The Truth About the Great Tribulation - #1

The Truth About the Great Tribulation - Part 1

For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be (Matthew 24:21).

In the recent, (January 3, 2026), debate between Michel Sullivan, myself, Sam Frost and Jeremiah Nortier, the subject of the Great Tribulation came up. I read a FaceBook post from Sam Frost from 2020, in which he made some incredibly distorted claims about the Greek text of Matthew 24:21. While I am certainly no Greek scholar, I knew instantly that his “analysis” of the Greek was simply false. Flat dead wrong. I knew also that there is not one, NOT ONE English translation that supports his aberrant claims.

To summarize Frost’s 2020 claims, he said that the Tribulation had been ongoing since creation and would continue until the end of human history. Interestingly, on FaceBook, when Frost was challenged on his rendition, he responded by saying that he had confirmed that “the grammar here is impeccable” in support of his analysis. He challenged anyone to answer his grammatical arguments, and even bragged that no preterist or anyone else had even tried to respond to his “immaculate grammar.” (I did respond, but he continued to claim that no one did. I will be happy to provide the full text of what Frost claims to anyone interested, but I am trying to keep this article relatively short).

Prior to the debate I submitted Frost’s analysis of the Greek of Matthew 24:21 to the AI platforms of ChatGPT, Grok, Perplexity and Gemini. To my knowledge, these are the leading AI platforms, so I asked for a fair, impartial, unbiased analysis of Frost’s claims about the Greek.

Here is the summary analysis from ChatGPT of Frost’s view of the Greek of Matthew 24:21:

Frost’s claim that Matthew 24:21 teaches an ongoing “great tribulation” from creation until the time of Christ rests on a fundamental grammatical fallacy: he misidentifies the function of the relative pronoun οἵα and thereby misconstrues the syntax of the verse. In standard Koine Greek, οἵα introduces a comparative relative clause of quality (“such as”), modifying θλ?ψις μεγάλη and expressing degree, not duration; it does not function as a subject nor does it restate the noun it modifies. Consequently, the perfect verb γέγονεν (“has occurred”) does not assert that tribulation has existed continuously since creation, but explicitly denies that any tribulation of comparable severity has ever occurred in past history. The emphatic future negation οὐδ οὐ μὴγένηται further denies any future repetition of such an event, reinforcing the uniquely unparalleled character of the tribulation Jesus predicts. Frost’s reading therefore inverts the force of the Greek construction, transforming a comparative denial of precedent into an assertion of historical continuity—a move unsupported by Greek grammar, contradicted by parallel biblical constructions (e.g., Daniel 12:1 LXX; Exodus 10:14 , LXX), rejected by all major lexicons and grammars, (and all Translations- DKP) and inconsistent with Frost’s own earlier preterist interpretations.

So, as stated above and as I said in the debate, AI says that his analysis– that he claimed was grammatically “impeccable”– was in fact flat, dead, egregiously wrong!

In fact, whereas in 2020 Frost claimed that Matthew 24:21 posited the Tribulation from Creation until the end of human history, Chat made the following observation:

Among ancient early church writers there is no known example of anyone taking the position that the “great tribulation” of Matthew 24:21 extended from creation to the end of history in the way Samuel Frost has argued from the Greek text. In fact, every extant patristic interpretation that we have of this verse treats it as referring to an unprecedented episode of judgment or suffering, not as a description of all past history.

After the debate, on January 6 & 8, 2026, Frost produced a video on the Great Tribulation, ("The Millennial Post #1: The Great Tribulation," uploaded January 8, 2026), claiming that:

Don Preston made the ludicrous charge, based on Grok, that my "Greek" was entirely wrong. This video will demonstrate this claim as entirely bogus.

At this juncture, Sam Frost’s dishonesty (It truly hurts me to have to say this, but it is true) began to manifest itself. What Sam Frost did not and still has not shared with his reading audience is that his video referenced a 2024 article (which he labeled as “the original article.). This is an egregious falsehood!

Here is what Frost claimed on FaceBook (1-8-2026):

Here is the ORIGINAL article, written in 2024, which they fed to GROK. And, one can see that in the Video (2026), I am presenting the SAME ARGUMENT. Yet, according to Mike and Don, the article is RADICALLY DIFFERENT from the video I posted today! As anyone can see, the article (2024) and the video today (2026) ARE THE SAME.

Don’t miss this point, reader: I never referenced his 2024 article even once! I was not even aware of it! I made my observations about his analysis based on his FaceBook postings from 2020! The issue is NOT whether Frost currently (2026) agrees with his 2024 article! The issue is that I drew from his 2020 FaceBook comments for the AI analysis, and it was the 2020 claims by Frost that AI categorically rejected as a perversion of the Greek. Thus, for Frost to claim that I falsely accused him, implying that I perverted what he said in his “original article” is a blatant, wilful falsehood on Sam Frost’s part.

In a FaceBook posting on 1-8-2026, Frost compounded his dishonesty by actually citing AI statements about the Greek of Matthew 24:21:

By using hoia, the text asserts that this specific tribulation is unique in quality and magnitude, Emphasis: The comparison is further strengthened by the double negative ou mē later in the verse, emphasizing that such a thing will "never ever" happen again. Thus, using AI (which I do not use), this disproves entirely Don's assertion and claims. Enjoy!

So, Frost ignored his 2020 “immaculate Grammar” claims in which he said just the opposite of what he posted in 2024 and says that his 2026 citation of AI “disproves entirely Don's assertion and claims.” No, it proves no such thing! It proves that Frost is willing to completely distort and pervert the facts to cover up his arrogant perversion of the Greek. (Edit insert– on 1-13-2026, on Facebook, Frost posted this: “well, see, in 2020, same argument, in 2024, same argument, and in 2026, same arguments. So there's that.” Nothing could establish Frost’s dishonesty more graphically than this claim. His 2020 argument concerning the Greek was radically different from his current position).

His entire claim is based on his willingness to make totally anachronistic claims. Frost completely ignores his 2020 analysis, which is what I cited, and does a 180% about face on the Greek text which NOW aligns more closely with “orthodoxy” and claims that his current position proves that Preston falsely accused him. Frost has created a totally false narrative.

The real question of course, is, what is the truth about the Great Tribulation? Well, Sam Frost now acknowledges that Matthew 24 was not – as he claimed in 2020 - describing history long, continuous tribulation. Rather, Jesus was using the language of something unprecedented, unparalleled, something unlike what was before or what would be after. But Frost claims that the Great Tribulation is in our future. Why? Because to conform to the language (that he previously rejected and distorted), he says that the coming Tribulation must be greater than even the flood of Noah.

Let’s look at Jesus’ actual words to see if Mr. Frost has a case, or if he is once again perverting the truth.

What Frost is conveniently ignoring is that Jesus restricted that predicted Tribulation to his generation!

Matthew 24:15– When you see the Abomination of Desolation standing in the holy place.

Herein we find Frost’s glaring misuse of the text. Let’s ask a basic, fundamental hermeneutical question: Who was Jesus speaking to? Well, he took Peter, James, John, and Andrew to the Mount of Olives and it was to them that he was speaking. But Frost cannot allow this for his interpretation, because Frost does not and cannot sustain his view of the Great Tribulation if he admits that Jesus was not only speaking TO his apostles, but speaking of things that they would personally witness.

So, when Jesus said “When YOU see the Abomination of Desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place...”, Frost simply cannot admit that the apostles themselves, sitting and listening to him on that day, would witness the setting up of the Abomination of Desolation– and certainly not the Tribulation! He MUST divorce Jesus’ actual audience from those events and claim that he was not speaking about them, but was in fact speaking of some future, unknown “you” that would actually witness the setting up of the Abomination.

The reason Frost must divorce Jesus’ discourse from the generation of his present audience of the apostles is simple, the Great Tribulation that he was predicting would come as a direct result of the setting up of the Abomination. The Abomination would cause the Tribulation. So, if the apostles would witness the setting up of the Abomination then of contextual necessity they would likewise witness the Tribulation. There is no long, extended, protracted temporal disconnect between the Abomination and the Tribulation. The language of the text is clear and emphatic: we have the setting up of the Abomination and THEN (Greek Tote) the Tribulation.

There is something present in the text that simply cannot be ignored, but Frost (presumably) knows how devastating it is, so he does ignore it. That issue is the Abomination of Desolation, or, more accurately, the Abomination that causes the Desolation. According to the Torah, it would be Israel’s sins that would lead to the desolation of her cities and holy places:

And after all this, if you do not obey Me, but walk contrary to Me, then I also will walk contrary to you in fury; and I, even I, will chastise you seven times for your sins. You shall eat the flesh of your sons, and you shall eat the flesh of your daughters. I will destroy your high places, cut down your incense altars, and cast your carcasses on the lifeless forms of your idols; and My soul shall abhor you. I will lay your cities waste and bring your sanctuaries to desolation, and I will not smell the fragrance of your sweet aromas. I will bring the land to desolation, and your enemies who dwell in it shall be astonished at it (Leviticus 26:17-32).

This direct connection between the Abomination and Israel’s destruction is inviolable and beyond dispute. However, many commentators do overlook this connection when it comes to the Abomination of Desolation. Some, perhaps even purposefully, ignore the connection. But Timothy Gray correctly notes:

‘Desolating sacrilege’ literally means ‘the sacrilege that causes desolation.’ It causes desolation.’ It causes desolation because the profanation of the temple incurs God’s judgment which ultimately leads to the destruction of the temple (Timothy Gray, The Temple In The Gospel of Mark (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 141).

Jeffrey Gibbs likewise notes the connection between the Abomination, the temple, Israel’s sin and the subsequent desolation of the temple. He agrees that the concept of defilement leading to destruction is at stake in the term abomination of desolation. (Jeffrey A. Gibbs, Jerusalem and Parousia (St. Louis, MO: Concordia Academic Press, 2000), 230, n. 112).

Now, according to Daniel 9:27 the Abomination would be set up in the Jerusalem Temple. According to Daniel 11, in the time of Antiochus, and abomination was set up and consisted of the defiling of the temple altar by offering a pig on it, evidently without objection by the priesthood. In Daniel 12:10f, the Abomination is once again linked to the Temple.

(You have to keep in mind that Frost denies that Daniel 9, or 11 or chapter 12 were Messianic. . He thus attempts to avoid the problem here, but the problem is real and cannot be simply waved aside. Of course, in denying the Messianic content of Daniel 9 and 12 Frost is rejecting the majority of ancient Jewish authorities as well as the earliest of the Christian writers).

Brant Pitre lists three facts about the Abomination in Daniel 9:27 and in all of its occurrences:

1.) It always refers to a profanation of the Jerusalem temple, and this profanation “is carried out by means of the forced cessation of the sacrifices.”

2.) The profanation is always carried out by a royal figure “he shall cause the sacrifice to cease.” (DKP– this would indicate that the abomination could not be a pagan figure, since it would be the pagan figure that would bring the destruction. Thus, this seems to indicate that the abomination (profanation) would be committed by Israel or those in Israel, and then as a result the desolation would occur, as an outpouring of covenant wrath.)

3.) The profanation of the Temple that takes place is not simply tragic, but fatal, for it brings about the destruction of the temple and the city of Jerusalem.” ... “Hence, in the book of Daniel, the ‘abomination of desolation’ not only refers to a profanation of the Temple that leads to the cessation of the sacrifice but also to the destruction of the sanctuary and the holy city that accompanies it.” (Jesus, The Tribulation and the End of Exile (Grand Rapids, Baker Academic, 1975), 304f – 305).

What these scholars are noting is there is an inseparable link between the Abomination, which would be some heinous sin on the part of Israel, and the Tribulation. That sin (the Abomination) was to be set up in the temple, and consequently would bring down God’s covenantal judgment on the city, the temple and those who committed the Abomination. This fact can hardly be over-emphasized!

Here is the real problem for Frost and all futurists who posit the Great Tribulation in the future. You cannot have the Abomination set up in the holy place unless there is a “holy place” i.e., a place designated as holy. That means that the “holy place” of Matthew 24:14 must be a place that would still be considered “holy” when the Abomination would be set up.

Thus, reference to the “holy place” demands that Torah, which defined, assigned and designated holiness, would have to still be in effect at the time of the Abomination, a horrendous violation of Torah as Leviticus 26 describes. And it would be that horrendous violation of Torah that would bring down upon that holy place the sanctions and provisions of covenantal wrath in the same manner as Jerusalem’s sins brought down God’s covenantal wrath on the city at the hands of the Chaldeans (Daniel 9).

So, if the Abomination and the Tribulation is still in our future, then Torah, the determinant of holiness, and the “holy place” a place sanctioned as holy by Torah, must still be in effect at the time of the Abomination. Torah would have to be in full effect for Leviticus 26 to be applied to the Abomination. That demands the following:

To maintain the futurist view of the Abomination and the Tribulation those who posit that view must:

✘ Affirm the continuance of or the re-establishment of Israel as God’s covenant people. After all, it was Israel that was subject to Torah. And thus, only Israel could commit the Abomination. (An important note here: Israel would commit the Abomination, but a foreign power, as in the case of Antiochus Epiphanes, would be God’s instrument to apply the covenantal wrath).

✘ Affirm the rebuilding / re-establishment of the Jerusalem Temple as a holy site.

✘ Affirm the continuing and yet future validity of the Law of Moses. In all instances of the setting up of the Abomination it was a violation of the Law of Moses that constituted the Abomination. As we have seen, you can’t have the Tribulation without the Abomination and you can’t have the Abomination without the Temple, as the holy place, in which the Abomination is set up. Thus, to reiterate and emphasize, for Frost’s paradigm to be valid,

✘ The Law of Moses must be in full force.

✘ Old Covenant Israel must still be God’s Covenant people.

✘ At some point in the future, the Jerusalem Temple is rebuilt and restored as a holy site of the Lord. If that Temple has no divine status then it cannot be defiled, there can be no abomination. (It will not do to say that the reference to the “holy place” is used in a historical sense, and not to its actual standing. If the “holy place” would not retain a status of being “holy” then nothing done in that “holy place” would be an abomination against it!)

✘ At some point in the future Israel - not mankind in general- commits some violation of Torah that is so heinous and horrible that it is the very definition of the Abomination that causes the Desolation.

✘ And THEN, as a direct result of that Abomination being set up in the temple, God brings covenant wrath on Israel, Jerusalem and the temple.

That covenant wrath will be the greatest Tribulation the world has ever experienced, a Tribulation - per Frost - exponentially worse than the flood in which only eight people survived, will come on the earth!

More to come