The Last Disciple

[Maurice A. Williams]

"The Last Disciple" has generated much interest and praise. It has also provided a polarizing point between readers who accept the futurist interpretation of Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins’ block busting "Left Behind" series, and those who accept the preterist interpretation of “The Last Disciple.”

Hank Hanegraaff and Sigmund Brouwer, authors of "The Last Disciple" feel convinced that the Biblical prophecies were fulfilled during the early Church age. Tyndall House, the published of the twelve-volume "Left Behind" series agreed to publish a similar series of Hanegraaff and Brouwer novels proposing their preterist interpretation. "The Last Disciple" is the first volume in the proposed new series. It ends with Nero still alive and the Temple still standing, so more volumes are to follow. Three sequels are already planned.

One can see, by the reader’s reviews on Amazon.com, how people have taken sides on this dispute. Hanegraaff and LaHaye have also gotten into the dispute. LaHaye feels betrayed by Tyndall House Publishing. He believes they agreed to publish Hanegraaff's novels to continue making money like they did with his "Left Behind" series. He thinks Hanegraaff's preterist interpretation is unbiblical and nonsense. Hanegraaff, in the Afterword of "The Last Disciple" (pages 393-5) goes into some detail on what he thinks is wrong in LaHaye's interpretation.

I've read "Left Behind" novels and "The Last Disciple." They are all well written novels using fictional characters to capture reader's involvement while the setting of both series describes the author's interpretations. I think "The Last Disciple" is at a disadvantage because the general public is not familiar with early Church history and does not recognize the names of real historical characters and real events. For those people, the whole novel might read as fiction. "Left Behind," on the other hand, does not have this disadvantage. The reader easily discerns between the purely fictional characters and the proposed, future fulfillment of the prophecies.

I believe I have a book that can serve a good purpose here. My book "Revelation and the Fall of Judea" was not written as fiction. All of it discusses real historical persons and real historical events. I use long quotes from historical sources not easily reached by the average reader and compare them to the text of the Apocalypse. My book covers a much longer period of time than "The Last Disciple." I start in A.D. 27 and continue to A.D. 135 when Rome destroys the Judean nation and deports the surviving Judeans into other nations. The Judeans had rebelled against Rome, following the leadership of Bar Kochba, whom they believed to be the promised Messianic King. In my interpretation, I view one of the Caesars as the Antichrist. I view Bar Kochba as a rival to Christ. I view him as a false Messiah who led the nation of Judea to destruction.

 

[Maurice A. Williams]

I'm surprised at getting so little response to my comments on "The Last Disciple" and the "left Behind" series. So I decided to liven things up by a little controversy. I hope it makes you think. How could Revelations have so many interpretations? If it were God's word, one would expect the Holy Spirit to guide people in understanding it. The hundreds of differnet arguments about Revelations makes one think one's own predujices are the major factor in interpretating Revelation. I have my own idea of what Revelation might mean, but few people seem interested it it. How's this for starters?


Does anyone realize that a preterist interpretation, like that in "The Last Disciple" is more consistent with Catholic thinking than the futurist interpretation featured in the "Left Behind" series? A futurist interpretation makes one think that the Catholic Church missed its mission, and Christ's objectives have to restart sometime in the future.


A preterist interpretation would make one think that the Catholic Church, despite the misconduct of some of its clergy, never abandoned its mission. The work of Christ started when the Church started (preterist interpretation). Souls of people have been going to heaven to work with Christ ever since Christ opened the gates of heaven. At the end of the world, those remaining will be "raptured" to join the others. The tribulation struck the unbelieving Judeans when they tried to destroy the Church of Jesus Christ. There was a millennial (one thousand year) kingdom. It started when the entire Roman Empire accepted the religion of Jesus Christ, like the known Western World became Christian. It was a political Christian kingdom here on earth, made up of far less than perfect sinners, but a political Christian kingdom anyway. It lasted more than a thousand years until the Reformation.

Whatever side of the fence you're on, the Reformation destroyed the Christian political kingdom and splintered the teachings of Christ into thousands of contradictory opinions. Since then, what was left of the Christian political kingdom has fought war after war, and its people have argued so much about the teachings of Christ, that Christianity has lost its credibility. Today, critics of Christianity tell us that we are in the "Post-Christian" era. Today many political leaders work toward the eradication of all Christian symbols from our cultures.


Wouldn't the above seem like the release of Satan to destroy the teachings of Christ? If true, wouldn't we be a lot closer to the Final Judgment than the proponents of a futurist interpretation would propose? I recommend reading "The Last Disciple" and other books with a preterist interpretation, like “Revelation and the Fall of Judea” and “Prophet and Historian: John and Josephus,” all available through Amazon.



Any comments?

Maurice A. Williams

 

[Dad Ernie]

Greetings Maurice,

Both series of books are based on false premises. Back in '75 I really got interested in eschatology, however, I could find no author that agreed with another, and mostly they disagreed with what the scriptures say. So I went to the Lord about my lack of understanding. I held to the promise (and still do), that those who read and obey the book of Revelation will be blessed. God finally gave me an answer: "First you have to get to know my Son." Well, that settled my heart and it took me 20 years before I got back into studying eschatology. I see now what is meant by:

Revelation 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

The phraseology of "must shortly come to pass", does not mean the entire book of Revelation will have "come to pass", but it means that the book is just then beginning to "come to pass" and will end at some future time, day and hour which is unknown by the writer or the reader, because only God knows.

We are not generally told the length of "times" in the NT, except for the 3 1/2 years +. But it starts out with the "church age" which had begun in the first century and will continue until the end of it in the "great apostacy".

Chapter 4, I believe, begins the last days scenario, and the rise of the Beast, the False Prophet and Babylon of the last days.

I see much of the OT having been fulfilled up to 70 A.D. and I also see "dual fulfillments" of many prophecies. We know from Ecclesiasties that what has been shall be again, so it would not be unusual to see a prophecy being fulfilled in different times with only minor changes in the actual events.

One vital ingredient is understanding that God has shown us EVENTS, and not so much stated "times, dates and even seasons". This is where the preterists get it all wrong. Israel was given us to be an "example", which is only a shadow of things to come. The life of Israel and their rejection of Messiah, is now being lived out by the "church" and will one day also apostasize and reject to the True Living Word.

Well, I hope that explains my position in the matter, at least somewhat.

Blessings,

Dad Ernie

 

[Maurice A. Williams]

Hi Dad Ernie,

Thanks for responding to my message. I agree that the church age had begun in the first century and will continue until the end of it in the "great apostacy." I do not agree that much of the OT having been fulfilled up to 70 A.D. 70 A.D takes us past all the Gospels, Epistles, and Acts of the Apostles. 70 A.D is when Jerusalem and the Temple were destroyed. 65 years later the entire nation of Judea was destroyed and the survivors dispersed into other lands. This looks to me like the Great Tribulation.. The church flourished for about 1000 years, then the Church was tore apart by the events leading to the Reformation. From then on Christian sectarian arguments and rebuttals of what Christ taught destroyed the credibility of Christianity. I was serious when I said non-Christian scholars say we are in the Post-Christian age and many politicians try to remove all symbols (really all vestiges if you view the sexual revilotion, abortion, and homosexuality) of Christianity from public life. It seems to me that would coincide with the release of Satan to deceive the nations. I think we are much further down the road to the final judgement than most people think. I think a preterest interpretation would give us a better sense of what I think is happening than a futurist interpretation would.

Maurice A. Williams