5 Stars For Theology
1 or 2 star for Tone

Some of the other reviews sum it up well: he makes really good arguments. That said, the tone, while not as vicious as in some theological works, is still not a very good example of how believers are to deal with other believers who disagree.


TONE
We get it - dispensationalists are wrong. But, aren't there more respectful ways to present that than by pulling out our "baloney detectors" (most of chapter 4)? And, why does it matter that some early dispensationalists were viciously anti-semitic, or that Joseph Smith (founder of Mormonism) was also really emphatic about the end of the world coming soon? Isn't that kind of poisoning the well? It doesn't have anything to do with what the Bible says about the issue...It's things like this and a bunch of other little things that just leave you with the feeling that Hank Hanegraaff is saying more about those with whom he disagrees (especially Tim Lahaye) than just "they are wrong about what the Bible says here."

Think about it: if you are trying to convince a friend or family member that you are right (and we are all family in Christ), you don't try to beat them down with strong rhetoric. You want them to think "ya know, that is a good point. I hadn't thought of that. You are right" (end with handshake/hug/whatever). That may sound very idealistic, but we're Christians; we don't get to be like everyone else (that's why so few genuine Christ-followers succeed in politics without selling out and becoming the venom-mouthed slanderers and liars that we rightly assume most politicians are). We're different, and Christian academia is no different (from anything else, and thus it has to be different). Did I mention that we are supposed to be different?

That said, I do think some exaggerate his nastiness. The most outrageous statements, for example, aren't made by Hanegraaff, but by rather dispensationalists when discussing other positions. For example, John Hagee says, "Replacement theologians [pretty much anyone who is not a dispensationalist] are now carrying Hitler's annointing and his message" (Chapter 3, page 69). Now, I haven't read the quote's actual source, but unless the next line is "...would be a radically untrue and unfair statement," that statement is hard to read any other way. Obviously, we can't hold what others say against Hank Hanegraaff.

Also, I wouldn't exactly call him "anti-Israel." He never justifies Palestinian terrorism, and he even explicitly affirms the "definitive right" of Israel to exist (end of chapter 6). The fact that he denies that Israel has a God-given right to control not only the current nation but much of the Middle East (given Solomon's borders) is hardly anti-semitic. And pointing out that wicked things have been done by the Israeli government, especially against Christians for crying out loud, is hardly unfair if those things are true (and I don't hear anyone denying that they are).

Still, he comes off as a bit arrogant. He's not exceptionally so; in fact, a lot of evangelical theological books I have read are like this. This SHOULD be exceptional, but rather, what is seen as exceptional today are those who write with humility and grace. Anthony Hoekema is a good example; I disagree with him throughout much of his seminol work The Bible and the Future, but I never felt attacked when he tried to convince me (as the reader) that what he was saying was what was biblical. This book, though more theologically correct, is no The Bible and the Future...

THEOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS
I am hesitant to recommend any book that is not fully-Christlike in its tone towards those who disagree (I am the biggest nag about that kind of thing - I even hesitate to say "not-fully Christlike," but I think it's fair here). However, if you can get past the tone (which is not easy if you come in agreeing with Tim Lahaye and the other dispensationalists), he does present the (partial) preterist case really well.

He opposes dispensationalism, and instead argues that much of what we think speaks of the end-times (though certainly not all of it) is forecasting not the physical return of Jesus (which he affirms will happen), but the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in A.D. 70 (and with it, the fall of the entire Old Covenant religious system). Furthermore, I think he does an excellent job of explaining and defending the principles of biblical interpretation that lead to this view (as opposed to the extremely literal reading that is the basis of dispensationalism).

Although perhaps his acronyms are a little silly, I think he does an excellent job of defending them. For example, the "literal" principle dictates that, instead of taking everything as literally as possible, you take it in the most plain and obvious sense based on genre and context. Thus, the narrative about the woman clothed in the sun and the dragon hurling stars at the earth in Revelation 12 should be read differently from the straight forward, didactic account of Jesus' life in the Gospel of Luke.

So, I still give it 3 stars, because, it's important enough and successful enough in its arguments for me to recommend, with the caveat that I would have written it with less negativity towards dispensationalist theologians (without softening the sharp accuracy against their interpretations, of course).