Product Description

"Most of what you've heard, read or been told about the End Times is wrong," says popular radio host and bestselling apologist, Hank Hanegraaff. "We have come to accept a wide range of beliefs and teachings about the future, about the ultimate battle between good and evil, about the last days, and about how our world will end. And most of these beliefs and teachings are based on fundamental misinterpretations of what the scriptures really say about the end times."

The Apocalypse Code helps readers understand what the Bible really says about End Times, and why what we believe matters so much in today's world.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #45806 in Books
• Published on: 2007-04-17
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Hardcover
• 336 pages

Customer Reviews

A Purposeful Attack on Dispensational Sensationalism
For the past five years, I've appreciated how much Hank has taught me in the areas of theology, the Bible, and differences between orthodoxy and non-orthodoxy. In the first 17 years while on the radio, Hank hesitated to articulate his views on eschatology while he was in careful study of the subject. In the last 3 years, Hank has worked diligently on The Apocalypse Code and has shared different aspects of his eschatological views on his radio shows with well-informed experts in the areas of Christian Zionism and the Book of Revelation and Dispensationalism. Hank realizes that the debate over eschatology is really founded in a debate over hermeneutics; the art and science of Biblical interpretation. Hank wisely explains his hermeneutic first before sharing his views on eschatology. The main benefit to the reader is to learn a Bible study method that has obviously produced great results for Hank in the understanding the entire Bible.

I will offer my evaluation in the various subtopics that are presented in The Apocalypse Code(abbreviated TAC)

Bible Interpretation--- TAC teaches the Bible student how to notice literary genre and literary devices such as metaphor, simile and hyperbole. In his customary way, Hank uses acronyms to teach the precepts. The point is not whether we take a text literally or spiritually, but rather that OT types and shadows ultimately become NT realities because of Christ.

Critique of the Bible Prophesy Movement--- TAC does not endorse the "Bible Prophesy Sequence" that was developed in the late 1800s and made popular in the 20th century. The futurist view of the book of Revelation has enjoyed much popularity in the 20th century mainly due to the efforts of authors who have marketed sensational books on Bible prophesy. TAC points out the problem of "second chance salvation" in the proposed 7-year tribulation.

Israel--- Since we cannot go back to the types and shadows of the OT it is unlikely that 1948 Israel has a connection to Christianity today. TAC trains the reader to view Israel both as a "people" under the Old Covenants as well as seeing that not all Israel was the True Israel, the believing remnant, that continues on as God's people along with gentiles. TAC helps the reader see that the separation is not between Israel and the Church but within Israel itself; that is, Covenant Israel made up of mostly Jews and a few Gentiles and the True Israel, the future- focused believers in Jesus.

Christian Zionism--- TAC holds that the work of Christian Zionists can be politically dangerous. The view that 2/3 of the Jews returning to the land(according to Zech. 13:8) will be killed by the coming 7 year holocaust tribulation is chilling. Hank advocates a two-state solution in modern Israel. The chapter on Christian Zionism is a complete and excellent treatment with contributions from fine scholars.

Future 7-year tribulation--- The Dispensational Interpretation of Daniel's 70-week prophesy which suggests a necessary gap called "The Church Age" after the 69th week is shown to be questionable. A footnote in the back of the book explains how difficult this text really is and how one should not use it as an indispensable part of one's eschatology.

Pre-Tribulational Rapture---. If a Future 7-Year tribulation period is not really taught in its one and only text, Daniel 9, the Pre-Trib Rapture view is hardly possible. Rather than linking the rapture to a tribulation period, TAC links the rapture with the glorious resurrection- a most significant doctrine in Christianity! TAC demonstrates that Darby invented and popularized the Pre-Trib rapture. The invention was necessitated by Darby's "Two-people-of God view". That is, the "program" for "the church" transitions to heavenly purposes at the rapture thus clearing the way for a separate "program" for "National Israel" to be initiated at the rapture and during the final 7-year period.

The Millennium--- TAC disagrees with the popular view, which teaches that Christ returns after a 7-year tribulation to establish a semi-golden age where people can be saved after the Second Coming. Then, at the end of Christ's rule from Jerusalem, there is a satanic rebellion which is ended by a "fire rescue" from heaven (Rev. 20:7-9). OT passages such as Isaiah 11:6-9 are not intended to be imported into a "millennium". It should be noted that texts in the OT that speak of "paradise restored" qualities such as peace and prosperity are consummated in Rev 21 rather than in Rev 20.
Apparently TAC holds that Rev. 20 does not necessarily follow in chronological sequence after Rev. 19 which pictures the return of Christ. Hank uses John 5:28-29 to show that there is one general resurrection, not two resurrections separated by 1000 years. Hank parallels Rev. 20:4 with Rev. 2:10 noting that the church is exhorted to be faithful for 10 days, even to the point of death, which brings vindication for a 1000 years. That is, suffering will be "short" but the vindication of the saints will be forever. In the footnotes on page 256 there is a further explanation of the "1000 years" of Rev. 20:1-7.

144,000(Rev. 7) -Is true Israel sealed from every tribe, language and people called out by God who will forever inherit the New Paradise.

Date of Revelation- TAC holds to the early date of composition prior to AD 70 which represents the minority view among scholars. Not all early date advocates are Preterists, though.

Partial Preterism - TAC departs from preterism in that it does not always suggest a first century referent for the apocalyptic language of Revelation. Even though some of the interpretations in TAC resemble the partial preterist view, Hank has stated that he does not consider himself to be a partial preterist.
Modern commentators such as Smalley(2005), Osborne(2002), D.E. Johnson((2001), and Beale(1999) offer criticisms towards the limitations of the preterist-only approach. Today's exegetical commentaries on Revelation place the visions in the period between the First and Second comings of Christ using a blend of idealism, preterism, and futurism. Rather than seeing the visions in sequence, they are viewed instead as recapitulations which view the scenes from different "camera angles". Today's commentaries do not depend on either an early- date composition or a late-date composition.

Prophetic Fulfillment- TAC notes that the biblical prophets associated promises of eternal peace, redemption, and judgment with near future events. The near fulfillment thus validates the message of the prophets and points ultimately to a consummation in the far future. Terms of nearness used in Rev. 1:1,19, 4:1,22:6 relate to a near future apocalypse that is "looming on the horizon". These events and signs are inaugurated in near fulfillment, which eventually are consummated in the eschaton. This pattern also relates to the word "coming" as in Rev. 1:7 which also can have inaugurated and consummated fulfillments. (Some call this the tension between the "already and the not yet").

My recommendations about TAC are mixed:
1. For those who have studied eschatology, TAC falls short of an expectation of being a primer on eschatology. On the other hand, it will reach a wider audience than a more technical book.
2. TAC excels mainly as a polemic against sensational Dispensationalism, yet the tone is scolding and directed disproportionately towards Tim LaHaye. For this reason, I hesitate to recommend TAC to friends and family. Although Bible Prophesy teachers are Dispensationalists, relatively few theologians are teaching the sensational version.

TAC is an excellent resource for those who desire biblical view of the story of redemption from paradise lost to paradise restored!

A Paradigm-Shifting Work!
I have a Doctorate in Apologetics and am the co-author of a couple of apologetics books, including I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist. In my doctrinal program I was taught the dispensational eschatological view popularized in the Left Behind series. While I knew that view had its problems--including its treatment of "this generation" in Matthew 24:34--it wasn't until I read the The Apocalypse Code did I understand the key to interpreting end-times prophecy. It is this: we cannot understand NT prophecy unless we have the background music of the OT playing in our minds. In other words, the key to interpreting the NT's prophetic passages is often the OT.

Matthew 24 is a prime example. For their model to work, dispensationalists must change the meaning of "this generation" in verse 34 to mean something other than the people standing before Jesus at the time. Why? Because in addition to predicting the destruction of the temple (which we all know occurred in 70 AD), Jesus appears to be predicting his second coming ("The sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky. . . . They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory."). Dispensationalists will say that part obviously didn't happen in 70 AD, so "this generation" must mean something other than "this generation." The problem is, on all four earlier occasions in Matthew, Jesus's use of "this generation" always refers to the people alive at the time. It never refers to a future generation.

Hank's treatment of this passage is eye-opening--in fact, it provided me with a complete paradigm shift. The key to interpreting the passage rightly is the Old Testament. When Jesus refers to the sun being darkened and the moon not giving its light, he is actually quoting from Isaiah 13. How did Isaiah use that imagery? Isaiah used it to refer to the destruction of Babylon nearly 600 years earlier. Now we know that the moon and sun didn't literally stop giving their light in 539 BC--Isaiah was using hyperbolic language to communicate the severity of the judgment. Jesus is using the same language to refer to the coming judgment in 70 AD. Such language communicates judgment more richly that flat literal prose.

But what about "the Son of Man coming on the clouds?" Jesus is NOT referring to his second coming, but his coming in 70 AD (the end of the age) on a cloud in judgment. In the OT God rode a cloud in judgment (Is. 19:1). (Besides, why would it make any sense to "flee to the mountains" if Jesus was referring to the end of the world?) Again, the key to the NT is the OT.

Hank also applies this principle to many other passages. He points out that two-thirds of the verses in Revelation allude to passages in the Old Testament. The parallels are never more striking than between Revelation and Ezekiel (e.g. the four living, creatures, the mark on the foreheads, the measuring of the temple, Gog and Magog, the river of the water of life, etc.). Perhaps understanding Ezekiel will help us understand what John is talking about in Revelation.

Now some will charge Hank with not taking the scriptures literally. He deals with this extensively (in fact, the first letter in his acronym LIGHTS, which provides the outline of book, is Literal Principle). To summarize: every verse of the Bible communicates literal truth, but not every verse communicates that truth in a literal way. For example, "Jesus is the door" communicates the literal truth that we are saved only through Jesus, but it does so in a metaphorical way (Jesus doesn't have hinges). Likewise, apocalyptic literature expresses literal truth but it often does so using metaphors, imagery and hyperbolic language. Much of the imagery used in the NT has already been used in the OT, and John often explains it. Too often, we're not listening.

Perhaps the reason I hadn't realized this sooner is because I never took a real interest in eschatology. I saw problems with every model, and intelligent arguments on all sides of the debate. Besides, most models believe Christ comes back and we all win in the end, so why argue over the details? It wasn't until I read Hank's book did I realize that eschatology is a bit more important that I had imagined.

For example, the dispensational view popularized in the Left Behind series may have an impact on our ability to evangelize the unbelieving world. It insists that God has two distinct people: Gentiles by faith and Jews by race. In other words, there is a future for national Israel--they must get back in the land from Iraq to Egypt(which sounds like it's pro-Jew, but it's not; if dispensationalism is true, once the Jews get back in the land Armageddon will begin and two-thirds of them will be wiped out!). While we all recognize that Israel has a right to exist and to defend herself, should we uncritically support the actions of Israel against the Palestinians, many of whom are Christians? Are we "poking our finger in the eye of God," as Pat Roberston said, by suggesting a two state solution? Do the Muslims view us and our God as racists because of our dispensational views? Do they think we are more interested in a piece of real estate in Palestine or the salvation of the Palestinians? Many Muslims and other non-Christians may think so by listening to our more outspoken dispensationalists. But what if dispensationalism isn't true? What if the view that dominated church history for hundreds of years is true (as discussed in Chapter 3 of The Apocalypse Code, eschatological dispensationalism was born in the 1800's)?

Regardless of your eschatological view, you owe it to yourself to read The Apocalypse Code. Mind you, this is not a commentary on the book of Revelation, nor does it answer every question about the end times. But it does provide you with some very practical tools to help you discover the answers for yourself. In other words, Hank is not asking to you adopt different model of eschatology, but he is asking you to consider, perhaps, a different method of interpretation. As he says several times throughout the book, consider these things and then "you be the judge." If you do, I think you'll find that Hank Hanegraaff's approach makes a lot of sense.

Good but not the last word
Hank Hanegraaff's book serves as a general critique of dispensationalism's teaching on the end times by concentrating on Tim LaHaye's "Left Behind" theology. Such a critique in a popular format has been needed for a long time, and Hanegraaff has performed a valuable service to the American evangelical church by writing this book.

Hanegraaff emphasizes the importance of thinking through how the prophetic portions of the Bible should be interpreted, so his chapters are organized around hermeneutical principles. I found his long chapter on typology to be particularly valuable.

In the process of explaining the process of interpretation, the author reveals some of the problems that dispensational interpretation encounters. For example, how can one understand Jesus' reference in Matthew 24:34-35 to "this generation" as referring to any group of people other than Jesus' contemporaries? Dispensationalism's suggestion that the term looks forward to the generation living prior to Christ's Second Coming is contrived. It comes from the imposition of an eschatological model upon Jesus' words rather than from a study of the text itself.

Hanegraaff goes beyond critiquing dispensational theology. He also shows the serious consequences that this teaching has upon American Christians' approach toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Could it be that dispensationalism is actually encouraging violence in the Middle East?

Not content with simply pointing out the faults of the dispensationalists, "The Apocalypse Code" offers an alternative understanding of the majority of the Bible's prophecies. He rightly shows how most popular prophecy teachers and evangelicals have overlooked the importance of the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

Even though I appreciate Hanegraaff's contribution to the discussions of eschatology that go on among Christians, I do have problems with the book.

Some relatively minor things in book bother me. I wonder why he chooses the title that he does. Since Hal Lindsey wrote "Apocalypse Code" in 1997, why did Hanegraaff choose a title that differs from Lindsey's by just one word? Couldn't he have come up with something more original?

I also found his hermeneutical acronyms to be somewhat forced. His Grammatical Principle should have come before the Illumination Principle, but that would have messed up the acronym, LIGHTS. He deals with genre under both the Literal Principle and the Historical Principle.

Hanegraaff drags in discussions of Charles Darwin, Bill Clinton, and Bart Ehrman. I suppose that in a popular format that is acceptable, but I found it distracting from his main subject.

My major complaints about the book are twofold. First, Hanegraaff never actually engages in exegesis even though he calls his method "exegetical eschatology." I think that the book would have been more effective if he were simply to take Jesus' Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24-25 and explain what he believes that it teaches. Instead he takes bits and pieces of it and shows how dispensationalism is wrong. His treatment of Revelation is more extensive, but I would have appreciated a summary of what he believes each section of Revelation to teach.

Second, it is extraordinarily ironic that Hanegraaff dismisses LaHaye's dogmatic teaching only to substitute his own dogmatic interpretation! He frequently overstates his case. For example, he says that we can be "absolutely certain that 666 is the number of Nero's name and that Nero is the beast." The Gospel of John "was most certainly written prior to the Jerusalem holocaust in A.D. 70." He says that his hermeneutical approach "provides proof positive that it is historically reasonable . . . to suppose that Revelation was written prior to the Jewish holocaust of the first-century A.D." Many of the scholars that Hanegraaff quotes approvingly in other parts of his book do not agree with those conclusions, but Hanegraaff never so much as mentions their misgivings. The book would have been so much better if he had admitted that there are some things in the Bible's prophetic portions that are hard to understand no matter what overall eschatological interpretation one adopts. But any sense of hesitation or caution is not to be found. Hanegraaff offers his eschatology as the definitive answer to the church's study of this subject.

"The Apocalypse Code" offers a lot of good food for thought, but please don't accept it as the last word on eschatology.