Recommended

This is yet another in a series of books promoting the preterist* view of eschatology, and the second (the first work being “The Last Days According to Jesus” by R.C. Sproul) to be recently published by a major Christian publisher. However, I don't anticipate this one getting the shelf time at the local Family Christian Bookstores as Sproul's book did for several reasons. First, DeMar just doesn't have the clout in the mainstream Christian community that Sproul does, and second, taking a frontal assault on the Christian darling of the moment, "Left Behind," [hereinafter LB] is not going to be taken with a Coke and a smile. Apparently it is perfectly okay to sell the wares of those who deny the Trinity (i.e. T.D. Jakes and Philips, Craig, and Dean) but it is not okay to show that the Bible teaches that the Antichrist isn't really going to allow the Jews to rebuild their Temple and that maybe nobody is going to try and implant microchips in our foreheads. I mean really, that doesn't sound very exciting does it? Where are all the cars that crash into walls without drivers and planes without pilots plummeting from the air?

While I really did not care for “The Last Days According to Jesus” at all as a primer in preterism, this book readily fills that void. I have already done a review on DeMar’s “Last Days Madness,” [hereinafter LDM] which I had recommended as a good starting point to learn about preterism, but now, I would put this book in that spot, especially for anyone who has actually read at least the first book in the LB series. It is basically LDM “lite” that captivates the interest in the way that it interacts with the LB premise.

Some may object that it is just not proper to subject a fictional book, LB, to such a theological analysis. However, while LB is admittedly fictional in its details, the foundational premise of the book is in fact the foundational eschatology of the authors and of much of the church today. Countless people believe, whether told so explicitly or not, that this fictional book is in fact based on the nonfictional time and story line found in the Bible. Countless people use this book as a witnessing tool to nonbelieving loved ones as a way to introduce them to Biblical principles and to warn them of the impending disaster that may happen within our lifetimes. All of this necessarily begs the following questions: Does LB accurately present Biblical teachings and is there really an impending disaster foretold to us by the Bible? Will there really be anyone left behind?

I was pleased with the respectful way that DeMar treats Tim LaHaye (one of the authors of LB) throughout despite their significant disagreements on eschatology. The fact is that LaHaye has done some great Christian services, to say the least, the founding of the Institute for Creation Research, and is a man worthy of our respect. Thus, this book is a good example of how to disagree with someone you can still respect. I appreciated that. However, that being said, DeMar does not sugarcoat the disagreement, or his final analysis that LaHaye is just not being Biblical in his approaches, or even consistent with his own eschatological viewpoint at times.

As I often do in my reviews, I have extracted out a portion of the book which I think sums up its theme or purpose very well. This extract is a mock conversation between DeMar and a futurist and goes as follows:

"This morning we're going to discuss Bible prophecy. I've been asked by your Sunday school teacher to spend a couple of weeks on the Great Tribulation. But before we begin, I would like to ask a question: When is the Great Tribulation? That's hard to say since we don't know when the Rapture will occur. I believe that the Tribulation period is near because the signs leading up to the time of the Rapture are near: wars, earthquakes, famines, plagues. It's going to happen soon."

"What do you mean by near and soon?"

"Well, I believe that we're living in the last days. Near, like in any day now or at least in my lifetime. We can't go on much longer."

"Let me understand what you're saying. You believe that the Rapture is near. And by near you mean that the Rapture could take place in our lifetime. Would these words qualify as synonyms for near? Soon… at hand… around the corner… close… shortly… approaching… impending?"

"Yes. You could add imminent and any moment."

"I want to be sure I am not putting words in your mouth. Do you understand what I mean when I say, 'This class is nearly over… The time for the bell to ring is near… This class will end shortly?'"

"Sure."

"If someone were to say, 'There are twenty reasons why Jesus is coming soon,' you would understand him to mean that Jesus' coming is near at hand. Close at hand. Not two thousand years in the future."

"Yes. I think that's pretty clear."

"Good. Now turn to the Book of Revelation, the first chapter, verse 1 and 3. What do these verses tell us about the timing of the events in Revelation?"

"Well, verse 1 says that the things revealed to John 'must shortly take place.' Verse 3 says, 'The time is near.'"

"But two thousand years have passed. How is it possible that the majority of prophetic events in Revelation have not taken place when the Bible tells us that the things revealed to John, 'must shortly take place… for the time is near'? Why don't near and shortly mean 'anytime' or at least 'in my lifetime' to those who first read the prophecy in Revelation? To say it another way, why didn't shortly and near mean to the first century what they mean to us today?"

"No one has ever raised the question before. I'm not sure I have an answer."

Also in this book is a very helpful section on defusing the accusation raised by some futurists against the preterists that only the futurist interpretation takes the Bible literally. What exactly do we mean by literal anyway? When Ezekiel 38 describes a war fought with ancient weapons, it is actually only the preterist that takes the passage literally. How literal is it to partly base one's argument that the church is "raptured" before the Tribulation on the fact that the word "church" is not used after Revelation 4 and yet see the Antichrist on almost every page of the same Book when that word is not used even once (which is quite odd considering that the only time that word is used is in another Book by the same human author). The whole charge of "spiritualizing" that is often used against anyone disagreeing with a LB scenario is a very stinky red herring. The question to be asked is not whether or not an interpretation is literal (remember Nicodemus took Jesus very literally and thought he had to crawl back in mommy's womb) but whether or not an interpretation is Biblical.

* It is helpful to define terms. By "preterism" in this review and elsewhere, I mean the eschatological construct which holds that many of the prophecies in the New Testament which are commonly understood to be in our future were actually fulfilled in 70AD, such as the Beast and the Great Tribulation. However, preterists strongly believe in the physical return of Christ, the general resurrection, and the final judgment which are yet future. There are certain heretics today who have tried to abscond with the title "preterist" who believe that there are no prophecies that apply to our future, and thus, are rightly called heretics. In concession to them, or in a misguided attempt to clarify positions, some true preterists (i.e. the non-heretics) have called their own view "partial preterism." I refuse to do so. Preterism has historically applied to the orthodox position, and I will not make concessions to a rogue band of heretics. These heretics are playing word games in order to make their opposition wrong by definition. After all who wants to be "partial" when you can be "full" or even "consistent," as they flatter themselves to be. For a refutation of their heresy please refer to Seraiah's "The End of All Things."