I appreciate your feedback. I think you have a very good point about Christ waiting in Heaven until the time His enemies become His footstool. Yet I do not see any specific support from the passages in Hebrews that requires defining Revelation 19 as when this happens. I take it that this conclusion is more generally drawn from the idea that His second coming is a singular event.
Revelation clearly does not specify a particular time or sequence for either a resurrection of all the righteous to eternal life or the translation of living saints. All of the various views are inferred. (Revelation 20 describes the “first resurrection” but only mentions those beheaded during the time of anti-Christ.)
I do agree that Revelation 19 describes Christ and His armies coming to destroy His enemies. But there His armies have already been gathered together. Your position seems to be that these armies include resurrected saints and translated living saints. But when does that occur? Why do you believe it has to happen immediately before this final battle? How would the events from Revelation 8 and onward NOT qualify as Christ putting His enemies under His feet?
As an aside, I am curious as to how you explain Christ being on the Mount of Olives in Revelation 14:1.
“The incarnation marked the first time he came”
In one sense this is true. He became a man and came into the world in one sense at the incarnation. He also entered the world in another sense at His birth. In yet another sense He became a man by maturing and growing into manhood. I am not trying to be argumentative, because I agree with your point. I am just referring back to our earlier discussion that both His first and second coming involve a time period.
2 Peter 1:16
For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty.
See how Peter includes the transfiguration as part of His first coming?
I believe that Christ’s second coming marks the beginning of the Day of the Lord and continues through the millennial reign. While I appreciate the points you have made regarding Christ waiting for His enemies to be made His footstool, these passages only seem to further reinforce the concept of His return coinciding with the Day of the Lord.
If it can be supported that the Day of the Lord does not begin until Revelation 19, I think that would be an overwhelming argument for a post-trib rapture. The scriptures I read regarding the Day of the Lord seem to indicate otherwise. It appears to me this time period begins after the sixth seal in Revelation 6 and continues until the thousand year reign begins in Revelation 20.
Singular event, yes, I’d say that all right. I’ll try to break this down for you. On each point, I’m not going to look up all the passages, I think I am conversing with someone well versed in eschatological passages to know what I am talking about.
1. This is the book of Hebrews, to interpret it rightly we need to know the prophetic background of the Hebrews. They weren’t amillennialists, they had a future premill kingdom hope, as reflected in the OT and their inter-testament literature. Neither were they pretribs or prewraths, the OT and inter-testament literature shows they looked to a grand singular event that would close out this age while ushering in the age to come (an earthly Messianic kingdom).
2. One of the central eschatological themes developed in the inter-testament period was “this world (or age), and the world (age) to come.” Since this is cited in numerous places in the NT, Christ and the apostles must have continued in the same expectation. Heb. 6:5 alludes to it, it says, even in this age we have tasted of “the powers of the world/age to come.”
3. In the book of Hebrews, “the end” had a particular meaning to them, 6:11, for instance, amidst apostatizing, they were continually admonished to keep faith in Christ “stedfast unto the end.” What end? The end of “this world,” or this age.
4. The passages I have been citing from Hebrews, 9:28, 10:12,13, are in perfect agreement with my previous three points. Christ’s appearing “the second time,” and him not leaving heaven until his enemies are in position to be destroyed, to the readers of Hebrews was to occur at the “end” of this world/age. In one event, the closing out of this world while ushering in the next.
5. Hence, the passages I have been citing are not stand alone, they are in perfect agreement with the rest of Hebrews, with the commonly held end "of this world – beginning of the next” prophetic expectation of the Hebrews.
6. Is the prophetic expectation of the Hebrews one thing, while Rev. 19 presents something altogether other? I see no conflict, I’m quite confident the same expectation in Hebrews is what we see depicted in Rev. 19 – though in very apocalyptic language.
7. Not only Revelation, but the rest of prophetic scripture has the expectation I have tried to bring out in Hebrews.
8. Instead of reading NT prophecy through the prism of prewrath theory, try reading it as if they only believed in one event. It harmonizes very well.