TEXT: Acts 14:22

SUBJECT: Eschatology #3: The Tribulation

This afternoon, with God’s blessing, we’ll move on in our once-a-month study of Eschatology or The Last Things. The doctrines have long fascinated the Lord’s People—and not always in a healthy manner. If you want to study the End Times—and not become a nut or a heretic—you need to do three things:

• Do not limit yourself to The Last Things. A preoccupation with the end of the world is neither wise nor safe. We know this because the Bible is not centered on the Lord’s Second Coming, and because nearly all the cults started off with a teacher who was.

• Separate the big ideas from the fine print. The big ideas of Eschatology are: The Second Coming of Christ, the Resurrection of the Dead, the Judgment, Heaven, and Hell. If you stay on these things, you can’t go too far wrong. But, if you spend too much time on the fine print—the minor and disputed issues, you’ll hurt yourself and other people.

• Listen to and respect the views of other Christians. If the doctrine of the Millennium, for example, was as crystal clear as some people say it is, intelligent and godly Bible students would not differ so much on it. You can name Great Thinkers on all sides of the issue. In thirty-five years of ministry in London, Charles Spurgeon taught three different views of the Millennium. Early on, he seems to have been postmillennial; later he became amillennial; and he was premillinnial at the end of his life…

Believe me, this is good advice for the study of Last Things, and you’d be wise to follow it.

Today’s topic is The Tribulation.

The word, tribulation, occurs more than fifty times in the New Testament and in a wide variety of settings. But to Bible-believing Americans of today, it brings one thing to mind: an intense, worldwide suffering just before the Lord comes again.

This is taught by the president of Family Radio; and, in another form, by Dallas Theological Seminary. It has been popularized by the Scofield Reference Bible and by the best-selling books of Hal Lindsey and Tim Lahaye. On the scholarly side, George Ladd, Robert Thomas and Darryl Bock support the view. John MacArthur preaches it and R.C. Sproul used to.

Some of these men would croak to be put in the same category as the others! And in many ways they differ, of course. But when it comes to what the Tribulation is and especially when it is, they see things pretty much the same way.

They might quibble over a word or two, but they all see the Tribulation as an intense worldwide suffering just before the Lord comes again.

The belief is supported by a vast array of Scriptures. Some find the tribulation in the Bible’s every nook and cranny. If Isaiah foresees the sack of Babylon about 2500 years ago, he really means the destruction of God’s enemies at the end of the Great Tribulation. If the Lord promises to keep us from temptation, it means He will rapture us before the Tribulation. A hundred sermons couldn’t answer all the bizarre misreadings, and I won’t even try.

More sober men build the doctrine on two main passages in the Bible. They are: the Book of Revelation and the Olivet Discourse.

I won’t deny that all the passages teach a tribulation; no one can read them and say otherwise.

Some kind of tribulation is plainly taught in these places. But do they teach the Tribulation—a unique judgment of God falling on the world, shortly before the Lord returns? That’s the question.

Let’s start with Revelation. In a few months, I hope to give a whole sermon on interpreting the most mystifying book in the Bible (that really isn't). But for now, I simply take you back to the question: Does Revelation teach a special tribulation just before the Second Coming of Christ?

We start with the structure of the Book—how is Revelation laid out or divided? Revelation 1:19 tells us:

Thus, it’s made up of three parts: the past, the present the future. The past can only mean what John has already seen in Chapter 1—the glorified Christ. The present (most commentators think) is found in Chapters 2 and 3—the seven churches of Asia that were real churches, meeting in the cities spread all over that part of the world. The future is revealed in Chapters 4 and following. Hardly anyone disagrees with this outline.

The past was the recent past—what John had just seen. The present was the First Century. But when is the future? When do the things that will take place after this take place?

Some believe they all took place in the First Century. By 70 A.D., everything in this Book was fulfilled. Thankfully, this is a minority position—very few conservative Christians accept it.

Most others believe that the future events of Revelation all take place at the end of the world. I agree with them—if they used the term in the way the Bible does. Hebrews 1:1 says we are in the last days. I John 2:18 says we are in the last hour, even. But so were the Christians who first read those books, way back when. The Lord came to put away sins at the cross once… in the end of the world (Hebrews 9:26).

But this, of course, is not what they mean when they put off the prophecies of this Book to the End Times. They mean—depending on who you listen to—something between three-and-a-half years and forty years—with seven being the preferred number.

But where does Revelation say that? There are plenty of numbers in the Book, but none of them says when the Tribulation will begin or how long it will last.

To my mind, too much is read into Revelation and too little is read out of it. This is my first objection. The second is shorter and easier to explain.

Revelation was written to the seven churches of Asia, most of whom were suffering at the time, and all would be before long. The main purpose for writing it, therefore, is to comfort these dear people who are being worn out by their enemies. But if all the judgments of God are thousands of years in the future, how does that bring comfort? Revelation made Hal Lindsey a rich man. But how did it help the seven churches of Asia?

Enlarging on that, how did it help the men burned at the stake in the Middle Ages? Or how did it relieve the pioneer missionaries who were eaten by cannibals? And what comfort can it bring to any person not alive when the Lord comes again?

This view of Revelation does nothing for the People of God but stir up their idle curiosity and divide their churches. The Lord did not tell John write these things for those bad ends. No!

So, what does Revelation teach about the Tribulation? It teaches there will be one for the Lord’s People (and His enemies), but it does not place it in the last few years before the Lord comes again.

The second passage is The Olivet Discourse, found in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21. It’s called the Olivet Discourse because it is a teaching the Lord gave His disciples on the Mount of Olives. A few months ago, I preached a long, long sermon on the passage in Luke’s Gospel, so now, we’ll have a shorter look at Matthew’s account. It takes up all the 24^th Chapter and has only one brief interruption by the disciples.

The setting, vv.1-2. The Olivet Discourse does not begin on the Mount of Olives, but just below, at the Temple in Jerusalem. The disciples point out the buildings to Him, evidently admiring their size and beauty and history.

But the Lord cuts them dead: Assuredly I say to you, not one stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

What Temple are they talking about? Dispensational Theology says they are talking about a Rebuilt Temple that will one day be put in Jerusalem. At the moment, a mosque is there—The Dome of the Rock it is called. But one day, the Muslim building will come down and be replaced by the Temple.

The President of Family Radio denies this—and rightly so, it seems to me. But he replaces it with something worse. He takes the word, temple, to be a figure of speech for the Church, which, He says, God is now destroying.

Both views are impossible for the same reason. If they’re true, the disciples could not have known what the Lord was talking about. And, assuming He had a message for them (as well as us), He was wasting His breath.

The disciples were asking about the Temple—that Temple, the Temple they were then looking at. And what the Lord said was about that Temple, and it shocked His friends.

The question, v.3: Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, `Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?’

This is the chapter’s most difficult verse. Are the disciples asking one question or more than one? Are they asking about the destruction of the Temple and the sign of His coming and the end of the Age? Or, are they asking one question in three different ways? In other words, are they combining the destruction of the Temple, the sign of His coming and the end of the Age or separating them by 2000 years or more?

I think they were asking one question only. To their way of thinking the destruction of the Temple and the End of the Age were the same thing. This is what I think, and I’ll tell you why.

• It agrees with the parallel account in Mark. Mark 13:4 has it: Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign when all these things will be fulfilled? The "things" they’re asking about are found two verses earlier, Mark 13:2: Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone shall be left upon another, that shall not be thrown down. There is nothing in here about a judgment beyond the fall of Jerusalem or a Second Coming (as we understand the term).

• It agrees with Luke’s wording. Luke 21:7 says, And they asked Him, saying. `Teacher, when will these things be? And what sign will there be when these things are about to take place?’ Again, if you look back one verse, you’ll see the "things" they’re referring to is the wreck of the Temple they were looking at.

The replies the Lord gave in all three Gospels are the same in substance (though not in detail). It seems hard for me to believe that one could describe the Fall of Jerusalem and the Fall of Jerusalem--plus the end of the world--in the same words! All judgments have things in common, of course, but these seem to be very different events.

Now, if you say Matthew interprets Mark and Luke, that’s fine with me, but then you have to explain who the Lord was talking to! It sure wasn’t the disciples who could have had no idea what He was saying if He was answering, "When will the Temple be destroyed?" as though they asked, "When will the world come to an end?"

The single question, then, fits the parallel stories better. That’s the first reason I hold to it.

• The single question fits the details of what follows better than a double or triple question does. If, for example, Matthew 24 describes the end of the world, and the Lord’s coming in Final Judgment, why should those in Judea flee to the mountains? What does it matter if the one on the housetop comes down to take anything out of his house? Why is it bad to then be pregnant or nursing babies? And especially, what difference does it make if it occurs in the winter or on the Sabbath?

When the wrath of God falls on the ungodly, it doesn’t matter where you are, what you’re doing, or what time of year it is! It’s all the same. But these things matter very, very much to a man or woman trying to escape Jerusalem before the Romans take it. If you’re running from angry Romans, you don’t want a baby hanging all over you and you sure don’t want to slip on the ice!

Some details make me think that it’s one judgment foreseen here and so, one question.

• Thirdly, this view fits the context. Matthew 24 follows Matthew 23. The earlier chapter is about, what? The end of the world or the danger the Jews will be in thousands of years in the future? No. It’s about the unbelieving Jews of that time and the appalling judgment that must fall on them—upon this generation of them.

If Matthew 23 says there will be an outpouring of God’s wrath on that generation, doesn’t it seem likely that Matthew 24’s story of an awful judgment falling on Jerusalem just might be the same thing?

• Finally, this view fits the facts of history. Inside of forty years, the gory details of this chapter took place. In his masterful work, The Wars of the Jews, Flavius Josephus—a man who was there and was not a Christian—described the sack of Jerusalem in just the same way Matthew 24 does. In the four years running up to it, he describes famine, civil war, persecution, and false Messiahs. Of the Fall itself, he describes the horrors of massacre, the defiling of the Temple, and dismantling God’s House brick by brick. Even his interpretation of it all is true: The God of the Jews went over to Romans.

Matthew 24 is one answer to one question. It has nothing to say about the apostasy of the Church or a war still to be fought between the Russians and Israel. The chapter is not about these things!

Next, we have the `signs of the times’, vv.4-13. The future is full of Gospel witness, but also full war, pestilence, persecution, false Messiahs, and so on. But these things mean the end is not yet!

Then we come to what the notes in my Bible call `the Great Tribulation’, vv15-28.

It begins with the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet. What is this horrid thing? If you check the references in Daniel 9, 11, and 12, you’ll see that someone is going to desolate the Temple by taking away the daily sacrifices and by setting up an abomination.

Question: What Temple was Daniel talking about? If you look back to Daniel 9:25, you’ll see he has a future Temple in mind. The Temple that will be built at some point between his day and the coming of Messiah. The coming He has in mind is the First Coming! Thus, the abomination of desolation will take place—not in a Temple that is still future to us—but in the Temple that was future to Daniel but before the Lord came the first time.

There was such a Temple! It was begun after the exile, and led by Zerubbabel the governor and Joshua the High Priest. You can read all about it in Ezra, Nehemiah, Haggai, and Zechariah. Whatever the abomination may be, it took place in that Temple and not another.

It consisted of two parts: (1) God’s sacrifices abolished and (2) a hateful thing put in its place. In 70 A.D. the Romans did both. Dead bodies were tossed on the altar; images of Caesar were put up. These defiled the Temple and made sacrifices to God impossible.

When the disciples saw this happen—not other bad things—but this one, in particular, they were to flee Jerusalem because it was about to fall. As they ran for the hills, they would hear rumors that Messiah was in the desert or in the inner room, but they must not listen: He’s not there and He’s not going to save the city!

He’s coming in judgment, not mercy and soon, the birds of prey will have a feast of human meat!

From this we learn the Great Tribulation is in the past, not the future, that it refers to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. and not some catastrophe to come in our lifetime or later.

Next, we have the coming in glory, vv.29-31.

These verses sound very much like the Second Coming of Christ, complete with His public glory and the gathering of His people worldwide. If they were found someplace else in the Bible, I would take them for it. But it doesn’t fit here. It seems very strange for the Lord to be talking about the Destruction of Jerusalem in vv.1-28 then again in vv.32ff, while referring to something else in the four verses in-between. It’s possible, of course, that He took a tangent, but, if He did, you’d think He would indicate it someway or the other. But He doesn’t. This part of the chapter is of a piece with the rest of it.

So what do we do with it?

The first two verses (vv.29-30) are easy to explain. The Judgments of God are often described in cosmic, earth-shaking language. If you read Isaiah 13, you’ll find the destruction of Babylon related this way,

This is not an isolated text. It’s the usual way the prophets had of describing the judgments of God. They weren’t statisticians, but poets. They weren’t writing military handbooks, but hymns of praise to the LORD who saved them from their enemies!

Matthew was a Jew writing to Jews in the idiom of the Jews. There’s no problem at all with describing a Judgment before the end of the world as though it were the end of the world. It’s to be expected.

The real problem is v.31 and seeing how it fits into the argument. It looks very much like the rapture at the end of the world. And that is a Bible doctrine.

What do we do with these angels and their gathering of the Elect, and so on?

In his mostly good book, An Eschatology of Victory, J. Marcellus Kik tries very hard to fit it in. He says the angels are not heavenly angels, but human messengers (that’s possible, for aggelos can mean messengers). As for the gathering of the Elect? That means Gospel preachers will call His people from all over the world.

Is it possible? I guess so, but it sure seems forced to me. I think there’s an easier way of explaining it. I’m not dogmatic about it, but it makes good sense to me: When the Lord comes back to destroy Jerusalem, His angels will help them get out alive. Whether His people are way off on the north side or south or east or west of the doomed city, they’ll be led to a safe place by the angels of God. Angels rescued Lot from Sodom and Peter from prison. I see no reason why they didn’t do the same for the saints in Jerusalem.

No one knows the exact time when the Lord will destroy Jerusalem, but it will be within one generation from the time He said these things. And, even though it will be a time of huge, earthshaking events, most people won’t see it coming—until its too late.

Finally, we have the Lord’s advice to His disciples, vv.45ff. If you don’t know when He’s coming in judgment, be ready for it now. That was good advice then and it’s good advice now, as we wait for the Second Coming.

In summary: Does the Olivet Discourse teach a Great Tribulation in the future? Yes it does! V.21 is where the term comes from!

But the Tribulation it foresees has already occurred. It is fulfilled in the Destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. And because no tribulation like this one will ever happen again, it cannot be fulfilled a second time—not on Israel as Hal Lindsey says or on the Church as Family Radio now teaches.

It is one prophecy, looking at one thing, and fulfilled one time.

The Bible does not teach a seven-year tribulation at the end of the world. With the sacking of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., Israel has had its tribulation and will not have another one, for it fulfilled all the Covenant curses pronounced on that people.

As for the Church? Our tribulation is on-going. It is through many tribulations that we enter the kingdom of God. Persecution differs from age to age and place to place. But as long as the world does not know Him, it will not know us. As long as sinners hate Christ, they will hate His people.

This means we should not waste our time looking for a tribulation.

It also means that we ought to expect trouble in this life and to gear up for it—not by speculating about the future—but by devoting ourselves to prayer, study, meditation, and service.

It means we ought support our persecuted brethren worldwide with our prayers and sympathy, and money (where it’s needed). Because, one day, it will be our turn to suffer and we’ll need their help.