The term ‘tribulation’ has come to have a special significance within a certain approach to reading the NT in general and the Book of Revelation in particular. It is thought to refer to an intense period, lasting seven years (though there is no mention of this time period in the NT), within a chronology of the ‘end times’ which we are (always) on the brink of entering.
This is argued on the basis of the occurrence in the Authorised Version from 1611 (AV) of the phrase ‘great tribulation’ in Rev 7.14 (and, under the weight of tradition, modern English translations [ETs] strangely follow this wording), read together with a distinctive way of interpreting the ‘Olivet Discourse’ or ‘Little Apocalypse’ in Matt 24 and Mark 13, where ‘tribulation’ occurs in Matt 24.21 and Mark 13.19 (though only Matthew also uses ‘great’).
To make sense of all this, and assess whether this is a good interpretation of this language, we need to stand back and look more widely at the term used here, the Greek θλῖψις (thlipsis), to see what the NT writers say about this, and how these verses fit within this wider picture.
There are two things to note at the outset. The first is that the term θλῖψις is surprisingly common, occurring 45 times in the NT, though you would not know that from modern ETs, or even from the AV, since it is usually translated with a different English word, ‘trouble’, ‘persecution’, or ‘distress’. In the TNIV, Rev 7.14 is the only place where it is translated with ‘tribulation’. Tribulation is an archaic term, and the TNIV only retains the word here (where it uses modern equivalents elsewhere) because of the weight of the tradition of interpretation above.
Secondly, θλῖψις has a metaphoric sense of ‘feeling under pressure’ which relates to its cognate verb θλίβω (thlibo), which means ‘to press or crowd close against’, and is used in this literal sense only in Mark 3.9, where the people crowd around Jesus so tightly that there is a danger they will crush him, so he gets into a boat.
This sets it in opposition to one sense of the Hebrew term shalom, meaning peace, which includes a sense of being set in a wide open space of flourishing. Some years ago I had a visual demonstration of this whilst driving along the M40 from London to Oxford (if, dear reader, you know that road). As you leave High Wycombe behind you, there is a slight climb, and then you go through a short but steep-sided cutting through the high point of the Chilterns—before suddenly the view opens out before you over a wide plain, and you can see Oxford in the distance. You feel quite confined until you enter this wide open space.
This illustrates a challenging tension in the teaching of Jesus. One of the other occurrences of θλίβω is in Matt 7.14:
For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.
The adjective ‘hard’ here is in fact the passive participle from θλίβω—it is a way that has been made narrow and constricted, almost something you have to squeeze through. Paradoxically, the route to finding the peace, and wide open space of salvation is via a path that is constrained and narrow, on which we experience tribulation. This exactly matches what we find said about ‘tribulation’ right across the NT.
There appear to be two main senses of the term θλῖψις across the NT—or three, if we include the interpretation above as a third category.
First, there is a general sense of the trouble that we experience in life, which is the shared lot of humanity. In Acts 7.10, in his rehearsal of the history of God’s people, Stephen mentions the ‘tribulations’ that Joseph experienced, and in Act 7.11 how the famine in Egypt brought a ‘great tribulation’ on all the people. And in Romans 2.9, Paul mentions the ‘tribulation and distress’ that will be experienced by all who do evil as they face the judgement of God.
It is possible that Paul has this general sense in mind when he mentions the ‘tribulation’ through which we experience the hope and love of God in Rom 5.3, Rom 8.35, and 2 Cor 1.4, from which we comfort others with the comfort we have received. And Paul is clear that those who marry (and have children) will experience ‘worldly troubles’ (literally, ‘tribulations of the flesh’)!
The second group is by far the largest, and refers to the ‘tribulation’ experienced by anyone who follows the way of Jesus. We first encounter this in the parable of the sower in Mark 4 and Matt 13. The seed that falls on the rocky ground (that is, which has a thin layer of soil over rock) which withers when the sun comes up is like those ‘who have no root, and when tribulation or persecution comes because of the word, they quickly fall away’ (Matt 13.21, Mark 4.17).
We find this made real in Acts 11.19; after the martyrdom of Stephen, there is ‘tribulation’ which scatters the believers, and though many only share the word about Jesus with their fellow Jews, some (by mistake?) speak to ‘Hellenists’, perhaps gentile ‘godfearers’ associated with Judaism, and so we see the first development of a mixed Jewish-gentile community of Jesus followers. But this tribulation is not a passing phase; it is seen immediately by Paul (and experienced by the believers) as a regular and routine part of what it means to follow Jesus.
When they had preached the gospel to that city and had made many disciples, they returned to Lystra and to Iconium and to Antioch, strengthening the souls of the disciples, encouraging them to continue in the faith, and saying that through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God (Acts 14.21, 22).
Paul appears to expect a particular share of this in Acts 20.23, reflecting what Jesus said to Ananias about Paul in Acts 9.16: ‘I will show him how much he must suffer for my sake’. And he makes frequent reference to his sufferings as an apostle, particularly in 2 Corinthians (see 2 Cor 1.8, 2 Cor 6.4, 7.4, 8.4, Eph 3.13, and so on).
Although Paul has an intense experience of this, he anticipates that all believers will experience the same, if not to the same degree. So he commends the Thessalonians for their endurance despite the ‘tribulations’ that they have experienced (1 Thess 1.6, 2 Thess 1.4). And in this context, Paul makes a startling comment, in line with what Luke has recorded as his message in Acts 14.22:
For you yourselves know that we are destined for this. (1 Thess 3.3)
Paul is noting this experience of tribulation as an expected part of the life of faith—just as Jesus himself has. When the disciples protest that they have left everything, after Jesus’ challenge to the ‘rich young ruler’, he explains that they will enjoy an abundance of provision in the kingdom—along with persecution:
Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands, for my sake and for the gospel, who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions, and in the age to come eternal life. (Mark 10.29–30)
I love the way that Jesus just casually throws in ‘persecutions’ along with the list of blessings of the kingdom as a kind of afterthought! But this text enables us to see why tribulation is an inevitable part of following Jesus.
Although there were variations around it, the common belief in first-century Judaism was in ‘this age’ and ‘the age to come’. In this age, we experience trouble, sin reigns, the people of God are oppressed, the temple is corrupt, and Israel’s enemies oppress them. In the age to come, all that will change, and this will happen when God comes, or sends his anointed leader, or both. The dead will be raised, all will be judged, Israel will be set free to worship God, and peace will reign. You can find one expression of this hope in Zechariah’s song of praise, known as the Benedictus (from the Latin of the first word) in Luke 1.68–79. I explore all this in more detail in my Grove booklet on the kingdom, hope and eschatology.
Was this hope realised in Jesus? In part! The ‘age to come’, also called ‘the kingdom [or reign] of God’ has come to us in him, but is not yet fully realised. So we live in the overlap of the ages; through baptism, we have ‘died’ to this age, and begun to live the resurrection life of the kingdom—and yet this age has not yet passed away, and will not until Jesus returns. In the meanwhile, the Christian life is a paradoxical mixture: we know the joy of the kingdom, the age to come, the presence of God in our lives by the Spirit; and yet, in this age we have persecutions, or tribulation. Paul gives expression to the transitory nature of tribulation in his reflection in 2 Corinthians 4:
For our light and momentary tribulations are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all. (2 Cor 4.17)
Jesus says something similar, but recast in Johannine terms, in his ‘farewell discourse’. Unlike the Synoptics (and Paul) who talk of this age and the age to come, the Fourth Gospel talks of ‘the world’ and ‘eternal life’ (literally, ‘life of the age [to come]). Thus Jesus says very clearly:
In this world you will have tribulation. But take heart! I have overcome the world. (John 16.33).
In fact, he has already set up this expectation, and related to eschatological hope, a few verses earlier where he uses ‘tribulation’ in a more mundane sense:
When a woman is giving birth, she has sorrow because her hour has come, but when she has delivered the baby, she no longer remembers the tribulation, for joy that a human being has been born into the world. (John 16.21)
Like many of the illustrations in the Fourth Gospel, the metaphorical meaning is not made explicit. The image of a woman in labour is used in the Old Testament to refer to the people of God suffering tribulation as they await God to deliver them. Do you get the pun?! A woman is waiting to be delivered of her baby, and cries out in pain, and God’s people wait to be delivered from oppression and exile, and cry out to God. We find this in Isa 26:17; 66:7–9; Mic 4:8–10; 5:3, and then taken up in the image of the woman in Rev 12.1–2. Our tribulation in this age, in this world, is part of the birth pangs of the age to come, as it breaks into this world, but is not yet fully realised.
This implies that tribulation is something that all who follow Jesus will experience—not as some special period in the ‘end times’ but as part of living the future kingdom life in Christ whilst still dwelling in this evil age, in a world which is fundamentally opposed to the ways of God.
This leaves us with two other ‘tribulation’ texts to consider—those in Matt 24 and Mark 13, and those in the Book of Revelation.
I have discussed the Little Apocalypse at length in this article, so will only summarise here. The critical thing to notice about the ‘tribulation of those days’ is what Jesus says about when they will occur:
Amen I say to you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. (Matt 24.34)
This is really impossible to evade, and it confirms that Jesus is referring to the destruction of Jerusalem and the events associated with it. And note that, in line with my comments above about the two ages, Jesus describes these catastrophic events as ‘but the beginning of the birth pains (Matt 24.8). So the ‘trumpet’ is not the ‘last trump’ of 1 Cor 15.52 and 1 Thess 4.16, but a metaphor for the proclamation of the gospel which we read about in Acts, and the ‘gathering of the elect’ is the entry into God’s people of the Gentile believers. But what of the cosmic language: ‘the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.’? Note that this is to happen ‘immediately’ after the distress of those days. Well, these words from Isaiah 13.10, Isaiah 34.4 and Joel 2.31 are also quoted soon after—by Peter at Pentecost:
In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people…The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood…And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. (Acts 2.17–21)
Peter appears to understand what is going on in front of him in exactly the same words that Jesus uses in the first section of Matt 24—all happening within the life of that generation.
We find just the same in Revelation. θλῖψις occurs five times, and the first is in John’s epistolary introduction of himself to his audience:
I, John, your brother and companion in the tribulation and kingdom and patient endurance that are ours in Jesus… (Rev 1.9)
John shares with his readers the joy of the age to come, now brought to us in Jesus and his kingdom; but he also shares with his readers the tribulation of living that life in this age and this world; and having a foretaste of the glories to come but still experiencing hardship in this world calls for us to have patient endurance as we live in suffering and hope.
That is also the experience of those in Smyrna, who now experience tribulation (Rev 2.9), but this will be for a limited time (‘ten days’ Rev 2.10) after which they will receive the ‘crown of life’ (Rev 2.10)—a pertinent image, since Smyrna held important games in which the victor was awarded a crown, and was herself known as the Crown of Asia because of being such an impressive city.
The fourth occurrence of thlipsis comes in expressing the judgement of ‘Jezebel’ in Rev 2.22, and runs parallel to Paul’s comment about judgement in Rom 2.9.
The final occurrence—in Revelation and so in the New Testament—is the one we started with, the ‘great tribulation’ of Rev 7.14. In the light of all the above, and in particular the parallel with the ‘great tribulation’ in Matthew 24.21, which Jesus says will happen in the lifetime of his hearers, this cannot be read as some special future suffering, but as the suffering experienced by every follower of Jesus. Those who have washed their robes white in the blood of the lamb is an image of all who have been redeemed from sin, who follow Jesus, and who experience tribulation just as he did.
If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you (John 15.18)
Three last things to note.
First, we have here developed a coherent theology of suffering as part of Christian discipleship, informed by eschatology, simply by doing a word study on this one term, θλῖψις. This both shows the usefulness of doing a word study (even though such an exercise has its limitations) and also demonstrates the importance of this term. We could easily supplement this picture and fill it out by drawing on other terms for suffering, persecution, and difficulty.
Secondly, it shows the power and importance of reading things in their context in the New Testament. Once we have seen the way that the New Testament talks of tribulation, I think the opening argument is very difficult to sustain.
Finally, I think this offers some important insights into our pastoral response to questions of difficulty and suffering in the Christian life. On its own, it might seem rather downbeat or even depressing: ‘Follow Jesus and you will suffer’. But it is striking how often in the New Testament this is held together with the message of indescribable joy that we have in the kingdom.
These two surely belong together. We cannot talk of the joy of the kingdom without also talking of suffering; failing to do so leads to triumphalism and a disconnection from reality. But we also need to put our suffering into the wide context of the present joy and future hope of the kingdom coming (which is of course our daily prayer), and we are sustained by the vision that one day, God will be with us, to wipe every tear from our eye (Rev 21.4).
Buy me a Coffee
Interesting article. Thank you.
When you mention “And note that, in line with my comments above about the two ages, Jesus describes these catastrophic events as ‘but the beginning of the birth pains (Matt 24.8). ..”, is my understanding correct/incorrect when I view this as ‘beginning of the birth pains’ referring to Christianity and its internal/external struggles after the resurrection/ascension?
The ‘Great Tribulation’ is part of the scheme – officially known as ‘Dispensationalism’ – in which Jesus may return at any minute to ‘Rapture’ his Church to join him in heaven; however this will not be the end because all the unbelievers will be ‘Left Behind’ to go through the Tribulation.
This particular prophetic quirk goes back to the early 19thC and Edward Irving (originally a Church of Scotland minister) and John Nelson Darby (originally an Anglican priest, later a leader among the ‘Brethren’). When Irving began preaching the predominant view in the CofS was a ‘post-millennial’ Second Advent – that the Millennium would be a thousand years of earthly triumph of the faith but concluding in a last great rebellion, AFTER which Jesus would return. Since the Millennium was also considered to have not yet begun, or only just have begun, that rather took away any sense of urgency about Jesus’ Return.
Irving took up instead a ‘Pre-Millennial’ view, that Jesus woud return to introduce the Millennium, and he fervently preached an ‘any-minute-now’ view of Jesus’ return. This proved popular and led to much study of Revelation and other biblical prophecy. After a while this study produced a slight problem – lots of prophecies not yet fulfilled but needing to happen before the Millennium.
Those involved COULD have looked to what Paul wrote to the Thessalonians who also had an exaggeratedly imminent view of the Return; he actually refers to things that need to happen first and says, in effect, “You can go to a lower ‘alert status’ till you see those things”. Unfortunately they had got so hyped up on the ‘any-minute-now’ view that they couldn’t accept that, they (thought they) needed an interpretation that kept an any minute now Return but also provided a space for these other prophecies to be fulfilled. And someone somehow came up with this idea that the Second Advent was not the end of history but about the ‘Rapture’ of the Church with everyone else left behind to see the fulfilment of prophecies about the AntiChrist, Armageddon, the return of the Jews to Israel, etc., after which Jesus would return with the Church to introduce the Millennium. It is a bit of an understatement that this spectacular view of the future ‘caught on’…..
There is a fairly good description of this in Iain Murray’s book “The Puritan Hope” published by Banner of Truth.
It is possible to believe that there will be a climactic period of suffering for the worldwide church immediatyely prior to the Second Coming in glory of Jesus Christ without being a Dispensationalist. David Pawson, for instance, has argued for the former and against the latter, in his book When Jesus Returns.
The timing of the Rapture is a further matter. I believe it happens a few seconds before Jesus lands in power on this earth, i.e. I reject the “pre-tribulation rapture”.
‘It is possible to believe that there will be a climactic period of suffering for the worldwide church’ But why would you?
What do you mean by ‘the rapture’ in that case?
It is the lifting into the air of believers who yet survive on earth. They rise to join Christ as He descends with his risen faithful. They all meet in the air, and seconds later He lands on the Mt of Olives from which he left; Acts 1:11 could not be more expl;icit i the language of 2000 years ago that his Arrival will look like a video of his departure played backwards, and his departure is described unambiguously as a rising to heaven in the preceding verses. This will fulfil Zechariah 14:4, “On that day his feet will stand on the Mount of Olives…”
Although not accepting the ‘dispensationalist’ interpretation, a word equivalent to ‘rapture’ (in its original meaning of a ‘catching up’ or seizing) is found in I Thess where believers are pictured as ‘caught up’ to meet Jesus ‘in the air’ as he returns.
Yes, but they then turn around and reign on earth with him forever.
That is the opposite of the doctrine of the ‘rapture’.
Ian – as I said I don’t accept the dispensationalist/’Left Behind’ interpretation of the ‘Rapture’; but the Thessalonian passage is where they get the idea of rapture from….
Thanks Stephen, that is really helpful background.
Interestingly, I agree with Miller et all on the failure of postmillennialism. It has always been associated with social reform, but without energy for evangelism.
And all Jesus’ comments about ‘a thief in the night’ argues for an unexpected return.
But, ironically, this also argues against the position of Miller and others about ‘end times signs’! And there are many other reasons for rejecting a chronological reading of Rev 19–21, not least the fact that there is no hint of any of these things elsewhere in the NT.
Like ‘The Tribulation’, is it amazing how much has been built on so little evidence—in this case on a single word!
Thief in the night is how *unbelievers* will view Jesus’ return. Believers have the signs to watch for. But I share your disate for postmillennialism, not least because adherents often argue that the church will progress to take over the world politically. Mediaeval Catholicism and modern protestant Dominion Theology share this heresy.
Ian, I agree that Matthew 24:34 refers to the destruction of the Temple in AD70. But do remember that He was asked two distinct questions to which He replied with his words on the Mt of Olives: “when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?” (Matt 24:2). Verse 24:34 answers *one* of these questions. Other things He said answer the second. The signs that run up to his second coming have not all occurred yet.
Here is my favourite bible archaeologist, Joel Kramer, correecting some other archaeologists and showing spectacular photographs of the stones of the Temple cast down over the walls of Temple Mount before many of them were removed in the modern era:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrqRoLxa178
Kramer is superb – an American evangelical Christian who was brought up in Saudi Arabia as the son of a US oil executive. He patently loves the Middle East and he is properlty trained as an archaeologist in a field – biblical archaeology – containing a large number of cranks. In some 45 videos varying in length from about 10 minutes to 50 minutes on his YouTube channel he consistently finds that the archaeology and the Bible agree with each other, and he takes the trouble to show where secular archaeologists have gone wrong.
That’s a nice neat rebuttal to a bonkers theory!
Ian, you are obviously contending against a certain view in this post, but please portray that view accurately, which does not state that the ‘great tribulation’ lasts seven years. Rather, the view is that the seven years prior to the return of Jesus Christ in glory begin with a world dictator cutting a peace treaty with Israel, which he breaks halfway through. Then there is a tribulation for Israel – and the world – lasting three and a half years until Christ returns. The length of the tribulation in days *is* mentioned in the New Testament, in Revelation 12:6.
Thanks. That is one view. But (in my experience) a more common one is that there is a seven-year tribulation, and there is a debate about whether the rapture happens at the beginning of that (pre-tribulation rapture dispensational pre-millennialism) or half-way through (mid-tribulation rapture dispensational pre-millennialism).
And I am not contending against *one particular* view. I am arguing against *any* view that beliefs ‘the tribulation’ is Rev 7.14 is different from what all Christians always experience.
it’s nearly as if quite a few Christians ‘want’ a big tribulation…
Good article – but I think it is reasonable to accept both premises: that tribulation is a defining characteristic of the Christian life, for all people and at all times, AND that there is an escalation of horrors in the approach towards the end. I have long thought that the birth pains Jesus referred to were in fact escalations of evil… Birth pains being contractions. He had just mentioned wars and rumours of wars etc etc so perhaps the birth pangs lead to the revelation of the man of lawlessness out of which then comes the kingdom of God since the pangs Jesus cotes are all spiritually negative.
Personally, I don’t believe that the Man of Lawlessness is a single individual. The gematria idea that 666 refers to Nero can’t be correct because he was long dead by the time John wrote Revelation. It’s a plural number signifying the power of fallen man… Politics, false religion, immoral culture et cetera.
Thanks for commenting Russell.
On the first: if all the references to tribulation are about living in this old age whilst participating in the new, what is left over to suggest this ‘end times intensification’, when I think I have demonstrated that that arises from a misreading of key texts?
And Jesus mentions the birth pangs in the context of the fall of Jerusalem; Matt 24 and Mark 13, I think I have showed, relates to the first century. Do you disagree with that?
On 666, this has no connection at all with the ‘man of lawlessness’, which occurs only in 2 Thess (nor with the ‘antichrist’ of 2 John). See my article here. https://www.psephizo.com/biblical-studies/who-are-the-antichrist-the-man-of-lawlessness-and-the-beast/
The number has many symbolic significance, but what do you think I get wrong in my explanation here: https://www.psephizo.com/revelation/what-is-the-mark-of-the-beast/
Hope that helps.
Ian – I dont think you ever answered my question about the man of lawlessness.
Some think he was Nero, but that doesnt fit with Paul’s words that he would be destroyed at Jesus’ return. And it is Jesus’ return that Paul referred to as he uses ‘parousia’ and the previous paragraphs are all about his return.
So who was/will be this man? Or is he past, and Paul was wrong?
If in the future, does it not point to some sort of anti-christ figure?
Comments?
I don’t think I know. And I am not sure anyone does.
But why do you conflate the Pauline man of lawlessness with the Johannine anti-christ?
well he is anti-God according to Paul. The way Paul describes him and the ‘spirit’ of lawlessness/sin certainly sounds rather like John’s descriptions. Indeed Paul seems to say, like John, that that spirit was already there at the time of writing. It would certainly be easy to think that Paul was referring to an individual who was already present in the world, but who had not yet been ‘revealed’. This could also apply to Nero if Paul wrote a couple of years before Nero took his place as Emperor. Im not saying the two, the man of sin and the anti-christ are the same but there are definitely similarities in the picture being painted.
Of course I dont know what ‘the rebellion’ is (some think the Jews’ which ultimately ended in the destruction of the Temple). But the problem is if it was an individual in the past, Paul claimed Jesus’ return would end him. As that didnt happen, then either Paul was wrong or he was referring to a future person, still future to now. Though I suspect, as quite a few scholars think, that Paul did believe Jesus would return soon at the time of writing, hence the ‘we’ statements elsewhere.
Ian Paul – may I answer on what I think you get wrong? What you get right is that 666 is a reference to Nero. I think this is clear and plain. But I think that this gemantria was very probably well known within the Christian community (and you cite things in the article which might substantiate this).
Where it goes wrong: it doesn’t appear (at least to me) to be very subtle and if Nero really is the point of reference, it doesn’t require much calculation. In Revelation 13, John describes the second beast, as something that is working very hard to look like Christ and be an imitation of Christ, deceiving people because the beast looked so much like the real thing (and – well – Nero was pure evil and appeared to be evil and nobody was taken in by Nero).
John does seem to be very good with several meanings (all of them correct), so if he’s telling people that they have to be very careful not to be fooled by something that looks like Christ but is as evil as Nero, that would make sense to me.
If it wasn’t very subtle, how come it was forgotten for 1800 years…? John is trying to reveal things, not to hide them!
Ian – well, you have left me much *more* sceptical than I was before. Firstly, you *really* think that John would write in such a way that an important message got hidden and forgotten for 1800 years? Second, if we accept this – if he was trying to reveal things and not hide them, then he didn’t make a very good job of it!
If you take Nero as the second beast, then it looks as if you’re trying to say that Nero had horns like a lamb (i.e. he looked like Jesus) and spoke with a gentle tongue, he performed signs and wonders, beguiling people into thinking that he was the Messiah.
The passage clarified many things for me long before I had ever heard of gemantria (which was, frankly, something I only heard of for the first time earlier this year, from a piece written by you on this site) – about the evil behind events that we see – so I believe that John did succeed in his aim of revealing things.
Why is John responsible for what later readers forget? The evidence is that this way of using letters and numbers was very widespread in the ancient world. It is not John’s fault we were so ignorant of his world.
He made a perfectly good job of it to his peers.
I am not taking Nero to be the second beast. I am taking Roman Imperial power to be the first beast. The imperial cult did performs signs and wonders and beguiled people into thinking that it was their saviour. That is the exact title and emperors used.
I hope you saw my article on the animated statues and wonders here: https://www.psephizo.com/biblical-studies/robotics-technology-and-reading-revelation-13/
Ian – it was actually a very nice article – which I enjoyed (and probably in agreement with it). I probably shouldn’t have bit when the 666 came up – but the gemantria understanding (as the only understanding) just doesn’t make sense to me.
I have no idea why.
Ian – there are several reasons; I’ll give two. First and foremost: the Christian faith is at heart a moral issue and not an intellectual issue. So I have a serious problem with any approach whereby ‘understanding’ refers to an intellectual understanding (rather than a deep moral understanding) – and ‘gemantria’ looks intellectual (rather than moral) to me. Second: when it comes to biblical texts, I tend to follow those who believe that the texts were revered and understood to be more-or-less ‘canonical’ as soon as they were written; there was a great burden to pass them on as they were (so I don’t go along with schools of thinking whereby texts got multiple edits before we received them) and – corollary to this – I believe that there was also a burden to pass on everything that was necessary to draw the meaning that the authors intended from these texts (in this case, what John intended to communicate when he wrote Revelation); I simply don’t accept that something really important was let slip – and left undiscovered for 1800 years. Therefore, if ‘gemantria’ wasn’t passed on, it was because it was deemed by the people responsible for passing on the word of the Apostle as irrelevant. So while it may be likely that the 666 was intended as ‘gemantria’ for Nero, this symbolism didn’t provide any vital information about the moral message that John was trying to convey.
You have made a shift – 666 is a gemantria representation for Nero, but you aren’t taking it for Nero as the second beast; you are taking ‘Nero’ as a representation of the whole Roman imperial system represented by the first beast – and I think that this message is already clear and plain from the earlier parts of Revelation 13 (seven heads and ten horns – clear and plain reference to Rome).
Ian – you asked if I had read the one on robotics – and I have. I’ll preface any comment I make by pointing out that my opinion doesn’t really matter – I’m strictly a layman. As far as Revelation goes – I reached an understanding of it with which I feel comfortable – and that was that. So – with me – you get the view of a partly informed layman.
My view was negative, because nowhere in Revelation 13 do I see any need for statues or automation. Yes – there are allusions to Daniel and the statue the emperor wanted them to bow down to, etc …. but I don’t see John dealing with statues here; he was dealing with real living beasts. More to the point would be the question of the extent to which John understood the Trinity, because here he is presenting an unholy trinity. There seems to be a dragon, giving power to the first beast – and then there is a second beast. The operation is nothing like the Holy Trinity, but it does present an un-holy trinity, trying to mimic the Holy Trinity.
The NT authors (this includes Revelation) want to write in a way that God uses their writing to bring people under conviction of sin; once there, give us instruction on how to live in a way that is commensurate with being in the number of the Saviour’s family (with the indwelling Holy Spirit as a deposit guaranteeing what is to come) and giving us good background (what John seems mainly to be doing here) on what to expect – the trials and tribulations (difficulties of life) that follow from being ‘in Him’ and some sort of background about the spiritual forces that are behind it.
Importantly, it is a *moral* issue rather than anything else – and the impressive thing about the New Testament writings (including Revelation) is the extent to which they actually ‘stand alone’ and make sense even without a detailed background of society at that time.
Jock, you appear to think that moral issues don’t require us to think about what texts actually mean.
I confess I find that odd.
Ian Paul – I have made it very clear that I am very interested in what the texts actually mean – and I disagree with you on their meaning.
Actually it does require some calculation, involving both Hebrew and Greek. The reason both languages were used was surely due to the fact that few Romans, if any, would know Hebrew. So highly unlikely any Roman official who got his hands on the manuscript would know precisely to whom John was referring.
Makes perfect sense to me. The fact that 616 was used by some scribes in some other manuscripts is the slam-dunk. They knew exactly who John was referring to, but spelled his name slightly differently, adding up to 616.
So John was specifically referring to Emperor Nero as this ‘beast’, even if you could then conclude generalisations about empires in general.
What suggests end times intensification?
2 Tim 3:1 “But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days.”…
verse 13: “evildoers and impostors will go from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived.”
2 Peter 3:3 “in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires.”
And yet Paul is talking to Timothy about what to look out for in his own lifetime. Are you suggesting Paul is saying ‘Hey Timothy, let me tell you how it is going to be 2,000 years from now’?!
Paul is talking to Timothy about what to expect in his own lifetime because both Paul and Timothy were living in the expectation of the second coming occurring imminently. Neither of them knew it would be another 2000 years or more. Hence the watchword “Maratha” 1 Cor 16:22.
Thanks, Ian — this is a thoughtful and timely post.
I really appreciate the words study and the way it emphasises the challenge and cost of living three present age due Christians.
One thing that struck me is how your framing of tribulation as the normal experience of the Christian life actually resonates most strongly with an unrealised eschatology as opposed to your repeated inaugurated version — a perspective that sees the specific kingdom of God not as partially present, but as entirely future – a yet to come reality.
Rather than viewing tribulation as part of the tension between an already and a not yet, it sends to me that it’s better understood as a sign that we’re still living in the not-yet age of the Messiah — the present evil age marked by suffering, opposition, and groaning, awaiting the full arrival of the kingdom when Christ returns. This fits the Jewish apocalyptic expectation that tribulation precedes the Day of the Lord and the renewal of all things – themes repeated in second temple apocalyptic literature.
From that angle, the Christian life is about faithfulness in the age of tribulation, empowered by the Spirit, while we wait in hope for the kingdom to come.
Yes tribulation is normative. That’s because the kingdom is yet to come.
I’d love to hear your thoughts on how that aligns with or challenges the more common inaugurated models.
Thanks Richard for your interesting reflections.
I would want to challenge that for reasons from across the NT. For starters, Jesus begins his preaching by announcing that ‘the kingdom of God is at hand’. He goes on to say very clearly that the kingdom is realised in his ministry—for example, when he says ‘If by the finger/Spirit of God I drive out demons, the kingdom of God has come amongst you’ (Luke 11.20 and par).
I think this continues in Acts. For Peter, the Spirit is poured out only in the last days, and on the day of the Lord; the coming of the Spirit is the realisation of the kingdom.
Paul says the same thing: the Spirit is the first fruits of the harvest. That does not mean that the whole harvest has happened, but the harvest has certainly begun!
John in Revelation does something similar, by combining the OT image of tribulation from Daniel with the image of travelling in the wilderness, which was a time where Israel were free from slavery, and did have God’s presence with them, though had not yet entered the promised land.
(Briefly, he changes Daniel 3.5 years = 1,290 days into 1,260 days which is then 42 months = 42 years and stages in the wilderness.)
So I think ‘Partially realised’ or ‘inaugurated’ is the right language for us to use…
Does that help?
Thanks, Ian, I appreciate the clarity of your response, and you’ve laid out the key scriptural touchpoints for inaugurated eschatology well.
That said, I think John Harrigan’s work helps reframe some of those same texts in a way that preserves their apocalyptic force. Harrigan argues that the New Testament doesn’t portray the kingdom as partially present, but rather that the proclamation and power of Jesus’ ministry point ahead to the kingdom as something still entirely future, aligned with the Jewish apocalyptic hope.
When Jesus says, “If I drive out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you” (Luke 11:20), Harrigan reads this not as indicating the arrival of the kingdom in part, but as a warning — the kingdom is drawing near in judgment, and people must repent (cf. Luke 10:11; Matt 3:2). The kingdom’s nearness is a threat to the unrepentant, not an indication that it has arrived in some realized form.
Similarly, Harrigan shows that the pouring out of the Spirit in Acts is not the fulfilment of the kingdom but the empowerment of the church to witness to its coming. The Spirit is a down payment, yes, but what is being guaranteed is not a present kingdom, but the future, cataclysmic restoration of all things at the return of Jesus (cf. Acts 3:21).
And in Revelation, Harrigan argues that John’s imagery of wilderness and tribulation signals not partial kingdom presence, but a faithful remnant being preserved through affliction while they wait for the kingdom to come in fullness. The 1,260 days, 42 months, and allusions to Daniel don’t indicate overlapping ages so much as faithful endurance through this age, which culminates in the decisive appearance of the Messiah and the resurrection of the dead.
So I’d still suggest your original post – with its emphasis on tribulation as normative – actually aligns well with this unrealised apocalyptic eschatology: the Christian life is marked by Spirit-empowered witness and suffering in the present evil age, in anticipation of the age to come, rather than by participation in a kingdom that has already begun.
I’d love to hear your thoughts on Harrigan’s framework and how it might nuance our reading of these texts.
Here is his article… I find it very persuasive
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rCn0LYO5ytMpP2–H2TxFgsWwarQ9Jpc/view
Thanks.
‘When Jesus says, “If I drive out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you” (Luke 11:20), Harrigan reads this not as indicating the arrival of the kingdom in part, but as a warning — the kingdom is drawing near in judgment’ If so, then he is ignores what Jesus plainly says: it is in the aorist tense, it has happened. How can you avoid that?
Similarly, he appears simply to ignore the clearly realised nature of what Peter says in Acts. I cannot see any obvious rationale for that.
On Revelation, he appears to be ignoring the fact that John in Rev 1.9 says he is both ‘in tribulation’ AND ‘in the kingdom’ in Jesus. The followers of Jesus *already* stand before the throne, worshipping the lamb, in ch 5 and ch 7. And are *already* on Mt Zion in ch 14, in accord with what Hebrews says ‘We *have* come to the heavenly city.
And Paul says anyone in Christ IS new creation in 2 Cor 5.17.
He seems to systematically ignore all these statements of realisation without giving a good reason for it.
Thanks again, Ian — I always really value your engagement.
I think Harrigan brings a lot to the table. He argues that this verse – so often seen as foundational for inaugurated eschatology – has been overburdened by a temporal interpretation of the aorist verb ἔφθασεν (“has come upon you”). But drawing on modern linguistic studies, he emphasizes that ancient Greek verbs are primarily ‘aspectual’, not temporal — that is, they describe the kind or shape of an action (e.g., perfective, imperfective), not when it happens. The aorist, then, does not demand that the kingdom has already arrived — it simply presents the action as whole and certain, and often prophetic in nature.
With thin in mind, in its Jewish apocalyptic context, (which he clarifies in the first part of the article) especially with references in the passage to the “Day of Judgment,” the “age to come,” and the Son of David, the phrase should likely be read as a prophetic warning:
“The kingdom of God will certainly come upon you.”
This reading aligns with the typical function of prophetic perfective aspect in Greek and Hebrew (e.g., Num 24:17, Isa 9:1), where future events are expressed as certain and climactic.
The quote from Sullivan earlier in the piece captures the hermeneutical problem well and needs addressing:
“An obscure verse should not determine the meaning of unambiguous verses. Matthew 12:28 /Luke 11:20 is an obscure, puzzling statement… The majority of these statements present the Kingdom as a place, not an exorcistic power. The majority of these statements present the Kingdom as future hope, not a present reality… Realized eschatologists reverse this procedure. They assign hermeneutical weight to problematic Matthew 12:28 / Luke 11:20 and ignore the scores of statements portraying the Kingdom as a future realm.”
This seems particularly relevant when read against the dozens of Synoptic texts that consistently place the kingdom in the future, associated with resurrection, judgment, and renewal.
So while I have been fully immersed in an inugurated now-but-yet eschatology for most of the adult life, I am now just see the kingdom as future, and pray for it to come. I think Harrigan and Sullivan show that Matthew 12:28, far from proving an inaugurated kingdom, might actually strengthen an unrealised, apocalyptic eschatology. The verse functions not as a statement of arrival, but as a warning — the kingdom is coming in judgment, and the present is still the age of tribulation and faithful witness.
Grateful as ever for the conversation and very open to hearing your reflections on these linguistic and apocalyptic perspectives on the article.
Hi Ian and Richard. Thank you for an interesting discussion of Harrigan’s framework. Just a thought: I wonder if ‘inaugurated eschatology’ relies not so much on an obscure text where we can look at (maybe) ‘linguistic’ arguments, as on Jesus’ resurrection ‘in the middle of history’? So our understanding of the NT text(s) that Ian mentions comes not from syntax but from the prior understanding (context) (in this case ‘the resurrection has begun’) that we bring to the text.
Harrigan is drawing on what is called the verbal aspect understanding of Greek tenses.
This is controversial—but here he appears to be claiming that Greek verbs are completely devoid of a temporal aspect. Put it another way: suppose that Jesus had indeed wanted to say ‘The kingdom of God has come amongst you’. According to Harrigan, there is now no way of saying that in Greek. Or indeed distinguishing between *any* different temporal sayings ‘The kingdom has, is, will, come amongst you’. That is not credible.
And of course he has all the other evidence for partially realised eschatology in the NT, including both my examples above, and Paul’s language of salvation as past, present, and future, which is well known.
I would also add that noting there are many texts pointing to the kingdom as future does *not* argue against partially realised eschatology. The key is the word ‘partial’!
This view says that the kingdom is *both* present *and* future. Harrigan either doesn’t understand the view that he is arguing against, or he cannot get his head around this idea.
Thanks again, Ian! I appreciate the space to continue this.
It seems our key disagreement is not simply about verbal aspect or the presence of the Spirit, but about what the term kingdom actually means in the New Testament – and whether the NT redefines it from its apocalyptic Jewish context.
On the first example, Matthew 12:28 / Luke 11:20, Harrigan’s argument (in line with modern aspect theory) is that the verb ἔφθασεν communicates the certainty and finality of the kingdom’s coming, not necessarily its timing. In apocalyptic language, this is often the function of the perfective aspect: to speak of a future event as if it were already accomplished to underline its inevitability. That fits the context here, where Jesus is responding to the Pharisees’ slander and issuing a warning about eschatological judgment. Rather than declaring that the kingdom is already partially here, he’s declaring with prophetic force: “The kingdom of God will certainly come upon you.”
Your second example, Acts 2, is likewise powerful – but again, the context frames this not as realisation of the kingdom, but preparation for it. Peter cites Joel to show that the Spirit is poured out “in the last days” before “the great and glorious day of the Lord” (Acts 2:20). Later in Acts 3:19–21, Peter urges repentance so that God may “send the Christ” and bring the restoration of all things. The kingdom hasn’t arrived – we’re still waiting for its full arrival when Jesus returns.
Your reference to Paul’s “past, present, future” salvation language (e.g., Rom 5:1, 1 Cor 1:18, Rom 13:11) does show the dynamic unfolding of redemption, but I’d argue that this need to be understood differently from references to ‘the kingdom’. Being saved, justified, sanctified, and being in Christ, are linked to the arrival of the Kingdom of God, the restoration of Israel, the coming of the Day of the Lord, the restoration of all things, the resurrection of the dead, and the glorification of the saints, but they are not synonymous. Indeed we groan with the Spirit in anticipation of this future (Rom 8) confident that even death, the powers and suffering will not be able to separate us from God’s love.
The disciples in Acts 1 were clear about the kingdom still needing to come – and were asking Jesus about it (is this the time…?) and it seems clear to me now, that neither Peter and Paul believed the kingdom itself had begun – they are still looking forward to it.. Paul consistently describes the kingdom as something we inherit (1 Cor 6:9–10), enter at the resurrection (1 Cor 15:50), and await (2 Tim 4:1, 4:18).
I am less well versed in Revelation and on the John’s wilderness imagery – the 1,260 days / 42 months – but I think this actually strengthens the case for unrealised eschatology. Just as for Israel leaving Egypt, the wilderness period is not the kingdom itself; it is the time before it, marked by tribulation, prophetic witness, and opposition. It evokes the pattern of Israel between Egypt and Canaan — delivered, but not yet arrived.
So to summarise: these texts, while often cited in support of inaugurated eschatology, can also be read, and arguably more naturally and consistently, as reinforcing a future, apocalyptic kingdom, still to come in power and glory. The resurrection, the Spirit, and the church’s witness are all signs pointing forward, not signs of arrival. What’s at stake here is not just the timing, but the very nature of the kingdom: whether it is a redefined present reality or the future hope promised throughout the Scriptures.
Really grateful for the chance to think this through with you. The reason I raise it is because, like you, I know how much eschatology shapes mission, discipleship, ethics, and daily Christian living in the present.
And finally, thanks for the extra comment about ‘partial’. This is helpful because I think the issue is precisely what is meant by “partial.” Saying the kingdom is “both present and future” redefines its meaning – abstracting it away from the concrete apocalyptic hope of resurrection, judgment, and Israel’s restoration. Harrigan’s point isn’t that he can’t grasp “partial,” but that the New Testament doesn’t actually divide the kingdom this way. The data points typically used to support partial presence (Spirit, healings, Gentile inclusion) fit comfortably within the age of tribulation before the kingdom comes, not as signs that it has begun. My view is this: We live in the now of the Spirit, new creation for Gentiles being grafted into the vine, and the reality of living in Christ – but the kingdom is still to come. We live in anticipation of its arrival. What we are not doing is building or extending or growing the Kingdom here and now. We are pointing towards it.
So, the argument, I guess, isn’t over categories, but over whether the kingdom’s definition has shifted from what Jesus’ Jewish contemporaries expected, or whether that future hope remains intact and still awaited.
Thanks again
Of course Jesus redefines the kingdom—because it is now defined around him. But I think the question is really basic: if you and I are not in the kingdom of God, where are we? In the Lord’s Prayer, Jesus offers three parallel realities: ‘your name is honoured, your will is done, your kingdom comes’. To the extant that we honour God (call Jesus Lord), do his will (by the power of his Spirit) then how are we not ‘in the kingdom’?
This is central to Paul’s theology: we have passed from death to life. The new creation has come. We are living under the Lordship of Jesus. What is the realm over which Jesus is Lord or king? His kingdom!
And all over the NT we find this. Just done a video on Luke 12.32: fear not…for your Father has been pleased to give you his kingdom’.
Whatever the important verses about the kingdom being future, the whole shape of NT theology assumes that the kingdom is also present. I really don’t see how you can avoid that. Unless you think that everything about being a disciple is not yet in the kingdom. But how could that be?
And note that, in terms of the expectation of ‘resurrection, judgement, and Israel’s restoration’ these *have* happened. Jesus has been raised, and we are baptised into his resurrection. Judgement has come (John 3.17). And Israel *has* been restored, by the inclusion of gentiles, which is what Acts 15 is all about.
Hope it’s ok to respond again…
You’re right: everything we do now as disciples is empowered by the Spirit, under Jesus’ lordship, and in anticipation of the age to come. But that’s exactly the point: I don’t think Scripture asks us to collapse the tension between the present experience of life in Christ and the future arrival of the kingdom. To call the first “the kingdom” is, I think, a redefinition that moves us away from the eschatological expectations of Jesus, Paul, and the prophets.
Take your good question: “If we’re not in the kingdom, where are we?” I think I’d say: we’re in the present evil age (Gal 1:4), the age of tribulation, persecution, and Spirit-empowered witness. We’re in the age where Gentiles are being grafted in, where the Spirit is the down-payment, where we’ve been raised spiritually with Christ, but we still await the kingdom to come (Luke 21:31, 1 Cor 15:50, 2 Tim 4:1, Heb 12:28), and praying (as Jesus taught us) for God’s name to be honoured, his kingdom to come and his will to be done on earth as it is in heaven (all future). In this view, the church isn’t the kingdom, but the people prepared for it.
So yes, Jesus is Lord. Yes, we live in the power of the Spirit. But that doesn’t make this the kingdom, any more than Moses being delivered from Egypt meant Israel was already in the Promised Land. The wilderness is real, and vital, but it’s not Canaan.
You mention that resurrection, judgment, and restoration have already happened, but I’d want to press into that:
Resurrection: Jesus has been raised, yes – but we have not (Rom 8:23, 1 Cor 15). Our baptism into his resurrection is anticipatory, not the thing itself. Our present sufferings are not comparable to the glory yet to be revealed
Judgment: John 3:17 speaks of judgment in the sense of dividing response to Jesus, but the final judgment of the nations is still future throughout the NT (Acts 17:31; Rev 20) and we know that we will all be judged according to what we have done.
Restoration of Israel: Yes, Gentile inclusion is key (praise God!) but Paul still longs for a national turning of Israel in Romans 11:25–26. Restoration isn’t redefined; it’s awaited.
So I don’t deny the present realities of life in Christ. Indeed, I rejoice in them! But I don’t any longer conflate these with the ‘kingdom’ or believe they are what the Bible means when it speaks of the kingdom. As Harrigan and others have argued, the kingdom remains the future hope, resurrection of the dead, renewal of creation, and the visible reign of the Messiah on earth that fits with first century Jewish apocalyptic thought and which Jesus and Paul (we can assume because they don’t redefine it) also held. Until then, with Peter, we live faithfully in exile, like Israel in the wilderness, longing, hoping, and groaning for what is still to come.
Very briefly: I don’t think you are taking the language of all the NT writers seriously. Paul doesn’t say we have been baptised into the expectation of resurrection. He says we have been baptised into his resurrection. Where are we? No, we are not merely in this evil age (though we are); we are also in Christ.
John says this very clearly: ‘I am your brother and companion in tribulation, and kingdom, and patient endurance that are in Jesus’ Rev 1.9.
We are *not* exactly like Moses in the wilderness, since the future promised land has been brought into the present by Jesus’ resurrection, the future brought into history. That is why the disciples struggled to understand it.
Yes, the kingdom (and everything else) remains a future hope—but we have a first foretaste now. The first fruits of the harvest were a real part of the harvest. They were part of it. They anticipate more to come—but they can be enjoyed now.
Pointing to the future elements of things where I have pointed out the present does not make your case. To argue (as Harrigan appears to) that the kingdom is future only, you will have to eliminate all the evidence of realisation that I have point to. I don’t think that is possible.
Lots of interesting theories here;
Only one might be correct or perhaps not even one.
Perhaps like the first coming of Jesus only a couple of
Church old folks hailed His arrival,
followed by a scruffy non-conformist full of the Holy Spirit.
Makes you think? When so many “messianic” theologians persistently got it wrong.
Ian P has made the assertion quoted above: ” And there are many other reasons for rejecting a chronological reading of Rev 19-21; not least that there is no hint of any of these things elsewhere in the NT.”
This, I would suggest tallies with a statement Ian made in this blogsite in August 18th 2021 : ” The New Jerusalem is described in geographical terms, but these are surely *symbolic* of the *theological* presence with his perfected people in Jesus – isn’t it ?”
I would make the following observations about both statements:
First re the second statement: specifically the linking of ‘theological’ with ‘symbolic’. This clearly resonates with an amillennial understanding; the belief that the above passages represent something other than a reference to what is described in the text ( even though ‘Jerusalem’ is prefixed by ‘new’)! We are told in John 20: 19 that the risen Jesus appeared to the disciples. Was his body in some sense literal or simply symbolic? And was the room literal or somehow ‘symbolic’? And is the ‘new heaven and earth” in Rev 21:1 also symbolic of something else? something ‘theological’, something ‘spiritual’?
Concerning the first statement: “no hint of any of these things in the NT. ” I would suggest that there is more than a hint in one particular hint in Luke 1: 47f -The song of Zechariah. Why? Because this passage resonates with Revelation, in that the content and style echoes that of the OT prophets; a content and style which, moreover, is carried forward into the last book of the NT. Therefore , I would argue that amillenial approaches , described by one American scholar as based upon “linear logic” fail to do justice to the theological /historical ‘flow’ of the Biblical narrative.
In his excellent booklet ‘ The Meaning of the Millennium” [Grove Books Ltd -1997] Michael Gibertson provides the following insights in relation to amillennian standpoints: “Like classical premillennialism, it suffers from various disadvantages. It relies on the assumption that 20:1 represents a step back from the parousia to an earlier point. Critics of amillennialism argue that a cyclical pattern is being forced on to the text at this point in order to buttress a preconceived theological position. Certainly, a straightforward reading of the text would suggest that, for John, the millenium is a symbol* relating to the future, not the present.”
PS * I would suggest that, in this context, ‘symbol,’ should not necessarily be seen as having the same meaning as the term employed above.
Hmmm. So do you think that the new Jerusalem will be a literal, physical cube?
And do you think that believing Jesus had an actual body, and was not a vision, means that everything in the Book of Revelation must be literal rather than symbolic? Why?
And, FYI, I am not an amillennialist. This position historically has associated with millennium with the whole period of history from cross to parousia. I point out in my commentary why I think this is wrong.
Many of the Christians I know, and I myself, experience a small amount of suffering, persecution, pressure, tribulation, call it what you will, for our faith. But it is as nothing compared to the suffering, pressure, tribulation experienced by unbelievers in Sudan, Ukraine, Tibet, Palestine, Afghanistan, etc etc, or even living on sink estates here in the UK. How is it that we have it so easy, while they have it so tough?
Did you mean ‘unbelievers’, or ‘believers’?
“Unbelievers” was intentional. Most of the unbelievers in the world have it really, really tough. (And yes, it’s probably even worse for the believers, but that wasn’t my point.)
Give it a couple of decades, Jamie. Whether from secular humanism undiluted by an institutional Christian legacy(*), or by Islam, the faithful church here is in for it. And it will be the remaking of the church in our land – just look how far it is from the New Testament church! The liberals will either repent and become evangelical (let us hope) or (more likely) renounce Christ.
*In another 20 years the generation that remembers institutional Christianity will have died out – and if you want to see what undiluted secularism is really like, look at how China is governed.
yes ‘tribulation’ seem s a very strong word to describe the sort of persecution/suffering that most Christians experience, given the experience of non-believers as you say.
A very well researched study of tribulation in general.
Question
Who might be preaching about the return of Jesus?
Who is warning people to “flee from the wrath to/is Coming”?
Personally, I haven’t heard any for decades.
In Luke 17:37 the disciples ask Jesus where the kingdom of heaven is and he uses a very cryptic allusion. Jesus pointed out that he was the kingdom amongst them. So is the ‘body’ that the vultures gather around himself? Could he have been saying “Where my body is there is persecution”? So, if we are ‘the body of Christ’ we will attract vultures. Perhaps the reason I/we dont get persecuted is because we are not dead to the world.
Perhaps. Or perhaps this is a saying of Jesus that *no-one* actually understands…!
Amen, Steve.
For a living example of tribulation, I recommend a look
at the tribulations in Bernard Randall’s story of
censure by the C of E for upholding church doctrine
@.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14943645/school-chaplain-bernard-randall-lgbt.html
Are we ready? Ready for the return of Jesus?
After setting out the various end-time theological positions as an introduction and overview, with a warning about becoming obsessed by any phase of eschatology, as that would lead to an unhealthy lack of balance and no one knows for sure all of the answers and God the Father alone knows the time of the second coming of Jesus, it is emphasised that the most important eschatological is being ready when Jesus comes (R.T. Kendall).
It is a matter of eternal import, destiny.
Geoff – yes – ‘When the roll is called up yonder, I’ll be there’, as we sang at my uncle’s funeral. Interesting that the assumption of the hymn is ‘blessed assurance’ and it was written by a Methodist (James M. Black).