The Great Tribulation holds a prime spot in dispensational theology. John F. Walvoord describes it as a “specific period of unprecedented trouble”[1]. During this time, a world dictator opposed to Christian faith is to arise. He will persecute both Christians and Jews, and “most of the world and most of the people living in the world will be destroyed.”[2] This extraordinary time of trouble announces the imminent return of Christ to a shattered planet.

General familiarity with the dispensational approach to the Great Tribulation has seeped into popular consciousness through the Left Behind franchise. The books by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins tell the desperate saga facing earth during the Great Tribulation.

Dispensational proponents disagree on specifics concerning the Great Tribulation, yet they concur that it is a yet-future event. It is coming down the pike. In fact, it might be right around the next bend[3].

Brant James Pitre counters this approach in his 2004 doctoral dissertation, The Historical Jesus, the Great Tribulation, and the End of the Exile: Restoration Eschatology and the Origin of the Atonement. This 707-page tome (667 pages of actual text) addresses Jesus’ expectation concerning the Great Tribulation.[4]

Pitre contends that the expectation of the Great Tribulation (also known as the Messianic Woes)[5] has deep roots in Second Temple period Jewish writings including Daniel, Zechariah, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and various pseudepigraphal works. The Tribulation would precede the age of Israel’s final deliverance from exile and mark the culmination of the New Exodus.

He maintains that Jesus, as a Second Temple Jew, drew from this rich tradition and expected the Great Tribulation to begin during his lifetime. In effect, the Great Tribulation had already begun with the beheading of John the Baptist, and Jesus believed that he too would suffer in the Tribulation.

Jesus, Pitre argues, believed that his own suffering in the tribulation would be effective in atoning for Israel’s sin and thereby God would miraculously end Israel’s exile. The eschatological coming of the Son of Man would signal the climax of the Great Tribulation and the ingathering of the elect, including the Gentiles.

Ultimately Pitre concludes, “Jesus should be primarily understood as a Jewish prophet of restoration eschatology.”[6]

Pitre affirms: (1) Jesus intended to suffer and die as indicated by his sayings and symbolic actions, (2) Jesus understood his suffering to be intimately connected to the Great Tribulation, (3) The Great Tribulation was firmly rooted in the Hebrew scriptures, (4) Jesus believed that his sufferings would atone for Israel’s sin and thereby end Israel’s exile, (5) The end of Israel’s exile equates to the restoration of the lost 10 northern tribes from their Assyrian captivity to the actual geographical land of Israel, and (6) The Gentiles would experience their own exodus concurrent with Israel’s.

Notable Contributions

Pitre makes many notable contributions. Five are presented below.

(1) In carefully examining Second Temple literature, Pitre shows conclusively that the expectation of the Great Tribulation was in the air during Jesus’ day. It was not an ex post facto theory invented by the early church to describe their current situation. This counters the position of mainstream scholars such as E.P. Sanders.

Pitre contextualizes the Great Tribulation in its historic terms. Ancient Jews (including Jesus) supposed that they would undergo this great trial; it would not be for an indeterminate time somewhere in the distant future as dispensational speculation proposes.

(2) Pitre carries out detailed exegesis on several of Jesus’ sayings that include references to the Great Tribulation including the Lord’s Prayer, the Olivet Discourse in Mark 13, and Jesus’ statement that the Son of Man would suffer as a ransom for many in Mark 10:35-45.

He tackles controversial texts and creates plausible exegetical and historical scenarios in which one can easily imagine Jesus actually saying the things found in the texts. Pitre’s detailed analysis of many of Jesus’ sayings concerning the eschatological tribulation and Jesus’ messianic self-understanding leads him to deem statements disputed by various form critics as authentic.

This may not seem like much in popular circles where the entire New Testament is accepted without question. However, Pitre’s recognition of certain gospel texts as authentic (including the Olivet Discourse) runs contrary to much scholarly opinion. This bolsters the veracity of the received biblical texts and enhances the picture of Jesus.

His exposition of the texts offers profound insights and provides intriguing possibilities for further study including questions related to Jesus’ understanding and use of “the remnant” in his theology.

(3) Following the path blazed by N.T. Wright, Pitre finds crucial links connecting Jesus’ actions with his eschatological objectives. He contends that Jesus intentionally acted with symbolic significance which his original audience would have understood in terms related to the Great Tribulation and the end of Israel’s exile.

In other words, an ancient Jewish audience would have understood Jesus’ prophetic praxis as connoting both the onset of the Great Tribulation and the end of the exile. Noteworthy among these deeds is the gathering of the twelve disciples around a table to eat a symbolic Passover of a New Exodus. The New Exodus, like the original one, would be preceded by intense suffering.

(4) Pitre makes a strong case concerning Jesus’ expectation to atone for all Israel. As eschatological messiah, Jesus would redeem all Israel through the remnant who would go through the Great Tribulation. In turn, Israel’s redemption would have ramifications for the Gentiles as well.[7]

Pitre’s most cogent argument on this subject comes in his examination of Mark 10:45. Here, he equates “the many” with Israel[8] and scolds interpreters who see “the many” as having “a universal dimension.”[9]

(5) Pitre makes an original contribution by asserting the significance of northern Israel’s Assyrian exile. Pitre suggests that the Assyrian exile continued to grip Second Temple Jews who had already returned to the land. He contends that Jesus hoped his death in the Great Tribulation would bring an end to this unmitigated disaster by atoning for the sin of the ten tribes and thus making it possible for God to bring lost Israelites back to their ancestral homeland.

We will note some difficulties this presents below. Suffice it to say that Pitre is unique in offering an academic presentation of the theological significance of the Assyrian exile amongst Second Temple Jews in general and Jesus in particular.[10]

Evaluating Pitre's Analysis

The theme of Israel’s exile plays a prominent role in Pitre’s thesis. Pitre compares and contrasts his view with N.T. Wright’s thesis concerning the end of the exile. He agrees with Wright concerning the importance of the exile and return; yet he deviates from Wright regarding the nature of the exile and restoration.

Wright argues that the exile during the Second Temple period was understood primarily in political terms. As long as Gentile pagans politically dominated Jews, the exile continued. The geographical return of Jews from Babylon under Cyrus did not constitute the end of the exile. The exile (as generally recognized by Second Temple Jews) would end only when the foreign powers would be overthrown and YHWH returned to Zion in a fashion similar to Exodus 34:34-38 and 1 Kings 9:10-11. Therefore, the Jews who lived in the land saw themselves still waiting for the end of the exile.[11]

In disagreeing with Wright, Pitre makes a dual proposition concerning the exile as it may have been understood in Second Temple Judaism. First, he asserts that Jewish belief during Jesus’ day considered the exile to be primarily geographical. Living outside the land constituted exile. Second, Jews in the first century C.E. related the exile to the ten tribes’ Assyrian exportation. Israel’s exile would end with the return of these Israelites to the Promised Land.

Pitre criticizes Wright, “He thereby misses the monumental import of the fact that the greater part of Israel—the ten northern tribes—was still in literal, geographical exile.”[12] Pitre firmly states that in defining the end of the exile in these terms, “I am speaking, following the Old Testament prophets, of the ingathering of all twelve tribes of Israel to Zion from among the nations.”[13]

While thought-provoking, Pitre’s thesis concerning the exile, Israel, and Jesus’ expectations concerning a geographical restoration has some serious flaws.

(1) Pitre nowhere argues for the exile as he sees it. Instead, Pitre simply asserts this was the case.

He neither exegetes Old Testament passages nor exegetes extra-canonical literature to demonstrate that Second Temple Jews considered the exile to be primarily geographical and related to the northern ten tribes. At one point, he cites Micah 7:12-15 which Jesus alludes to in Matthew 10:34-37[14]. While Micah announces the end of Israel’s exile and mentions Assyria, it is unclear if he foresees the return of the ten tribes to the land. In fact, Micah states in 7:13, “Yet the land shall be desolate.” Unfortunately when Pitre quotes Micah 7:12-15, he blatantly omits verse 13 and replaces the pertinent passage with ellipses.[15]

On the other hand, Wright provides extensive analysis of both biblical and extra-biblical literature concerning his interpretation of the exile.[16]

Additionally, many sources point to the conclusion that Second Temple Jews did consider the exile to be continuing in some form. For instance both Ezra and Nehemiah acknowledge the exile as an historical reality even after the decree of Cyrus.[17] Other Jewish literature of that general era indicates the same thing.[18]

Moreover, Jesus’ own statement in Luke 22:29-30 (which Pitre accepts as authentic) concerning the end of the exile belies Pitre’s assertion that the exile had ended for the two southern tribes and continued only for the northern ten. Here Jesus promises the twelve disciples that they would sit on thrones judging (delivering) all twelve tribes—not just ten of them. In addition, Pitre’s affirmation that Jesus’ death in the Great Tribulation would end the exile for just the northern ten tribes limits the scope of the crucifixion since (in his opinion) Judah’s exile ended more than 500 years earlier. This will also have implications concerning the Gentile mission which we will mention below.

(2) Pitre alludes to a supposed distinction between the designation of one being a Jew and one being of Israel during the Second Temple period. Pitre contends, “in the matter of exilic history, ‘the Jews’ and ‘Israel’ bear important differences in meaning. ‘Israel,’ of course refers to the ten tribes of the northern kingdom, which were taken into captivity in the Assyrian Exile in 722 B.C. … while ‘the Jews’, i.e. descendents of ‘Judah,’ primarily refers to members of the two tribes of the southern kingdom.”[19]

Once again, Pitre nowhere argues this case from primary sources; neither does he refer to secondary literature. He simply alleges it. Conversely, ample evidence exists that the descendants of Jacob of the Second Temple period made no hard distinction between one who was a “Jew” and one who was an “Israelite.” A cursory survey of texts from this broad era illustrates this: Ezra 2:2; 6:16-17; 10:5; Nehemiah 2:10-16; 10:33; 13:3; Zechariah 12:1-2; 1 Maccabees 1:58; 3:1-2; 4:11; Matthew 15:24; Luke 7:9. A decade or so after Jesus, Paul could refer to himself as both a Jew and an Israelite.[20]

Additionally, the thesis nowhere mentions Diaspora Jews and their self-understanding in light of the exile, as the ten lost tribes of Israel.

The point is that Pitre relies upon this supposed linguistic distinction without providing sufficient literary or historical evidence. The scholarly neglect of the Assyrian exile, which Pitre pinpoints, could very well be due to the fact that there is no primary source material within Second Temple Judaism connecting the Assyrian exile with the ten lost tribes. Pitre fails to cite any ancient voices concerning this matter. Since this plank is central to Pitre’s platform concerning who was to be redeemed, he should provide greater support.

(3) Pitre presents no backing for his claim that Jesus expected to end the exile of the ten tribes in geographical terms. In fact, Jesus tended to subvert cherished Jewish symbols including the land itself.[21] If anything, Jesus called on his followers to abandon their lands, not to expect their long lost kinsmen to regain their former property.[22]

(4) While it is somewhat outside his scope, Pitre comments on the Gentile mission which he sees primarily as a means to gather the twelve scattered northern tribes. He concedes that Israel’s ransom would impact Gentiles so that they would experience “their own ‘exodus’ to Jerusalem.”[23] Presumably, Pitre means that the Gentiles (all or some?) would march to the geographical land of Israel and take up residence.

However, this raises important theological and exegetical questions nowhere addressed by Pitre such as: Why would Gentiles need redemption from captivity? How could they be in exile from the land if they never had an inheritance in the land in the first place?

A strong dosage of covenant theology would aid the explanation of how one could die for all—including the descendants of Jacob and those of other ethnicities. However, this would impact his initial thesis negatively by possibly redefining the exile, Israel, and the Great Tribulation itself.

(5) Although Pitre makes use of Jesus’ symbolic actions including the Mount of Olives and the Last Supper, he overlooks the possibility of Jesus’ symbolic use of exilic language to explain and describe not a geographical situation, but a condition before God.

Pitre’s thesis demands that the exile be understood only in literal geographical terms. This limits the scope of Jesus’ use of language in a way that Pitre himself is unwilling to do elsewhere in regard to events such as the Passover and Exodus.

(6) Finally and most significantly, Pitre admits to an awkward conclusion concerning Jesus vis-à-vis his thesis. If Jesus expected to atone for the sins of the ten northern tribes, and this meant that Jesus anticipated the ten tribes' return to the land of Israel, Jesus was evidently wrong. The ten northern tribes did not come back to the land, nor did Gentiles flock to Palestine. Pitre notes,

Again, all scholars, Christian or otherwise would certainly agree that the Israelites who had been scattered to the four winds since the Assyrian Exile in 722 B.C. did not miraculously return to the land of Israel and the city of Jerusalem after the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth. The potentially embarrassing nature of this fact should not be underestimated, and to my mind constitutes a fundamental argument in favor of the dominical origin of this particular Jesus tradition.[24]

Ironically, Pitre believes that since Jesus was wrong he was right. Pitre has followed that path of countless scholars who see the correctness of their own hypothesis while impeaching Jesus. This leaves us with the choice of embracing Pitre’s conclusions or reframing Jesus’ conclusions in a larger metaphorical and covenantal context.

Summary

This dissertation should be read and appreciated for the fine contributions it makes. It finds a place in the quest for the historical Jesus by unquestionably consigning the Great Tribulation in Jesus’ teaching and actions to the first century. This meticulous challenge to popular dispensational theology goes a long way in supporting a clear portrayal of what Jesus expected within his lifetime and in the generation of his contemporaries.

Also, the premise that Jesus viewed his death as part of the Great Tribulation to atone for the sin of all Israel permits Jesus’ crucifixion to fit snugly within the context of Second Temple messianic expectation. While the early church may have expanded the theology of atonement, Pitre argues successfully that Jesus’ atonement theology is congruent with Jewish thought.

Nevertheless, the premise that Jesus expected to initiate the return of the ten northern tribes to their ancestral land lacks sufficient textual substantiation to prove compelling. Jesus certainly expected God to end the exile through him, yet the symbolic nature of the exile reaches above and beyond geographical boundaries.[25]

Finally, Pitre’s confession of Jesus’ ultimate failure places him squarely in the camp of those such as Albert Schweitzer who picture Jesus as a failed apocalyptic prophet.[26] Hopefully, in volume 2, Pitre will explain the current significance, if any, of Jesus for today.

Kevin Beck (kabeck1@presence.tv) serves as senior minister of Brookwood Way Church of Christ. He and his wife Alisa have two daughters and a son and live in Mansfield, Ohio. This article was published in the Fall 2004 issue of Living Presence Journal, Vol 14, No. 4.

URL: http://www.presence.tv/cms/greattribulation_exile_pitre.php

---

Top of Page

Email Article

Printer