What do you think?
Rate this book
The Last Days according to Jesus: When Did Jesus Say He Would Return?
Speculation and theories abound about what the last days have in store for us. But what did Jesus believe and teach about the end times and the timing of his return? R. C. Sproul points believers back to the words of Christ, offering them a solid footing amid ever-shifting opinion about the age to come.
275 pages, Kindle Edition
First published September 10, 1998
404 people are currently reading
1297 people want to read
About the author
R.C. Sproul
675 books1,976 followersDr. R.C. Sproul (1939–2017) was founder of Ligonier Ministries, an international Christian discipleship organization located near Orlando, Fla. He was founding pastor of Saint Andrew’s Chapel in Sanford, Fla., first president of Reformation Bible College, and executive editor of Tabletalk magazine.
Ligonier Ministries began in 1971 as the Ligonier Valley Study Center in Ligonier, Pa. In an effort to respond more effectively to the growing demand for Dr. Sproul’s teachings and the ministry’s other educational resources, the general offices were moved to Orlando in 1984, and the ministry was renamed.
Dr. Sproul’s radio program, Renewing Your Mind, is still broadcast daily on hundreds of radio stations around the world and can also be heard online. Dr. Sproul produced hundreds of lecture series and recorded numerous video series on subjects such as the history of philosophy, theology, Bible study, apologetics, and Christian living.
He contributed dozens of articles to national evangelical publications, spoke at conferences, churches, and academic institutions around the world, and wrote more than one hundred books, including The Holiness of God, Chosen by God, and Everyone’s a Theologian. He signed the 1978 Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy and wrote a commentary on that document. He also served as general editor of the Reformation Study Bible, previously known as the New Geneva Study Bible.
Dr. Sproul had a distinguished academic teaching career at various colleges and seminaries, including Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando and Jackson, Miss. He was ordained as a teaching elder in the Presbyterian Church in America.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 138 reviews
January 22, 2019
This is a book about eschatology (the 'study of last things') from a well-known, respected, and loved pastor and theologian, RC Sproul (who is now with Christ himself). Sproul was a bulwark of the faith, standing up for the gospel, the inerrancy of Scripture, the supremacy of Christ, and the holiness of God. No one—no one—would say he would deal with any unbiblical view. Surely, many disagree with him on views such as baptism. But he was a biblical, Reformed, Bible-upholding man.
I preface with all that because of what he says in this book. He argues for things that would possibly surprise some—even anger some. He argues for a view of eschatology that is not as common in today’s evangelicalism, but as he shows, it is *not* because his view is whacky or unbiblical (per se).
In brief, Sproul in this book argues about the end times from a “partial preterist” standpoint. Before I explain what that is, first another disclaimer:
In our evangelical culture, because of the influx of Dispensational theology and a certain way of reading Revelation in the future, almost all Christian Americans assume a few things:
- First, we assume that the majority of prophecy in the New Testament—specifically the Olivet Discourse (eg. Matthew 24) and the book of Revelation—all tell mainly about things in the future for us.
- Second, in connection with this, we assume that certain aspects of these, such as the tribulation from Matthew 24, or the Beast/Antichrist/Abomination of Desolation from various passages (Matthew 24; 2 Thess. 2; 1 John 3; etc.) all refer to future events for us.
- Third, in connection with both of these, we think this has always been the true, literal reading of all these texts.
- Fourth, we unfortunately think that the only difference in eschatology views comes from what one believes about the Millennium from Revelation 20.
In short, we assume a “futurist” perspective on all these texts. We assume they have to do with the final years of the world. We think the church has always been this way. Or worse, we assume that if people aren’t, then they must not care about the Bible.
But Sproul shows that all these assumptions are mistaken in this book by biblically expounds “partial preterism.”
Here I will list the main tenants he argues for in “partial preterism.” However, in this review, I will *not* take the time to defend all of these beliefs expounded in the book. But here is what I *do* want to emphasize: Sproul defends all these with strong biblical support. Nor will I say if I agree or disagree with each, because for many I haven’t decided yet. But I do love the Bible; I do not want to add to nor take away from anything written therein; and I will say that I certainly don’t think any of these are unbiblical views in themselves (maybe misinterpreted, but not ‘unbiblical’).
1. Preterism means ‘past fulfillment.’ Preterism is the idea that many of the prophecies in the Bible and New Testament, which were for the future at the time written, have now been fulfilled in our past.
2. Partial preterism asserts the the Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21—about the great time of tribulation, earthquakes, false ‘christs’, abomination of desolation, and fleeing from the rooftop, and being taken into judgement—all occurred at the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. The biggest support of this is the fact that this is the immediate context: Jesus says the temple will be destroyed, and the apostles are asking when ‘these things’ will take place. Then at the end, Jesus says, “This generation will not pass away until all these things take place.”
3. Partial preterism asserts that the ‘coming in power and glory’ in the Olivet Discourse is Jesus talking about him coming in judgement on the the Jewish nation, ending with the destruction of the temple. This has support from many OT texts where God comes, even on a cloud, in judgment. Jesus is predicting he’ll do that, and he did it 40 years later in 70 AD.
4. Partial preterism does still believe, however, in a physical second coming. What makes “partial preterism” different from “full preterism” is that full preterists go the unorthodox route of saying even the final second coming, resurrection of believers, and the new heavens and new earth have come. Partial preterits assert that these are still to come because of many other NT texts that show so. They just believe that the Olivet Discourse is about the coming of Christ in judgment on the Jewish people because of the context and the verse “this generation will not pass away until all these things are accomplished.”
5. Partial preterism also thinks that one of the ‘ages’ that was ending was the Jewish age, which ended in 70 AD. This is supported by the beginning of the Olivet Discourse, when Jesus says the temple will be overthrown, and the disciples ask when ‘these things’ and ‘the end of the age’ will take place. Partial preterits believe this happened in 70 AD. They also use 1 Corinthians 10:11, where Paul says that “the end of the ages” has come upon the Israelites.
6. Partial preterists also say that Revelation was mainly about the description of the the judgment on the Jews and the temple. (Many say it is about the destruction of Rome in 400s, but Sproul shows the Jerusalem view). In support, they argue that the great whore is evidently the Jewish people, and the judgment once again did come in 70 AD.
7. Partial preterits assert that the Antichrist and the Beast of Revelation 13 was a real person, but that he ‘was already in the world’ (1 John 3), as John says. It isn’t just his spirit that was in the world, but John was saying he already was in the world himself.
8. Partial preterits believe that Nero was clearly this Antichrist. The gematria of 666 proves this as Nero’s name in Hebrew adds up to 666 perfectly; he elevated the emperor worship more than anyone else (he exalted himself above every god); he was a crazy person in many, many ways; he persecuted the Christians violently; and some of his contemporaries even called him a ‘beast.’
9. Partial preterits also mostly postmillennialists, though some are amillenialists.
10. Partial preterits do not believe in a pretribulation rapture, nor a final 7 years of tribulation. They argue that Matthew 24 (and Mark 13, Luke 21) are clearly and explicitly about the future destruction of the temple in Jerusalem—future for them, past for us.
More could be said, and if you’re interested in this, I encourage you to read the book. I think the strongest argument is from the context of Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21. As Sproul argues, many evangelicals—who love context and literal reading—do *not* read it literally, since Jesus is explicitly bringing up the destruction of the temple, and he is explicitly saying when ‘these things’ will take place. And Sproul shows that amazingly in history, when the temple was destroyed, there were false Christs, there were earthquakes, Josephus even records strange sky manifestations. And the Christians did flee to the mountains, leaving only mostly Jews to be destroyed by the Romans.
Finally, as Sproul shows in the introduction and last chapter, he wrote this book primarily because many critical scholars think Jesus was a false prophet because he, in their minds, clearly said he would return within that generation, especially in the destruction of the temple in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21. Sproul points out that we as evangelicals often have done terribly with interpreting that. We love ‘literal’, but then we twist and turn ‘generation’. Sproul instead shows there is a better argument which a) keeps the clear meaning of Jesus’ words; b) allows for OT connections as God often came in judgment; and c) makes Jesus not a liar, but an incredible prophet.
Again, I don’t know how much or what I agree with. But I do think we as evangelicals influenced by dispensationalism and Left Behind are quite blinded to the various views. The pretribulation rapture belief didn’t even exist before the 1800s, yet we often think that alone is biblical. Or we think “futurism”—reading Matthew 24 and Revelation as all in *our* future—is the only main belief. But I believe a respected godly man here in RC Sproul shows why there are many different, biblical, solid views. This is worth a read for sure.
I preface with all that because of what he says in this book. He argues for things that would possibly surprise some—even anger some. He argues for a view of eschatology that is not as common in today’s evangelicalism, but as he shows, it is *not* because his view is whacky or unbiblical (per se).
In brief, Sproul in this book argues about the end times from a “partial preterist” standpoint. Before I explain what that is, first another disclaimer:
In our evangelical culture, because of the influx of Dispensational theology and a certain way of reading Revelation in the future, almost all Christian Americans assume a few things:
- First, we assume that the majority of prophecy in the New Testament—specifically the Olivet Discourse (eg. Matthew 24) and the book of Revelation—all tell mainly about things in the future for us.
- Second, in connection with this, we assume that certain aspects of these, such as the tribulation from Matthew 24, or the Beast/Antichrist/Abomination of Desolation from various passages (Matthew 24; 2 Thess. 2; 1 John 3; etc.) all refer to future events for us.
- Third, in connection with both of these, we think this has always been the true, literal reading of all these texts.
- Fourth, we unfortunately think that the only difference in eschatology views comes from what one believes about the Millennium from Revelation 20.
In short, we assume a “futurist” perspective on all these texts. We assume they have to do with the final years of the world. We think the church has always been this way. Or worse, we assume that if people aren’t, then they must not care about the Bible.
But Sproul shows that all these assumptions are mistaken in this book by biblically expounds “partial preterism.”
Here I will list the main tenants he argues for in “partial preterism.” However, in this review, I will *not* take the time to defend all of these beliefs expounded in the book. But here is what I *do* want to emphasize: Sproul defends all these with strong biblical support. Nor will I say if I agree or disagree with each, because for many I haven’t decided yet. But I do love the Bible; I do not want to add to nor take away from anything written therein; and I will say that I certainly don’t think any of these are unbiblical views in themselves (maybe misinterpreted, but not ‘unbiblical’).
1. Preterism means ‘past fulfillment.’ Preterism is the idea that many of the prophecies in the Bible and New Testament, which were for the future at the time written, have now been fulfilled in our past.
2. Partial preterism asserts the the Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21—about the great time of tribulation, earthquakes, false ‘christs’, abomination of desolation, and fleeing from the rooftop, and being taken into judgement—all occurred at the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. The biggest support of this is the fact that this is the immediate context: Jesus says the temple will be destroyed, and the apostles are asking when ‘these things’ will take place. Then at the end, Jesus says, “This generation will not pass away until all these things take place.”
3. Partial preterism asserts that the ‘coming in power and glory’ in the Olivet Discourse is Jesus talking about him coming in judgement on the the Jewish nation, ending with the destruction of the temple. This has support from many OT texts where God comes, even on a cloud, in judgment. Jesus is predicting he’ll do that, and he did it 40 years later in 70 AD.
4. Partial preterism does still believe, however, in a physical second coming. What makes “partial preterism” different from “full preterism” is that full preterists go the unorthodox route of saying even the final second coming, resurrection of believers, and the new heavens and new earth have come. Partial preterits assert that these are still to come because of many other NT texts that show so. They just believe that the Olivet Discourse is about the coming of Christ in judgment on the Jewish people because of the context and the verse “this generation will not pass away until all these things are accomplished.”
5. Partial preterism also thinks that one of the ‘ages’ that was ending was the Jewish age, which ended in 70 AD. This is supported by the beginning of the Olivet Discourse, when Jesus says the temple will be overthrown, and the disciples ask when ‘these things’ and ‘the end of the age’ will take place. Partial preterits believe this happened in 70 AD. They also use 1 Corinthians 10:11, where Paul says that “the end of the ages” has come upon the Israelites.
6. Partial preterists also say that Revelation was mainly about the description of the the judgment on the Jews and the temple. (Many say it is about the destruction of Rome in 400s, but Sproul shows the Jerusalem view). In support, they argue that the great whore is evidently the Jewish people, and the judgment once again did come in 70 AD.
7. Partial preterits assert that the Antichrist and the Beast of Revelation 13 was a real person, but that he ‘was already in the world’ (1 John 3), as John says. It isn’t just his spirit that was in the world, but John was saying he already was in the world himself.
8. Partial preterits believe that Nero was clearly this Antichrist. The gematria of 666 proves this as Nero’s name in Hebrew adds up to 666 perfectly; he elevated the emperor worship more than anyone else (he exalted himself above every god); he was a crazy person in many, many ways; he persecuted the Christians violently; and some of his contemporaries even called him a ‘beast.’
9. Partial preterits also mostly postmillennialists, though some are amillenialists.
10. Partial preterits do not believe in a pretribulation rapture, nor a final 7 years of tribulation. They argue that Matthew 24 (and Mark 13, Luke 21) are clearly and explicitly about the future destruction of the temple in Jerusalem—future for them, past for us.
More could be said, and if you’re interested in this, I encourage you to read the book. I think the strongest argument is from the context of Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21. As Sproul argues, many evangelicals—who love context and literal reading—do *not* read it literally, since Jesus is explicitly bringing up the destruction of the temple, and he is explicitly saying when ‘these things’ will take place. And Sproul shows that amazingly in history, when the temple was destroyed, there were false Christs, there were earthquakes, Josephus even records strange sky manifestations. And the Christians did flee to the mountains, leaving only mostly Jews to be destroyed by the Romans.
Finally, as Sproul shows in the introduction and last chapter, he wrote this book primarily because many critical scholars think Jesus was a false prophet because he, in their minds, clearly said he would return within that generation, especially in the destruction of the temple in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21. Sproul points out that we as evangelicals often have done terribly with interpreting that. We love ‘literal’, but then we twist and turn ‘generation’. Sproul instead shows there is a better argument which a) keeps the clear meaning of Jesus’ words; b) allows for OT connections as God often came in judgment; and c) makes Jesus not a liar, but an incredible prophet.
Again, I don’t know how much or what I agree with. But I do think we as evangelicals influenced by dispensationalism and Left Behind are quite blinded to the various views. The pretribulation rapture belief didn’t even exist before the 1800s, yet we often think that alone is biblical. Or we think “futurism”—reading Matthew 24 and Revelation as all in *our* future—is the only main belief. But I believe a respected godly man here in RC Sproul shows why there are many different, biblical, solid views. This is worth a read for sure.
December 11, 2018
Upfront, I must state that the late, great R.C. Sproul is one of my favorite theologians and I highly respect his work. Most of his books are excellent and recommended.
This one just didn't make the cut. He spent 0% of the book advocating his own view. Instead, the entire book was spent contrasting HYPER-preterism (HP) and partial preterism (PP). His main sources seem to be James Stuart Russell (full-preterist) and Kenneth Gentry (partial preterist). He gave way too much credibility to full preterism throughout the book and never fully denounced it as heresy. He did reference it as having "fatal flaws."
What I want from having read now more than 5 books on postmillennialism and clear and emphatic sources of which texts are actually future. This text in contrasting PP with HP should have provided these with great clarity. He did mention 1 Cor 15 as well as the resurrection language found in both Thessalonian epistles, but none other than that. Simply, there must be more to The Day than the "leftover" texts that mention resurrection. Most PPs take Daniel 12 to be 70 AD as well -- which deals with resurrection as much as any.
The positives are that he provided some very nice charts throughout and there are a couple sections that I think are worthwhile to re-read as references.
The negatives are that 1) it was poorly written overall, especially in that most of the book consists of quoting others. 2) He gave too much credit to hyper-preterism and 3) There was very little detail when it came to the fleshing out of postmillennial doctrine. The book was mostly on preterism itself more than an eschatological system.
This one just didn't make the cut. He spent 0% of the book advocating his own view. Instead, the entire book was spent contrasting HYPER-preterism (HP) and partial preterism (PP). His main sources seem to be James Stuart Russell (full-preterist) and Kenneth Gentry (partial preterist). He gave way too much credibility to full preterism throughout the book and never fully denounced it as heresy. He did reference it as having "fatal flaws."
What I want from having read now more than 5 books on postmillennialism and clear and emphatic sources of which texts are actually future. This text in contrasting PP with HP should have provided these with great clarity. He did mention 1 Cor 15 as well as the resurrection language found in both Thessalonian epistles, but none other than that. Simply, there must be more to The Day than the "leftover" texts that mention resurrection. Most PPs take Daniel 12 to be 70 AD as well -- which deals with resurrection as much as any.
The positives are that he provided some very nice charts throughout and there are a couple sections that I think are worthwhile to re-read as references.
The negatives are that 1) it was poorly written overall, especially in that most of the book consists of quoting others. 2) He gave too much credit to hyper-preterism and 3) There was very little detail when it came to the fleshing out of postmillennial doctrine. The book was mostly on preterism itself more than an eschatological system.
December 6, 2023
I read this book to counter a lot of bad theology that I have to listen to, and it was helpful in exactly that way. It's not a deep or profound enough book to be a 5/5, but I enjoyed it nonetheless.
July 14, 2021
If a person is going to seriously consider postmillennialism, he must also consider preterism, because it’s the only way to make sense of postmil claims. Since so many New Testament passages seem to predict such dire and cataclysmic conditions in the future, the hopeful and optimistic expectations of a postmil eschatology will not be convincing unless we reconsider what those NT predictions really mean. The view called “preterism” claims that many passages that are commonly understood as referring to the distant future have actually been fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem back in AD 70. What we thought was future is actually past. This is a total game changer if it’s true.
Personally I find the preterist interpretation of the Olivet discourse (ch.1) to be pretty convincing. Most helpful is that it avoids a tortured and twisted interpretation of the phrase “this generation” used by Jesus in Mat. 24:34. How could “this generation” actually mean “that generation”? (ch. 2.) Preterism would also seem to answer biblical critics who dismiss the reliability of the Bible because of the many passages that seem to predict imminent events that did not happen. Were Jesus and Paul wrong, or were their predictions actually fulfilled in a different way than we have been expecting?
But preterism opens a can of worms for all of the other NT texts that talk about the end of the age. Which of these are future, and which of these are past? It becomes very difficult to discern. (Some more direction from Sproul on this would have been helpful.) And if you push it too far, you can wind up in “full preterism” (ch. 7), which is contrary to historic Christian creeds and rightfully considered heresy.
My critique of the book is that it is written more like a seminary research paper than a book, and because Sproul relies so heavily on the writings of J. Stuart Russell, who is quoted abundantly (and who was a full preterist!). I am thankful to be introduced to these ideas, but honestly I am unsure about how much of preterism should be embraced. Thankfully, even Sproul himself admits that he was “still unsettled on some crucial matters” (p.158). If the mighty RC Sproul is unclear on these things, I guess it’s OK if I am too.
Personally I find the preterist interpretation of the Olivet discourse (ch.1) to be pretty convincing. Most helpful is that it avoids a tortured and twisted interpretation of the phrase “this generation” used by Jesus in Mat. 24:34. How could “this generation” actually mean “that generation”? (ch. 2.) Preterism would also seem to answer biblical critics who dismiss the reliability of the Bible because of the many passages that seem to predict imminent events that did not happen. Were Jesus and Paul wrong, or were their predictions actually fulfilled in a different way than we have been expecting?
But preterism opens a can of worms for all of the other NT texts that talk about the end of the age. Which of these are future, and which of these are past? It becomes very difficult to discern. (Some more direction from Sproul on this would have been helpful.) And if you push it too far, you can wind up in “full preterism” (ch. 7), which is contrary to historic Christian creeds and rightfully considered heresy.
My critique of the book is that it is written more like a seminary research paper than a book, and because Sproul relies so heavily on the writings of J. Stuart Russell, who is quoted abundantly (and who was a full preterist!). I am thankful to be introduced to these ideas, but honestly I am unsure about how much of preterism should be embraced. Thankfully, even Sproul himself admits that he was “still unsettled on some crucial matters” (p.158). If the mighty RC Sproul is unclear on these things, I guess it’s OK if I am too.
January 18, 2008
I subscribed to Table Talk (Sproul's magazine) for 10 years. I have read most of his books. This is the only one of his I would not give 4 or 5-stars.
Its not so much that I disagree with his conversion to postmillenialism and moderate preterism (though I do). It is more the lack of balance. He is usually pretty fair to his opponents, but not here. He quotes a very strident postmillennialist for his description of all four views! Then he has a chart where he classified Calvin and Augustine as postmil.!! Nobody credible does that. Maybe he could make a case for this, but being that it is an extreme minority judgment, he should at least try to justify it.
Very sad. The ONLY book of Sproul's I would not recommend to others. His concerns seem to be apologetic -- how can we hold to the authority of Matt. 24 unless we say that Jesus DID return in some sense in 70AD? But in his zeal he seems to discard his usual precision and balance.
Its not so much that I disagree with his conversion to postmillenialism and moderate preterism (though I do). It is more the lack of balance. He is usually pretty fair to his opponents, but not here. He quotes a very strident postmillennialist for his description of all four views! Then he has a chart where he classified Calvin and Augustine as postmil.!! Nobody credible does that. Maybe he could make a case for this, but being that it is an extreme minority judgment, he should at least try to justify it.
Very sad. The ONLY book of Sproul's I would not recommend to others. His concerns seem to be apologetic -- how can we hold to the authority of Matt. 24 unless we say that Jesus DID return in some sense in 70AD? But in his zeal he seems to discard his usual precision and balance.
May 2, 2024
Dr. Sproul does a decent job at introducing partial preterism as a solid biblical option to the larger Christian audience. I wish he was more clear at times to what he actually held to personally, but overall it was a good introduction to many of the eschatological issues.
October 21, 2011
Jesus is in danger of being charged as a false prophet. His Olivet Discourse teachings have come under attack from critics and skeptics who recognize the predictive nature of his prophecies and that all of the details never came to pass during the events surrounding the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. This is the approach that R. C. Sproul takes to introduce what Jesus taught in his discourse with the disciples as they looked out over the temple.
Sproul’s work is a valuable presentation which argues for a partial preterist position. He presents a brief assessment of Jesus’ Olivet Discourse by critics who challenge the veracity of the Scripture. These are critics whom Sproul studied under and who challenged his faith in the teachings of Jesus. The Last Days According to Jesus is greatly a response to those critical challenges of Jesus’ words.
However, it is not only a response to critical skepticism, but also a summary of the full preterist position and the partial (or moderate) preterist’s answer to the problems that arise from the former view. After introducing the reader to the quest for the historical Jesus and a brief history of 19th century Preterism, Sproul launches into a summary of Jesus teaching on the Mount of Olives along with a discussion of the “generation” that would see Jesus’ return. Sproul surveys the teaching regarding the end times throughout Pauline writings and also in the book of Revelation, but places a heavy emphasis on the destruction of Jerusalem and the events which surrounded this pivotal event of the first century.
The first half of Sproul’s work serves mostly as a survey and analysis of New Testament teaching from a Preterist position. However, it seems unclear until around chapter seven what position Sproul actually takes. Much confusion enters into play with his introduction which discusses the skepticism of Bertrand Russell which he continues to refer to as just “Russell” through the rest of the introduction. He discusses Bultmann and Schweitzer and then introduces James Stewart Russell in his discussion of Preterism whom he also continues to refer to as “Russell”, but fails to distinguish the two Russell’s in a clear manner. Until one realizes that two men are being discussed, the casual reader will have a hard time seeing the connection (or lack thereof) between critical skepticism and preterist thought.
As Sproul continues his argument, it remains unclear what position he is arguing for. The first half of his book focuses greatly on the teachings of J. S. Russell, but Sproul makes very few statements to explain his own position regarding Preterism. In chapter seven, he finally introduces the question regarding when the resurrection takes place and differentiates between full Preterism and moderate/partial Preterism. Finally, he states, “The central issue is this: What events prophesied in the Bible are as yet unfulfilled.” In his discussion of the resurrection, great emphasis is placed on the importance of a bodily resurrection, versus the full Preterist position that the resurrection was spiritual in nature.
In chapter eight, Sproul deals with questions regarding the Antichrist and then in chapter nine, surveys different eschatological views on the timing of the Millennium. Of all that Sproul writes in The Last Days According to Jesus, his greatest contribution is his survey of millennial views and his discussion of how Preterism fits within that wider context.
As a whole, The Last Days According to Jesus presents a sufficient summary of the Preterist position and it does clearly portray the arguments of the partial Preterist position which make it more appealing and biblically sound than the full Preterist argument. But beyond this, Sproul’s book serves not much more than a survey of the issues and a comparison of the views.
A great portion of the book is consumed with quotations from others who have already written regarding the subject and most often it seems that Sproul has little more to offer or say regarding what has already been said. In particular, James Stuart Russell and Kenneth Gentry, both strong advocates of Preterist positions, receive a great deal of attention and space in Sproul’s volume on what Jesus taught about the last days. The thought that this reader often had was that The Last Days According to Jesus is more of a survey and summary of R. C. Sproul’s studies of other people’s studies which is being bundled together for the benefit of those who normally like to hear what he has studied. The book flows more like a lecture regarding what the author has learned recently and wants his congregation to be able to share in than an argument for the Preterist position or a case for what Jesus taught about the last days.
The Last Days According to Jesus serves as a passable summary of the issues taking place within the Preterist debate, but even at that, the organization of the book will be confusing for the average reader. If one wants to study and compare the Preterist position with other views or just to study what Jesus said about the last days according to a Preterist, it would be a better use of one’s time and energy to invest in other treatises on the subject, likely one which Sproul has quoted extensively to express his own position.
Sproul’s work is a valuable presentation which argues for a partial preterist position. He presents a brief assessment of Jesus’ Olivet Discourse by critics who challenge the veracity of the Scripture. These are critics whom Sproul studied under and who challenged his faith in the teachings of Jesus. The Last Days According to Jesus is greatly a response to those critical challenges of Jesus’ words.
However, it is not only a response to critical skepticism, but also a summary of the full preterist position and the partial (or moderate) preterist’s answer to the problems that arise from the former view. After introducing the reader to the quest for the historical Jesus and a brief history of 19th century Preterism, Sproul launches into a summary of Jesus teaching on the Mount of Olives along with a discussion of the “generation” that would see Jesus’ return. Sproul surveys the teaching regarding the end times throughout Pauline writings and also in the book of Revelation, but places a heavy emphasis on the destruction of Jerusalem and the events which surrounded this pivotal event of the first century.
The first half of Sproul’s work serves mostly as a survey and analysis of New Testament teaching from a Preterist position. However, it seems unclear until around chapter seven what position Sproul actually takes. Much confusion enters into play with his introduction which discusses the skepticism of Bertrand Russell which he continues to refer to as just “Russell” through the rest of the introduction. He discusses Bultmann and Schweitzer and then introduces James Stewart Russell in his discussion of Preterism whom he also continues to refer to as “Russell”, but fails to distinguish the two Russell’s in a clear manner. Until one realizes that two men are being discussed, the casual reader will have a hard time seeing the connection (or lack thereof) between critical skepticism and preterist thought.
As Sproul continues his argument, it remains unclear what position he is arguing for. The first half of his book focuses greatly on the teachings of J. S. Russell, but Sproul makes very few statements to explain his own position regarding Preterism. In chapter seven, he finally introduces the question regarding when the resurrection takes place and differentiates between full Preterism and moderate/partial Preterism. Finally, he states, “The central issue is this: What events prophesied in the Bible are as yet unfulfilled.” In his discussion of the resurrection, great emphasis is placed on the importance of a bodily resurrection, versus the full Preterist position that the resurrection was spiritual in nature.
In chapter eight, Sproul deals with questions regarding the Antichrist and then in chapter nine, surveys different eschatological views on the timing of the Millennium. Of all that Sproul writes in The Last Days According to Jesus, his greatest contribution is his survey of millennial views and his discussion of how Preterism fits within that wider context.
As a whole, The Last Days According to Jesus presents a sufficient summary of the Preterist position and it does clearly portray the arguments of the partial Preterist position which make it more appealing and biblically sound than the full Preterist argument. But beyond this, Sproul’s book serves not much more than a survey of the issues and a comparison of the views.
A great portion of the book is consumed with quotations from others who have already written regarding the subject and most often it seems that Sproul has little more to offer or say regarding what has already been said. In particular, James Stuart Russell and Kenneth Gentry, both strong advocates of Preterist positions, receive a great deal of attention and space in Sproul’s volume on what Jesus taught about the last days. The thought that this reader often had was that The Last Days According to Jesus is more of a survey and summary of R. C. Sproul’s studies of other people’s studies which is being bundled together for the benefit of those who normally like to hear what he has studied. The book flows more like a lecture regarding what the author has learned recently and wants his congregation to be able to share in than an argument for the Preterist position or a case for what Jesus taught about the last days.
The Last Days According to Jesus serves as a passable summary of the issues taking place within the Preterist debate, but even at that, the organization of the book will be confusing for the average reader. If one wants to study and compare the Preterist position with other views or just to study what Jesus said about the last days according to a Preterist, it would be a better use of one’s time and energy to invest in other treatises on the subject, likely one which Sproul has quoted extensively to express his own position.
January 12, 2016
Summary: R.C. Sproul takes on the time-frame issues of the New Testament that seem to reflect an expectation of an imminent return of Christ and gives serious consideration to the preterist position that all or most of the predictions concerning the Last Days were fulfilled by the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
Understanding the "Last Days" predictions made in the gospels by Jesus as well as in the epistles and in the Revelation to John is among the most challenging areas of Bible study for most Christians. Furthermore, skeptical scholars take the statements of Jesus and others about the nearness of his return at face value and contend that on this, Jesus and the New Testament writers were mistaken.
In this work, R. C. Sproul takes on this question and challenges both the skeptics and those who believe most of the Last Days prophecies concern the future by considering the work of J. Stuart Russell and Kenneth L. Gentry, preterist scholars. In fact, he gives these scholars such consideration that I thought at one point that he was going to announce that he had adopted their position, which would mean arguing that the rapture of the church, the resurrection of the dead and the return of Christ all occurred in the events of 70 AD, which requires spiritualizing these events. Sproul does not, but he does take up the cause of moderate preterism in arguing that much of what Jesus predicted in the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24 and parallels) was fulfilled with the fall of Jerusalem. He also seems to endorse Gentry's contentions that Revelation was written prior to 70 AD, a view that even most evangelical scholars would not accept.
What weighs heavily for Sproul are the time frame references that say such things as "Behold, I come quickly" or "the time is near". These make the most sense if one takes at least a moderate preterist view. He, at the same time, refuses to take a full preterist view because he cannot accept the "spiritualized" versions of the rapture of the church, the resurrection and a return of Christ that was hidden, all of which go against the biblical evidence.
The last two chapters take on other questions often of concern in Last Days discussions. One is the identity of the Antichrist and the other concerns the different millenial views. Sproul does propose an identification for the Antichrist while not, in this volume, identifying his millenial views.
I particularly appreciated Sproul's careful study of Matthew 24, to which he devotes several chapters. His study of both the epistles and Revelation seemed a bit more cursory but still dealt with the relevant texts. I felt he didn't seriously engage the scholarship that argues for a later date for Revelation.
It did seem to me a curious choice that he devoted so much of the book to the views of Russell, a nineteenth century scholar who would not be familiar to most. Much of this had to do with his serious consideration of the preterist view for which Russell argued, perhaps at the very time when dispensationalism was gaining its initial head of steam.
What I think of greatest value in this book is Sproul's serious consideration of the time-frame references of Jesus and also his arguments that we must understand much of the "last days" fulfillment to have occurred with the fall of the temple and of Jerusalem. Sproul also provides very clear explanations of the various millenial positions and the model of a scholar who takes the Bible seriously as the final authority in these discussions. Whether you agree with Sproul's moderate preterism or not, you might, as did I, find that Sproul gives you some new things to consider.
_____________________________________
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255 : “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”
Understanding the "Last Days" predictions made in the gospels by Jesus as well as in the epistles and in the Revelation to John is among the most challenging areas of Bible study for most Christians. Furthermore, skeptical scholars take the statements of Jesus and others about the nearness of his return at face value and contend that on this, Jesus and the New Testament writers were mistaken.
In this work, R. C. Sproul takes on this question and challenges both the skeptics and those who believe most of the Last Days prophecies concern the future by considering the work of J. Stuart Russell and Kenneth L. Gentry, preterist scholars. In fact, he gives these scholars such consideration that I thought at one point that he was going to announce that he had adopted their position, which would mean arguing that the rapture of the church, the resurrection of the dead and the return of Christ all occurred in the events of 70 AD, which requires spiritualizing these events. Sproul does not, but he does take up the cause of moderate preterism in arguing that much of what Jesus predicted in the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24 and parallels) was fulfilled with the fall of Jerusalem. He also seems to endorse Gentry's contentions that Revelation was written prior to 70 AD, a view that even most evangelical scholars would not accept.
What weighs heavily for Sproul are the time frame references that say such things as "Behold, I come quickly" or "the time is near". These make the most sense if one takes at least a moderate preterist view. He, at the same time, refuses to take a full preterist view because he cannot accept the "spiritualized" versions of the rapture of the church, the resurrection and a return of Christ that was hidden, all of which go against the biblical evidence.
The last two chapters take on other questions often of concern in Last Days discussions. One is the identity of the Antichrist and the other concerns the different millenial views. Sproul does propose an identification for the Antichrist while not, in this volume, identifying his millenial views.
I particularly appreciated Sproul's careful study of Matthew 24, to which he devotes several chapters. His study of both the epistles and Revelation seemed a bit more cursory but still dealt with the relevant texts. I felt he didn't seriously engage the scholarship that argues for a later date for Revelation.
It did seem to me a curious choice that he devoted so much of the book to the views of Russell, a nineteenth century scholar who would not be familiar to most. Much of this had to do with his serious consideration of the preterist view for which Russell argued, perhaps at the very time when dispensationalism was gaining its initial head of steam.
What I think of greatest value in this book is Sproul's serious consideration of the time-frame references of Jesus and also his arguments that we must understand much of the "last days" fulfillment to have occurred with the fall of the temple and of Jerusalem. Sproul also provides very clear explanations of the various millenial positions and the model of a scholar who takes the Bible seriously as the final authority in these discussions. Whether you agree with Sproul's moderate preterism or not, you might, as did I, find that Sproul gives you some new things to consider.
_____________________________________
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255 : “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”
November 24, 2013
I disagree with his conclusions, but it's worth a read. The first half of the book is a commentary on the full preterist, J. Stuart Russell. This is more than a slightly dangerous move on Sproul's part, since Russell was a full preterism. Further, it raises the tension that Sproul seems to be picking and choosing which parts of Russell's work he deems acceptable. And that's one of my problems with partial preterism: it seems to want to avoid the logic of its position.
The second half of the book is a survey of recent eschatological positions, and is more or less okay. While I like his chart of "who's who" in modern eschatology, I think he cheats quite a bit. He labels Augustine and Calvin as postmillennialist, but this highly begs the question! Augustine was more likely an amillennialist if anything (of course, those terms are largely meaningless before recent centuries).
Conclusion:
As a partial preterist presentation, this book isn't bad. I like it better than Gentry and Demar's, anyway.
The second half of the book is a survey of recent eschatological positions, and is more or less okay. While I like his chart of "who's who" in modern eschatology, I think he cheats quite a bit. He labels Augustine and Calvin as postmillennialist, but this highly begs the question! Augustine was more likely an amillennialist if anything (of course, those terms are largely meaningless before recent centuries).
Conclusion:
As a partial preterist presentation, this book isn't bad. I like it better than Gentry and Demar's, anyway.
November 7, 2012
Helpful engagement with preterism in all it's varieties.
This is an important book. Sproul sees clearly that the authority of Scripture and the credibility of Jesus' person are at stake.
As it says on the back 'Sproul answers critics who claim Christ's teaching was 'defective''. And he does it well.
Chapter headings (to give a flavour)
1. What did Jesus teach on Mount Olivet?
2. What 'generation' will witness the end?
3. What 'age' was about to end?
4. What did Paul teach in his letters?
5. What about the destruction of Jerusalem?
6. What did John teach in Revelation?
7. When is the Resurrection?
8. Who is the Antichrist?
9. When is the Millennium?
This is an important book. Sproul sees clearly that the authority of Scripture and the credibility of Jesus' person are at stake.
As it says on the back 'Sproul answers critics who claim Christ's teaching was 'defective''. And he does it well.
Chapter headings (to give a flavour)
1. What did Jesus teach on Mount Olivet?
2. What 'generation' will witness the end?
3. What 'age' was about to end?
4. What did Paul teach in his letters?
5. What about the destruction of Jerusalem?
6. What did John teach in Revelation?
7. When is the Resurrection?
8. Who is the Antichrist?
9. When is the Millennium?
October 5, 2025
Hard to not like anything Sproul writes, but this was mostly a book about why full preterism is wrong (which it is). There was not much of an end times view taught or presented.
January 17, 2015
A worthy read though tedious at times, but that's the nature of what's being discussed here: sometimes a lot hangs on the translation or usage of a single word and R.C. Sproul turns these translation and usage questions over very thoroughly in this book. It will be good to continue reading books like this one though definitive answers about Revelation seem so elusive. Because I often couldn't tell which viewpoint Sproul was advocating, I did jot down the following, as it was as close as he came to a concrete telling of his views:
"I must confess that I am still unsettled on some crucial matters. I am convinced that the substance of the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled in A.D. 70 and that the bulk of Revelation was likewise fulfilled in that time frame" (158).
"I must confess that I am still unsettled on some crucial matters. I am convinced that the substance of the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled in A.D. 70 and that the bulk of Revelation was likewise fulfilled in that time frame" (158).
October 20, 2012
I'd say it isn't great, but it's good. It gives a nice overview of the biblical evidence for the partial preterist position, that some (but not all) New Testament prophecy isn't looking at what is (to us now) the future, but the past (specifically, the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70).
As previous reviews noted, it is largely just quotes of others, so it is more of a summary of the arguments for it than a comprehensive apologetic for the view. But, I think Sproul is right for the most part, and he does definitely give good evidence for his view, so it's worth checking out (although it probably won't be the best book on the topic you'll ever read).
As previous reviews noted, it is largely just quotes of others, so it is more of a summary of the arguments for it than a comprehensive apologetic for the view. But, I think Sproul is right for the most part, and he does definitely give good evidence for his view, so it's worth checking out (although it probably won't be the best book on the topic you'll ever read).
January 6, 2018
In “The Last Days According to Jesus” RC Sproul primarily examines the differences between radical preterism and partial preterism. In doing so he spends the majority of his time studying the Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21. His purpose is 2 fold. The first, is when will the eschatological prophecies occur? The second, what is the significance of the fall of Jerusalem in Jesus’ Olivet Discourse? Sproul does not spend much time engaging other eschatological schools of thought as that is not his purpose in this book. I would recommend this to be read among other books that attempt to interpret the Olivet Discourse and the book of Revelation.
August 17, 2021
Sproul was both engaging and educational as I had hoped. His handling of scripture was above reproach and I appreciated his honesty. I feel I have a much better handle on both schools of Preterism now.
Ironically I didn't know up front that it was an entire book dedicated to a fair critique of Preterism! I thought it would be his interpretation on the questions posed by the Disciples in the Olivet Discourse. I had read John MacArthur's take on it and I was excited to read Sproul's.
While it wasn't what I expected it was an excellent read.
Ironically I didn't know up front that it was an entire book dedicated to a fair critique of Preterism! I thought it would be his interpretation on the questions posed by the Disciples in the Olivet Discourse. I had read John MacArthur's take on it and I was excited to read Sproul's.
While it wasn't what I expected it was an excellent read.
November 12, 2011
This book was, and is a game changer. It opened my eyes to a whole new way of looking at prophetic passages in the Bible. It convinced me that I (and most of my generation) was looking at Bible prophecy with tunnel vision -- i.e., we were brainwashed by the predominant Dispensational views.
August 4, 2022
A good overview of preterism.
March 18, 2024
There's an old Jim Carey movie where he gets obsessed with the number 23. He discovers that that #23 is uncannily present in just about everything. The more he considers it, the more confounded he becomes. This goes on until he's consumed with it.
Last Days by Sproul makes me relate to Carey's character. I first read it when I was in my 20s. Sproul changed my mind. I was steeped in the dispensationalism so popular among Southern Baptists at the time. When the "Left Behind" books came out, it hit a fever pitch. It probably also ushered in some fatigue. Suddenly people were open to rethinking their eschatological convictions. I was among them. Enter RC Sproul with his "moderate preterism". Maybe some of the things Jesus was talking about already happened. Maybe the destruction of the Jewish Temple in AD70 was what Revelation had been describing. Sproul makes a convincing case, and so I was convinced. Where Sproul left me hanging was the chasm between his moderate preterism and full-blown, unbridled preterism. Full preterism posits that everything in the Bible has already happened. We're talking Great White Throne Judgment. Resurrection of the saints. Well, I don’t want to take it that far, but how do I know when to stop? This is where more work needs to be done. Until then, I'm a little uncomfortable in my eschatological views. I recently read through Last Days again. I thought maybe I'd missed something. Not really. Sproul left me with the same unsettling ellipses.
I don’t think I'm quite Jim Carey, but I definitely have more reading to do
Last Days by Sproul makes me relate to Carey's character. I first read it when I was in my 20s. Sproul changed my mind. I was steeped in the dispensationalism so popular among Southern Baptists at the time. When the "Left Behind" books came out, it hit a fever pitch. It probably also ushered in some fatigue. Suddenly people were open to rethinking their eschatological convictions. I was among them. Enter RC Sproul with his "moderate preterism". Maybe some of the things Jesus was talking about already happened. Maybe the destruction of the Jewish Temple in AD70 was what Revelation had been describing. Sproul makes a convincing case, and so I was convinced. Where Sproul left me hanging was the chasm between his moderate preterism and full-blown, unbridled preterism. Full preterism posits that everything in the Bible has already happened. We're talking Great White Throne Judgment. Resurrection of the saints. Well, I don’t want to take it that far, but how do I know when to stop? This is where more work needs to be done. Until then, I'm a little uncomfortable in my eschatological views. I recently read through Last Days again. I thought maybe I'd missed something. Not really. Sproul left me with the same unsettling ellipses.
I don’t think I'm quite Jim Carey, but I definitely have more reading to do
June 1, 2018
I reread this book after a discussion was sparked on New Years over who the Antichrist may be. This lead me to also pick up the Apocalypse Code by Hank Hanegraaf. Both Authors hold the partial preterist view which I understood in this book so much better after reading Hank’s book first. Sproul spends a lot of time going over all of the different views. I would have liked to read more about the partial preterist view in a bit more length. Nonetheless, I’ve come away with a better understanding and can say my feet are in the partial preterist camp. I’m anxious to read another book in my continued study of eschatology this year. This one took me way to long to read again, as life go the best of my free time. I did appreciate reading a book that Sproul wrote as he has recently passed away.
December 30, 2025
I'm a convinced partial preterist and have held a non-theonomic postmil position for many years, so appreciate a book that honestly handles the text as Sproul does. This is a good book to put in the hands of those wanting to understand Olivet and how we should understand the plight of Israel in the teaching of Jesus and the broader NT.
I have some reservations, though. This was written while Sproul was still developing his understanding and response to the heresy of hyper preterism. Combining this with its age and time of writing, it fails to adequately highlight or reply to the insidious and nuanced cancer of 'full Preterism'. Following this up with writing by Gentry, Mathison and Jason L Bradfield would help.
Really helpful, nevertheless.
I have some reservations, though. This was written while Sproul was still developing his understanding and response to the heresy of hyper preterism. Combining this with its age and time of writing, it fails to adequately highlight or reply to the insidious and nuanced cancer of 'full Preterism'. Following this up with writing by Gentry, Mathison and Jason L Bradfield would help.
Really helpful, nevertheless.
July 7, 2021
A great book for anyone who wants to start learning about eschatology! Sproul begins with going over futurist, full-preterist, and partial-preterist views; and ultimately leads up to how each position would interpret the millennium in Revelation 20. It’s a much better approach than most, who simply state how they view the millennium, since it provides a more consistent eschatological approach for each position in the long run.
June 30, 2025
inspiring story
This is an amazing true story of death & Heaven. The struggle for him was real and his experience shows us everyone can become discouraged but God is bigger than our fear, anxiety & discouragement.
This is an amazing true story of death & Heaven. The struggle for him was real and his experience shows us everyone can become discouraged but God is bigger than our fear, anxiety & discouragement.
August 1, 2021
Sproul is always wonderfully accessible, regardless of the subject he chooses to tackle. Time to go dig into some Gentry.
May 25, 2023
A must read for any lover of theology and studied of eschatology.
July 31, 2024
READ THIS
November 4, 2017
This book is primarily an exploration and defense of preteristic eschatological interpretation. Although this is written for a general audience, it is definitely an academic work. Sproul does not spend a lot of time explaining background principles of hermeneutics or Christian theology. He also avoids making many emphatic statements, preferring instead to present an argument and let the reader draw conclusions.
Sproul’s stated purpose in this book is to evaluate the time-frame claims of Christ in the Olivet Discourse, his famed prophecy regarding the coming “Day of the Lord.” As Sproul points out, many biblical critics have found cause for dismissing Christ and the Bible as a fraud based on these assertions. The preterist defends the validity of Scripture by holding that all or most of the prophetic eschatological claims in the New Testament were fulfilled by the destruction of Jerusalem.
The first half of this book evaluates the time-frame claims of Jesus and Paul, relying heavily on the works of James Russell. Sproul argues convincingly that vast portions of this prophecy was fulfilled by the destruction of Jerusalem.
As part of this discussion, Sproul summarized the history of the Jewish nation from Alexander through AD 70, drawing upon Josephus and Tacitus to describe how Jerusalem came to be destroyed.
The latter portion of the book has an expanded scope, drawing heavily on the work of Kenneth Gentry among others to evaluate four specific eschatological topics.
A key objection to preterism is dating Revelation to after the fall of Jerusalem. Drawing upon the writings of early Church fathers, especially Clement and Iraneus, Sproul makes a strong case for the writing of Revelation during the reign of Nero, most likely before AD 67.
The last three chapters explore the differences between full and partial preterism by evaluating the nature of the resurrection, the identity of the antichrist, and the timing of the millennium.
This book is not a comprehensive teaching of eschatology but does serve as a useful introduction to the core arguments for preterism. Unlike many similar works, Sproul makes few strong claims, instead presenting the evidence and letting the reader draw conclusions. Much of this book relies heavily on the works of James Russell and Kenneth Gentry, and thus is much more of a summary of existing academic work than a novel work in its self.
If you are looking for an exhaustive work on eschatology or a thorough commentary on the prophecies of the New Testament, this is not the book for you. However, if you have a basic knowledge of theology and Scripture and want to explore the preterist viewpoint, you should read this book.
Sproul’s stated purpose in this book is to evaluate the time-frame claims of Christ in the Olivet Discourse, his famed prophecy regarding the coming “Day of the Lord.” As Sproul points out, many biblical critics have found cause for dismissing Christ and the Bible as a fraud based on these assertions. The preterist defends the validity of Scripture by holding that all or most of the prophetic eschatological claims in the New Testament were fulfilled by the destruction of Jerusalem.
The first half of this book evaluates the time-frame claims of Jesus and Paul, relying heavily on the works of James Russell. Sproul argues convincingly that vast portions of this prophecy was fulfilled by the destruction of Jerusalem.
As part of this discussion, Sproul summarized the history of the Jewish nation from Alexander through AD 70, drawing upon Josephus and Tacitus to describe how Jerusalem came to be destroyed.
The latter portion of the book has an expanded scope, drawing heavily on the work of Kenneth Gentry among others to evaluate four specific eschatological topics.
A key objection to preterism is dating Revelation to after the fall of Jerusalem. Drawing upon the writings of early Church fathers, especially Clement and Iraneus, Sproul makes a strong case for the writing of Revelation during the reign of Nero, most likely before AD 67.
The last three chapters explore the differences between full and partial preterism by evaluating the nature of the resurrection, the identity of the antichrist, and the timing of the millennium.
This book is not a comprehensive teaching of eschatology but does serve as a useful introduction to the core arguments for preterism. Unlike many similar works, Sproul makes few strong claims, instead presenting the evidence and letting the reader draw conclusions. Much of this book relies heavily on the works of James Russell and Kenneth Gentry, and thus is much more of a summary of existing academic work than a novel work in its self.
If you are looking for an exhaustive work on eschatology or a thorough commentary on the prophecies of the New Testament, this is not the book for you. However, if you have a basic knowledge of theology and Scripture and want to explore the preterist viewpoint, you should read this book.
November 11, 2015
Sproul, R. C., The Last Days according to Jesus: When Did Jesus Say He Would Return? Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2015.
One of the most controversial topics among scholars and Christians in general is the day of the second coming of the Lord. There are many questions regarding this topic and one needs to go deep into the Bible in order to obtain some clues and provide conclusions for the many questions this topic arises. It is alarming the amount of writers who go beyond the Bible and present clear speculations and final answers to these questions.
This is not the case with this book. Sproul, a renowned Reformed expositor, does not engage in personal speculations in order to feed personal anxieties regarding the second coming of the Lord. Instead, he provides a very thorough study of biblical passages that are related to this topic. He explores the description that the Bible provides for events and characters related to the end of the days. The discourse on Mount Olivet, the figure of the Antichrist, the book of Revelation, and many other topics are covered by Sproul in this book.
The book is written in a professional and scholar fashion. The author crumbles the passages and presents biblical answers for all the questions that every passage arises. He barely presents his own arguments or points of view, which would result in biased readers.
If you are a serious student looking for a book on the topic of eschatology, then this book is for you. If you are looking for a book that engages in clear identifications of eschatological figures or events, then you will most likely have a very hard time navigating through this book.
This book is worthy of the price; very accessible.
I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255.
http://bakerpublishinggroup.com/books...
One of the most controversial topics among scholars and Christians in general is the day of the second coming of the Lord. There are many questions regarding this topic and one needs to go deep into the Bible in order to obtain some clues and provide conclusions for the many questions this topic arises. It is alarming the amount of writers who go beyond the Bible and present clear speculations and final answers to these questions.
This is not the case with this book. Sproul, a renowned Reformed expositor, does not engage in personal speculations in order to feed personal anxieties regarding the second coming of the Lord. Instead, he provides a very thorough study of biblical passages that are related to this topic. He explores the description that the Bible provides for events and characters related to the end of the days. The discourse on Mount Olivet, the figure of the Antichrist, the book of Revelation, and many other topics are covered by Sproul in this book.
The book is written in a professional and scholar fashion. The author crumbles the passages and presents biblical answers for all the questions that every passage arises. He barely presents his own arguments or points of view, which would result in biased readers.
If you are a serious student looking for a book on the topic of eschatology, then this book is for you. If you are looking for a book that engages in clear identifications of eschatological figures or events, then you will most likely have a very hard time navigating through this book.
This book is worthy of the price; very accessible.
I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255.
http://bakerpublishinggroup.com/books...
November 1, 2015
The world is a crazy place. You don't have to look around very far to see the evidence of that. There are wars and rumors of wars, famines and diseases- many signs of what the bible says will be going on when the Lord returns. There are days I sincerely pray, "Come soon, Lord Jesus." There are also plenty of people gaining fame and fortune for interpreting bible prophecies to mean that the End of Days are imminent. Blood moons, Jewish holidays and political situations- all portends of the last days. I like to be informed of current events and how they pertain to biblical prophecy but sometimes it can just get depressing and confusing. There are a lot of opinions out there and a lot of times they are contradictory and most often proven wrong. It was refreshing to pick up a book about the last days straight from the original Author's perspective.
The Last Days According to Jesus by R.C. Sproul was an enlightening and even encouraging read. I appreciated how Sproul took all the major bible passages and broke them down while analyzing them along side some of the top end times views. He looks at the Mount Olivet teaching, letters from Paul and John, Revelation, the resurrection, the new millennium and the antichrist. He also expounds on Jesus' meaning of "generation," "ages," and other commonly used but hard to decipher phrases. I am in no way a theologian, just a mom who loves to read and has a hunger to understand Jesus' teaching more. I can't say I fully agree with all of the opinions in this book and I don't necessarily think it's possible to know we have 100% correctly deciphered each bible prophecy. I do think it is each individual's responsibility to do their due diligence to decide on their own views on eschatology.
I recieved this book for free in exchange for my honest opinion
December 30, 2015
I'm a bit torn in rating this. It wasn't a 5/5, but it wasn't a 4 either. 4.5 seems fair, but I wanted to give Sproul a little bit better benefit here after being so fair and clear in his explanations of the various eschatological camps and their distinctive views therein. Obviously, he leans toward partial Preterism, as do I, although he tends to reject the weightier matters of full Preterism quicker than I want to dismiss them. I've always admired Mr. Sproul, from his first book that I read (Chosen By God) to all the myriad podcasts and teachings of his I've listened to, and this book only adds to that respect and admiration.
Last Days According to Jesus was full of terrific quotes from reputable theologians and authors, but maybe at times relied too heavily on those quotes in order to present a stance or move a topic forward. I realize it's a difficult declaration to make, that you believe wholeheartedly with someone who purported that Christ's parousia happened in AD 70, that 666 was Nero, that Yeshua came in judgment on Israel, etc, etc-- especially when it's not the popular belief system of much of the Church. But I think it would've done R.C. well to proclaim-- document officially-- some sort of stance on each of the arguments he broached. It makes sense if he simply doesn't quite know yet... that's totally fine. I've been there. But I would've liked to have read that somewhere in there. It's completely okay for even the most brilliant of biblical minds to still be grappling with difficult spiritual matters. Everybody does.
Anyway, very very solid work by Sproul. I recommend it, especially to the particularly scholarly types. They'll get a kick out of his authorship and techniques. :) Good stuff!
Last Days According to Jesus was full of terrific quotes from reputable theologians and authors, but maybe at times relied too heavily on those quotes in order to present a stance or move a topic forward. I realize it's a difficult declaration to make, that you believe wholeheartedly with someone who purported that Christ's parousia happened in AD 70, that 666 was Nero, that Yeshua came in judgment on Israel, etc, etc-- especially when it's not the popular belief system of much of the Church. But I think it would've done R.C. well to proclaim-- document officially-- some sort of stance on each of the arguments he broached. It makes sense if he simply doesn't quite know yet... that's totally fine. I've been there. But I would've liked to have read that somewhere in there. It's completely okay for even the most brilliant of biblical minds to still be grappling with difficult spiritual matters. Everybody does.
Anyway, very very solid work by Sproul. I recommend it, especially to the particularly scholarly types. They'll get a kick out of his authorship and techniques. :) Good stuff!
April 1, 2016
I have read a few of R. C. Sproul's books, and this is my least favorite so far. He usually writes in a very readable manner - I will often finish a chapter of his after a seemingly short amount of time - but this book was not so. Almost tedious in places because (as other reviewers have stated) he spends more time quoting other commentators and theologians than actually telling us what he believes.
Sproul is a partial preterist - specifically, he believes that the events of the Olivet Discourse were fullfilled in A.D. 70 when Rome sacked Jerusalem. But he is a partial preterist, so other events, such as the Judgment, the Resurrection, and the Second Coming of Christ have yet to happen. The fall of Jerusalem, in this view, is a coming in judgment - not to be confused with Christ's final coming.
Others who are radical preterists (or "consistent" preterists they would prefer to be called) look at all prophetic events in the New Testament as having been fulfilled - which means things like the resurrection and the judgment of all people have to be spiritualized in some fashion.
This book is a good primer on this subject of preterism. As such, James Stuart Russell and Josephus are copiously cited. But Sproul will leave the reader with more questions than answers. For instance: if the Antichrist is the Man of Lawlessness, is the Beast, is Nero, then how did Jesus destroy Nero with the "brightness of his coming?" Is there only one "Day of the Lord" or many? We are not told.
So, the book was "okay" - apart from slogging through a lot of quoted material and wrestling with multitudes of unanswered questions, I did find that Sproul gave a very convincing argument that the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled in A.D. 70.
Sproul is a partial preterist - specifically, he believes that the events of the Olivet Discourse were fullfilled in A.D. 70 when Rome sacked Jerusalem. But he is a partial preterist, so other events, such as the Judgment, the Resurrection, and the Second Coming of Christ have yet to happen. The fall of Jerusalem, in this view, is a coming in judgment - not to be confused with Christ's final coming.
Others who are radical preterists (or "consistent" preterists they would prefer to be called) look at all prophetic events in the New Testament as having been fulfilled - which means things like the resurrection and the judgment of all people have to be spiritualized in some fashion.
This book is a good primer on this subject of preterism. As such, James Stuart Russell and Josephus are copiously cited. But Sproul will leave the reader with more questions than answers. For instance: if the Antichrist is the Man of Lawlessness, is the Beast, is Nero, then how did Jesus destroy Nero with the "brightness of his coming?" Is there only one "Day of the Lord" or many? We are not told.
So, the book was "okay" - apart from slogging through a lot of quoted material and wrestling with multitudes of unanswered questions, I did find that Sproul gave a very convincing argument that the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled in A.D. 70.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 138 reviews