3 Reasons I’m a Posttribulationist
I have been a posttribulationist now for 12 years. Back then, I would not have seen such a transition from my pretribulationist past coming, but it happened. I can say with all confidence that it happened because I was convinced from Scripture and not some fly-by-night T.V. personality or fanciful author. I can also say with all assuredness it happened despite it being among the more infamous views in my own evangelical circle.
First, I want to affirm the non-dogmatic status to which all mainline eschatological views should be viewed. Whether we end up being pretribulation, midtribulation, posttribulation, premillennial, postmillennial, or amillennial, we should all be able to get along as long as we all affirm that Jesus Christ will literally return one day to deliver His people and judge those who have not trusted Jesus.
Second, I want to admit that not all 3 of my reasons for being a posttribulationist carry equal weight. Some may be stronger than others, but I believe each one is rooted in Scripture.
Without further ado, I am a postribulationist because . . .
1) It is the most contextual view: This means that posttribulation better allows individual texts and even entire books to speak for themselves without bringing in undue baggage from other texts. This is especially true regarding Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians and 1 & 2 Thessalonians. For example, let’s take a look at 1 Thessalonians 5:1-10.
1 Thessalonians 5:1-10 Now concerning the times and the seasons, brothers, you have no need to have anything written to you. 2 For you yourselves are fully aware that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. 3 While people are saying, “There is peace and security,” then sudden destruction will come upon them as labor pains come upon a pregnant woman, and they will not escape. 4 But you are not in darkness, brothers, for that day to surprise you like a thief. 5 For you are all children of light, children of the day. We are not of the night or of the darkness. 6 So then let us not sleep, as others do, but let us keep awake and be sober. 7 For those who sleep, sleep at night, and those who get drunk, are drunk at night. 8 But since we belong to the day, let us be sober, having put on the breastplate of faith and love, and for a helmet the hope of salvation. 9 For God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, 10 who died for us so that whether we are awake or asleep we might live with him. (ESV)
Based on the context of these verses, we see that the topic is the Second Coming of Christ because it speaks of destruction coming upon unbelievers (v.3). So whether pre-trib or post-trib, all should be agreed. But not only will unbelievers be present on the Day of the Lord, but the Church will be too. According to Paul, the Thessalonians will not be surprised by “that day” (v.4). It is not that the Rapture occurs some 3.5 or 7 years before “that day” because Paul is certainly calling the Thessalonains to be vigilant (vv.5-8). If the Thessalonians are going to be in heaven with Jesus, why would Paul even mention this? Why would he call them to be vigilant and discerning about the times?
2) It is the least complicated view: Even a pretribulationists must admit that the posttribulation view is the simplest, especially if understood from an amillennial perspective. Occam’s razor proves often true: The simplest solution is often the correct one. Even in the 1 Thessalonians 5 passage above we see this to be true. A posttribulationist reads these verses and simply concludes: Jesus is coming back at a time unknown to believers and unbelievers, but it will occur on “the Day of the Lord,” a day on which unbelievers will be destroyed but believers will be delivered from God’s wrath. No charts or timelines necessary. No further complexity need be inserted.
3) It is the most covenantal view: Posttribulation maintains a closer relationship between God’s Old Testament people and God’s New Testament people, affirming that the Church is the New Testament fulfillment of all that we find in the Old Testament. This means that the New Testament Church is made up of both Old and New Testament believers, and there should be no separation within God’s people along nationalistic or genealogical lines. And this does not amount to “replacement theology” in which some would say that the Church has replaced Old Testament Israel. Rather, I would term it “fulfillment theology” (Rom. 2:28-29). While greater multitudes of Jews may believe on Jesus as the latter days draw nearer (Rom. 11), this does not automatically necessitate a literal “time of the Jews” in which the Church is missing. After all, to be a follower of Jesus means you are a part of His body, the Church.
Soli Deo Gloria,
Jeremy Vanatta