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.
: “For as often as you eat this bread, and drink this cup, you do shew the Lord's death till He come.” This could easily be read to mean we take the Passover before Christ comes!
