If so please EMail us with your question to jonpartin@tiscali.co.uk and we will do our best to give you a satisfactory answer. EMailus.

What Does The Future Hold? Are We Approaching the Great Tribulation?

It is often asked, ‘What is the place of 1 Thessalonians 4.13-5.11 with relation to the final judgment? Is there anything that has to occur before the ‘taking away’ (or ‘rapture’, taken from the Latin translation) of the church can take place. When will the last trump sound when His people are transformed in the twinkling of an eye? What will follow it? They overlook the fact that reference to ‘the last trump’ gives the impression of the end of time.

But it is interesting that in 1 Thessalonians 4.13-18 Paul did not see any of these questions as needing to be answered. He spoke as though it would be the final end. And he did not actually say that it could occur at any moment, and readiness for His coming was not mentioned (although both are dealt with by him elsewhere). Rather he was explaining what was to happen at the end in order to comfort his readers about Christians who had died.

It is only with regard to coming judgment and ‘the Day of the Lord’ ( in chapter 5) that he warns that they could occur at any moment (like a thief in the night). And it is only if we read into ‘the day of the Lord’ certain fixed interpretations that it means any other than the time when God has His day in the judgment.

In chapter 5 he says ‘For God appointed us, not to wrath but to the obtaining of salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ’ (5.9). That is, through the ages His own experience salvation, finishing up with final salvation, and through the ages His enemies experience wrath, resulting in the final day of wrath. This only has a specific period reference to those who read their own meaning into the idea of wrath, and see it as ‘a period of wrath at the end of the age’. But the fact is that ‘wrath’ cannot be so limited to one period for it can apply to the whole church age (Romans 1.18 onwards), and it can be seen as well as signalling the final judgment itself (John 3.36; Romans 2.5; 5.9; Revelation 11.18). Thus the verse is simply stating a basic principle similar to that in John 5.29, ‘and shall come forth, those who have done good to the resurrection of life and those who have done ill to the resurrection of judgment’. Or to John 3.36 where it says, ‘he who believes on the Son has eternal life, but he who obeys not the Son shall not see life but the wrath of God abides on him.’ Wrath is an attitude of God revealed in judgment, not at a particular period of time, but throughout time, coming to its climax in the Judgment.

The basic message of the Bible and of the New Testament is therefore, in fact, that the end will come with deliverance for God’s people, and judgment for those who have rejected Him, resurrection for the former, eternal destruction (Isaiah 66.24) and everlasting contempt for the latter (Daniel 12.4). The detail is secondary.

What Then About Old Testament Teaching Concerning the End.

In the Old Testament there is no direct idea of a heavenly kingdom. ‘Shining as the stars’ might mean that to us (Daniel 12.2-4), but to them it simply indicated living gloriously, and the impression in Isaiah 26.19 (the only other clear resurrection passage) is of being raised to live again on earth. Otherwise general resurrection, although hinted at in the Psalms, is unknown. They saw the everlasting future in terms of this world.

In the time of the Moses and the prophets there was no clear understanding of the possibility of a future, heavenly, spiritual existence. Men thought in practical terms of serving under God in this life. Men lived on in their sons. Rewards came on earth. Thus when they thought of the future everlasting blessing it was always related to this life. Any thoughts of beyond the grave were of a vague shadowy existence actually within the world of the grave.

In fact there are in the Old Testament only two clear references to a general resurrection (Isaiah 26.19; Daniel 12.2-3), and neither of these give any indication of a heaven to come. As mentioned above the impression in Isaiah 26.19 is of being resurrected to live again on this earth, while the reference in Daniel is general rather than specific. And Hell is depicted as being in a valley outside Jerusalem (Isaiah 66.24). They had no conception otherwise of a Heaven or Hell. There are, of course, references in the Psalms to the certainty of the godly that they have a future ‘with God’ but no detail is supplied. So Old Testament prophecy conveys ideas in terms of literal ideas, but not literal fact. Indeed that is true in the end for all prophecy, for the reality will far exceed the descriptions. The glorious city of Revelation 21 is not a literal city. No one could live in it. It is depicting an indescribable glory.

Thus when we interpret prophetic pronouncements we must do so in this light. Philosophical ideas of a spiritual life beyond the grave would have been meaningless to the people in Old Testament days, with no background to enlighten them, and they are not found in the prophets. Spiritual ideas there are, but they are linked to this world, for to them there was no other world.

If you wanted to describe Heaven to an eskimo in the early part of the twentieth century who had never known what a city was you would have to explain Heaven in terms of a glorious igloo which shone like the sun in a vast igloo village, and of water holes where there were abundant seals.

So when the prophets wanted to depict heavenly realities to people in their times they had to do so in earthly terms. They spoke in terms of their hopes and dreams, of restoration of the land to Israel as ‘the kingdom of God’, of a great and triumphant king who would rule the world, but it was not as a temporary kingdom of limited extent (it was not a Millennium), it was as an everlasting kingdom, a kingdom without end (Micah 4.7-8; Daniel 2.44; 7.14, 18, 27; Isaiah 9.7; Psalm 45.6; 145.11-13; 146.10;Ezekiel 37.22-28 see also Exodus 19.6; Obadiah 1.21;).

They referred to Jerusalem the holy city as being the centre of God’s presence (Zechariah 2.10; 8.3; Micah 4.2; Joel 3.17; Isaiah 52.1), but they also declared that His throne was in the heavens (Psalm 103.19). Yet they never conceived of men in general as passing into the heavens, although it did happen to special individuals (2 Kings 2.11; possibly Genesis 5.24) where the thought was based on what was observed. The seed thought was there, but it needed to be expanded on, as it was in the New Testament.

They also referred to a new priesthood which was better than the old (Ezekiel 48.11), and to judgment on the wicked as being in terms of defeat and physical destruction (Zephaniah 3.8; Isaiah 66.24). They had no other terms to use that would have been understood. It was their idea of glory.

The New Testament writers saw this clearly and reinterpreted these prophecies in terms of heavenly realities. This is the central theme in the teaching of Jesus about the Kingly Rule of God. It was the commencement in this world of the establishing of God’s rule in men’s hearts, to be followed by a literal kingdom in Heaven. Paul openly expressed the idea in Galatians 4.21-31 speaking of the Jerusalem which is above. While the letter to the Hebrews contains the idea all the way through, but see especially in 12.18-28. Revelation constantly drew on these Old Testament ideas in its depiction of a heavenly future, see especially chapters 20-22. All is transferred to the heavenly realm. They saw what the prophets were striving to communicate.

God’s wrath will continually be revealed on this earth (Romans 1.18) but in the end it reaches its climax at the Judgment. And that Judgment is revealed in many ways. It is like a king summoning the world to judgment before his throne (Matthew 25.31-46), but the issues are eternal (verse 46). (You only have to see how interpreters wriggle over the last verse to see whether their interpretation of a simple illustration is true). It is like a lord or king calling his servants to account (Matthew 22.1-14; 25.14-30; Luke 12.41-48 and often). Note here that the rewards to the righteous and the condemnation of the unrighteous occur at around the same time. It is described as coming in ‘flaming fire’ (2 Thessalonians 1.8 compare Hebrews 10.27). It is described in terms of the heavens passing away and the earth being burned up in ‘the day of the Lord’ (at which point for the millennialist the day of the Lord, which had been a period at the end of ‘the church age’ suddenly extends over a thousand years and loses all connection with the Old Testament meaning (2 Peter 3.10)). It is described as a time of devastating earthly tumult (Revelation 6.12-17), which is the great day of His wrath. It is described as great hail on earth (Revelation 11.19; 16.21). It is described as a reaper reaping a deadly harvest (Revelation 14.14-20). It is described as a last great battle in which there is no fighting, for everyone is killed with the Judge’s one sword (Revelation 19.11-21). It is described as being called before a great white throne of justice (Revelation 20.11-15).

It is strange how those who want to literalise these ideas ignore the realities and have to build them around a complicated structure because they simply do not tie in if taken literally. How can the above pictures all be reconciled literally? How can the world survive for a moment the falling of the stars to the earth (Revelation 6.13)? How can a third of the sun and moon be destroyed and the world still go on? They are rather an attempt to depict a greater indescribable reality.

The typical idea in the New Testament seems to be that Jesus Christ will come; that His people will be resurrected or taken away and transformed to be with Him (1 Thessalonians 4.13-18; 1 Corinthians 15.50-54), because ‘flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God’ (1 Corinthians 15.50); and that the world, both living and dead, will at the same time be judged, something which as we have seen is described picturesquely in a number of ways.

But some expositors have introduced other elements which complicate the picture. They speak of ‘The Great Tribulation’ and refer it to a period at the end of the age. They speak of ‘the Millennium’ and see it as a kingdom lasting for a thousand years. Where then, some may ask, do these come into the picture? Let us therefore consider these questions in relation to the above.

In doing this my aim is simply to make readers think for themselves. I acknowledge gladly the sincerity and genuine spirituality of many of those who hold the differing views on this subject. (Happily the days when such views produced great heat (in the wrong sense) are mainly behind us. While they are considered important, they are also rightly considered secondary to the great central truths themselves).

The first thing for us all to recognise is that Jesus Himself will decide whether He comes before any tribulation, during it, or after it. Or whether there will be such tribulation, and whether He will introduce a Millennial kingdom, or has already ruled over it. What we believe will not actually affect the future. It will only affect us. But what He primarily wants us to do is be ready for His coming. And when He judges us it will not be on the basis of whether our interpretation was better than the next man’s, but on whether what we learned produced within us the determination to worship Him and serve Him more faithfully. We can simply consider the outskirts of His ways. No one will have got it completely right, and loving one another comes before actually doing so. Yet the importance of correct interpretation must not be underrated, for it determines our interpretation of many Scriptures.

The first problem in studying the second coming teachings in more depth is that, with many, a number of ideas and phrases have come to be looked on as sacrosanct and certain, without detailed consideration being given to their full truth (e.g. the Great Tribulation and the Millennium). General arguments are put forward for them but in the main they are assumed to be correct and the case built around them. So it is necessary for us to consider them in detail. Are they really taught in Scripture?

It is passing strange (if they are true) that those ideas are nowhere clearly stated in the letters of Peter, John or Paul. To me this is indeed odd if they are so certain. One cannot imagine a modern futurist writer writing about the second coming and not at some time mentioning ‘The Great Tribulation’ and, if he believed in it, the ‘pre-tribulation rapture’, to say nothing of the Millennium. But Paul has written about ‘the rapture’ in 1 Thessalonians 4.13-18 and yet made no mention of any of these things, indeed the idea of a ‘thousand years’ (the Millennium to some) is not mentioned anywhere in the New Testament outside Revelation, and there its meaning is debatable. And many would argue that that is also true of the so-called ‘Great Tribulation’. There are of course verses which are interpreted by some as referring to the latter, but they certainly do not refer to them clearly, or in any way that leaves a high proportion of interpreters convinced.

It is so easy to say that Paul had already taught them, and therefore they did not need to be referred to, but how are we then to know what his teaching was? And why in that great letter where he revealed his central doctrine to the Roman church does he say so little about the second coming? He assumes it, but he does not consider the detail. Was it because he had no knowledge of the complicated ideas built up in the nineteenth century?

We will therefore ask ourselves a number of questions.

1). Will There Be a Seven Year Great Tribulation?

It must be stated at once that the New Testament makes clear again and again, as all would agree, that Christians will go through tribulation of some kind. Indeed some were doing so even when Paul wrote to them, as we can see in Thessalonians for one, and it was then a common phenomenon. And no one can doubt that for some their tribulation would become intense, and is so even now. Tribulation in general is a common feature of the New Testament writings. God’s people, and the world, must go though tribulation, even sometimes great tribulation. (But that is not ‘the Great Tribulation’ spoken of by certain prophetic groups).

So we must agree that it says that the world will also go through tribulation, and that some of that will occur towards the end, for the trend is for things to get worse even when they appear to be getting better (1 Timothy 3.1-5). And there is much tribulation in the Middle East, Africa and Asia today. And here we should note that verse 6 relates it to Paul’s time as well. There will always be tribulation somewhere in the world. But that is a very different thing from the unique seven year period held by many, which is supposed to happen at the end of the age, unheard of in the New Testament unless you follow a particular view of that most difficult of all books to interpret, Revelation.

Let us then consider first the question of ‘The Great Tribulation’ as held by many today. This is seen as a period of especially great tribulation which will either precede or follow the rapture and be over a seven year period, although some would agree that the actual tribulation only covers a part of that period. But the question is, is this period actually mentioned in Scripture at all?

References to Great Tribulation.

The phrase ‘great tribulation’ actually appears three times in the New Testament and not at all in the Old. The first mention is in Matthew 24.21, (thlipsis megale), see also Mark 13.19 which omits ‘great’. It is without the definite article. Matthew writes, ‘Then shall be great tribulation such as has not been seen from the beginning of the world until now, no, nor ever shall be.’ This is contained in the great address by Jesus to His disciples answering the question as to when the temple will be destroyed, and what would be the signs of His coming. But the question is, when was this great tribulation to take place? The parallel in Luke 21.20-24 gives us the answer quite plainly. It is before and during the period of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, followed by the scattering of the Jews into all nations, so that Jerusalem is trodden down of the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. And this occurred in 70 AD and after.

That tribulation was great indeed and is alternatively described by Luke as ‘wrath upon this people’. But relatively few would deny that Luke is certainly speaking of the period around 70 AD, for it leads on to the times of the Gentiles and the scattering of the Jews. What, however, the believers in ‘The Great Tribulation’ argue is that Luke is in fact referring to words not mentioned by Matthew and Mark, and vice versa,. Thus they argue that Matthew’s ‘great tribulation’ refers to the end times, and Luke’s to 70 AD. And yet even then Matthew’s would have to be seen as local, for it is clear from the text that it can be avoided by fleeing.

However, let us consider the facts further. In Matthew 24.16 we have the words ‘then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Let him that is on the housetop not go down to take out the things that are in his house, and let him that is in the field not return back to take his cloak. But woe to them that are with child and to those who give suck in those days.’ And then in Matthew 24.29 reference is made to sun, moon and stars and the effects on them, finishing with ‘and the powers of the heavens will be shaken’. The crucial passage comes in between.

But if we compare this with Luke 21.21, 23 and 21.24a and 26b it will demonstrate that Luke also similarly refers to the fleeing to the mountains and the effects in sun, moon and stars. But the teaching that he puts in between appears at first sight to be very different. It is put in language that makes clear exactly what will happen after the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. However once we consider that Luke is trying to make Jewish concepts clear to Gentile readers, and that both are paraphrasing from the Aramaic and summarising Jesus’ words in different ways, we can in fact see that they are saying the same thing in different words. There is to be great trouble and then Jerusalem will be destroyed in accordance with what Jesus had said earlier. And the opening and closing phrases are exactly the same.

When I was young and was given a Scofield Reference Bible and, with no one to guide me, revelled in new knowledge of the Scriptures, yet I was even then uneasy about the idea that Luke had ignored what seemed so important and had deliberately omitted it and that Matthew had completely ignored the destruction of the Temple which the disciples’ question had been about and had instead spoken of another one. And it is certainly now beyond what in my view is an acceptable method of interpretation to think that what lies between these identical phrases refers to two totally different occasions, and that Matthew totally omitted the important event of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, which was what Jesus had promised to describe, while Luke equally omitted reference to an equally important later destruction of Jerusalem. In fact it is to me so incredible that I deem it impossible. What an incredible lapse it would have been. But when people have a theory to support they will convince themselves of anything.

This is especially so as both writers began the discourse with Jesus’ reference to the same question about the destruction of Jerusalem and are answering the same question! Readers must judge for themselves, but it seems to me that only people determined to prove a theory could argue for such a method of interpretation. Why on earth should Luke omit such important teaching about the end times? And why should Matthew and Mark omit reference to the destruction of the temple that the question was all about? Their reply as we have seen is that Jesus was talking about two destructions of Jerusalem. But no one would have gathered that by reading their words.

Thus we conclude that this great tribulation did occur, but it occurred in 70 AD and in what preceded and followed the destruction of Jerusalem, and was Jesus answer to questions about the coming judgment on the Temple.

The second mention of ‘great tribulation’ is in Revelation 2.22. There the false teachers and their adherents in the church of Thyatira are threatened with ‘great tribulation’ (thlipsis megale) unless they repent. There is no definite article. Now quite apart from the question of the dating of these false teachers and what is to happen to them, (whether they were first century teachers or latter day teachers), there are no grounds at all for relating this ‘great tribulation’, which will come on them as a punishment, to any particular period of time and as happening elsewhere. It is mentioned as being their punishment, and the phrase is without the definite article. They will experience great tribulation because of their behaviour.

The third mention of great tribulation is in Revelation 7.14. There John was dealing with the multitude which no one could number out of all nations, who were seen in Heaven following the narrative about the sealing of ‘the twelve tribes of Israel’. It is said of them, (translating over-literally) ‘these are the coming ones out of the tribulation, the great one, (tes thilpsis tes megales) and they washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.’

The exegesis of this verse in context, considering all possible views, would take a great deal of time. (Reference can be made for my view at Revelation). But apart from the assumptions of particular views, the question as to when this event took place is not apparent from the text and must therefore depend on other references in Scripture. It could refer to the 1st century or to the 21st century AD. They are simply Christians coming out of ‘the great tribulation’. The definite article on ‘great tribulation’ here can either be seen as referring back to the ‘great tribulation’ of 2.22 (‘the great tribulation that I spoke of in 2.22’), or more probably to the fact of the more general high level of tribulation mentioned elsewhere in the Revelation, which is also certainly ‘great’. But the timing of this is totally based on one’s particular interpretation of the book, which will be affected by the basis from which one views it. Those who read into it a seven year future period without any real grounds will be convinced. Those who see it as referring to history will not be so convinced. It cannot therefore be used in itself to prove that there will be a Great Tribulation in the last seven years of the age. Such a view is based on the doubtful and controversial interpretation of one or two passages.

We should notice that the order of the words (‘great’ following ‘tribulation’) is the same as in 2.22 (and in Matthew 24), and therefore it does not necessarily have special significance here. And relation to a time period will very much depend on our view of the Book of Revelation as a whole, which is a highly debatable subject.

So while the general meaning of the Book of Revelation is clear in terms of heavenly effects on earthly life, we must recognise that some detailed interpretations very much depend on the interpretation of a few key phrases, which seem innocuous in themselves but are given an importance and meaning far beyond what is obvious. In other words they can depend on inferences, which are then doubtfully used to support a particular position which is not openly apparent, and which can be interpreted widely differently. (One example is - ‘the things which you saw, the things which are, and the things which will be hereafter’ (Revelation 1.19) which naturally interpreted simply means, ‘what you have seen, what is true at this point in time, and what will follow this point in time’, but by some is taken to mean ‘what you have seen, what is happening to the church and will happen later, and what will happen when the church has been raptured. But it does not obviously mean that. The interpretation is made in order to support the theory.

So in this all too brief survey we conclude that references to ‘great tribulation’ tell us little about when such tribulation was to take place, apart from in the case of the first which would be around 70 AD. There is in context no reason for referring any of these verses to the last seven years of the age. It would be different if a convincing case could be otherwise made from elsewhere, but can it?.

The question is, from where do people then get the idea of a seven year Great Tribulation? And why do they refer it to the end of the church age? And remarkably the answer is that it is from a very controversial passage in Daniel.

The first part of the answer which would be supplied would refer us to the Book of Daniel. There in chapter 9 is a prophetic passage, (another passage of which the interpretation is actually widely varied), from which comes the idea of a period of seven years, argued by some to refer to a period at the end of the church age. Actually this passage refers to desolations, and no mention is made in it of tribulation as such. So while it may be true that such desolations will bring tribulation for those involved in them, it is not necessarily anything to do with persecution, and need only refer to the Middle East.

Furthermore these desolations are only in the last part of the seven years. I do not want to make too much of this last point for many would agree that ‘The Seven Year Great Tribulation’ is a misnomer and that it should rather be ‘The Seven Year period at the end of the age in which the Tribulation occurs at some point’. I mention it only because of some people’s misconceptions.

Now this seven year period in Daniel follows the cutting off of Messiah the Prince and the destruction of city and sanctuary by ‘the people of the coming prince’. But who is the ‘coming prince’? For a fuller treatment we would refer readers to The Seventy Weeks of Daniel’ found on Revelation . Suffice to say here that large numbers of expositors refer ‘the people of the coming prince’ either to Titus and the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD or to the prince who will come in the last days, the Antichrist. But, while I hesitate to suggest this so firmly in view of the weight of Bible teachers supporting these views, in my view this results from fitting history (and Daniel) into a particular view of things rather than from asking what the book itself says. It is due to exegesis which is in my view a little careless .

In fact if we look at it in the light of the Book of Daniel alone, ignoring fulfilment, ‘the people of the coming prince’ can only mean the Jews. Why?

• 1). Because the term for Prince (nagid) is a term only used of ‘Jewish’ princes in Daniel (using ‘Jewish’ loosely), and in the singular almost totally restricted to these in the remainder of the Old Testament. See the article referred to above.
• 2). Because when Daniel refers to foreign kings he does so in terms of the king and not their people. Why did he not say, ‘the king/general who will come’ as usual?
• 3). Because a coming prince has already been mentioned in the passage (verse 25).
• 4). Because the obvious reason in context for the phrase ‘the people of the coming prince’ in the passage is because the prince who came is now not with them because He has been cut off.
• 5). Because mention of ‘the people of --’ as the subject only occurs in Daniel of the Jews, in Daniel 7.27.