***
Great Tribulation
The biblical text of Matthew 24:21 speaks of a great tribulation that, unless cut short, no flesh would be saved from.
Jehovah’s Witnesses have often applied that scriptural text as having a major and minor fulfillment; one fulfillment associated with Jerusalem’s destruction in 70 AD and a later fulfillment just prior to the end of this world’s system of things. Chiefly the influence toward that understanding stems from two things, 1) that Jesus was answering two questions, one of which related to an event beyond Jerusalem’s destruction, namely his parousia and the end of the age and, 2) that the Bible book of Revelation refers post-Jerusalem-destruction to a yet future event where salvation would depend upon suffering through a great tribulation. (See Revelation 7:14)
Strictly using the text of Matthew 24 and 25, leaps in logic are made to conclude that the text of Matthew 24:21 has a second, major fulfillment beyond the tribulation leading up to Jerusalem’s fall in 70 AD. To a large extent those conclusions are to satisfy the text of Revelation 7:14. The idea is that, since both Matthew 24 and Revelation 7 refer to “great tribulation” and since both accounts speak to ultimate salvation at the hands of Jesus then the two texts must be referring to the same event. Since the text of Revelation was evidently written after the destruction of Jerusalem then it is concluded that the “great tribulation” of Mathew 24:21 must have two fulfillments, a minor and major fulfillment. The question is, need the two accounts be bound together in that manner, a manner that wreaks havoc with the flow and explicit language of Matthew 24 and 25? (That effect is what I referred to earlier as “leaps in logic”.)
One huge problem with concluding that the text of Matthew 24:21 has a minor and major fulfillment is language used later in Matthew’s account that refers to events “immediately after the tribulation of those days.” (Matthew 24:29) The problem is, if we hold that the great tribulation of verse 21 is speaking of the same tribulation as that prior to the sign of the Son of man then we must explain away the clear intention of some “immediate” event said to occur after it. Well, no sign of the Son of man occurred “immediately after” the great tribulation associated with Jerusalem’s destruction. We must then explain away why Jesus would have used such confusing language for an otherwise clear enough response (confusing in that “immediately after” was to be understood as applicable to one fulfillment of the great tribulation but not the other, future great tribulation). Since Jesus made no distinction in his reply then reading that into the text becomes a leap of logic. The question becomes, need the “great tribulation” of Matthew 24:21 be the same event as the “tribulation” preceding the sign of the Son of man or the “great tribulation” of Revelation 7:14?
If we look at what Jesus was replying to it becomes rather obvious that some sort of tribulation would naturally occur prior to each event questioned. One question related to a capital city’s destruction (Jerusalem) and another to “the end of the age” associated with Jesus gaining power as a king (his parousia), what you might call an overthrow. Historically both types of events are preceded by tribulation, even great tribulation depending upon who and where you are. That basic and simple perspective puts an entirely different light onto the text of Matthew 24:21 and later texts where Matthew’s account refers to tribulation associated with the sign of the Son of man, which sign immediately precedes the end of the age.
Having in mind the two questions Jesus asked it is easy enough to conclude that Matthew 24:21 is referring to an event specific to Jerusalem’s imminent destruction, which is one of the events he was asked about. Likewise, having in mind that Jesus was also asked about a second event, it is easy enough to see that language use in verse 29 about tribulation is referring to an entirely different event, an event that would also be preceded by tribulation. Again, we have mention of tribulation specific to an event. As indicated, each event would have its own tribulation, Jesus just happened to apply the term “great” to the first. But, that does not rule out that tribulation associated with “the end of the age” would be less than great! In fact, considering the extent of that latter event (affecting all the tribes of the earth) and the other descriptors in Jesus’ reply regarding it, it is easy enough to realize that the term “great” is more than appropriate also for that tribulation.
Of that latter event Matthew’s account describes people of all the tribes of the earth beating themselves in lamentation. Luke’s account describes the same event as causing anguish among nations with people not knowing the way out and extremely fearful of looming catastrophe! (See Luke 21:25,26) If that is not describing “great” tribulation then I don’t know what would describe it! So, with other words Jesus, in his reply to the second question asked, also spoke of great tribulation preceding the end of the age. So, there is no need to make leaps in logic to apply Matthew 24:21 to any later fulfillment, a second or major one, nearer the time of “the end of the age”. The same is also true of the text of Revelation 7:14. That is, since Jesus’ reply for a sign of his parousia and the end of the age did speak of great tribulation preceding the ultimate event of “the end” then language used at Revelation is easily understood as connected with that event, also an event depicting ultimate salvation from a corrupt and satanic system.
Friend