The New Testament refers to the eschatological “great tribulation” as a time of unprecedented upheaval and suffering that must proceed the second coming of Christ (Matt. 24:21; Rev. 7:14). In the study of eschatology, it is amazing to behold how many different and nuanced views there are concerning the timing and nature of the great tribulation and the second coming of Christ1. On one end of the spectrum, classic premillennial dispensationalism asserts a future seven-year tribulation preceded by Christ coming back to remove his church from the world stage (the Rapture) to rescue them from the ensuing calamities, after which he will establish the millennial kingdom, and then return to inaugurate the eternal state2. On the other end, liberal Christianity rejects all supernatural assertions about Jesus, which would preclude any notion of an eschaton3. There are also many other positions in between, for example, the great tribulation mentioned in Matt. 24:21 and Revelation 7:14 describe two separate events. In this paper, I will argue that the great tribulation that Jesus prophesied in the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24:21) already occurred, and that was in A.D. 70 with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple,4 and that it is not related to the great tribulation of Revelation 7:145.
Though many eschatological systems have tribulation theories, they all agree that Jesus will ultimately eradicate evil, defeat death, and return to a new earth to reign with his people forever. It is essential not to lose sight of this blessed hope as the source of comfort, peace, and strength to endure tribulations. Jesus reminds us that in this world, we will have tribulation. He also reminds us that in him, we may take heart because he has overcome the world (John 16:33).
There are four basic approaches to interpreting Revelation and the other eschatological writings of the New Testament, which will be helpful when considering the numerous positions relating to the timing and nature of the tribulation:
Preterist – the fulfillment of apocalyptic predictions has already occurred. Note that not all theologians agree as to the degree of their fulfillment.
Idealist: symbolic, apocalyptic timeless truths that continually occur.
Futurist: apocalyptic end-time events are yet to occur. Note that imminence (how soon are future events) is an important consideration for the futurist.
Historicist: apocalyptic end-time events not only occurred in history but also within the lifespan of the church6.
The various millennial positions7 and their concomitant tribulation theories implement one or more of these approaches to support their viewpoints and reject others. Therefore, it is necessary to examine the options and assess the merits of each position.
Classic dispensational premillennialism follows the futurist method of interpretation almost exclusively and is pretribulational. Historical premillennialism looks at the prophetic writings of the New Testament8 through both preterist and futurist lenses and sees them as relevant to the current times of the disciples and also point forward to the consummation of redemptive history9 (Erickson 1998, 98). In various degrees, dispensational and historic millennialism hold that the great tribulation described in Revelation (esp. Rev. 7:14) did not occur during the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. Rather, they describe a tribulational event or events yet to come.
Postmillennialism proposes that the kingdom of God is a present reality and that all the nations will gradually be converted to Christ before he returns. This millennium view expects a long period of peace (not necessarily a literal 1000 years) prior to the parousia, after which the final judgment will occur. Some postmillennialists believe that the great tribulation has already occurred in A.D. 70 with the fall of Jerusalem. Others posit that it will occur at the end of the millennium, shortly before Christ’s return, when Satan is released to deceive the nations (Rev 20:7-8).
Amillennialism agrees with postmillennialism but is less optimistic about achieving a long period of peace before Christ returns. However, they both generally view the nature and timing of the great tribulation through preterist lenses. Note that there are varying degrees of preterism, ranging from partial to extreme, hyper, or full preterism. The partial-preterist tends to view the events that Jesus predicted in the Olivet Discourse as not relating to the second coming of Christ at the end of the age. Rather, they portray, in Old Testament language, the symbolic reality of the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, which was an event of cosmic significance. Those who hold the hyper-preterist position argue that not only did the prophesied parousia or second coming of Christ occur in A.D. 70, but also the final resurrection, final judgment, and inauguration of the new heavens and new earth10.
Views on the nature and timing of the great tribulation and their millennial influences have varied throughout the history of Christianity. Most early apostolic fathers of the first four centuries are considered posttribulational premillennialists (historic premillennialists) and futurists in their approach. They supported the view that Christ would return to earth in the millennium11 to rule and reign over all the nations of the earth from Jerusalem. They believed that the great tribulation, a time of unprecedented anguish imposed by the antichrist, would occur immediately before the millennium. The early church father, Papias (80-155), a student of the apostle John and Philip the Evangelist, held this position in addition to Irenaeus (140– 203), Justin Martyr (100–165)12, Tertullian (160-230), Lactantius (250-320), and Hippolytus (c. 170 – 236). Hippolytus believed that the abomination of desolation was not some past event. Rather, he wrote that it must occur in the future before Jesus would return from heaven13. Twentieth-century theologian and historic premillennialist George Eldon Ladd writes that the early church interpreted Revelation and other New Testament scripture along futurist lines. Further, he finds no trace of pretribulational thought in their writings14.
The Middle Ages saw the rise of an anti-millennialist posture primarily due to the legalization of Christianity under the Roman Emperor Constantine. With the intense persecution of the church lifted, Christians developed a new optimism that the advancement of God’s kingdom would progressively reach the whole world, after which Christ would return and usher in the eternal state. As a result, premillennialism fell into the minority position. Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., an advocate of postmillennialism, does not characterize the church leaders and theologians of that time to be thoroughly postmillennialist. However, he finds “indicators” of “a genuine hope regarding the gospel’s victorious historical progress.” Among these, he includes Origen (c. 185–254), Eusebius (c. 260–340), Athanasius (c. 296–372), and Augustine (354–430). He also points to several medieval thinkers such as the Franciscans Peter John Olivi (d. c. 1297) and Abertino de Casale (fl. 1305); the Dominicans Ghehardinus de Burgo (fl. 1254) and Fra Dolcino (fl. 1330); the Beguine Mechthild of Magdeburg (d. 1280); Roman Catholic scholar Arnaldus of Villanova (fl. 1298); and the forerunner of John Huss, Jan Miliciz of Kremsier (fl. 1367)15. Erickson points out that Augustine believed the church was already in the millennium and categorized his eschatology as amillennial (Erickson 1998, 73).
The sixteenth-century Protestant Reformation saw the rise of the historical approach to understanding the visions of the Book of Revelation. This historical approach led Luther and other reformers to view Papal Rome as the antichrist. Ladd points out that during this period, there were premillennialists who did not believe that a final “great tribulation” would occur before the return of Christ. Instead, they viewed the tribulation as the entire period of Papal church rule (Ladd 1956, 32).
Ladd states that postmillennialism traces its origins back to Daniel Whitby (1638–1726) and Campegius Vitringa (1659-1722). These theologians believed that the whole world was to be evangelized before the return of Christ (Ladd 1956, 32). Postmillennialism was widely held among the Puritans and was the dominant view among Reformed theologians of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. It was taught by men such as Jonathan Edwards, Charles Hodge, James Henley Thornwell, A.A. Hodge, and B.B. Warfield. Ladd writes, “they all shared the historical view; none of them was a futurist, looking for a short tribulation with a personal Antichrist just before the return of Christ. Therefore, the idea of a pretribulation rapture had no place in their interpretation of prophecy.” (Ladd 1956, 34)
The pretribulational dispensational position originates primarily with John Nelson Darby (1800-1882) and the nineteenth-century Plymouth Brethren movement in Britain. It gained traction in the Niagara Bible Conference era (1878-1909), which began as a Bible study group of like-minded pastors and evangelists who shared common ideas about literal hermeneutics, premillennial interpretation, and a futurist sense that the end of the age was imminent (Archer 1984, 12). However, there was a debate on what constituted imminence. The crux of the debate centered upon the age-old matter of when the tribulation events will occur – before Christ returns for his church or after. Those who subscribed to the former view were labeled “at-any-moment” pretribulationalists, and the latter were known as posttribulationalists. Although the participants were primarily premillennialists, heated disputes eventually broke out, causing a schism between the two camps. This led to the formation of the Sea Cliff Bible Conference, composed of only the non-denominational pretribulational dispensationalists, in which no posttribulationalists were welcome. In the end, what began as a collegial gathering of like-minded premillennialists, the Niagara conference disintegrated into a bitter division along pretribulational and posttribulational lines. The pretribulationalists eventually won the day. From about 1909-1952, heated debates still broke out between the pretribulationalists and the posttribulationalists. Among the premillennialists, the at-any-moment pretribulational position emerged as the most popular, primarily through the promulgation of their prophetic interpretations to support their view. As such, many religious institutions incorporated premillennial pretribulational views into their doctrinal statements. Regrettably, those who disagreed with the pretribulation view were often accused of promoting liberal Christianity. The period after 1952 period saw a somewhat lessening of dogmatism by those of all positions and a call to unity (Archer 1984, 24-44).
The Bible mentions the great tribulation in two verses in the Bible – Matthew 24:21 and Revelation 7:14.
Mathew 24:21 (Olivet Discourse): For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be.
Revelation 7:14: I said to him, “Sir, you know.” And he said to me, “These are the ones coming out of the great tribulation.
Perhaps no other scripture in the New Testament better describes the great tribulation than the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24-25, par. Mark 13; Luke 21). Though the discourse contains much information about the nature of the great tribulation, it is crucial to notice that this truly horrific event unmistakably ended the old sacrificial system to make way for the gospel to be proclaimed throughout the world as a testimony to all the nations. For only after that shall the end come (Matt. 24:14). Considering whom Jesus was directing his discourse to (the disciples) and the historical context in which it was given, the most likely timeframe for the prophesied events of the narrative was A.D. 70.
In a chiasm16, the end is the beginning, and the beginning is the end. However, the middle radiates in both directions saturating the surrounding verses with a profundity that would not be possible when reading it linearly. By viewing this difficult passage chiastically, we will see the connection of loosely coupled thematic material cohesively coalesce around a central motif which will help us better understand the teaching of our Savior.
Reading Matthew 23:37 – 24:31 as a chiasmus, we see the following organization of thematic material come to light:
(A) Literal desolation and destruction of the temple. (23:38 – 24:2)
(B) Warning about false messiahs. (24:3-5)
(C) Predictions and descriptions of tribulational events. (24:6-13)
(D) Gospel preached to all the nations. (24:14a)
(D’) The end will come. (24:14b)
(C’) The abomination of desolation, the great tribulation (24:15-22)
(B’) Warning about false messiahs. (24:23-25)
(A’) Destruction of the temple in cosmic, symbolic language. (24:27-31)
(A – A’): The backdrop of this discourse begins at the end of the previous chapter, Matthew 23:37-39, where we find Jesus in the temple lamenting over his obstinate chosen people (symbolized by Jerusalem) for killing and stoning their prophets and messengers (23:37). When he leaves the temple, he declares it will become desolate (Isa. 64:11, Jer. 12:7; 22:5). He goes on to say that they will not see him again until, if and only if, they declare, “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord” (Matt. 23:39, cf. Ps. 118:26). Jesus and his disciples then go to the Mount of Olives which is east of Jerusalem. The disciples point to the magnificence of the temple, after which Jesus tells them it will be literally destroyed17 (24:1-2).
The (A’) verses restate the literal of desolation and destruction (23:38, 24:2) in cosmic, symbolic language (24:27-31). In Matthew 23:39 (A), Jesus declares you will not see me again until you say, “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord” whereas, in Matthew 24:27 (A’), Jesus states, “For as the lightning comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be “the coming of the Son of Man.” The “he who comes in the name of the Lord” (23:39) is the Danielic Son of Man of 24:27. To make the literal destruction of Jerusalem more visceral, Jesus states in verse 24:28, “wherever the corpse is, the vultures will gather.” Just as unmistakable is the location of a dead animal by observing circling vultures, so it will be with Jerusalem when it is destroyed, which occurred in A.D. 70. The writings of Josephus bear this out18.
Now in verse 24:29-31, we read:
Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
The word “immediately” in this context is to establish a link between the great tribulation of A.D. 70 and the Danielic coronation of Christ before the Ancient of Days. That is to say, it is not necessarily an exact period of time or future end-times tribulation of seven weeks (dispensational pre/mid/postmillennialism) or even the final parousia. Rather the destruction of the physical temple as a place to offer sacrifices to God signaled the Father’s satisfaction with the perfect sacrifice of Jesus, thus ending the imperfect Jewish sacrificial system once and for all. No longer could the Jewish people offer sacrifices for the atonement of sin (Bennett 2022). Furthermore, its destruction signifies the establishment of Jesus as the embodiment of the true spiritual temple of God.
It is essential to note that Matthew was writing to a Jewish audience who would have recognized the connection between the prophecy about the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70 with the prophecy in Daniel. (Dan. 9:27, 11:31, 12:11 – abomination that causes desolation or one who makes desolate). They would have also understood the sign of the “Son of Man coming in the clouds” from Daniel 7:13-14 (explained later). His audience would have been well acquainted with Jesus’ cosmic language, for it would have been instilled in them from the Hebrew scriptures from a young age.19
In these passages, the disciples first ask, “what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?” (Mt. 24:3). Before Jesus gives them a direct answer, he warns them that others will come masquerading as The Christ to lead them to believe the end of the age is at hand (24:4-5). In the complementing B’ section (24:23-25), Jesus reinforces his admonitions not to be led astray by false messiahs and prophets who perform great signs and wonders. The book of Acts confirms that there were many false prophets and messiahs in the days leading up to the temple’s destruction, e.g., Acts 5:36–37; 8:9–10; 13:6; 21:38 (Storms 2013, 239). These reports are attested to by the Jewish historian Josephus, who wrote that during the reign of Nero, deceivers and false prophets were arrested daily20. In his Ecclesiastical History, the church historian Eusebius wrote that there were many false messiahs in the period leading up to the great tribulation of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Thus, history affirms that Jesus’ warnings in this chiastic couplet were directly related to the events leading up to the temple’s destruction in A.D. 70.
Now we come to the verses whose theme centers around tribulation. Though the (C) verses of 24:6-14 could apply to all Christians of all generations, they would be especially relevant to disciples. In the (C’) verses (24:15-22), Jesus narrows the focus of the tribulations to a specific tribulation – the abomination of desolation and the great tribulation.
The (C) verses speak of wars, rumors of wars, national uprisings, famines, and earthquakes (24:6-8). It is well documented that the period leading up to the destruction of the temple was rife with such tribulational events (Storms 2013, 237-241)21. Then Jesus gets personal. He tells the disciples that because of his name’s sake, they will endure tribulation, such as being hated and put to death. Again, the book of Acts contains no shortage of scripture describing the tribulation the disciples endured (e.g., Acts 4:1–18; 5:17–40; 8:1, 12:1; 23:24; 24:27). Jesus also tells them that many will fall away. Scripture confirms this happened before the events of 70 A.D. (cf. 1 John 2:19; 2 Tim. 1:15).
In the (C’) verses (24:15-22), Jesus tells his disciples that when (not if) they see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel22, standing in the holy place, they should run for the hills. The reader (not of this gospel but of Daniel) would understand that the abomination of desolation harkens back to the abominable deeds of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 168 B.C. when he massacred 40,000 Jews and plundered the temple. If that was not bad enough, he sacrificed a pig on the altar of burnt offering and sprinkled broth from the unclean flesh all over the holy grounds as an act of deliberate defilement. He then erected an image of Zeus above the altar. It was a sacrilege of indescribable proportions that left a scar on the Jewish psyche throughout the remainder of the Second Temple period (Storms 2013, 245). The Jews of Jesus’ day would have been well aware of what Jesus was referring to. In A.D. 70, they would remember Jesus’ words as the Roman general and future emperor, Titus, placed an idol on the site of the smoldering temple after the destruction of Jerusalem. For that generation23 who witnessed the horrific events of A.D. 70, this was indeed a period of great tribulation. Storms describes it this way:
Once one grasps the dimensions of what occurred in 70, one realizes that the savagery, cruelty, and the monstrosities that occurred were beyond comparison. Also, never so high a percentage of one city’s population was destroyed. Everyone was either killed or sold into slavery. As noted earlier, approximations are that 1,100,000 people were killed and 100,000 were enslaved24.
In a chiastic passage, it is essential to identify the verses with the greatest significance within the context of their surrounding verses. In this chiasm, the most central, prescient point is not the great tribulation (C’), as important as that is. Rather, it is that “the gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all the nations” (D - 24:14a) as a prerequisite for the “end.” (D’ - 24:14b). Storms advises 21st-century readers not to interpret “whole world” as the entire earth but rather from a Hellenized first-century perspective which would have understood the “whole world” as the known world at the time, i.e., the Roman Empire and its surrounding areas. Therefore, the people targeted to receive the gospel are the nations of the known world. Note that Matthew’s Jewish readers would know the nations meant the Gentiles25. By the time of A.D. 70, the gospel was reverberating throughout the known world.
Considering the word “end” in 24:14b, the question is the end of what? In this context, the end most likely refers not to the end of the world but rather the end of the physical temple in Jerusalem because the conversation between Jesus and the disciples was directly related to the destruction of the temple (Matt. 24:3; par. Mark 13:4, Luke 21:7). In stark contrast, most pretribulationalists hold that this prophecy relates to the great tribulation after the Rapture when the church is gone (Archer 1984, 154-155) because they generally view prophetic scripture through a futurist lens. However, when this verse is exegeted based on a grammatical-historical hermeneutic, it seems more plausible that the end connotes the destruction of the physical temple in Jerusalem in A.D. 70, implying that in the context of the surrounding chiasmic verses, the great tribulation preceded it.
In the Olivet Discourse, Jesus refers to himself two times in the third person as the “Son of Man,” alluding to Daniel 7:13-14:
I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed (emphasis mine).
Notice that 7:13–14 does not speak of a “coming to earth” from heaven in the clouds, nor is it about the second coming of the Son of Man at the close of history (Storms 2013, 267). Rather it is a “coming to God” in heaven to receive vindication and authority over the Jewish establishment that rejected him. In other words, he is going to the “Ancient of Days” in a heavenly direction to receive dominion, glory, and the kingdom. This is a “vindication” motif – Jesus is presented before God the Father, who in this context is a type of judge that vindicates him (Bennett 2022). The high priest would have understood that Jesus was referring to Dan. 7 and would have considered it blasphemy.
The only other place in the New Testament where the expression “great tribulation” is mentioned other than Matthew 24:21 is in Revelation 7:14, where we read:
I said to him, “Sir, you know.” And he said to me, “These are the ones coming out of the great tribulation. They have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
If the great tribulation of Matthew 24:21 points to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, as argued above, does Revelation 7:14 point to the same event? By all accounts, no Christian died during the siege of Jerusalem in A.D. 66-7026. However, the futurist dispensational interpretation is that these “who have come out of the Great Tribulation” have been martyred and were then safe in heaven. They were the slain of Revelation 6:9,27 whom John saw under the altar upon the opening of the fifth seal (Walvoord and Zuck 1987, 948-950). Others identify the great tribulation with a final period of persecution before the second coming28. Viewing this scripture with an idealist lens, Storms argues that the events of A.D. 70 are, at most, a prototype on a microcosmic scale of what will occur on a macrocosmic scale when Jesus returns. Using his historicist lens, he also asserts, “nothing requires us to think of the “great tribulation” as a special period of time reserved exclusively for the end of the age through which only the last generation of believers might pass. All Christians in every age face the reality of what John describes” (Storms 2013, 222). From these examples, it seems most likely that the great tribulation of Matthew 24:21 and Revelation 7:14 point to two different events.
In this paper, I have argued that the great tribulation of Matthew 24:21 and Revelation 7:14 are not necessarily connected to the same event(s) though it could be that the events of A.D. 70 prefigure future eschatological events. However, it is likely that the great tribulation Jesus speaks of in the Olivet Discourse is referring to the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70 and not an eschatological end-times event for the following reasons. First, from the context of the discourse, Jesus is directing his answers only to the disciples and their generation, not future generations. For example, when he says, “When you see the abomination of desolation… flee to the mountains…” his instructions are directed at them, not some nondescript group of people. Second, the disciples would have been familiar with the cosmic language of the Old Testament. They would have understood such foreboding figurative phrases like “the sun will be darkened” and “stars falling from heaven” to be totally appropriate when describing the destruction of their beloved temple. Third, they would have also known that “the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with great power and glory” from Daniel 7:13-14 and understood it as vindication language. Furthermore, they would know that the coming is in the direction of the Ancient of Days, not the earth. Fourth, the disciples would have understood that the words, world, and nations (Matt. 24:14a) refer to the Gentile nations of the known Roman empire of that time, not the entire planet before his second advent. Fifth, considering the narrative’s immediate context, it is most likely that the “end” in Matthew 24:14b refers to the end of the temple and the Jewish sacrificial system, which occurred in A.D. 70. Finally, it would have been natural for Matthew’s first-century Jewish audience to read Matthew 23:37 – 24:31 as a chiasmus in which the thrust of the narrative points toward the still-standing temple and the implications of its literal destruction.
In contrast, the premillennial dispensationalist hermeneutic imposes a rigid futurist interpretation of Revelation upon the Olivet Discourse. Such an approach decontextualizes the words of Jesus to support their pretribulational belief that both verses point to the same apocalyptic end-times tribulation. As a result, they make the narrative bend to the most controversial, symbolic, and challenging book in the Bible.
Archer, G. L., Jr, Feinberg, P. D., Moo, D. J., & Reiter, R. R. The Rapture: Pre-, Mid-, or Post-Tribulational. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984.
Bennett, Dr. Chip. Eschatology Class 006. December 8, 2022. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HJCcWhTFUI&list=PLqw8RvEPWSXzfuaT4Q2y4c9hF6yrAoNEJ&index=6 (accessed December 13, 2022).
Cameron, Daniel J. The Lexham Bible Dictionary. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016.
Erickson, Millard J. A Basic Guide to Eschatology: Making Sense of the Millennium. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1998.
Ladd, George Eldon. The Blessed Hope: A Biblical Study of the Second Advent and the Rapture. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1956.
Mathison, Keith A. “Eschatology: A Whole-Bible Concept.” Tabletalk (Ligonier Ministries) 46, no. 12 (December 2022): 4-7.
Sproul, R.C., ed. Reformation Study Bible. Sanford, FL: Reformation Trust Publishing, 2015.
Storms, Sam. Kingdom Come: The Amillennial Alternative. Fearn, Scotland: Mentor - Christian Focus Publications Ltd, 2013.
Walvoord, John F., and Roy B. Zuck, . The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures by Dallas Seminary Faculty [New Testament Edition]. Victor Books, 1987.
The second coming or advent of Christ is also known as the parousia. The Greek word parousia (παρουσία, parousia) means “presence” or “arrival.” It is used as a technical term to refer to the return of Christ in glory at the end of this world. See T.M. Derico, “Parousia,” The Lexham Bible Dictionary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016).↩︎
Admittedly, this is an oversimplified description that does not detail its distinction between Israel and the church, the nature of the millennium, the final judgment, etc.↩︎
Liberal theology also proposes that Christ was mistaken concerning his prophecies.↩︎
For the remainder of this paper, any reference to the destruction of Jerusalem and/or the temple also refers to the devastation that occurred from A.D. 66 – 70.↩︎
Note that I will defend this thesis primarily from a partial-preterist amillennial viewpoint and will often cite Sam Storm’s monumental treatise, “Kingdom Come: The Amillennial Alternative.”↩︎
Some term this approach “recapitulation eschatology,” i.e., the future is depicted as a recapitulation or repetition of the past glory of the kingdom (Storms 2013, 35).↩︎
Usually based on how one interprets Revelation 20:1-6.↩︎
Primarily those found in the Book of Revelation, The Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24:1 – 25:46; par. Mark 13:1-37, Luke 21:5-36) and other pericopes that allude to future events.↩︎
Modern day theologians George E. Ladd (1911-1982) and G. R. Beasley-Murray (1916-2000) support the historic premillennial view.↩︎
Max R. King is an example of someone who subscribes to this view. See Max King (theologian). (2021, December 17) in Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_King_(theologian).↩︎
During this period, an imaginative understanding of an earthly millennium gave rise to the term “chiliasm” from the Greek chiliasmos, a thousand years. (Erickson 1998, 58).↩︎
Walter C. Kaiser Jr., “An Epangelical Response,” in Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church: The Search for Definition, ed. Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 1992), 361.↩︎
George Eldon Ladd, The Blessed Hope: A Biblical Study of the Second Advent and the Rapture (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1956), 30-31.↩︎
Ibid.↩︎
Sam Storms, Kingdom Come: The Amillennial Alternative (Fearn, Scotland: Mentor, 2013), 376–377.↩︎
Chiasm (or chiasmus) - A repetition of similar ideas in the reverse sequence. For a good explanation of chiasms, see http://www.bible-discernments.com/joshua/whatisachiasm.html↩︎
Sam Storms explains, “To put it bluntly, as Jesus did, the temple will be flattened!” (Storms 2013, 232)↩︎
See Flavius Josephus’ account of the events of A.D. 66-70 in “The Wars of the Jews.”, written in A.D. 75 while the horrific events of this period were still fresh in his mind.↩︎
Kingdom Come: The Amillennial Alternative, Storms, Sam (Fearn, Scotland: Mentor - Christian Focus Publications Ltd, 2013), 262.↩︎
See See Josephus, Antiquities 18.85–87 (a Samaritan), 20.97–99 (Theudas), 102 (the sons of Judas of Galilee), 169–72 (“the Egyptian”), 160–61, 167–68, 188 (various unnamed “impostors”) (Storms 2013, 259).↩︎
Storms also references N.T. Wright’s book, The New Testament and the People of God, chapter 6.↩︎
Daniel 8:13; 9:27; 11:31; 12:11↩︎
The generation that Jesus said would not pass away until all these things were fulfilled (Matt. 24:34).↩︎
Sam Storms, Kingdom Come: The Amillennial Alternative (Fearn, Scotland: Mentor, 2013), 254.↩︎
Also, in view here are the “times of the Gentiles” as expressed in Luke’s parallel narrative: “They will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive among all nations, and Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.” Luke 21:24↩︎
There is evidence that Christians took Jesus’ instructions to flee Judea seriously (Matt. 24:16-20). Storms states, “Some point to the fact that, in late 66, the Christian community, under the leadership of Symeon (a cousin of Jesus), withdrew to the village of Pella in Perea, a mountainous region east of the Sea of Galilee. History records that the commander Cestius inexplicably and without warning ordered his troops to withdraw. This gave the Jewish believers an opportunity to flee the city in accordance with Jesus’ advice (Luke 21:21). According to Josephus, after Cestius’ siege and retreat, the Jewish Christians left Jerusalem like swimmers from a sinking ship. By all accounts, no Christian died in the holocaust that engulfed Jerusalem shortly thereafter.” (Storms 2013, 249)↩︎
When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the witness they had borne. (Rev. 6:9)↩︎
Commentary on Revelation 7:14 (Reformation Study Bible 2015, 2314)↩︎
KNOX THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY
FINAL PAPER
IN DEFENSE OF THE A.D. 70 GREAT TRIBULATION
SUBMITTED TO DR. CHIP BENNETT
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF
ST509D BIBLICAL FRAMEWORK FOR ESCHATOLOGY (FA2022)
BY
DOUGLAS ROTHAUSER
DECEMBER 15, 2022
WORD COUNT: 4480