The Last Sacrifice
Hank Hanegraaff & Sigmund Brouwer
© 2005 — Pages 341 - 344
AFTERWORD
Much has been made of the differences in
the interpretation of Scripture applied by the Last Disciple series and the
Left Behind series. One of the key distinctions between the end-times
theologies (called "eschatologies") employed by these two series has to do
with when the writing of the New Testament was completed.
The Last Disciple series is based
on an interpretation of Scripture that holds that the entire New Testament was
completed prior to the destruction of the Temple in AD 70. In contrast, the
Left Behind series is based on the assumption that Revelation was written in
AD 95, long after Jerusalem's destruction. It asserts that Revelation
describes events that will likely take place in the twenty-first century
rather than the first century. In author Tim LaHaye's words, “Revelation was
written by John in AD 95, which means the book of Revelation describes yet
future events of the last days just before Jesus comes back to this earth.” 1
LaHaye has even gone so far as to dismiss the notion that Revelation was
written before AD 70 as “historically ridiculous.” 2 A closer look at the
evidence, however, reveals not only that such dismissive language is
unwarranted but that the late-date position is untenable.
First, it is instructive to note
that the late dating for Revelation is largely dependant on a single—and
markedly ambiguous sentence in the writings of Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons.
This sentence can be taken to mean either that John or that John's apocalyptic
vision was seen toward the end of Domitian’s reign. Moreover, the credibility
of Irenaeus as a source is called into question by his contention in the same
volume that Jesus was crucified when he was about fifty years old.
Furthermore, if the apostle John
were indeed writing in AD 95, it seems incredible that he would make no
mention whatsoever of the most apocalyptic event in Jewish history—the
demolition of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple at the hands of
Titus. This would be tantamount to writing a history of New York City
today and making no mention of the destruction of the World Trade Center at
the hands of terrorists on September 11, 2001. More directly, imagine writing
a thesis on the future of terrorism in America and failing to mention the
Manhattan Massacre.
Consider another parallel. Imagine
that you are reading a history concerning Jewish struggles in Nazi Germany and
find no mention whatsoever of the Holocaust. Would it be historically
ridiculous or historically reasonable to suppose this history had been written
prior to the outbreak of World War II? The answer is self-evident. Just as it
stretches credulity to suggest that a history on the Jews in Germany written
in the aftermath of World War II would make no mention of the Holocaust,
so too it is quite unlikely that Revelation could have been written
twenty-five years after the destruction of Jerusalem and yet make no mention
of the most apocalyptic event in Jewish history.
Finally, those who hold that the book
of Revelation was written in AD 95 face an even more formidable obstacle!
Consider one of the most amazing prophecies in all of Scripture. Jesus was
leaving the Temple one day when his disciples called his attention to its
buildings. As they gazed upon its massive stones and magnificent structures,
Jesus uttered the unthinkable: “I tell you the truth, not one stone here will
be left on another; every one will be thrown down…. This generation will
certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.” (Matthew 24:2,
34; Mark 13:2, 30; Luke 21:6, 32). Less than forty years later, this prophecy,
no doubt still emblazoned upon the tablet of their collective consciousness,
became a vivid and horrifying reality. Flavius Josephus described the utter
devastation as the altar was surrounded by “heaps of corpses, while blood
flowed down the steps of the sanctuary.” Wrote Josephus, “While the temple
was in flames, the victors stole everything they could lay their hands on, and
slaughtered all who were caught. No pity was shown to age or rank, old men or
children, the laity or priests—all were massacred.” He also noted that the
Temple was doomed August 30 AD 70, “the very day on which the former temple
had been destroyed by the king of Babylon.”3
As incredible as Christ’s prophecy
and its fulfillment one generation later are, it is equally incredible to
suppose that the apostle John would make no mention of it. As the student of
Scripture well knows, New Testament writers were quick to highlight
fulfilled prophecy. The phrase “This was to fulfill what was spoken of by
the prophet” permeates the pages of Scripture and demonstrates conclusively
that the Bible is divine rather than human in origin. Thus, it is
inconceivable that Jesus would make an apocalyptic prophecy concerning the
destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple and that John would fail to mention
that the prophecy was fulfilled one generation later just as Jesus had
predicted.
Before closing, allow us to highlight
just one more piece of internal evidence that should give pause to those who
are dogmatic about the late dating of Revelation. In the eleventh chapter
of Revelation, John says, “I was given a reed like a measuring rod and was
told, ‘Go and measure the temple of God and the altar, and count the
worshipers there. But exclude the outer court; do not measure it, because it
has been given to the Gentiles. They will trample on the holy city for 42
months’” (Revelation 11:1-2). Revelation, in keeping with the rest of the
New Testament, speaks of the Temple and Jerusalem as if the Temple were still
standing at the time of its writing. Note also that Jesus had sent his angel
“to show his servants what must soon take place” (Revelation 1:1). Thus, the
prophecy of the trampling of the holy city concerns a future event—not one
that took place twenty-five years earlier.
In summary, from all the reasons we
are well justified in believing that the book of Revelation was not written
twenty-five years after the destruction of Jerusalem, three tower above the
rest. First, just as it is unreasonable to suppose that someone writing a
history of New York City in the aftermath of September 11, 2001, would fail to
mention the destruction of the twin towers, so too it stretches credulity to
suggest that Revelation could have been written in the aftermath of the
devastation of Jerusalem and the Temple and yet make no mention of this
apocalypse. Additionally, if John wrote in AD 95, it is incredible to suppose
he would not mention the fulfillment of Christ’s most improbable and
apocalyptic vision. Finally, New Testament documents—including the book of
Revelation speak of Jerusalem and the Jewish Temple as intact at the time they
were written.
The point of all this is that if
Revelation was written before AD 70, then it is reasonable to assume that the
vision given to John was meant to reveal the apocalyptic events surrounding
the destruction of Jerusalem—events that were still in John’s future but
that are in our past. This is not to say, however, that all of the
prophecies in Revelation have already been fulfilled. Some reviewers have
suggested that the Last Disciple series espouses a hyper-preterist theology,
which is essentially the belief that every prophecy in Scripture—including the
second coming of Christ—was fulfilled long ago. But that clearly is not the
position of the Last Disciple series. Thoughtful readers of Revelation should
be quick to distance themselves from either a purely preterist or a fully
futurist label. Revelation not only predicted fore-future events, such as the
coming apocalypse in John’s lifetime, but also chronicles events that will
take place in the far and final future. For one day the Lord himself will come
down from heaven and the dwelling of God will forever be with men (Revelation
21:3); each person will be resurrected and “judged according to what he had
done” (Revelation 20:13); and the problem of sin will be fully and finally
resolved (Revelation 21:27).
-
Tim LaHaye, "Introduction: Has Jesus
Already Come?" in Tim LaHaye and Thomas Ice, eds., The End Times Controversy
(Eugene, Ore.: Harvest House Publishers, 2003), 13.\
-
LaHaye's remarks address not only the
notion that Revelation was written prior to AD 70 but also the assertion
that Nero is the Antichrist (see LaHaye, "Introduction: Has Jesus Already
Come?" 13).
-
Paul L. Maier, trans. and ed.,
Josephus: The Essential Works (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel Publishers,
1988), 371-72.
