history still, even to today. Idealism, most of the content of Revelation is meant to be understood as symbolically or allegorically portraying the ongoing cosmic conflict of the spiritual realm.

Idealism is allegorical interpretation. Now, ordinarily I would say we should shy away from allegory as far as interpretation, but when you look at apocalyptic literature, it's impossible not to see some allegory, not to see some picture language.

And so I do understand the idealist, how people would get there. However, it becomes almost an irrelevant thing. If this is just about the ongoing conflict of good and evil, it's almost as if, well, yeah, okay, but what's it teaching us specifically?

And you almost don't get the specifics, you just get this giant allegory that there are really no specific issues. So I would say idealism is the least compelling to me, even though I do believe there are allegories that have to be interpreted.

For instance, Revelation 13 says a beast rises up out of the sea, right? And then it talks about the false prophet who points people to worship the beast and those who don't receive the sign of the beast on their hands and their foreheads are condemned, right?

You remember Revelation 13. I mean, certainly, even the hardcore literalists don't believe that Godzilla is going to come crawling out of the ocean. They believe that's referencing a man, right? I mean, have you ever heard anyone interpret that as a literal monster?

No, it's always a man, right? So everybody's sort of taking the approach. And that's why when somebody says, I'm an absolute literalist on Revelation, I say, no, you're really not. Because here's what they'll say, I'm an absolute literalist.

See right here where it talks about these giant locusts? Those are Apache helicopters. And I'm like, well, you just quit being a literalist. As soon as you start talking about Apache helicopters for the locusts, it's not literal anymore.

You are now interpreting it by way of the allegory. So anybody who tells you they are an absolute literalist when it comes to Revelation, just listen to them long enough and they will prove themselves not true.

So the three positions, preterism, historicism, idealism, and then finally, and fourthly, the one most people are acquainted with and the one that your book supports is futurism. Futurism says that most of the content of Revelation is yet to be fulfilled.

In your textbook, I want to see here, where was it, in the textbook it mentions basically this. Oh yeah, here it is. A simple key to understanding the book of Revelation, simple, throw that word away, is not, sorry, a simple key to understanding the book of Revelation is to realize that it is divided into three main parts.

Listen, chapter one describes a vision in which John saw Christ robed as a judge standing in the midst of the seven churches. Chapters two and three have to do with the church age in which we now live.

The remaining 19 chapters have to do with future events following the close of the church age. That is a major assumption. That is an absolute assumption. This is where I would absolutely disagree with your textbook because in one paragraph he just eliminated preterism, he just eliminated idealism and historicism.

He said this is the way you should interpret it. Chapter one is John and Christ, chapters two and three is the church age, and then chapter four and after is what is still yet to come. That's the assumption.

And that assumption I think is very dangerous because you are not even allowing for the idea that any of those things have been fulfilled already. So let's use our board for a moment, if we may. John, you may have a little trouble, I'll try to keep it.

One day I'll get this, you know, if any of you guys who are really good with a saw ever want to come in and lower this two inches, I'll be happy. We're supposed to do it and I just can't, I've never gotten around to it.

And so I always, you know, just throwing that out there. So let's talk kind of in pictures for a moment. We know from a historical perspective Christ lived, died in the first part of what we would call now the first century.

And so I know this date is not accurate, but we'll just put 33 A .D. for the cross. Simple enough. We don't know exactly the actual year, but 33 A .D. makes it simple enough. From there until 70 A .D. we have, I'll just put a star here for the destruction of Jerusalem.

Major event in history. What's interesting is when I was a dispensationalist, by the way, I went to a dispensational school. I was taught dispensationalism. Everybody I knew was a dispensationalist. I didn't know anybody who didn't believe this.

I never once heard about anything about what happened in 8070. Nobody ever mentioned it because the dispensational view is that God has two people, Israel and the church, and never the twain shall meet.

These two are two distinct people. In fact, your textbook says it. Does it not say that God has an earthly people and he has a heavenly people? The heavenly people is the church and the earthly people is, again, I take great issue with your textbook.

I'm glad you read it because I take major issue with that to say that we are God's heavenly people and the Jews are God's earthly people. That is not how it works. You read Ephesians 2, the latter part, where it talks about breaking down that wall, that dividing line between Jew and Gentile.

It just ain't true. But here's why people believe it. John Nelson Darby created this system that's typically referred to now as dispensationalism. Dispensationalism was popularized in the notes of the Schofield Reference Bible, which was massively influential.

These charts were in the Schofield Reference Bible and the charts were based on the idea that the church is a parenthesis in God's plan. God's plan was for the Jews. They failed when the Messiah came.

So the backup, and they don't say, they don't use this language, I have to be careful, I want to be fair to my, those who I disagree with. But essentially the parenthesis in the plan of God was the church and one day that parenthesis will end.

It will end with a rapture and thereby starting up again God's plan for the Jews. Which will usher in the seven year tribulation, which will then usher in a millennium on the earth. And therefore the church is not the focus of God's plan, it's a parenthesis in his plan and his actual plan is for the Jewish people.

I don't agree with that at all. I think that, one, I think it does damage to how we understand what the church is, how we understand the purpose of the church in the world, and I just, I don't agree. So why would you mention AD 70 if you're dispensationalist?

Because when I say, what is AD 70, I've said it several times in this class. That was when it ended. That was the end of the old covenant. That was the, I'll tell you, some people don't like this language, but Ken Gentry, who is a tremendous author, he said that was the divorce.

He said that's when the old covenant was made null and void, and the Old Testament does talk about God divorcing Israel, he said, and that's when it happened. Now we can argue language and what that means, but that was when the old covenant ended.

Now let me say this, the old covenant ended here. There was a grace period. This was the grace period, but forever, no more sacrifices. No more sacrifices. It's done. If they build another temple over there and start doing sacrifices again, that does not mean that it started up again, because the temple is gone.

All right. You with me, John? Oh yeah. You got a lot of questions. No, no. I'm good. Okay. All right. So now let's fast forward a bit. Historically, I'm going to jump all the way to the end. We don't know when the end is, but it's pretty far.

So at least to where we are. Let's say this is, well, it's kind of hard to just put the end. Let me say it this way. In regard to revelation, what happens next, depending on whether you are dispensational or not, what happens next would be what's called the rapture, where the church is taken out.

Okay? You've heard that? Huh? Heard it. Heard it. Okay. Then would be a seven-year tribulation, followed by the return of Christ and a thousand years, sometimes referred to as the millennium, or the thousand-year reign of Christ.

So ultimately, that's the... and this, if you just happen to turn over to your second page, don't stay there, because we need to come back to the first page. But if you look at the second page, it explains it in a little bit more detail.

Which one? This one. Sorry. This one. Oh, of these four, this would be the bottom left. Dispensational premillennialism. Okay? And you notice the big thing that comes in this one, the rapture. That it precedes the coming of Christ by seven years.

That the church is taken out. Now, that's based on 1 Thessalonians 4. That's the text that's usually argued for that. But it's also based on an assumption, and that word assumption is going to come up a lot.

Here is the assumption. After Revelation chapter 3, we do not see the word church again. Therefore, the argument is chapter 4 begins the post-church age. So for the dispensationalist, the church age began with the coming of Christ and ends with the rapture.

So again, dispensationalism. This is the church age. Remember we read in the book, what is the church age? That's what Revelation 2 and 3 is about. So you got the church of Smyrna, the church of Thyatira, and Philadelphia, and Pergamum, and Laodicea.

You've got all these churches. Those are representing the church age. And so therefore, the church age ends. I don't believe any of this. By the way, I'm teaching you what I don't believe. But they say that Revelation chapters 2 and 3 are about the church age.

It ends with chapter 4, which begins the seven-year tribulation. So according to the futurist perspective, the vast majority of Revelation, chapter 4, to the end, is all yet to be fulfilled. So does that make sense?

The preterist, it's all mostly been fulfilled. In fact, I would say we're in chapter 19, chapter 20. We're looking for... Well, actually, no, because it's cyclical. That's another thing we need to understand.

Revelation, I do not believe, is meant to be interpreted this way. I believe it's meant to be interpreted this way. By the way, if you're listening to this, you have no idea what I just did. So let me say that again, because some people do listen to this as a lesson.

Most people interpret Revelation as unfolding step by step. But it doesn't unfold that way, at least as far as I understand it. I believe it unfolds in cycles. So it takes you through, and then starts over and cycles through again, and starts over and cycles through again, and starts over and cycles through again.

This is why there are three seven judgments. It's the same thing over and over. You have the seven seals, and then you have the seven vials, or is it the trumpets? Which come after? It's the seals, the trumpets, and the bowls, or the vials, right?

So this is cyclical. Not this comes after this comes after this. They're together. They're overlapping. This is why you get to later in the book and you see Jesus being born. You're like, wait a minute, what?

Why is Jesus born halfway through Revelation? Because it started over. It's telling the narrative story in repetitive cycles. Therefore, when you read it, you don't read it like this. You read it like that.

Is this making sense? Have I totally lost everybody? OK, all right. So that's part and parcel of how a lot of people misunderstand it. The futurist says everything's coming, and it's got to be read this to this to this to this to this.

That's why they get the seven seals, followed by the seven trumpets, followed by the seven bowls. These are all things that are going to happen in the seven-year tribulation. And they get that from counting up the number of months that are mentioned.

All right. So the futurist perspective says that everything is yet to be fulfilled. But the futurist perspective, this is only one example of it. There are various views of futurism. But ultimately, the main distinction is that rapture.

Because if you do turn to your second page, I'll show you this. Turn to your second page. Notice that the two on the left are pre-millennial. The one on the top says there's a second coming of Christ, which begins the millennium.

And the bottom one says there's a rapture, a second coming of Christ, and then the millennium, which leads to the final judgment. Okay. So after you determine where you stand on what perspective you're going to take, are you going to take the preterist perspective?

Are you going to take the historicist perspective? Once you decide that, once you have studied and spent time determining where you are, and you may come out as a futurist. You may say, Pastor, I don't think preterism holds water.