This is the seventh message exploring Scripture for an answer to one question: Will Christians go through the tribulation period. It is not an easy question to answer because there is no place in the Bible where we are specifically told when the rapture of the church will occur. We are certainly told that it will occur. But the timing of that event in relationship to the tribulation period is difficult to pin down. There are three suggested answers that we are examining. The pretribulation position is that the rapture will occur at the beginning of the tribulation period. Midtribulationists say it will happen somewhere near the middle of that seven-year period. And Posttribulationists place it at the end of the tribulation in conjunction with the second coming. In previous messages we have examined the strengths and weaknesses of the pretribulation and midtribulation theories. Today we will explore the POSTRIBULATION position.
I. STRENGTHS of the posttribulation position are as follows:
(1) Its identification of the rapture with the second coming best explains why a specific timing for the rapture is not stated in the New Testament. This one issue is almost decisive in favor of the posttribulation position.
We have already talked about the way New Testament writers used the Greek terms for the coming of the Lord interchangeably in reference to both the rapture and the second coming. If the timing of those two events were markedly different, we would expect them to avoid doing that or at least clarify the difference.
Let me illustrate what I’m saying this way. My daughter, Karol, lives in San Clemente, California near Los Angeles. Suppose I sent an email yesterday telling her that I have bought a flight ticket to Los Angeles and will arrive March 31st. Today I send another email saying I will pick up my baggage at the United Airlines baggage area. I don’t specify what day that will happen. What would be my daughter’s assumption about the baggage pickup? In the absence of me specifying something different, she would assume that baggage pickup happens on the same day already given, March 31st. Unless I specify a different date, she would assume that new detail happens in conjunction with my arrival on March 31st.
Jesus clearly told us that He would come back at the end of the tribulation period. In Matthew 24:29-30 He said, “Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.”i He clearly tells us when He is coming back to the earth. Scholars in all three camps generally agree on that.
Later we receive a letter from Paul about the coming of the Lord and in 1 Thessalonians 4, he gives details about the rapture and resurrection of Christians. He does not specify the timing. What should be our assumption about the timing? If the timing is the same as what Jesus has already told us, then there is no need to specify it. If the timing is radically different, one would tend to indicate that to avoid confusion.
There is no passage in the Bible that specifically tells us when the rapture occurs. We can point to symbols that might indicate something about that, but in the process of interpreting those symbols and metaphors we could easily be wrong. If Jesus or the apostles were pretribulationists or midtribulationists we would expect them to state the distinction between the timing of the rapture and the second coming. Instead you find no direct statement indicating a different timing for the two. On the contrary, you find them using the same terms interchangeably in reference to the rapture and the second coming.
I’m glad I saw this in my own studies before reading this argument from posttribulationists, because it leaves me more confident in its biblical importance. Forty years ago, I looked unsuccessfully for a word distinction in the New Testament that would set the rapture apart from the second coming. My assumption was that parousia was used for the rapture and apokalupsis for the second coming. But even back then I discovered that both terms were used for both the rapture and the second coming. That left me somewhat tentative about the pretribulation theory. However, there were other factors that were persuading me toward that theory.
In this study I have realized the weight of this argument. It does not conclusively lead one to a posttribulation position. But in my opinion, this is the most compelling argument in the whole debate. The default position from Scripture should be that the rapture and the second coming are descriptive of one return of the Lord Jesus Christ. To take a different position, we need at least one statement in the New Testament telling us that. I am unable to find it. I can give rationale for why the timing might be different. I can interpret symbolism to support a different timing. But the only timing that is clearly stated is the second coming at the end of the tribulation period. This is almost a conclusive argument for posttribulationism.ii
(2) Second Thessalonians seems to tell us the rapture will occur at the time of the second coming.
We have dealt with these passages, but this is a significant strength for the posttribulation position. It’s significant because the basis for our position must rest primarily on what the Bible says.
In 2 Thessalonians 1 Christians are given rest in the same event that means destruction to their enemies. The second coming is clearly in view in this passage but notice how the rescue is linked with that coming. Paul recognized the suffering these Christians were experiencing, then says in verses 6-8, “since it is a righteous thing with God to repay with tribulation those who trouble you, 7 and to give you who are troubled rest with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, 8 in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.” You may recall from a
previous teaching how we focused on the word “when” in that passage and how that seems to place the rapture with the second coming.
In 2 Thessalonians 2 we are given two events that will occur before the rapture: a great apostasy and the revelation of the Antichrist which will happen during the tribulation period. 2 Thessalonians 2:1 introduces the subject: “Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him.” Most scholars agree that the phrase “our gathering together to Him” is a reference to the rapture. The “coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” and “our gathering together to Him” are closely linked in that verse as one event.
Then Paul continues at the end of verse 1, “we ask you, 2 not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come. 3 Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day [a reference to verse 1] will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.” While we don’t have a specific verse telling us the rapture occurs before the tribulation period, that verse seems to be telling us it happens after these tribulation events.
So, Paul’s teaching in 2 Thessalonians lends powerful support for the posttribulation position.
(3) The posttribulation position fits better in the Olivet Discourse than the other two positions.
Jesus’s teaching recorded in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 are foundational to understanding end-time prophecy. The general structure is laid out there, and our eschatology must be based on it. It would take too much time to go through that today. Next week we will examine that instruction so you can see what I am saying. For now, we simply list it as a strength for the posttribulation position and move on.
(4) This theory provides a seven-year refinement period preparing the church, the Bride of Christ, for her Groom. As I said last week, this is not a very strong argument because it would only address the last generation and the final preparation of the Bride is her glorification that occurs at the resurrection of the just. I would not put much weight on this.
(5) The posttribulation teaching tends to prepare Christians for handling persecution and suffering that would occur during the tribulation period. Is the average Christian adequately prepared to stand firm if our faith is severely attacked as it will be during the end times? Probably not. If the assumption is made that we will be raptured out and exempted from all that trouble, and that turns out to be wrong, you’re probably going to see some very disillusioned people. A pretribulation theory could leave Christians very off balanced if it turns out to be wrong. On the other hand, a posttribulation theory braces Christians for the impact of persecution. If that turns out to be wrong, they are happily surprised.
This argument, however, is not particularly compelling because pretribulationists should be teaching Christians to brace for tribulation and persecution anyway. It is par for the course for
every generation of Christians. Jesus flatly told us that in this world we would have tribulation (John 16:33). Therefore, this is not a very strong argument against the pretribulation theory itself. But it might be a valid criticism about the way pretribulationism is taught and applied.
Overall, the first three strengths listed here are very compelling. We will explain Jesus’s teaching on the subject during the Olivet Discourse more fully next week.
II. The WEAKNESSES of the posttribulation position are as follows:
(1) The purpose of the rapture is obscured by a quick up and down event at the end of the tribulation period.
We know from 1 Thessalonians 4:17 that at the time of the rapture living Christians will be caught up (harpazo) to meet the Lord in the air. That verse says, “Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.” If the posttribulation theory is right, you would expect the last sentence to say something like, “And we will return with Him in glory.” The language does not seem to support an immediate return with Him.
We also know from Scripture that raptured/resurrected saints will return with Him at His second coming. Revelation 19 describes the second coming: “Now I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse. And He who sat on him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and makes war. 12 His eyes were like a flame of fire, and on His head were many crowns. He had a name written that no one knew except Himself. 13 He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. 14 And the armies in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, followed Him on white horses.”
It might be argued that “the armies in heaven” are just angels.iii But just a few verses earlier the Bride of Christ is described in exactly the same way as “the armies in heaven” are described. In verse 8 the church is described as “arrayed in fine linen, clean and bright.” In verse 14 the armies with the Lord are described as “, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.” Additionally, Jude 14 quotes Enoch specifically telling us that the Lord is coming with His saints. Jude 14-15 says, “Now Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men also, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints, 15 to execute judgment on all, to convict all who are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have committed in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.”
So, what you have with the posttribulation theory is the church going up and coming right back down. At the very least it seems strange.
(2) This theory leaves one wondering how the Judgment Seat of Christ and the Marriage of the Lamb fit in the chronology of events.
In both the pretribulation and midtribulation models, those events happen in heaven after the rapture and before the second coming. John’s placement of those events in Revelation 19 suggests they happen before the second coming. The description of the Bride suggests a post-resurrection and post-judgment of Christian works. Revelation 19:7-8 says, “‘Let us be glad and rejoice and give Him glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and His wife has made herself ready.’ 8 And to her it was granted to be arrayed in fine linen, clean and bright, for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints.”
The implication is that her works have been evaluated, have survived the fire described in 1 Corinthians 3:12-15, and she is clothed with her righteous acts. That all fits with the pretribulation model and the midtribulation model.iv But it is hard to see when and how it happens in the posttribulation model. I have searched the posttribulation scholars and have not found their answer. However, I have ordered two more books and will search them on this subject. The posttribulationists do not seem to provide a good explanation of how these two events (the Judgment Seat of Christ and the Marriage of the Lamb) fit into the theory.
(3) The seven-year overlap of the church age with the 70th week of God’s program for Israel needs more clarification. Since we previously discussed this subject, I will not go back into it. I don’t see it as a critical issue for posttribulationism. Their answer could simply be, “God didn’t reveal exactly how He manages that, but as God He certainly can do it that way.” That’s hard to argue with, but it makes more sense that the church age would end decisively separate of God’s program for Israel the way it began on the Day of Pentecost. This is not a deal breaker, but it should be addressed. Along with that, the heavenly visions in the book of Revelation need more explanation. In the pretribulation model they seem to fall into place chronologically. In the posttribulation model we are forced to explain them as interludes with no chronological significance. I’m not satisfied with the answers I have seen so far.v However, I plan to study their explosion of Revelation more thoroughly in search of a fuller answer on this.
(4) A better explanation of how the Millennium is populated is needed in the posttribulation model.
According to this model all the righteous are raptured/resurrected at the end of the tribulation period. Additionally, “when the judgment takes place to determine who among the mortals will enter the kingdom, only mortal believers will enter (Matt. 25:31-46) (emphasis his).vi Therefore, under the posttribulation model all the godly are resurrected and all the ungodly are destroyed. No mortals are left to populate the Millennium.
We know the Millennium will be populated with people in mortal bodies (Isa. 65:21-25). So where do they come from? In the pretribulation model, those saved during the tribulation period become the procreators of the Millennial population. But in the posttribulation model there is no provision for that. John Walvoord writes: “If the translation takes place after the Tribulation, the question facing the posttribulationists is a very obvious one. Who is going to populate the earth during the Millennium? The Scriptures are specific that during the Millennium saints will build houses and bear children and have normal, mortal lives on earth. If all believers are translated and all unbelievers are put to death at the beginning of the Millennium, there will be no one left to populate the earth and fulfill the Scriptures. . . . The posttribulation position leads logically to an abandonment of the premillennialism altogether, or requires such spiritualization of the Millennium that it becomes indistinguishable from an amillennial interpretation.” vii There have been a number of answers proposed for this dilemma, but none are very convincing.viii
(5) Posttribulationism may be weak on the issue of imminence.
Pretribulationists say the recognition of any signs to be fulfilled weakens the many verses that tell us we do not know when the Lord will return and should therefore stay ready for Him to come “at any moment.” But as we saw last week, this issue is complex. It is very challenging to reconcile verses reconcile all the verses on this subject. Some passages give us signs of His coming while others warn us that He will come “at an hour you do not expect” (Luke 12:40). A thorough examination of this issue would be a lengthy study in itself.
In Matthew 24:44 Jesus warns, “Therefore you also be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.” Then He gave the Parable of the Servant who said in his heart, “My master is delaying his coming.” With that thinking, the evil servant began “to beat his fellow servants, and to eat and drink with the drunkards.” That parable is immediately followed by two more parables indicating possible delay: The Parable of the Ten Virgins, the Parable of the Talents (Matt. 25:1-30). In our last teaching we looked at 2 Thessalonians 5 and examined the distinction Paul made between the world and believers walking in the light as to the element of surprise in Christ’s coming Emphasis in one passage seems to be balanced by a different emphasis in another passage. Overall they do stress the importance of staying spiritually alert and ready.
For those of us schooled in modern, rationalistic thinking we easily struggle with the tension between the “at any moment” possibility and a potential long delay. George Ladd suggests that our frustration may be due to our modern intolerance for paradoxical tension. God may have built into the revelation enough uncertainty that we simply need to stay ready at all times. George Ladd writes, “The predominating emphasis is upon the uncertainty of the time, the light of which people must always be ready.”ix He quotes Oepke saying, “The tension between imminence and delay in the expectation of the end is characteristic of the entire biblical eschatology.”x
I began this study thinking the doctrine of imminence to be a paramount concern in determining which rapture theory is correct. I now think this call to readiness is extremely important, but it can happen under any of the three model. Therefore, I no longer put much weight on this issue.
(6) The posttribulation position on 1 Thessalonians 5:9 is criticized by the other two camps.
1 Thessalonians 5:9 says, “For God did not appoint us to wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.” The pretribulation and midtribulation positions find in that verse the promise of a rapture before God pours out His wrath upon the earth, especially during the second half of the tribulation period.
Posttribulationists have three of arguments countering this criticism. One is that God is just talking about eternal wrath. The context argues against that. Paul is talking about eschatological wrath. Another is that it is just promising exemption for the wrath poured out on the last day of the tribulation period at the second coming. To support that argument “the day of the Lord” in verse 2 has to mean only Christ’s descent at the second coming. But the next phrase in verse 3 argues against that: “For when they say, "Peace and safety!" then sudden destruction comes upon them, as labor pains upon a pregnant woman.” That language indicates “the day of the Lord” should be interpreted more broadly beginning at the tribulation period.xi Neither of those two arguments are convincing.
But the third argument is not as easily dismissed. It recognizes the context of 1 Thessalonians 5:9 as eschatological wrath poured out during the tribulation period but understands the promise to be exclusion from God’s wrath while still on earth. The opposite of wrath in the verse is salvation. The verse does not explicitly promise a rapture out of it. The Greek word translated salvation (soteria) is used in a variety of ways depending on the context. It can mean “deliverance, preservation, safety, salvation”xii depending on the context. Therefore, it could just as easily mean preservation in the midst of the wrath as a rapture out of the wrath. It could mean either one.xiii Therefore, this is not a very strong argument against the posttribulation position.
In the Old Testament we have examples of God saving His people by preserving them through something in some cases and in other cases taking them out of before the wrath is poured out. There seems to be more cases of preservation than taking out. Lot is an example of God taking him out of Sodom before the judgment was poured out. Enoch was raptured out before the great flood and therefore missed that judgment. However, Noah was preserved through it. The flood was poured out over the whole earth, but God preserved Noah in the Ark. The three Hebrew children were preserved through the fiery furnace. These stories can be used to illustrate either form of salvation.
Perhaps the strongest Old Testament verse in favor of this posttribulation defense is Isaiah 26:20-21. It is particularly relevant because the context is end-time judgment. In fact, scholars refer to Isaiah 24-27 as the Apocalypse of Isaiah. There the deliverance or salvation comes in the form protection. Isaiah 26:20-21: “Come, my people, enter your chambers, And shut your doors behind you; Hide yourself, as it were, for a little moment, Until the indignation is past. 21 For behold, the Lord comes out of His place To punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity; The earth will also disclose her blood, And will no more cover her slain.”xiv
I began this study thinking the wrath issue to be a strong argument for the other two positions and a crucial weakness in the posttribulation model. I no longer see it that way. God has not appointed His people to wrath. On the cross Jesus bore the wrath of God in our behalf. We will never experience it in any shape or form. But exclusion from that wrath could just as easily come by way of protection as in the case of Noah as being taken out as in the case of Lot. Since either is equally tenable, this is not much of an argument against posttribulationism.
Conclusion:
We have examined some of the major strengths and weaknesses of the posttribulation position. Previously, we have examined the other positions as well. We have tried to objectively process this subject with an open mind to learn what we can. Thank you for joining me in this journey.
Two months ago, the Lord told me to search the scriptures on this issue. I don’t know why it is important to do it now, but we do live in interesting times. I knew I was not to just teach what I
already knew which would have been much less work. But I was to approach it as a learner. And I have learned a lot. I began this endeavor leaning toward the pretribulation position but realizing some of the serious weaknesses in it as well. As we have progressed in the teaching, I found answers to a lot of questions. That has caused me to reevaluate the weight I was placing on various arguments for and against the three models. Having done all that, I conclude the study leaning toward the posttribulation position. Not all my questions are answered, but the weight of the evidence seems to favor that persuasion.
Do you remember me talking about the hermeneutical spiral in a previous message? When we come to a passage or subject in Scripture we come with preunderstanding. That is inevitable and it affects the way we read those scriptures. But if we maintain a humble, teachable spirit we can learn each time we study the subject. The next time we engage we come with a more informed mindset. A learner will do that over and over and increase his or her knowledge of the Bible. This has been one a loop in the hermeneutical spiral, and it will not be the last. I have taught through the book of Revelation, but someday I want to teach through it with fresh eyes. There are other passages I need to revisit as well. Next week we will complete this series with an examination of the Olivet Discourse. There Jesus gave us a broad outline of end times. It is not an easy passage, but it is critical to a sound foundation in last days prophecy. I think you will enjoy looking into that. May God help us to grow in the grace and knowledge of the Lord and His word.
Most American Christians are bored, apathetic, and ill-equipped. The often come to church preoccupied with the things of this world wanting to hear something that does not require a lot of thought. The service becomes a gentile rest from a demanding work week. It’s not hard to understand how easily that happens. But that produces lukewarm Christianity. How do we keep our lift vibrant and engaging. We it by (1) learning: aggressively seeking wisdom from God’s word (2) serving: investing in the lives of others, and (3) evangelizing the lost: engaging the world with the good news of Jesus Christ. When we’re growing and on mission, Christianity is interesting and exciting.
ENDNOTES:
i All Scripture quotes, unless indicated otherwise, are from the New King James Version.
ii For a fuller discussion of this argument see Douglas Moo, “A Case for the Posttribulation Rapture,” Craig Baising, Alan Hultberg, and Douglas J. Moo, Three Views on the Rapture: Pretribulation, Prewrath, or Posttribulation, Counterpoints Series, Stanley Gundry, ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 2010) 194-201 and Brown and Keener, Not Afraid of the Antichrist, 126-130 and Blaising, Hultberg, and Moo, Three Views on the Rapture, 100-122.
iii We know from Matthew 16:27; 24:29-31; 25:31; 2 Thess. 1:7-10 that the angels will also be with Him.
iv Cf. J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come: A Study in Biblical Eschatology, 1958 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 1973) 206, 220, 226-228.
v Walvoord convincing refutes Ladd’s posttribulation argument. John F. Walvoord, The Rapture Question, rev. ed., 1957 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 1979) 84-85.
vi Craig Blaising, Alan Hultberg, and Douglas Moo, Three Views on the Rapture: Pretribulation, Prewrath, or Posttribulation, Counterpoints Series, Stanley Gundry, ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 2010) 68. Cf. George N. H. Peters, The Theocratic Kingdom, vol. II (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1952) 374-375.
vii John F. Walvoord, The Rapture Question, rev. ed., 1957 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 1979) 86-87.
viii See Gleason L. Archer, Jr., Paul Feinberg, Douglas Moo, and Richard R. Reiter, Three Views on the Rapture: Pre-, Mid-, or Post-Tribulational? By (Grand Points: Zondervan Publishing, 1996) 72-79 for a critiquing of this debate.
ix George Eldon Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, rev. ed. 1974 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1993) 210.
x A. Oepke, StTh 2 (1949-50) 145 as quoted by Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, 210.
xi For debate on the meaning of “the day of the Lord,” see Craig Blaising, Alan Hultberg, and Douglas Moo, Three Views on the Rapture: Pretribulation, Prewrath, or Posttribulation, Counterpoints Series, Stanley Gundry, ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 2010) 29-34, 189, 201-206, 246-251, 268-269.
xii Joseph Thayer, Thayer’s Greek Lexicon, 1896, s. v. “NT:5183.” Accessed in Electronic Database: Biblesoft 2000.
xiii Cf. Ladd, The Blessed Hope, 84-85.
xiv Michael Brown provides a competent defense of the posttribulation position concerning wrath in Michael L. Brown and Craig S. Keener, Not Afraid of the Antichrist: Why We Don’t Believe in a Pre-Tribulation Rapture (Minneapolis, MN: Chosen, 2019) 81-96. See also Blaising, Hultberg, and Moo, Three Views on the Rapture, 192-194
