are_we

Are We Living in the End Times? by Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins

This book is a companion volume to the authors' incredibly popular Left Behind book series. For those who have been living on another planet for the past few years, Left Behind is supposed to be a fictional account of what might happen during earth's final seven years, the period known as the "Tribulation." This period ostensibly takes place after Jesus Christ returns invisibly to remove His church from the world, an event known as the Rapture.

Tim LaHaye doesn't have a hand in writing the fiction series; his job is to check the theological underpinnings of the books and make sure they line up with his interpretations of biblical prophecy. Jerry B. Jenkins does the actual writing. In Are We Living in the End Times? we get the impression that this is LaHaye writing, explaining the theology behind the events described in the novels.

The book's line of thought is a little hard to follow; rather than follow the flow of thought in the novels, this book seems to follow no predetermined plan. Quotes from the novels abound, as if these lend authority to the theology being presented, yet the purpose of the book is supposed to be to defend and explain the theology of the novels. So much of the time, we find ourselves going in a big circle without any really solid reference points.

LaHaye's theology is imaginative, to say the least. He hammers away at the fact that he interprets Revelation and the other prophetic books "literally," which makes him right and anybody else wrong. Of course, anyone who has ever studied the nature of apocalyptic literature knows that the book of Revelation was never intended to be taken literally; John deliberately used a literary style that is built on symbols, cryptic references and "inside knowledge" that only the writer and certain readers who are "in the know" would understand. Hence, when we take such a work and interpret it literally, we end up with some pretty huge absurdities. But that doesn't stop these authors.

In the LaHaye approach, the next major event on the horizon is a Russian attack on Israel. According to the book, this attack will fail because of God's direct intervention; planes and other weapons of war will be destroyed by hail, fire and other acts of God, and the leftover fuel from the crashed planes etc. will provide enough oil for Israel to live on for several years. This idea is based on the famous "Gog and Magog" passages in Ezekiel, of course; it conveniently ignores the fact that Revelation 20 says that this showdown with Gog and Magog doesn't happen until after the millennium.

One of the more interesting things about this supposed attack on Israel is that it apparently happens some time before the pretribulational Rapture. Of course, that fact means that this Rapture can't possibly be an any-moment event, but the chapter on the Rapture describes it as possible any moment anyway. Apparently, the authors don't see any contradiction here. It makes one wonder whether they have really thought this out, or if they're just sort of winging it.

Critiquing the chapter on the Rapture would take a whole separate review. It abounds in misstatements, non-sequiturs, blatant assumptions and outright falsehoods. One or two examples will have to suffice for now:
On page 104, the authors are pounding away at the idea that the "Rapture" and the "Second Coming" or "Glorious Appearing" are two separate events. To back this up, they say "The apostle Paul distinguished these two events in Titus 2:13 by designating them 'the blessed hope and glorious appearing.'" Apparently, LaHaye has never heard of Granville Sharp's rule. The structure of the clause "the blessed hope and glorious appearing" indicates that these two items are one and the same event. In other words, the blessed hope is the glorious appearing. Far from saying that they are two separate events, Titus 2:13 says just the opposite: it says in so many words that the Rapture and the Second Coming are two sides of the same coin, two aspects of a single event. LaHaye is supposed to be a prophecy "scholar," yet he apparently knows nothing of one of the most basic rules of the Greek language, one that is taught to just about every first-year Greek student in the world. I can't help but ask: why?
In several places, the authors hit on 2 Thessalonians 2:1-13 and dub verse 1 a "rapture passage" (e.g. p. 99). Apparently they miss the fact that this passage is explicitly post-tribulational. Verse 1 says "Regarding the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering to Him..." Paul goes on to say that he doesn't want his readers to be ignorant or deceived, as though the Day of the Lord was already here. That day, he says, will not come until there is a falling-away and the man of sin is revealed. What does Paul mean when he says "Day of the Lord?" He already told us, in verse 1: the coming of Christ and our gathering to Him. These events, he says, will not happen until after the man of sin is revealed and the Lord destroys him. How much plainer can it get? Yet, LaHaye chops this passage up into little pieces and scatters it throughout the book, completely missing the flow of thought that it offers. (For more on this passage, see George Eldon Ladd, The Blessed Hope, chapter 4.)

In another book, Rapture Under Attack, LaHaye repeats these errors, and then explains that he wrote the book because so many of his former students were abandoning the pretribulational position. He even founded the Pre Trib Research Center to bolster the doctrine. It makes me wonder: if this view is so clear from the Scriptures, why does it need an entire research center to support it? For that matter, if it's so clear and the teaching on it is so solid, why are his students abandoning it in droves? We never see any answers to these questions, and I doubt we ever will.

The book has a number of historical errors as well, errors that some simple research in an encyclopedia would have corrected. On page 164, LaHaye says that archaeologists have found copies of Daniel from the Persian period. He gives no support or reference for this statement. The truth is, no such thing has been found. The earliest copy of Daniel is one of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and it dates from around 100-125 B.C. The Persian period ended about 200 years before this, and critical scholars still claim that Daniel wasn't written until around 164 B.C. Eugene Ulrich, the scholar who edited this scroll of Daniel, says (quoting Cross) that it is "no more than about a half century younger than the autograph." If he knew of a copy from the Persian period, he wouldn't be able to even think about making such a statement.
Even worse, on page 165 LaHaye says that the 5 kings who "were" in Revelation 17 refer to Roman emperors. Like most evangelicals, he assumes that Revelation was written during the reign of Domitian, and that Domitian was the emperor who exiled John to Patmos. He then says there were 5 emperors before Domitian, Domitian is the king who "is," and the one who is yet to come is the future antichrist. Five emperors before Domitian, indeed. Their names were:

•Julius Caesar
•Augustus
•Tiberius
•Caligula
•Claudius
•Nero
•Galba
•Otho
•Vitellius
•Vespasian
•Titus

That makes five, right? It's clear that LaHaye has not done his homework, even homework as basic as counting Roman emperors. It makes me wonder what else he has failed to double-check. It also makes me wonder why I should consider his research reliable.
Actually, it gets even worse. In the chapter explaining why Babylon has to be rebuilt, LaHaye actually says (p. 136) that we know Babylon existed in apostolic times because Peter wrote his epistles from there (1 Peter 5:13). Archaeology has told us again and again that Babylon was a pile of rubble in Peter's time, and basic church history has told us again and again that in the apostolic age "Babylon" was a code name for Rome. He could have gotten this information out of any Bible dictionary or encyclopedia. But once again, he seems to prefer being "literal" to being right.

Contradictions run all through the book. A prime example: on page 318, discussing converts to Christ during the Tribulation, he says that the Holy Spirit is alive and well during this period. The trouble is, on p. 278 he already said that the Holy Spirit has been taken out of the world with the church to make way for antichrist. He bases this on the cryptic passage in 2 Thessalonians 2 speaking of the "restrainer." He just assumes, without any proof or defense, that this "restrainer" is the Holy Spirit living in the church. When the church is removed at the Rapture, so is the Holy Spirit. Yet, that same Holy Spirit apparently indwells Tribulation believers in exactly the same way that He was indwelling the church. If we want to be consistent, then we would have to say that the Holy Spirit's restraining influence is taken out of the way only until the first Tribulation convert comes to Christ. When that happens, the Holy Spirit is back, and presumably in a position to do His restraining work again. So the Holy Spirit is alive and well and doing pretty much the same thing He was doing in the church, except that now it's the same thing, only different. None of this makes any sense, of course, and the self-contradiction in this is almost laughable. Beside that, we really have no idea who or what this "restrainer" is because Paul never told us. The passage is about as vague as it could possibly be. Nobody has the answer, nobody knows what it is, least of all the authors of this book!

LaHaye and Jenkins apparently have chosen to follow Hal Lindsey's lead regarding the 144,000 Jews depicted in Revelation 7and 14. Chapter 24 is devoted to who these people are and what they do: they're Jewish evangelists who go out and preach Christ to the world, converting the "great multitude" described later in Revelation 7 and bringing them to Christ. What's wrong with this picture? It's hard to know where to begin. For one thing, Revelation never says these Jews "evangelize" anybody. In fact, after they're sealed they really don't do anything. They have no apparent connection to the multitude from all nations and languages and tribes. The idea that they're the ones who bring this multitude to Christ is pure assumption, nothing more. LaHaye repeatedly talks about these Jews being from all12 tribes, but he misses several important facts.

•The 12 tribes listed in Revelation 7 are different than those listed in the Old Testament. The tribe of Dan is absent, and we have both a tribe of Joseph and a tribe of Manasseh. But Manasseh was one of Joseph's sons, so these two overlap.
•10 of the 12 tribes completely disappeared when the northern kingdom of Israel went into exile. These tribes were scattered, intermarried with the people in the lands where they were exiled, and vanished forever. The only tribes that are traceable since that time are Judah, Benjamin and possibly parts of Levi. So there is no way that these 144,000 Jews can be from the actual 12 tribes. There is no such thing any more.
•These Jews receive a seal of God in their foreheads. What does this indicate? In the ancient world, such a mark denoted ownership. It should be clear, especially when we break away from the ridiculous literalizing that these authors do with Revelation, that this group represents the remnant of Israel that God has always reserved for Himself. 12 is an important symbolic number all through Revelation, and indeed through the whole Bible. 12,000 from 12 tribes denotes the complete remnant. Not one of the remnant that God has foreordained will perish, but will join the multitudes of Gentiles throughout the church age who come to Christ. When we read John on his own terms, we avoid the absurdity that "literal" interpretation gives us.
•The next time we see these 144,000, they are standing on a mountain having a sing-along. This is the only thing we ever see them do. Where were they in the intervening chapters? We don't know, but it's clear that they weren't doing any worldwide evangelizing.
•The church has been evangelizing for nearly 2,000 years and had much more than 144,000 missionaries to do it, and the task is still incomplete. Yet, we're supposed to believe that 144,000 Jewish evangelists can complete the task of evangelizing the entire world in seven years. Riiiiiiiiiiiight.....

At one point, the authors actually contradict the plain words of the Bible and make no bones about it. On page 280-281, they talk about the wound to one of the beast's heads in Revelation 13. The verse in question says that one of the heads seemed to have a mortal wound, and the wound was healed. First they quote the passage, then they briefly discuss the fact that it says the head only seems to have a mortal wound. But then they go on to say that they believe the "beast," which they equate with the "antichrist" or the "man of sin," will actually die and be resurrected. Why? Because Revelation 11:7 and 17:8 say the beast ascends out of the "bottomless pit." They say, "We believe this means that the Beast is killed, descends to the pit, and ascends from there to the earth when he is resurrected..."
    What's wrong with this? First of all, the "Beast" is not an individual. If he is, he's a genetic nightmare, because he has seven heads and ten horns. Chapter 17 tells us that the seven heads are seven rulers and the ten horns are ten kings, and in fact in the novels, the antichrist establishes a ten-region world with a "potentate" over reach region, thus providing the ten kings. But chapter 17 says nothing at all about one particular individual ruling over them; actually, there seem to be 7 or 8. LaHaye and Jenkins ignore the part about 7 or 8 and make this "Beast" an individual who rules over these 10 "kings." So much for literal interpretation, I guess. Revelation 17 also says that the seven heads are seven hills, but LaHaye breezes right past that verse.
    Furthermore, I would love to know where these authors got the idea that anybody who dies goes to a "bottomless pit." The Bible is clear about what happens to both believers and unbelievers when they die, and a "bottomless pit" isn't part of it. Actually, if we study the use of this word, in Greek abyss, it seems to be the dwelling-place of demons. Would a human being who dies descend to such a place? Hardly. So what does it mean when it says that this Beast ascends from there? Since the Beast is a system of government and not an individual, it should be obvious that we are looking at a system of government energized by Satan himself. It is the ultimate (though temporary, thank God!) triumph of godlessness in this world, when a power backed by the prince of the power of the air briefly rules the world.
    What about the head wound? Since the text says it only seems to be a fatal wound, it's easy to suggest that one of these rulers, or perhaps the nation/state over which he rules, appears to receive a fatal blow and then recovers, causing the world to marvel and to worship the Beast. In other words, fake it to deceive people. It's also possible that one of these rulers survives an assassination attempt that takes him to the brink of death, and the rest of the coalition somehow helps to bring him back to health. We don't know. But the idea that one individual called the Beast dies and is resurrected from a "bottomless pit" is just silly.

The book also has several items that I can only call bonehead mistakes; I will only mention three.
    On page 176 we are told that the current Pope is Pope Paul II. I think they meant John Paul II, but apparently neither the authors, editors or proofreaders caught this blunder.
    On page 183 the continent of Africa is reduced to a "country." I can't help wondering what the people of the various countries of Africa think of this change of status.
    On page 227 they say that they fictionalized the antichrist/beast as a man named Nicolai Carpathia. If you've looked at the novels at all, you'll see it at once: yes, it's true. They misspelled their own character Nicolae's name. It leaves me wondering if anyone actually did any proofreading before this book went to press.

I would like to think this book was a joke. Unfortunately, it isn't. Tim LaHaye travels all over the country preaching this very same drivel. The most distressing part is, the average American Christian is so lacking in real Bible knowledge that they have no idea how full of holes this stuff is. Supposedly, this book will answer all your questions about the end-times. It may do that, but virtually all the answers will be wrong. It does answer one question, I have to admit. That question is, "Is Tim LaHaye a genuine Bible scholar?" The answer is a very clear "no." His approach to Titus 2:13 makes it clear that he has little or no real knowledge of Greek; his approach to Revelation makes it clear that he has little or no knowledge of the style John wrote in, and the flagrant errors of fact throughout the book make it clear that somebody was asleep when this book was being put together. If you have nothing better to do, feel free to read it and notice all the errors, assumptions and self-contradictions in it. But if you have a life at all, there are many better things you can do with your time.
Return to Inquiries Into Biblical Languages