Why I Do Not Believe in an End-Time Tribulation
Or the Pitfalls of Designer Prophecy
By NeoDromos
I came to the Worldwide Church of God (WCG) not to be a spiritual titan but for safety. I was a teenager and impressionable and Basil Wolverton’s drawings put the fear in me. The theme of escape from disaster continued to be present with varying degrees of intensity in my thirty-year WCG experience. The idea of a prophesied end-time frenzy of destruction called The Great Tribulation seemed plausible. The world was a bad place and the trends did not look good. Comeuppance was way overdue. But now I do not believe in the idea of a second, end-time Great Tribulation. Let me tell you why.
It Already Happened
In spite of the apocalyptic Millerite hype, Jesus made a very clear statement in Matthew 24:21 about the time setting of the tribulation. Jesus said, here in two translations:
“For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.” (KJV)
“For at that time there will be great tribulation, unmatched from the beginning of the world until now, and never to be seen again.” (Berean Study Bible)
It is obvious that Jesus stated that this time of great distress was a one-time event. That's what "nor ever shall be" or “never to be seen again” means. This means that ideas such as the former rain and the latter rain or type and anti-type or any other odd hermeneutics that one might concoct to render up two occurrences of this singular event are just not sufficient to overpower the words of Jesus.
The surrounding context of this verse indicates that Jesus was talking about the 70 AD events, soon to happen. If there can be only one nonpareil event, when does that one event happen? Does it happen in 70 AD as Jesus stated? Or does it happen in the 21st Century as many of the apocalyptic Millerite prophets would like us to believe? In fact, Jesus used the language of imminency in Matthew and his description of events surrounding verse 21 aligns with the Fall of Jerusalem and the Destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. Further, Jesus said it would all happen in one generation. Also, it is anchored chronologically in 70 AD by Jesus’ reference to the Destruction of the Temple. Occam’s razor says Jesus’ direct language trumps more complicated and dubious hermeneutics such as type/anti-type. It happened once in 70 AD – never to happen again.
Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) and No Flesh Should be Saved Alive
Armstrongists, I suspect, realize that this one-time event was a one-time event. But they have developed an exegesis that grabs the time of great distress, clones it, and transports a clone into the future. This then creates a dual fulfillment for an obviously non-dual prophecy. It also makes for an exciting ride where all church requirements can become urgent due to the shortness of time. This violates Jesus’ characterization of the time of great distress but Jesus seems to have only a bit part in this Millerite theater. The necessary exegesis for the duality is devised by providing a novel interpretation for the next verse. Jesus states in verse 22:
“And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.”
This is the WMD Theory. This idea from the Armstrongist legendarium has been used to situate the tribulation at the end of days, whenever that might be. The reasoning is that only in our time do the necessary WMDs exist to accomplish the complete extermination of every living thing. What is overlooked is that the tribulation does not have to occur as soon as WMDs are invented – it could occur centuries later. WMDs are just a pre-condition not a precipitating event.
There are problems with the WMD Theory. If we follow the Armstrongist line of reasoning, we have this effect: Jesus is speaking in Matthew 24 about local events connected with Jerusalem. Then suddenly out of context in verse 22, he makes a statement that relates to the entire planet at a future time when technology makes WMDs possible. Clearly, this would be puzzling to the listeners at that time because they know of no way that life can be totally and globally exterminated or why there would be a sudden context shift from their time to the distant future (if we apply the Armstrongist line of reasoning) - so they are confused and Jesus sounds like he doesn't know what he is talking about. And apparently from the account, none of the disciples say "what did you mean by that odd statement?" Then Jesus immediately goes back to local Jerusalem-related events and continues.
That is a flawed exegesis. It is concocted, to the point of being painful, to pluck the great tribulation out of context. It simply does not work. But when read in a simple context, it makes sense: Jesus is making the point that if this train of events were not interdicted every Jew in Jerusalem and its environs would be killed. Obviously, the people doing the killing, the Romans, would still be alive. But the Bible is about the Jews, not the Romans. Only the Jews are important to the prophetic narrative. They are the “all flesh.”
And, as Jesus prophesied, this happened. In 70 AD, Titus built a wall around Jerusalem with the intent of starving its population to death. Jews caught trying to escape by the surrounding Roman soldiers were crucified. And the Valley of Hinnom (Gehenna) was filled with corpses (something Jesus also prophesied). Had the entire siege not been overtaken by events at the last, all the inhabitants of Jerusalem would have been killed.
The Place of Safety
Ancillary to the fascination with The Great Tribulation is the idea of the Place of Safety. Like the tribulation, it has a 70 AD context. Also, like the tribulation, it is transported without justifiable exegesis to the end time by Armstrongists. If we briefly unpack some scriptures, the problems emerge.
The Woman in Rev 12:1 is not the church. It is Israel (not the BI Israel but the real Israel). The symbolism in Rev 12:1 associated with this Woman can be connected directly with Genesis 37:9. She gives birth to the Child who is Jesus. Jesus is seen as a logical outcome of the historic Judaic Polity – He came to his own. Notice that at the time the Woman gave birth, there was no New Testament Church – just the Church in the Wilderness. Stephen describes Israel at Sinai as the Church in the Wilderness (Acts 7:38). So it was the Jewish nation that was the Woman who had a place prepared for her. My guess is that this “place” referred to the flight into the Diaspora – a kind of wilderness from the Jewish perspective. Later in the passage, the church is mentioned. Revelation further states:
“And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.”
The church, like its leader Jesus, is also an outcome of Judaic Polity or the Woman. It all began with the Jerusalem Church – a Christian church of Jews. So the situation is that in 70 AD disaster some Jews flee into the wilderness of the Diaspora and the church suffers horrible persecution. Eusebius and Epiphanius recorded the belief in the Fourth Century that the Jerusalem Church evacuated to Pella, about 80 miles from Jerusalem, before the 70 AD events ensued. They stayed local. And this Pella scenario may describe what happened to only the Jerusalem part of the church during the 70 AD time of great tribulation. Nobody seems to know what happened to the Jerusalem Church after Pella. So the “place prepared for her of God” does not directly align with the idea of a global tribulation and a flight by the whole scattered church to Petra or whatever place. Wrong people. Wrong crowd size. Wrong kind of place. Wrong aftermath. In summary, wrong exegesis.
Conclusion
Why is the belief in an end-time tribulation persistent within Armstrongism? Apocalyptic Millerism, from 1844 to now, is principally about the exaltation of end-time events. It is mesmerizing. It is exciting. And I believe that it is a form of liturgy. Pentecostals do a holy dance and Armstrongists believe the Great Tribulation followed by the Parousia is just a few, quick steps into the future – both a part of a liturgy of elation. And because Millerite end-time prophecy is liturgy, it is repeatable without embarrassment. The problem is that elation can smother out serious reflection. This kind of liturgy is rooted in emotion rather than intellection and the fire of emotion often wins the debate unfairly – the passionate and primal dispossessing the reserved and analytical. I used to get wound up about the tribulation back in the days when I believed a lot of ideas without serious thought. Now, in my view, it is a liturgical crutch for people who just might be losing interest in religion.
21 comments:
Although 70AD certainly acts as a fulfillment typology of Revelation, there are problems that make Preterism fall short.
Not all of Revelation was fulfilled at that time. A 200 Million man army from the East, the "mark of the beast" with NO MAN buying or selling, and many more.
No flesh saved alive is also a definer of a yet future fulfillment.
Whether one is a believer in the Bible, or noe, or as you termed it "Millerism", it seems hardly likely that mankind can continue for the next few hundred years without a major world conflagration of huge suffering and destruction. It is the way of man, and I have no faith in mankind's collective wisdom to not create an apocalypse.
Neo,
While I agree with your thesis that Armstrongists have twisted/abused/misinterpreted the twenty-fourth chapter of Matthew, it would also be misleading to leave everyone with the impression that this passage makes no mention of the events surrounding the end of mankind's rule and the return of Jesus Christ to this earth. Hence, it is incumbent upon everyone who is truly interested in understanding this passage to acknowledge that Christ addressed TWO distinctly different events in this passage.
As we have both noted on many occasions, context is essential in understanding any passage of Scripture. In this particular instance, Jesus and his disciples had been walking through the grounds of the temple, and his disciples had been pointing out the different buildings that were part of it (Matthew 24:1). Then we read that Christ told them: “Do you see all these buildings? I tell you the truth, they will be completely demolished. Not one stone will be left on top of another!” (Verse 2) Later, as soon as they had the opportunity, they asked Christ about that statement: “when will all this happen? What sign will signal your return and the end of the world?” (Verse 3)
Notice that they clearly asked him about two different events: 1) the destruction of the temple and 2) his return and the end of the world (age). Apparently, the disciples thought that what Christ had told them about the destruction of the temple was related to the end of the age and his return. Interestingly, Christ did not immediately point out that their association of these two events was wrong - he simply answered both of their questions. Unfortunately, like many of us, they didn't comprehend the distinctions that he made between those events as he answered their questions.
He began by summarizing everything his followers would experience going forward (verses 4-14). Notice too that the end of the age would only happen after the gospel had been proclaimed to the entire world (verse 14). Next, Christ addresses their question about the destruction of the temple compound (verses 15-22). And, as Neo astutely observed, this period of great anguish refers to the events of 70 CE - NOT the period immediately preceding Christ's return. To be sure, the entire history of mankind (and Christianity in particular) has been marked by anguish/tribulation - but this one surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple complex was to be unique and more concentrated/intense. Moreover, to associate this with Christ's return contradicts his later assertion that that event would be preceded by folks acting as they had in Noah's day - carrying on as if nothing was shortly going to happen!
Then Christ turns to answering that second question - the one about the end of the age and his return. Indeed, the rest of the chapter (verses 23-51) is part of his answer to this question - NOT the events surrounding the destruction of the temple. Moreover, it should be noted that Christ's answer does NOT conclude at the end of the chapter (which was added much later by subsequent editors of the original manuscript). In the twenty-fifth chapter, Christ gave two parables (The Ten Virgins and The Three Servants) to demonstrate that his return would be a long time in coming (verses 1-30). Christ then concluded his remarks with an account of "The Final Judgment" (verses 31-46). This concluded Christ's remarks - his answers to his disciples' questions.
I most certainly agree with you that the women of Rev12 is indeed Israel.
‘The place of safety’ as spoken of, is not as Armstrongism would have us believe, Petra Jordan.
While I disagree with the placing or timing of the ‘Tribulation’ I think back to the hell that so many have suffered down through time.
In resent times for example the Stalinist gulags, Pol Pots reign of horror, the death camps of Nazi Germany, Saddams gassing of the Kurds, the hell of North Korean prisons and we can go on. Those caught up in these horrific events did indeed suffer tribulation as brutal as anything that Israel suffered in 70 AD.
We are fortunate to live at a time within the western world, in relative peace and prosperity.
As students of history can attest, how easy that can change.
It should also be pointed out that the twenty-fourth chapter of Matthew does NOT support the "Watchman - Headline Theology" of Armstrongism! While Christ clearly intended for his followers to be aware of what was going on in the world around them, he also made clear that only God knew "the day and hour when these things will happen" (verse 36). The context also makes clear that the watchfulness is more concerned with making sure that his followers were living a Christian life - being prepared for that event whenever it happened.
Tonto wrote, "...there are problems that make Preterism fall short"
You can find in commentaries explanations for most everything in the book of Revelation, including the Mark of the Beast - the image of Nero stamped on Roman coinage, for instance. Wikipedia has some pretty good explanations.
I am only a partial preterist. I believe the last couple of chapters in the Book of Revelation are future. There is nothing in the book that makes me think the tribulation is yet future. I do believe there will be a great calamity at the time of the Return of Christ - called the Day of the Lord - but it is not the tribulation. For those who cherish the idea of being sequestered in safety while others suffer, I think they will be surfeited if they happen to live through those events.
There have always been calamities and there always will be. People throughout history have thought that the world was coming to an end based on some calamity. They thought that during the Black Plague years in the 1300s. If you want to read something chilling, look up the "Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis." Some of my ancestors were around for that one.
Miller 6:05
Just so. Matthew 24 encompasses two topics, and you have to parse finely to find the dividing line between them. A sidebar: I believe there was a great drama involving the Jerusalem Church that we know little about. Though it is controversial, some believe they fled to Pella. Under whose leadership I don't know. James had already been stoned to death by the Pharisees. If this flight to Pella happened and it is not just legend, I believe the congregants waited there for the Parousia - the next part of the eschaton. And it did not happen. There are some undertones here of the Great Disappointment of 1844. Then the Jerusalem Church seems to have disappeared from the annals after 70 AD and were eclipsed by the Gentile church. And we are left with a mystery.
I intentionally teased out the piece concerning the tribulation from the Matthew 24 scenario because that was my topic. Without a doubt the Parousia is future (actually 'already/not yet'). The tribulation has been elevated to a position of importance that it should not have among apocalyptic Millerites and some Evangelicals. If you were to ask these people about the apocalypse, they would begin to expatiate on the tribulation. But the real apocalypse was the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The old order died and the new order was inaugurated and we are now in the latter days and have been for the last 2000 years.
Thanks for your comment.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
Neo, I have read your opinion on the 70 A.D. fulfillment of all things per Matt. 24 before. It is indeed a tempting path to take but it is a path that is fraught with the risk of deconstructing Jesus Christ and deconstructing his prophetic words. Something to think about before easily sweeping everything under the proverbial 70 A.D.rug.
Categorizing all Armstrongists as caught up in the theater of cataclysmic 21st century events is far from the truth. My inner group in the WCG were happy to pay Herbert Armstrong to do that dirty deed. We also had no real urgency concerning the end time tribulation that was presented weekly to the world. I mean we knew the timeline of events and knew the formation of a united 10 nation European superpower led by Germany was the next event to happen. Still no urgency needed concerning that scenario if one still believes that. And it has been 40 years this March since I first walked through the doors of the WCG.
This subject is much bigger than what you have presented here. The supposed 70 A.D. simplicity pales in comparison to the leveraging of prophetic fear by fear mongering wannabes masquerading as men in the know rampant in the COGs.
Tonto: Yet future, or failed prophecy? That'd be an easy one to answer if we were discussing Nostradamus. Not so easy to answer about a book from the Bible that just barely made it into the canon.
The more we go down the road to a resurgence in nationalism and authoritarian government, the closer we get to the point of no return in global climate change, and the more that superbugs like the Covids and Hantavirus proliferate, the more the present begins to resemble the endtimes scenarios outlined in Revelation. When I first heard Herbie's fear-mongering half a gospel message, I thought, "Why do I have to even know all of this horrible shit?" I just wanted to live a normal life as we had before my parents got scammed. Now, the Armstrong churches have all the materials they need to scare thousands of people into their church, but nobody takes it seriously enough to want to save their own asses! Too funny! People are no longer becoming rich and dying with the most toys off this stuff.
DENNIS is dying to come in on this one, but it is not the appointed time for his Return.
As the day and hour of the Return of Dennis, no man knoweth, but many will be caught unaware, so I say unto you watch!
As for the book of Revelation, like Neo, I believe that the book covers the events of 70 CE, the entire history of Christianity, the events surrounding Christ's return, the Millenium and Great White Throne Judgment, and the new heavens and earth which will be part of the eternity which follows all of that. In my opinion, the most comprehensive and sensible treatment of the book is found in two short video presentations which were highlighted on this blog in times past:
https://armstrongismlibrary.blogspot.com/2021/04/the-book-of-revelation-are-you-tired-of.html
What About the Truth wrote, "...it is a path that is fraught with the risk of deconstructing Jesus Christ and deconstructing his prophetic words."
Taking Jesus at his word I don't think equates to deconstructing him or his prophecies. If one asserts that his prophetic words have meaning far beyond what the reader would typically apprehend, that must be carefully exegeted. It can't just be the reverie of a latter-day apocalyptic Millerite sitting in a office in Pasadena.
I agree with you that this is a much bigger topic. I had much more to say about it but there are limitations as to how much text followers of a blog are willing patiently to read. But I do believe in a kind of "you prove it" approach to applying the Book of Revelation to the present and future. I believe that much of the geopolitical content of the Book can be reasonably mapped to the pre-70 AD Roman world. I cannot speak to the heavenly content of the Book, of course.
Taking something that has a First Century application and mapping it to the future requires justification and exegesis. How do you do that credibly? Type-antitype is the hip-pocket device of choice among prophecy weenies. Some weenies apply this device to virtually everything in the OT in spite of the fact that Jesus said that OT prophecy culminated him. GTA used to say that history happened in cycles with similar repetitions of events. This seemed like only a vague notion but I supposed it was rock hard truth to people who wanted to believe it. In short, I do not believe that someone can sit down with a highly symbolic and abstruse piece of writing like the Book of Revelation and find in it geopolitical applications for today without resort to day dreaming.
Note: There are so many "revelations", ostensibly Christian, that have been written up throughout history that such writing is a genre unto itself. Athanasius included the Revelation that we know in his canon and Cyril and Gregory of Nazianzus pointedly excluded it although they recognized everything else that Athanasius did. And Gregory wrote of his canon, "if there is anything besides these, it is not among the genuine books" so his view on our Revelation is unmistakable. The politics of this is presented in great detail by Elaine Pagels in her book titled "Revelations", pp. 159-170. Some Armstrongists will assert this was all an attempt by the early Catholic Church to suppress a condemning book written about itself but that is really just naive conspiracy theory. The Douay-Rheims contains the Book of Revelation. I think the Book of Revelation has merit, but I do not believe its authenticity rises to the level of Paul's Epistle to the Romans, for instance. I have never done a comparative examination of other early church revelations.
********* Click on my icon for Disclaimer
NEO wrote:
"Taking Jesus at his word I don't think equates to deconstructing him or his prophecies. If one asserts that his prophetic words have meaning far beyond what the reader would typically apprehend, that must be carefully exegeted."
But NEO, Jesus' word and he himself can be deconstructed rather quickly with intellectual exuberance applied along with confirmation bias and "critic proof" abstracting. The translation and intent can become obscure rather quickly and Jesus and the gospel message - his prophetic word, becomes corrupted.
You said: "Taking something that has a First Century application and mapping it to the future requires justification and exegesis. How do you do that credibly? Type-antitype is the hip-pocket device of choice among prophecy weenies. Some weenies apply this device to virtually everything in the OT in spite of the fact that Jesus said that OT prophecy culminated him"
If I were to flip that and state "taking something with a future application and mapping it the first Century requires justification and exegesis", does that statement carry as much weight as your statement? If I were to expand that and state that "intellectual weenies using commentary consensus as their hip pocket device to apply to everything Jesus said"; has that equaled your statement of fact concerning the type/anti-type crowd?
As you can discern, I am not a 70 A.D. advocate nor do I hang my hat on type/ant-type. The obvious reason for me to have nothing to do with a "all things 70 A.D. or that/this generation" fulfillment is it fights against the power of the gospel. The power that will take death (the dry bones) and give it life again. The power to take from death the Kingdom of Israel and restore it to prominence once again and of course it fights against the revealing of the Son of Man coming in power and glory right on the heal of that Great Tribulation.
I believed a lot of ideas without serious thought.
The Bible is not meant for people who think seriously. That's how mystery religions work. The serious thinkers are those in the "inner court" who keep the true interpretations from their deluded followers. The masses are considered too ignorant to really get it anyway, and besides, they need to be controlled by the elites.
What about the truth,
It is clear where you stand. You characterized my article as "intellectual exuberance applied along with confirmation bias and "critic proof" abstracting" and a product of "intellectual weenies using commentary consensus."
I would disagree with you on that characterization. In fact, your characterization reminds me of Old Time Armstrongism. I was a college student when I began attending the WCG. I found that some of the congregants were suspicious of a college education - at least one that was not an AC education. Overall, many people then seemed to be proud of their lack of education. Somehow it made them honest and noble and unleavened. I am not sure where this came from. I don't recall any sermons that would account for it. Maybe there had been a history before I started attending. The congregation I attended was comprised of mostly blue-collar workers and farmers. It was a large congregation in an agricultural area of the Midwest. History.
I think if you review how I interpreted Matthew 24:21, you will not find it is a bunch of intellectual balderdash. It is a short scripture with an obvious meaning - a meaning that contradicts the Armstrongist position on the tribulation. The Armstrongist dual tribulation interpretation dies a dramatic death on the point of that scripture. The diatribe against "intellectual exuberance" is merely a red herring.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
The curse upon modern day so called Christian preachers.
This is ridiculous. A casual reading of Revelation depicts events that have never previously occured, such as everything in the oceans dying. Plus Christs' return. The authors arguments amount to argument from authority, ie, forget what Revelation says because I say so.
Exactly.
But beloved know this, that with DENNIS a thousand years is as one day and one day as a thousand years.
Anonymous 2:46 wrote, "This is ridiculous. A casual reading of Revelation depicts events that have never previously occured, such as everything in the oceans dying. Plus Christs' return."
Everybody believes in somebody's authority. Maybe your authority is HWA. As I stated in an earlier comment, I am a partial preterist. I believe there are some things written up in the book of Revelation that are yet to happen - including the Parousia. It is the geopolitical content that I believe is anchored in the First Century - including the tribulation.
And some of the language is allegorical - like everything in the oceans dying. What does that mean? Is it literal or symbolic? Peter cited OT prophecy about the coming of the Holy Spirit at the first Pentecost:
"And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke: The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come"
Did the moon really turn to blood on the first Pentecost? And is everything in the ocean really going to die?
Nothing I have written in this article is "because I say so." It is accompanied by exegesis. On the other hand you are asserting something without exegesis. You are, in fact, the one who has resorted to "because I say so."
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
Where in scripture does it say the moon turned to blood on Pentecost?
In Revelation, it says: Rev 1:1-3 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bondservants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John, who testified to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, een to all that he saw. Blessed is he who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are writtne in it; for the time is near." (70 AD????)
Rev. 22:10 And he said to me, “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near.
Anonymous 8:08
It does not say that the moon turned, past tense, to blood. Peter cites Joel stating that the prophetic passage he is citing pertains to Pentecost. It is in Acts 2:16 through 2:20.
Post a Comment