Customer Reviews

The Last Disciple

5 star:		(34)
4 star:		(17)
3 star:		(9)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(17)

 

 

This book was published 9/30/04; it showed up in my local library 10/7/04. I picked it up and read the intro page to the first section and two words jumped out at me - "Tribulation" and "65AD". Wow! An end times series that actually gets the theology right. I checked it out immediately and read it on two plane flights over the next four days.

Left Behind has been left behind. Hannegraaff has it over LaHaye on the theology and Brouwer has it over Jenkins on the narrative. This was a thoroughly enjoyable read, although as other reviewers have noted, it is highly episodic and jumps around between scenes a lot, therefore requiring careful attention. But the characters are credible, synpathetic and have rational motivations, unlike Jenkins' wooden stereotypes. I did however have a hard time accepting Queen Bernice as a good character, given the negative portrayal of her in the Bible and her well-known incestuousness. But it worked. Other historical persons were well presented (principally Gessius Florus, governor of Judea, and to a lesser extent, John, Nero and various members of the Jewish priesthood). The plot was strong, and to the degree that a series novel can be resolved, it was, cleverly.

The story rests on two fundamental ideas - 1) That Revelation was written prior to the sack of Jerusalem; and 2) That Nero was the Beast of John's Apocalypse. These are also the foundation of the theology known as preterism.

What is preterism, you ask? Simply the school of Biblical interpretation that holds that all or nearly all Biblical prophecies were fulfilled within the lifetime of the generation of Jesus, culminating in the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in 70AD. It stands in stark contrast to the futurist interpretation, whose name is self-explanatory and which arises from (largely aberrant) dispensationalism. Hannegraaff doesn't refer to it that way, though - in the afterword he describes it as "Exegetical Eschatology" and goes on to show an example of why the ideas behind Left Behind are wrong. The novel itself explains why Nero is the most likely candidate for the Beast of Revelation and argues that any self-respecting 1st century Jew would have known almost immediately that his was the name behind 666. From this it becomes clear that Revelation, if interpreted correctly by the Roman authorities, was a very dangerous book to possess.

Now I doubtless have to wait ages for the next installment...

It is hard not to notice that recent "decline" in rating for this product. Quite curious, seeing that nothing but 5-star ratings were given near the beginning, and there has been a plethora of 1-star ratings (which coincidentally have been unanimously checked as "helpful"). In case my innuendos are not clear, I'm suggesting that an indiviudal or a group of like-minded individuals have been giving this product bad ratings. While I don't know what their motive is, I would imagine that it has something to do with their dislike for the authors or the eschatological position delineated in the book. This is disappointing, and I really hope that reviewers examine this trend before being discouraged from purchasing this book.

AS for the book itself, I believe it was entertaining fiction. It has a complex story line, and it took a great deal of time to see the characters intermingle. In fact, there are still many questions unanswered specifically to interlude the next book in the series. Ultimately, the book was solid and the theology is fully acceptable in orthodox Christianity. Some of the reviewers criticizing the eschatology in this book should research exactly what partial preterism is, and what it entails. While I am inclined to argue that partial preterism makes AT LEAST as much sense as futurism, that is not what a review for this book should encompass. But for the sake of other reviewers, it must be noted that partial preterism is not this heretical nonsense that other reviews might suggest. At least research the subject with an open mind if you are in debate about this (don't take my word or that of an opposing review).

I recommend this book. It is outstanding fiction and corroborates historical fact. Brouwer is a talented writer and the eschataogical position posited by Hanegraaff is plausible (not flawless, but no more so than all other eschatological positions). I would encourage anyone who is considering purchasing this book to do so. Finally, if my review tends to have the "helpful" question answered in the negative, please do not feel my opinion is rendered useless because of this. If you honestly feel that way, I'd rather you come to that conclusion on your own.

In 65 AD Nero rules Rome with an iron fist; since the Great Fire he persecutes Christians who refuse to accept that he is divine blaming the inferno on them. Vilas, a trusted advisor, knows the emperor is mad, and does his best to curb the worst of the excesses. He especially tries to save Christians who Nero is about to kill. Believers of Christ think Nero is the Beast and this is the time of the tribulation.

Vilas is sick of war and the blood on his hands so he goes to Jerusalem to report on the Roman in charge of Judea, who is thought to have committed crimes against the Empire. In Judea, Vilas asks Sophia, the former Jewish slave he freed, to marry him although she is Christian and he is part of Nero's inner circle. They agree to hide her religion when they return to Rome as a married couple. However, Vilas has enemies who see his wife as the instrument to destroy him. At the same time, John the Revelator who is the last living disciple is in danger as he comforts incarcerated Christians. John and Vilas meet as both flee the wrath of the Beast.

THE LAST DISCIPLE depicts Nero as the Beast of Revelations as he persecutes Christians. The period is when people still living can provide eye witness accounts about the miracles Jesus performed. Vilas is a terrific representative of the age as he tries to remain loyal to the Empire, but detests the ruler he believes is destroying it. Much historical information is included in this biblical thriller so that readers obtain a taste of life in the first decades following the crucifixion in Rome and Judea, which makes for an enthralling read.

Harriet Klausner

I'm like Hank. I don't like to be labeled. But if I came out of the closet, I would probably say I was pretribulational dispensationalist. I am aware that there are many unanswered questions that that model has, but if you are looking for a model that answers all the questions and does not pop up a host of new questions that can't be answered, you may as well give up. Hank certainly doesn't have it, either.

I am disappointed to find that Hank is not able to deal with why Revelation prophesies things in specific detail if it is not literal: things like locusts with stings, darkness, blood, reminders of the plagues that literally plagued Egypt (recall that Hank is always reminding the reader that Revelation recalls the Old Testament) and a new age in which believers reign with Christ followed by another unleashing of Satan. I sympathize deeply with Hank's hankering for metaphors that enable us to relate to prophecy in ways in which mere words would be inaccurate to describe, but I don't see how such metaphors alone could account for the specific claims that the text makes.

I am also becoming increasingly uneasy with how Hank deals with callers who have questions relating to methodology. He seems to be too dismissive of various literal interpretations of passages, and as he sounds dismissive, he sometimes sounds quite dogmatic. I'm always hearing that the blessed hope of the believer is not the "rapture", as if the word "rapture" implicitly had "pretrib" attached to it. It seems obvious to me that the blessed hope is both that the believer will be resurrected and that our present tribulations will not be forever. Deliverance from tribulation is a recurrent theme in scripture; one may argue about whether it means the pretrib rapture, indeed God's acts of protection specifically mentioned in Revelation are also instances in which God does not put believers through wrath, but one dare not say that God capriciously desires we go through tribulation with no hope of deliverance. It is interesting that Harold Camping uses the word "rapture" a hundred times in his sensational "1994", even though he is certainly not pre-trib! Obviously, rapture does not mean pre-trib rapture, and while whether pretrib rapture is scriptural is debatable, whether rapture is taught in scripture certainly is not. I hate it when I hear Hank continually denounce the very word "rapture" itself, as if that were a bad sign. It irritates me to no end to see the graphic language Paul uses to describe believers being taken to heaven with Jesus being stripped of its meaning. There may be some cloud metaphors used in scripture, but we know that there is at least one intance where clouds are literal, and that is at Jesus' assension. There, it is said that Jesus would return the same way he left.

Anyway, before I forget that this review is about the book, let me point out that there seems to be no end of examples like this where Hank irritates me; and it is not because he is not a dispensationalist, but because in some ways, he actually manages to demolish some common ground. These traits seem to keep coming up every time another caller asks about eschatology. And personally, I'm being made to feel silly that I ever bought into a literal thousand-year reign of Christ, as if I should have known better.

One thing that really irks me about preterism, even partial, is that it tends to explain away second coming passages as "70 AD" passages. Gradually, one by one, you lose warrant for the second coming, as piece by piece of evidence for it is explained away. I feel that this is a slippery slope that leads in the end to the heresy of full preterism. I can't help reading Matthew 24 and related passages and feeling that I'm getting glimpses of both 70 AD and the far future. In Revelation, Christ's coming is always being spoken about as coming "quickly" and bringing rewards to faithful believers in its wake. In fact, I think the second coming is even a code-breaker on par with the Old Testament when it comes to reading Revelation. I think it is very difficult to divorce Revelation from the second coming and what it entails. Even as I meditate on Rev 3:10, I am reminded that Jesus promised he would come quickly and bring his rewards with him, that he warned another congregation that if some of their members did not repent, they would soon find themselves in a bed of tribulation, or a heap of trouble to use modern vernacular, and that the plagues that the book will later discribe are simply staggering, even in comparison with the plagues of Egypt.

Then there is the early dating/late dating thing. Hank's argument for the early dating of Revelation is very disarming. To be honest, I myself don't understand why John would not mention the destruction of the temple, but that is more than overwhelmed by the late dating of the conditions of the seven churches. It is simply not likely that around 65 AD, seven churches in Asia minor would have had time to develop as widely diverging characteristics as the text describes, one of them, particular Ephesis, having gone through many changes since Paul had first written to them. By 95 AD, it is more than likely. Also, even if Revelation is written before 70 AD, one would have to wonder why John isn't continually reminding his reader that the temple is going to be destroyed with its prophesied destruction getting nearer. And the fact that a temple is mentioned in Revelation could be interpreted variously as: metaphorically, as indicating the reality in heaven of which the earthly temple is only a shadow, as speaking of things to come, or as speaking of things that have already happened. And no matter how you interpret that one particular passage, it is the only time the temple is ever mentioned. Obviously, Revelation is not a gospel account, and it does not have to read like one. It does not need to dwell on historical events with "this was to fulfill..." clauses attached, simply because it's in a different genre altogether. It is, after all, prophecy, and it serves the purpose of both foretelling and forthtelling.

Besides interpreting Revelation, "Last Disciple" also tries to give an accurate impression of the first century. I am never certain which characters in the book are to be taken as literal and which ones are fictional. It is hard to find anyone else who agrees strongly with Hank that Nero is definitely the Anti-Christ, and at times I think he is too dogmatic. I have developed a fondness for Vitas, and yet I don't believe he's real at all. Never before have I ever gotten any impression that a first century Roman general was ever conciencious about Rome's imperialism or ever tried to "postmodernize" or "enlighten" the empire. As much as I loved the story, I must say that such impressions are misleading. I also find the situation between Vitas and Sophia getting unequally yoked to be morally ambiguous. If Hank and Sigmund write something like that, then they shouldn't be worried about the morally ambiguous fantasy books that are now popular. For in neither case does it do to expect characters to be always perfect.

One thing that impressed me the most was the insight the relationship between Israel and Rome. It makes it easier to understand why Caiaphas would say it was better to let Jesus die, and why Jesus would hold up a roman coin to remind them of their ties to Rome.

I am glad to have a new fascination with the historical character or Nero aroused. It was interesting to read "The Austere Academy", the fifth in the Snicket Series, in light of what I learned.

After all the misgivings that I have about both the history and the eschatology inherant in the book, I would say it is a good thing. It encourages debate, and it engages the reader in productive thinking. I only wish Hank would allow Norman Geisler on his show to give his defense of dispensationalism and to encourage debate. After all, he's written an excellent response to "Last Disciple". And when's that book "E^2" coming out?

I am thankful for this book, if for no other reason, that it exposes one to the fact that there are other very credible views of "end-times" things that are not attached to premillenial dispensationalism. When John's Revelation is rooted in the Old Testament and not the headlines of today, the puzzle of escatology becomes much clearer. When Matthew 24 is seen as fulfilled in the 1st century and the Revelation written to seven specific churches; much of the present day "end-times" fog begins to clear.

Sigmund Brouwer, as a writer, is at least 2 orders of magnitude better than Jerry Jenkins. His characters have depth. They are believable. The prose flows naturally. The book is engaging and hard to put down. The plot is 3-dimensional. Furthermore, it seems to be written for thinking, literate adults rather than teenage television addicts. In contrast to the almost cartoonish "Left Behind", this book's theology does not call attention to itself, but instead weaves itself very realistically into the story. Hannegraaff's theology is plausible and based on sound "plain reading" exegesis. This is a novel worth reading totally apart from the eschatological component, however. I'm looking forward to future installments of the series.

When I quickly looked over the other reviews written about this book it seemed clear that the stars awarded were given mostly because of how people felt about Hanegraaff's biblical interpretation. I will try not to do that.

Let me say upfront that I am not at all convinced that Hanegraaff has the correct interpretation of end times. But, that said this is a very interesting book. Part of that interest is because of my curriousity about Hanegraaff's theology. It is interesting to see how he makes things fit. Another, part of the interest this book provides is the view of first century Christianity that is provided. I think we all need to have a better understanding of how the early church functioned and how early christians lived and this book can help with that.

Most importantly though this book is well written and has an interesting plot and characters. This is not great literaturebut it certainly is good fiction.

While I have respected Hank Hanegraaff and his ministry, he is seriously off-base in seeming to equate "dispensatonal premillennial" theology with the true heresies he should stick to attacking. Benny Hinn and Jehovah's Witnesses are not the same as Tim LaHaye, and Hank is wasting time and energy that would be better spent on fighting legitimate battles. A "series of novels" to attack Left Behind?? Give me a break!

As for the novel itself, while the writing is generally good, the substance is often absurd. It begins with a drugged Nero dressed up in an elaborate "Book of Daniel" animal costume in some sordid attempt to fulfill Jewish prophecy by forcing tortured Christians to bow before "the image of the Beast." This totally discredits the novel from page one, since there isn't a shred of historical evidence that such an event ever happened. (Nero is said by one historian to have worn a wolf costume at the arena, yet this is hardly the same thing.) You may say, "But this is fiction." Yes, but Hank's fiction is an attempt to convince the reader of a highly controversial point of view that Hank believes is fact: that the "end times" occured during the Neronic persecutions. So concocting this event is a key element in the historical argument that Hank is putting forth; yet it is bogus. Hanegraaff's book thus opens by doing the very same thing for which he rightly criticizes The Da Vinci Code!

The historical absurdity and dishonesty continues with Hanegraaff placing the Apostle John (the "last disciple") in Rome. There is no evidence that John was ever in Rome, especially during the Neronic persecution. But hey, why bother with the facts when you have a theological agenda to press?

Perhaps most disappointing is that the book stoops to putting words in the mouth of the Apostle John in which John basically supports the controversial preterist view of the Book of Revelation, which of course John wrote under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. (This view contends that almost all prophecy regarding the return of Christ was fulfilled during Nero's persecution and the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.) Think about the astounding audacity of this: writing a book of fiction, making one of the writers of inspired scripture a character in your novel, then putting words in his mouth to add to the scripture he wrote in an attempt to "spin" your peculiar interpretation of what God gave him. Very dangerous. It's one thing to have a view of the end-times, but it's entirely another to invent words from an author of scripture to support your view. I would be outraged by this even if Hanegraaff was espousing a view of end-times I agreed with. You don't use a writer of scripture in a fictionalized attempt to spin God's Word!

I'm not a huge fan of the Left Behind series, but at least it speculates on events that its authors believe are in the future, rather than distorting what we know has happened in the past. Yes, I'm a premill, pretrib adherent, but my beef with Hanegraaff's book goes far deeper than that, as you can read above. I won't get into a critique of preterism here, but I will say that preterism should put up a better defense than this dangerous attempt to rewrite history and misuse a writer of scripture to spin God's Word. Hanegraaff would have done better to write a historical novel about Christians defending their faith in the first century, without resorting to history-twisting and scripture-spinning propaganda about end times prophecy. What he ended up with instead is a moderately well-written, but very bad, book.

I bought this book primarily for it's theology, but was pleasantly surprised by the quality of Brouwer's fiction writing as well. I certainly wasn't expecting top-notch literature, but it sure was a fun page-turner.

I find it quite encouraging to think that so many people are reading about a view that has much more biblical, theological, and logical merit than the standard-issue premillennialism of pop-evangelicalism. And it's a lot easier to get people to read a popular work of fiction than an academic treatise on partial preterism!

While I have been convinced of the partial preterist view for a couple years now, it was helpful to read this book and see what it might have "looked like" back then; sort of like going back in time and seeing what might otherwise be an esoteric eschatological theory unfold in real history before your very eyes. While I don't agree with everything Hank teaches, I do respect his thorough research. This book is an accurate and well-written work of historical fiction. (I couldn't find anything in this book that could be faulted historically or theologically).

Hanegraaff and Brouwer did a wonderful job helping the reader understand the Jewish mindset, without which the prophecies of Matt 24 and Revelation make no sense. The original audience would have interpreted themes like "coming on the clouds" completely differently than the "Left Behind" generation of today understands them. Hanegraaff tells us why.

He also presents a good case in the book as to why Revelation was written before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. There are myriad reasons to believe so, from both internal and external evidence, but Hanegraaff only touches on a few. I suspect that we'll see a lot more, though, as this series unfolds. I can't wait for the next installment!

As well written as this book is as works of fiction go, it is clear that Preterist spin on Revelation (Left Ahead) is no more non-fictional than Futurist spin (Left Behind). The sincere Bible student is Left Wondering at both unbalanced extremes. This seems to be Eisegetical Eschatology - reading what's on one's mind INTO scripture vs. reading solely what's on the apostle's mind OUT OF scripture.

Consider the far-east fable of the 4 blind men and the elephant. Each has a hold of part of the whole animal without being told what it is or that it's all connected. The 1st man has the trunk and says it's a large snake. The 2nd has a leg and says it's a tree. The 3rd has the belly and says it's a huge tent. The 4th has the tail and says it's a rope. Each by groping to be partly right gets it all wrong! This is what we have today with the 4 major views on Revelation. Each is part-blind to what they don't get a hold of on the whole elephant. Preterists in the front have the trunk and say it's pretty much all fulfilled in 70AD, predominantly past tense. Historicists grab a leg and say its all been precisely fulfilled throughout world and church history: Roman Empire - Holy Roman Empire - Roman Church - to present day waiting for 2nd Coming. Idealists/Symbolists have the belly and say its all been-being-to be fulfilled repeatedly in each successive generation using non-literal images representing actual spiritual events to depict the ongoing battle between Lamb-followers vs. Beast- followers, New Jerusalem vs. Babylon from Incarnation to Judgment Day. Futurists have the tail end and say it's opposite to Preterism, pretty much all UNfulfilled predominantly future-tense until the rapturous return of Christ that starts the End Times clock ticking.

It's too bad this book didn't give the reader the whole elephant, just the trunk. Left Behind gave us the tail. Who will give us the rest of the entire majestic pachyderm?

Some problems with 'Left Ahead' Preterism:

*Relies exclusively on early-dating Revelation to pre-70AD. This unwittingly requires early-dating of ALL John's letters (1,2,3 John) and his Gospel as well. It's one thing to try to argue a case for back-dating one book of Scripture, but another to have to likewise back-date 4 others as roughly the same date. Historically all John's writings are dated appx. together give or take a few years. Back-dating Revelation means back-dating the rest with scant evidence. However without pre-70AD dating, Preterism is DOA. There's a good reason for all John's letters (1,2,3 John, Rev.) placed last after Peter's and Jude. Traditionally they were assigned later dating as having been last written.

*John clearly addressed his Rev. letters/prophecy to churches in ASIA, not Jerusalem or even Judea. If he was trying to warn of impending 70AD destruction of temple, etc.why the roundabout Asian audience route vs. direct to those in harm's way? Jesus' messages were precise and specific to Asian churches Ephesus, Smyrna.. NOT Jerusalem, Samaria, Caesarea, Antioch.

*Rome's beef was not with Christians in Jerusalem or even Judean religion per se, but with political rebellion in one of its provinces warranting ruthless intervention. NOT persecution of a religious nature but quelling sedition in its empire. Rev. makes it plain it's about Christian (Lamb-followers) persecution, not Jewish or Palestine political oppression. Preterism pre-70AD dating and emphasis on Jerusalem religiously and Israel ethnically per se is NOT Rev. emphasis nor Rome's quarrel necessitating General Titus' legions' drastic measures.

*Argument from silence that since Rev. doesn't mention temple destruction 70AD implies its still standing thus early-dated is as strong as argument from silence that since Malachi doesn't mention temple destruction 586BC it's still standing thus early-dated. Arguments from silence are specious at best like saying,"Don't you agree with our theory, seeing we take your silence as tacit acceptance? Well, you don't disagree."

*Rev. uses the word Prophecy as noun/verb re John's writing 7 times - 4 times in Rev.22 alone. The words prophetess, prophets, prophesy(ing), false prophet are used a further 14 (7x2)times. If Rev. is so decidedly prophetic in nature, it must have ongoing relevancy not only to 1stCentury saints but to all saints until 2nd Coming. This fact is compromised by Preterism claiming vast bulk of Rev. prophecy was fulfilled 70AD. Not even Isaiah, Ezekiel, Zech, Jesus' Parables, etc. are that restricted in prophetic fulfillment! Prophecy tends to be telescopically fulfilled in multiple segments from prophets' own time to years later to Christ's 1st Coming to Kingdom Age to 2nd Coming.Preterism is scripturally too delimiting in scope.

*Few pay attention to Rev.22:18 warning 'anyone who reads' against tampering with the prophecy: plagues of woe, curse, delusion, wrath, deception, judgment will befall such ad lib editorial license. Does this only apply to pre-70AD readers? Are the plagues fulfilled/completed 70AD? Not for future readers ever after, like us? If the warning applies to us too, how can God add past-tense-only plagues to future-tense violators?

It is prayerfully hoped the next installment in the Preterist series will Reveal more of the whole elephant of Revelation than the 'Left Ahead' trunk vs. the 'Left Behind' tail.