Tribulation Details

Jesus’s Olivet Discourse was about nothing but the Temple’s destruction. He foretold that event (Mark 13:1–2). His disciples asked two questions about it (Mark 13:3–4). He answered them in reverse order (Mark 13:5–27).

The disciples asked, “what will be the sign” of the Temple’s fall? Jesus began with signs that were not signs of the Temple’s immediate fall (Mark 13:5–8). He moved to other signs that would directly affect the disciples (Mark 13:9–13).

Jesus then gave a group of tribulation signs that would occur just before the Temple’s fall (Mark 13:14–23). The “abomination of desolation” of which Daniel spoke was among them. (See Daniel’s Abominations and More on Daniel’s Abominations.)

This post will consider two aspects of Jesus’s tribulation signs: the responses he commanded and the language he used. These observations will reinforce inmillennialism’s view that Jesus spoke only of the Temple’s fall in the Olivet Discourse.

Appropriate Responses

Previous abominations of desolation had occurred after foreign armies invaded Israel. Daniel had mentioned the Babylonian desolation (Dan 9:2, 17–18). He foretold two others. When Jesus gave the Olivet Discourse, the forces of Antiochus Epiphanes had brought one of these to pass (Dan 8:13; 11:31). 

Based on these fulfillments, the disciples could have guessed an invading army would cause Daniel’s other desolation. Daniel 9:26–27 would have reinforced this idea. This line of thinking would make sense of Jesus’s words in the Olivet Discourse. He said, 

“Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Let him who is on the housetop not go down into the house, nor enter to take anything out of his house. And let him who is in the field not go back to get his clothes. But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! And pray that your flight may not be in winter.” (Mark 13:14–18)

Most prophetic models place this tribulation in our future. They describe it as a worldwide catastrophe from which few will escape. This is a mistake. Jesus was speaking about a local, first-century event preceding the Temple’s fall.

The responses Jesus listed reinforce this view. Fleeing to the mountains would give no protection from atomic bombs or literal stars falling to the earth (Mark 13:25). It would, however, provide a way to escape an invading army bent on destroying Jerusalem and her Temple.

Housetop dwelling is not common in the modern world. A warning to “not go down into the house” means nothing in most present-day cultures. It was, however, relevant to the first-century context Jesus envisioned.¹

Jesus’s flight details likewise applied to his generation. Travel from Jerusalem would occur on foot or an occasional mount. This would affect pregnant women and nursing mothers in particular.

Jesus’s responses to the coming tribulation conform to conditions in Israel before the Temple’s fall. They are less applicable to a modern worldwide catastrophe.

Appropriate Language

Jesus’s signs became more intense as he proceeded. His not-the-end signs would give way to those that would affect the disciples. The tribulation signs would present another increase in intensity.

Here are his words:

For in those days there will be tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the creation which God created until this time, nor ever shall be. And unless the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh would be saved; but for the elect’s sake, whom He chose, He shortened the days. (Mark 13:19–20)

The language Jesus used to describe these extreme signs has caused interpreters to think he changed subjects. They suppose his vivid statements cannot apply to just the Temple’s fall. They, therefore, infer Jesus started talking about an event at the end of history.

Inmillennialism balks at this inference. Jesus gave no indication he was switching subjects. Besides, the words “nor ever shall be” would be inappropriate to describe an event at the close of time. There is a be better way to interpret this passage.

Milton Terry, an authority on Biblical interpretation, said Jesus’s “language … may be regarded as hyperbolical”² in this place. Hyperbole is a figure of speech “when more is said than is literally meant.”³ The prophets had used this linguistic tool to describe calamities in their future. Jesus was also using it to stress the severity of the tribulation that would come before the Temple fell.

A literal interpretation of hyperbolic language makes the Scriptures contradict themselves. For example, Joel said, “the day of the LORD is coming, for it is at hand.… A people come, great and strong, the like of whom has never been; nor will there ever be any such after them, even for many successive generations” (Joel 2:1–2).

Elements of this prophecy make some commentators think the prophet was describing a locust invasion.⁴ If so, a literal interpretation of the hyperbole creates a contradiction. Centuries earlier, Moses had said: “And the locusts went up over all the land of Egypt, … before them there were no such locusts as they, neither after them shall be such” (Exod 10:14). Two locust plagues cannot both be the greatest of all time. 

Other writers⁵ think Joel was using locusts to describe the Babylonian armies⁶ that would soon invade Israel. This also creates a contradiction if we ignore the hyperbole. Jesus’s “great tribulation” sign involved invading armies (Matt. 24:21; cf. Luke 21:20). The invasion and tribulation of which Joel spoke and the one of which Jesus spoke cannot both be the greatest of all time.

Either way of interpreting Joel’s words—as locusts or armies—makes Scripture contradict itself if we fail to recognize his hyperbolic language.

Another example of problems created by overlooking hyperbolic language comes from the Exodus. Moses said, “And there shall be a great cry throughout all the land of Egypt, such as there was none like it, nor shall be like it any more” (Exod 11:6). This tribulation and the one of which Jesus spoke in the Olivet Discourse cannot both be the greatest of all time.

Recognizing hyperbole removes these contradictions. The writers used this literary device to stress the magnitude of what was to come. They did not mean for us to compare catastrophes using literal measurements. Jesus wanted the disciples to know the tribulation associated with the Temple’s fall would be of the severest magnitude. 

Conclusion

Jesus provided “great tribulation” signs that fit well in their original context. He was discussing the Temple’s destruction. The disciples needed to know how to respond when they saw the tribulation approaching. They also needed to know it would be a great trial. 

From our modern vantage point, we can see the wisdom of Jesus’s words. When the Roman armies approached, the Christians in Jerusalem fled and escaped disaster. More than a million of their fellow-Jews perished in the war of AD 66–70.

We must not allow a misguided literal interpretation of Jesus’s tribulation signs to distort his meaning. Jesus continued to speak of the Temple’s fall throughout the Olivet Discourse.

1. The image in this post is Siege and Destruction of Jerusalem (ca. 1503) by an unknown artist. This file (here) is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication license.
2. Milton S. Terry, Biblical Apocalyptics: A Study of the Most Notable Revelations of God and of Christ (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988), 235.
3. E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible Explained and Illustrated (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1968), 423.
4. Robert H. Gundry, The Church and the Tribulation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973), 90.
5. For example, see John Gill, An Exposition of the Old and New Testaments, 9 vols. (1809–1810; repr., Paris, AR: The Baptist Standard Bearer, 1989), 6:462.
6. “The foe is awesome (v 26; cf. 1:2, 3), a massive empire army so great that its like cannot be imagined past or future” [Douglas Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, WBC (Dallas: Word, 2002), 250.]