Wednesday, April 13, 2022

Why I Do Not Believe in an End-Time Tribulation - Or the Pitfalls of Designer Prophecy



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.

PCG Tells Member He Is Useless To God

 


Imagine for a moment that you are a minister of God, a God that is filled with mercy and compassion. Imagine a God that is overjoyed with his children and creation and showers his blessings on all. For many ministers, this is a daily occurrence that gives them joy and a commitment to share that love with others.

Then there is the Armstrongist Church of God. That god, so much of the time, is a petty bitchy angry little god that is constantly pissed off at his creation. That god is never happy and is constantly in need of its followers groveling at its feet for mercy and acceptance, which it rarely dishes out, and if it does it is only to a select few, usually the ministers and church leadership.

If you are in the Philadelphia Church of God, this is the god that reigns supreme in the church.

Here is a story from Exit and Support Network about the PCG ministry representing that angry bitchy god.


I was in my early twenties when I ended up being kicked out of Philadelphia Church of God. I had not yet been baptized but it was something that I was strongly considering. While I did end up getting baptized, it did not happen in the PCG. Part of the problem being that I am special ed and have physical disabilities. 
 
What happened was that my father had an argument with two of the ministers (Craig Winters and Jeff Greaser11) over something that my father simply didn’t feel was right or even moral. They kept demanding that he change his views to suit their own but he kept refusing. They then turned to my mother and demanded that she basically “shun” him–and she too refused. They left our home, and then called up a few days later, and told my father that he had been kicked out; they then tried to force my mother to turn on him by threatening that “unless she turned on her husband they would kick her out as well.” She again refused and they kicked her out as well. 
 
They talked to my younger brother and tried to get him to turn on both my mother and father and he too refused and so they kicked him out of the PCG as well. They then talked to me. 
 
Interestingly enough, I was not at all approached about backstabbing anyone in my family. Instead they told me that because I was special ed and physically disabled that God didn’t have the power or ability to use me in any way. In their words, I was essentially useless to God in all regards. 
 
Ironically enough, at the same time that I was told that I was useless to God “because I was special ed and physically disabled, that God did not have the power or ability to use me in any sort of way,” we were also continually getting sermons, sermonettes, Bible studies, and other messages at services wherein they constantly pounded people over the head with statements that “God was all-powerful and there was nothing He couldn’t do and no one He couldn’t use.” Even though I was not yet baptized, even I noticed the inconsistency of the two statements “God can do anything” and “God can’t do this.” 
 
After we were all kicked out of the PCG, we ended up getting an interesting bit of news from an insider whom we were still friends with. As soon as possible, they announced that our family had been kicked out for handing out “dissident” religious material. This of course was a lie but they could have cared less. 
 
To be honest, I have reflected on this matter quite a bit every now and then and my being booted from the PCG has turned out to be a blessing in my opinion. I am with a better church, that has better ministers who don’t claim to be “as perfect as God” such as the PCG ministers did. They also do not judge the members of the church and are quite friendly and very enjoyable to be around. My parents and my brother are also in this church and we are all much happier.