The Post-Trib View of the Rapture
The Rapture of the Church • Sermon • Submitted • Presented • 1:25:04
0 ratings
· 95 viewsThe Rapture of the Church: The Post-Trib View of the Rapture-Lesson # 15
Files
Notes
Transcript
Sermon Tone Analysis
A
D
F
J
S
Emotion
A
C
T
Language
O
C
E
A
E
Social
The third view is the “post-tribulation” position, which contends that the rapture will take place at the end of the Tribulation period, which means then that the church would have to go through the Tribulation.
Pastor-Teacher Bill Wenstrom
Sunday July 8, 2018
www.wenstrom.org
The Rapture of the Church: The Post-Trib View of the Rapture
Lesson # 15
The third view is the “post-tribulation” position, which contends that the rapture will take place at the end of the Tribulation period, which means then that the church would have to go through the Tribulation.
With this position, the church is taken off the earth and then immediately placed right back down on it, which obviously leaves no time for the Bema Seat Evaluation of the church to take place () and the Marriage of the Lamb ().
The “post-tribulation” position denies all distinctions between the rapture and the Second Advent since they make them one and the same event.
The rapture delivers the church while the Second Advent delivers Israel.
The rapture is seen only by the church and is therefore invisible while the Second Advent is the visible manifestation of Christ on the earth.
The Lord meets the church in the earth’s atmosphere at the rapture, whereas the Lord physically lands on the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem at the Second Advent.
Signs do not precede the rapture whereas visible signs precede the Second Advent.
The Lord claims His Bride at the rapture but He returns with her at the Second Advent.
The rapture completes God’s program for the church while the Second Advent is related to God’s program for Israel.
The rapture is a mystery, not known to Old Testament saints whereas the Second Advent is prophesied throughout the Old Testament canon.
The rapture leaves creation unchanged whereas the Second Advent entails a change in creation.
The rapture does not fulfill God’s covenants to Israel whereas the Second Advent marks the beginning of their fulfillment.
The rapture precedes the Tribulation whereas the Second Advent follows it.
Therefore, as we can see the “post-tribulation” position denies all distinctions between the rapture and the Second Advent since they make them one and the same event.
Also, the “post-tribulation” view like the “mid-tribulation” view argues that the church has been promised tribulation, which indicates then that the church will have to go through the Tribulation period.
However, the term “tribulation” can be used in a “technical” way referring to a specific period in the future and a “non-technical” way meaning it is not used with reference to a specific period of time in the future.
The term “tribulation” is used in relation to the church in a “non-technical” way in , , , , and , , whereas it is used in “technical” way in , , , , and , where it is used with reference to the Tribulation period.
Also, another problem with the “post-tribulation” position is that it considers the prophecy of Daniel’s Seventy Weeks to be completely fulfilled.
None of the events mentioned in have been fulfilled in history, thus refuting the “post-tribulation” position that Daniel’s Seventy Weeks have been fulfilled.
Also, the Lord Jesus Christ in His Olivet Discourse, in which He addressed the future of Israel, spoke of a yet future fulfillment of the Seventieth Week of Daniel “after” His death.
Proponents of this “post-tribulation” view contend that John the Baptizer began his ministry as the “Seventieth Week” was ushered in and Christ was baptized, tempted and began to preach a few months later.
They also say that the first half of the week was used in preaching the gospel of the kingdom and the middle of the week was reached at Passover.
They contend that the Passover was exactly in the middle of the seventieth week.
According to this theory Christ becomes the one who confirms the covenant and in the period of His ministry the six great promises of have already been fulfilled.
In response to this, it can be stated that the six areas of promise in are related to Israel and Jerusalem and are the logical outgrowth of the covenant with that nation.
Israel has not experienced her national salvation.
The church cannot now be fulfilling these promises.
Therefore, we can conclude that the six promises in await a future fulfillment.
Christ could not have confirmed the covenant as the “post-tribulation” view holds since the “he” of must have as its antecedent “the prince that shall come” of the preceding verse.
Therefore, because this one is related to the people who destroyed Jerusalem, namely the Romans, the one confirming the covenant cannot possibly be Christ but rather Antichrist who will make a treaty with Israel, which he shall break.
“Post-tribulation” view most strongly depends on the interpretation that the resurrection of all believers whether the church or Old Testaments saints is at the end of the Tribulation period just prior to the millennium.
Again, they fail to see the distinction between Israel and the church in that they have the resurrection of the church taking place at the same time as the resurrection of Israel.
They also fail to see that the Scriptures teach that the resurrection of believers throughout history takes place in stages.
The chronological order of events in God’s resurrection program: (1) The humanity of Christ in hypostatic union (; ; ; ). (2) The Church at the rapture, which takes place prior to Daniel’s Seventieth Week (; ; ). (3) Old Testament believers and Tribulation martyrs at the Second Advent of Jesus Christ, which ends Daniels’ Seventieth Week (; ). (4) Every non-believer in human history will be raised from the dead at the Great White Throne Judgment of unbelievers at the end of human history (; ).
Lastly, another argument used to support the “post-tribulation” position is that the wheat in our Lord’s parable of the wheat and the tares that appears in refers to the church being raptured.
records our Lord giving this parable.
records our Lord explaining the parable to His disciples.
This parable of the wheat and the tares does not refer to the history of the church has some have erroneously interpreted it to be but rather it is the history of the kingdom of God.
It does not refer to the church age but rather the entire age from the rejection of Christ to His Second Advent.
In the parable, God will be sowing and so will the devil and at the end of the age, God will distinguish those who are His children and those who are the devils’.
The latter will be removed from the earth.
This judgment will be followed by the establishment of the millennial kingdom on earth.
So, the rapture is not in view in the parable and thus the parable cannot be used to support the “post-tribulation” position.