How to interpret the Book of Revelation.

I was listening last night to some American pastors, some sympathetic, some less so, talking about the second coming of Jesus Christ and I noticed that Christ will have to stand before them, before they'll understand any of the information given in the Revelation concerning the circumstances of His return, and that despite the fact that

1. they have a general sense that it is nearing,
2. they do know the Bible well and
3. they are not afraid to interpret the Revelation literally,

which are the greatest obstacles for the general population.

Now, it might be for a reason that John was told not to seal the words in this book, the reason being that laymen will as likely understand them as pastors and that there are more of the former, since despite all the learning that the latter have going for them, their professional worries prevent them from tackling the Revelation in the only way they should:

Certify the signs, so that you may not be taken by surprise by His return.

The certification of a sign is dangerous to a person's reputation and a pastor's professional existence hinges on it. So instead of saying anything that could come back and bite them, they discuss matters of no immediate importance.

Does chapter 19 describe a rapture?

Well, can't you wait until then and see what the Lord will be doing? In how far will you be more prepared to meet the Lord by making assumptions about what He has in mind for you? You ought to recognise Him, not worship the Beast, not follow pseudoprophets, follow Him and follow the angels He has sent; that is difficult enough.

If you don't pin anything down, what makes you think that you'll be able to see the difference between God's two witnesses and the pseudoprophet?

And the things that are being pinned down, that chapter 16 stretches over seven years, that the second beast and the pseudoprophet are one and the same, only stand in the way of any concrete interpretation, making the recognition of an occurrence more difficult by additional requirements that have no sound basis.

An unsealed book the Revelation is self contained. Although John heavily relies on the images of the prophets before him, knowledge of what they said can only be used to explain the general nature of an occurrence, which is obvious anyway to any discerning person: the two witnesses are like Zerubbabel, indeed, but how could you've not known this before? At least if you've translated the Greek as raise and measure the temple instead of rise and measure the temple.

The Revelation states explicitly that chapter 10 takes place after chapter 11 and chapters 17 and 18 before chapter 19. That pretty much rules out pretribulationalism, for chapter 11 is the third vial and chapters 10, 17 and 18 describe the same event. Actually, I hope that chapter 19 will follow the fifth vial and cause the sixth, so I'm a midtribulationalist.

But a statement like that is far less meaningful than stating in no uncertain terms that chapters 17 and 18 describe the nuclear annihilation of New York, for it immediately follows that

Jesus Christ will return after New York has been nuked,

and that tells everybody the time, no matter where he lives and what his perceptiveness is.

Yet, if there was to be popular consent on this before the event that would put the event in question and the Revelation became a self defeating prophecy. So there won't be that consensus. Yet it still matters that those who believe in the second coming of Christ understand, for after the event it will be essential that they are convinced as to the time and accept the Lord.