What do you think?
Rate this book
The Apocalypse Code: Find Out What the Bible Really Says about the End Times... and Why It Matters Today
"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.
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.
300 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2007
139 people are currently reading
308 people want to read
About the author
Hank Hanegraaff
110 books133 followersHendrik "Hank" Hanegraaff, also known as the "Bible Answer Man", is an American Christian author and radio talk-show host. Formerly an evangelical Protestant, he joined the Eastern Orthodox Church in 2017. He is an outspoken figure within the Christian countercult movement, where he has established a reputation for his critiques of non-Christian religions, new religious movements, and cults, as well as heresy in Christianity. He is also an apologist on doctrinal and cultural issues.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 56 reviews
August 11, 2011
The gravitas of one's writing is determined by whom one is writing against. Hanegraff, a radio populist by profession, writing against the bizarre wackiness of dispensationalist authors, has no chance of writing with gravitas. I will go ahead and list everything wrong with the book. Hanegraff creates his own acronyms, many of which are just silly, and often labels those who do not accept his reasoning as "not understanding the bible." His alliteration gets the best of him and is distracting to the reader. The book lacks a conclusion and the last chapter is literally copied and pasted from earlier segments of the book. The book sort of...ends with no warning. To the degree that the last chapter had some kind of concluding argument, it is question-begging. To say that we must interpret Scripture by (clearer) Scripture begs the question of what clearer Scripture is. As one said elsewhere,
The appeal to “what Scripture says in other places” or to “what the rest of Scripture teaches” is fallacious for a number of reasons. First, because if we are to interpret any given passage in light of what Scripture says everywhere else, then we will never know what Scripture says in any one passage for the simple reason that the process could never begin, except by an arbitrary brute text. But there are no such texts in the Bible.
The book itself
With those criticisms out of the way, let me commend the book for helpfully outlining the bizarre (and ultimately genocidal) theology of Dispensational Christian Zionism. Hanegraff begins his hermeneutics with what he calls "exegetical eschatology" (it is designated in the book as an "e" with a squared sign). This means one should let the entire bible determine what one believes about eschatology. That's true, but it is nothing different from what Baptists, Presbyterians, Catholics, Moonies, and JWs assert. Hanegraff explicates this by another acronym: LIGHTS
Literal
Illumination
Grammatical
Historical
Typological
Scriptural Synergy
In doing so Hanegraff has simply expounded traditional evangelical hermeneutical models. If the reader is familiar with what the word "literal" actually means (e.g., literarily), and familiar with the grammatical-historical principle, then he can probably guess what much of the book will be. Hanegraff uses his principle to show how Dispensationalism fails the hermeneutical standard.
His section on typology is quite interesting and for evangelicals, it will represent something new to most readers. The ordinances of the Old Testament are types that find their fulfillment in the Person of Christ. Therefore, to seek to go back to the shadows is literally to reject Christ, yet this is entirely what Zionism is predicated on in their desire to cleanse Palestine or Arab Christians and Muslims, rebuild the temple (presumably by C-4ing the Dome of the Rock), and sacrificing the "red heifer."
Hanegraff makes the excellent conclusion that Jesus himself is "the land" which Christians inherit. Jesus is the Temple, and quoting N. T. Wright, the temple-builder is the true king, and vice-versa.
Most of Hanegraff's argument--and I think I can agree with it--is that when Jesus said in Mark 13/Mathew 24 to the Jews that this generation will not pass away and that all of these things will fall on you, that Jesus means that generation circa A.D. 30. There is no way to get around the grammatical and logical force.
Many amillennialists, though, while agreeing that Mark 13 refers to the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70, will counter by saying, "Well, partial preterism demands a pre-A.D. 70 writing of the Apocalypse and we know it was written in A.D. 95-96." Two thoughts, and again I am with Hanegraff on this one,
It is by no means certain (like it was earlier in the 20th century) that Revelation was written in AD 95. Many scholars are now advocating an earlier date (N.T. Wright, G. B. Caird, J.A.T. Robinson, etc).
So what if it is written in AD 95? This simply changes the book's thrust from a prediction of the Temple's destruction to a theological interpretation of the destruction of 1st century Christianity's greatest enemy: Judaism. Partial Preterism can accommodate either. (Even when I was a militant defender of postmillennialism/partial preterism, I could never understand why people claimed preterism demands an early dating of Revelation. It makes the case easier, I suppose, but neither demands it.
Of Particular Note
Hanegraff gives an interesting summary of Gematria, the practice of assigning numeric values with letters, which in this case means NERO = 666. Gematria has never been taken seriously by evangelicals, and perhaps for this reason many evangelical scholars shy away from the conclusion that Nero was the antichrist. However bizarre gematria may be, though, the fact remains early writers did practice it and it does lead to Nero being antichrist.
Hanegraff also identifies the whore of Revelation 17, not with imperial Rome, contra modern scholars, nor with the Roman Catholic Church, contra dispensationalists, but with covenant Israel. In the Old Testament, only one entity is called a harlot, and that is Israel. Compare Ezekiel 16 with Revelation 17, the book of Hosea.
Conclusion
Is it an open and shut case for partial preterism? Not quite. The fact that the early Church did not subscribe to a particularly preterist reading should give pause. We need to be careful here. We are not saying, as both Hanegraff and (ironically) Lahaye think, that since a Father did or did not give position to a view, therefore the early church has spoken. No, that's not how it works. The holy fathers did not intend to give an encyclopedia of how each verse in the Bible is interpreted--they did not think that is how the bible should be read. the Bible is not a blank database for receiving propositions, but primarily a book of liturgy.
On the other hand, a study of early liturgy will reveal (no pun intended) that the Church recapitulated the Apocalypse in the liturgy. It is not necessarily the case that the holy fathers gave a preterist reading to the text; they did not. However, the lived and worshiped in a way that is very similar to a partial preterist reading. In the Eucharist we remember the Lord's coming.
Let the reader understand.
The appeal to “what Scripture says in other places” or to “what the rest of Scripture teaches” is fallacious for a number of reasons. First, because if we are to interpret any given passage in light of what Scripture says everywhere else, then we will never know what Scripture says in any one passage for the simple reason that the process could never begin, except by an arbitrary brute text. But there are no such texts in the Bible.
The book itself
With those criticisms out of the way, let me commend the book for helpfully outlining the bizarre (and ultimately genocidal) theology of Dispensational Christian Zionism. Hanegraff begins his hermeneutics with what he calls "exegetical eschatology" (it is designated in the book as an "e" with a squared sign). This means one should let the entire bible determine what one believes about eschatology. That's true, but it is nothing different from what Baptists, Presbyterians, Catholics, Moonies, and JWs assert. Hanegraff explicates this by another acronym: LIGHTS
Literal
Illumination
Grammatical
Historical
Typological
Scriptural Synergy
In doing so Hanegraff has simply expounded traditional evangelical hermeneutical models. If the reader is familiar with what the word "literal" actually means (e.g., literarily), and familiar with the grammatical-historical principle, then he can probably guess what much of the book will be. Hanegraff uses his principle to show how Dispensationalism fails the hermeneutical standard.
His section on typology is quite interesting and for evangelicals, it will represent something new to most readers. The ordinances of the Old Testament are types that find their fulfillment in the Person of Christ. Therefore, to seek to go back to the shadows is literally to reject Christ, yet this is entirely what Zionism is predicated on in their desire to cleanse Palestine or Arab Christians and Muslims, rebuild the temple (presumably by C-4ing the Dome of the Rock), and sacrificing the "red heifer."
Hanegraff makes the excellent conclusion that Jesus himself is "the land" which Christians inherit. Jesus is the Temple, and quoting N. T. Wright, the temple-builder is the true king, and vice-versa.
Most of Hanegraff's argument--and I think I can agree with it--is that when Jesus said in Mark 13/Mathew 24 to the Jews that this generation will not pass away and that all of these things will fall on you, that Jesus means that generation circa A.D. 30. There is no way to get around the grammatical and logical force.
Many amillennialists, though, while agreeing that Mark 13 refers to the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70, will counter by saying, "Well, partial preterism demands a pre-A.D. 70 writing of the Apocalypse and we know it was written in A.D. 95-96." Two thoughts, and again I am with Hanegraff on this one,
It is by no means certain (like it was earlier in the 20th century) that Revelation was written in AD 95. Many scholars are now advocating an earlier date (N.T. Wright, G. B. Caird, J.A.T. Robinson, etc).
So what if it is written in AD 95? This simply changes the book's thrust from a prediction of the Temple's destruction to a theological interpretation of the destruction of 1st century Christianity's greatest enemy: Judaism. Partial Preterism can accommodate either. (Even when I was a militant defender of postmillennialism/partial preterism, I could never understand why people claimed preterism demands an early dating of Revelation. It makes the case easier, I suppose, but neither demands it.
Of Particular Note
Hanegraff gives an interesting summary of Gematria, the practice of assigning numeric values with letters, which in this case means NERO = 666. Gematria has never been taken seriously by evangelicals, and perhaps for this reason many evangelical scholars shy away from the conclusion that Nero was the antichrist. However bizarre gematria may be, though, the fact remains early writers did practice it and it does lead to Nero being antichrist.
Hanegraff also identifies the whore of Revelation 17, not with imperial Rome, contra modern scholars, nor with the Roman Catholic Church, contra dispensationalists, but with covenant Israel. In the Old Testament, only one entity is called a harlot, and that is Israel. Compare Ezekiel 16 with Revelation 17, the book of Hosea.
Conclusion
Is it an open and shut case for partial preterism? Not quite. The fact that the early Church did not subscribe to a particularly preterist reading should give pause. We need to be careful here. We are not saying, as both Hanegraff and (ironically) Lahaye think, that since a Father did or did not give position to a view, therefore the early church has spoken. No, that's not how it works. The holy fathers did not intend to give an encyclopedia of how each verse in the Bible is interpreted--they did not think that is how the bible should be read. the Bible is not a blank database for receiving propositions, but primarily a book of liturgy.
On the other hand, a study of early liturgy will reveal (no pun intended) that the Church recapitulated the Apocalypse in the liturgy. It is not necessarily the case that the holy fathers gave a preterist reading to the text; they did not. However, the lived and worshiped in a way that is very similar to a partial preterist reading. In the Eucharist we remember the Lord's coming.
Let the reader understand.
February 11, 2018
This is a book that I had put down for a while and picks back up again after Trump declared Jerusalem the capital of Israel recently. I've been wanting to read several books on the different eschatological views and Hank's book was on my shelf. I love his nerdy acronym writing style and I have no problem with his constant exposure of Tim Lahaye's bad theology throughout the book. Some people may be turned off by that. Hank does one thing well, and that is to point the reader to Christ, the true temple and the true Israel. I'll let you read for yourself about his eschatological views.
February 9, 2012
Crushing disappointment. "The" Apocalypse Code promises much, but fails to deliver. The title itself is disingenuous, and bears a troubling similarity to Hal Lindsey's Apocalypse Code (no "The" in the title). Hal Lindsey is another current writer in the Bible Prophecy field who the author of this book heavily criticizes (though, it can be assumed, he liked the title of his book well enough). Incidentally, I wouldn't recommend Hal Lindsey any more than I'd recommend Hank Hanegraaff. In all honesty, THE Apocalypse Code is actually little more than a vitriolic polemic against Tim LaHaye, one of the co-authors of the Left Behind Series, and a man who Hank Hannegraaf seems to despise.
For those familiar with the field of Biblical eschatology, The Apocalypse Code seeks to dismantle the view of dispensationalism. It attempts to do this using a blend of Preteristic and Covenantal/Replacement arguments. To be fair (which is more than I can say for the author) Covenantalism has much to recommend it, but this book does it no credit. If one is searching for a well-written scholarly treatise on either Covenantal or Preteristic thought, look elsewhere! Without going into any detail on the vast number of issues I have with Mr. Hanegraaff's book, I will just highlight what I consider to be 3 of the most problematic.
1) The author presents what must be an almost willful misunderstanding or misrepresentation of actual dispensationl thought. If anyone not familiar with dispensational eschatology read only this book, they would have a severely warped view of it.
2) The complete lack of any systematic way of presenting biblical eschatology. The author informs us that simply using "his" method of "exegetical eschatology (e2)," all Biblical prophecy suddenly becomes so clear only a fool could miss it. Apparently, in roughly 2 millennia of church history, no one has ever thought to use the exegetical eschatology model to figure out prophetic revelation. This would make one laugh out loud if one weren't so disturbed at the thought that the author is actually serious. Mr. Hanegraaff then goes on to give a couple acronyms to help the reader decipher Biblical prophecy. Of course, he himself fails to use them or "his" method throughout much of the text, but I digress. His way of dealing with the huge volume of biblical end-times prophecy seems to be simply to pick out specific areas where he disagrees with Tim LaHaye and then attack him again and again, often without clearly expressing what he himself believes.
3) The poor scholarship. The author rarely uses original source material, preferring to use secondary quotes and statistics from authors with whom he agrees without following them up. In many cases, I felt as if I should be reading their books instead of Hank's. In addition, the author gives no indication that he has a good grasp of Middle Eastern history, 20th century history pertaining to Israel, Christian Zionism, current events, etc. etc. etc. The worst example of this is probably when he equates the Nazi holocaust with a "Holy Land holocaust" initiated by the Jews in 1948 in the introduction! The length of the book itself is not nearly enough to have a chance of adequately covering the subject. Finally, the respectful way in which I am accustomed to academics presenting their own views over and against their peers was unfortunately completely missing from this book.
As other reviews have pointed out, perhaps the most disturbing feature of this book is the very unchristian, uncharitable way which the author treats anyone with whom he disagrees, most especially Tim LaHaye. I don't consider Tim LaHaye to be the best representative of dispensationalism, but he certainly doesn't deserve the treatment he is given in this book.
Lest anyone think I had something against Mr. Hanegraaff prior to reading this book, I actually read Hank's previous book Counterfeit Revival and found it to be a generally good, if shallow, introduction to its topic. After The Apocalypse Code, however, I cannot imagine reading anything else from this author.
For those familiar with the field of Biblical eschatology, The Apocalypse Code seeks to dismantle the view of dispensationalism. It attempts to do this using a blend of Preteristic and Covenantal/Replacement arguments. To be fair (which is more than I can say for the author) Covenantalism has much to recommend it, but this book does it no credit. If one is searching for a well-written scholarly treatise on either Covenantal or Preteristic thought, look elsewhere! Without going into any detail on the vast number of issues I have with Mr. Hanegraaff's book, I will just highlight what I consider to be 3 of the most problematic.
1) The author presents what must be an almost willful misunderstanding or misrepresentation of actual dispensationl thought. If anyone not familiar with dispensational eschatology read only this book, they would have a severely warped view of it.
2) The complete lack of any systematic way of presenting biblical eschatology. The author informs us that simply using "his" method of "exegetical eschatology (e2)," all Biblical prophecy suddenly becomes so clear only a fool could miss it. Apparently, in roughly 2 millennia of church history, no one has ever thought to use the exegetical eschatology model to figure out prophetic revelation. This would make one laugh out loud if one weren't so disturbed at the thought that the author is actually serious. Mr. Hanegraaff then goes on to give a couple acronyms to help the reader decipher Biblical prophecy. Of course, he himself fails to use them or "his" method throughout much of the text, but I digress. His way of dealing with the huge volume of biblical end-times prophecy seems to be simply to pick out specific areas where he disagrees with Tim LaHaye and then attack him again and again, often without clearly expressing what he himself believes.
3) The poor scholarship. The author rarely uses original source material, preferring to use secondary quotes and statistics from authors with whom he agrees without following them up. In many cases, I felt as if I should be reading their books instead of Hank's. In addition, the author gives no indication that he has a good grasp of Middle Eastern history, 20th century history pertaining to Israel, Christian Zionism, current events, etc. etc. etc. The worst example of this is probably when he equates the Nazi holocaust with a "Holy Land holocaust" initiated by the Jews in 1948 in the introduction! The length of the book itself is not nearly enough to have a chance of adequately covering the subject. Finally, the respectful way in which I am accustomed to academics presenting their own views over and against their peers was unfortunately completely missing from this book.
As other reviews have pointed out, perhaps the most disturbing feature of this book is the very unchristian, uncharitable way which the author treats anyone with whom he disagrees, most especially Tim LaHaye. I don't consider Tim LaHaye to be the best representative of dispensationalism, but he certainly doesn't deserve the treatment he is given in this book.
Lest anyone think I had something against Mr. Hanegraaff prior to reading this book, I actually read Hank's previous book Counterfeit Revival and found it to be a generally good, if shallow, introduction to its topic. After The Apocalypse Code, however, I cannot imagine reading anything else from this author.
January 12, 2016
This is a well written eye opening book. The author shows how many so called prophesy experts have erred in some of their conclusions.It was a pleasure to read a point of view that is not the most popular and see the evidence of research and study that went into forming those opinions.This is a very interesting read and you'll see the book of Revelation in a different light.
July 25, 2008
The perfect antidote for the silliness spread by Tim LeHaye and his ilk.
March 7, 2017
Difficult read.
I gave this a five star review because Hanegraaff has completely challenged the normal accepted eschatology taught by most scholars and I love that. More than that, he equips the reader with the tools for use with proper discernment to reveal truth over fancy. I recommend this book to everyone.
I gave this a five star review because Hanegraaff has completely challenged the normal accepted eschatology taught by most scholars and I love that. More than that, he equips the reader with the tools for use with proper discernment to reveal truth over fancy. I recommend this book to everyone.
February 5, 2012
These radio and tv eveangelists and religious authors are usually left for a very specific audience to indulge in. Yet Hanegraaff debunks much of the eschatolical myth that conservative Christians believe, and as such does his piece to make the Bible more believable and approachable.
December 12, 2011
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).
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).
June 25, 2019
Would have liked a little more depth/explanation. I still don't feel like I really understand Partial Preterism.
January 22, 2024
Since I’ve never really studied eschatology before, I still like I have a lot to learn, but this was a decent introduction to partial preterism. Not crazy about the author’s unnecessary use of too large words, acronyms, and his condescension of his opponents, but he mostly gets his point across.
May 10, 2012
This book debunks all the myths of the second coming of our lord;furthermore, this book explains how until recently main stream christianity understood that the antichrist and the apocacolypse has already happened and all that remains is Christs return.
March 25, 2011
Have to agree with other reviewers that the author spends too much time and focus on demonizing the dispensational proponents. Other than that he makes some very good arguments.
September 5, 2018
Growing up in the church, I was taught one view of the end times; dispensationalism. This is what my parents taught me, what my pastor preached from the pulpit, and what every television preacher including John Hagee preached. It's what was depicted in the best selling novel series and movie series Left Behind. The view was so dominant everywhere I went to learn about end times Bible prophesy that I just assumed that this whole scenario is what The Bible taught. I thought the only areas of disagreement would be on things like when the rapture would occur (pre-trib, mid-trib, or post-trib) and what the nature of the millennium would be (pre-mil, a-mil, post-mil), but the basic model of a worldwide demon possessed anti-Christ figure who rebuilt the temple, proclaimed to be God in it, persecuted Christians, etc. etc. was firmly established.
The first time I read this book, I was absolutely floored. In this book, Hank Hanegraaff totally contradicts the vast majority of what I was taught about the end times. He presents a view that, prior to reading this book, I never even knew existed; preterism. Partial preterism to be exact.
Hanegraaff argues that the majority of so-called end times prophesies were fulfilled in the first century, in Nero's persecution of the church, destruction of Jerusalem, and the destruction of the Jewish temple which took place from 64-70 A.D. I want to make clear that Hanegraaff does NOT deny the second coming of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the saints, or the creation of a new heavens and earth. However, most of what we take to be referring to the end times aren't actually referring to the end times. For example, The Olivet Discourse just isn't predicting a series of signs prior to the rise of the anti-Christ, rapture, and physical and visible return of Christ. It's predicting that "this generation will not pass away before" there are wars, rumors of wars, Earthquakes and famines in various places, false teachers claiming to be the Christ, and The Son of Man "coming" "on the clouds of Heaven". Hanegraaff shows that the language of "coming on the clouds" was a common Old Testament motif for Yahweh coming in judgment upon a nation. One example given is God's pronouncement of Babylon in Isaiah 13 in which God describes his judgment as "a day of clouds" and proceeds to say that the sun, moon, and stars will go dark. Precisely the same language used by Jesus in Matthew 24. Now, God did not come VISIBLY to the people of Babylon, nor did the stars literally cease to shine. All of this was metaphorical language describing fierce judgment Yahweh would unleash upon the Babylonians. Jesus was employing that same language to describe fierce judgment that would come upon Jerusalem for rejecting Him as Messiah. Just as the Babylonians B.C didn't see Yahweh visibly cloud-surfing, we have no reason to
think that "The Son Of Man coming on the clouds of Heaven" has to mean that Jesus would show up visibly, riding on top of a cloud in the sky. That this is a prophecy of what would occur in the first century is strongly supported by two primary things. First; Jesus was speaking to his disciples constantly using the second person pronoun "You". "You" "You" "You". This strongly suggests that Jesus was speaking to his first-century audience rather than some 21st or 22nd-century audience. As Brian Godawa once put it, what would we think of a preacher who preached a sermon constantly using the word "You" from the pulpit, but in reality he was addressing congregation thousands of years in the future. We would think "If he doesn't mean US, why doesn't he say the word 'they'?" Secondly, Jesus said that "This generation will not pass away before all these things came to pass". Hanegraaff absolutely dismantles any attempt to make "this generation" mean the generation beginning in 1948 or the Jewish race. As Hanegraaff pointed out, whenever the word "This generation" (genea in Greek) is used in the New Testament, it always refers to the people living at that point in time.
Of course, this is just the Olivet Discourse. Hanegraaff talks about the book of Revelation and argues that the first-century emperor Nero perfectly fits the image of the beast of Revelation. The Harlot who rides the beast is not The Roman Catholic Church, it is apostate Israel. The 7 hills on which the beast rests on is Rome. Secular history reveals that Rome was famous for being the nation of 7 mountains. The beast waging war against the saints was fulfilled in Nero's persecution of the church in A.D 64.
After I read this book for the first time, my mind was blown. The eschatology that I had just presupposed to be true was left in shambles. This book makes such a powerful case for Partial Preterism that I would be surprised how anyone could read this book from cover to cover and still think Left Behind accurately reflects the end times by the time they put it down. I cannot recommend this book strongly enough.
By the way, when you're finished, check out Brian Godawa's novel series "The Chronicles Of The Apocalypse". After all, the dispensationalists can't have all the good novels.
The first time I read this book, I was absolutely floored. In this book, Hank Hanegraaff totally contradicts the vast majority of what I was taught about the end times. He presents a view that, prior to reading this book, I never even knew existed; preterism. Partial preterism to be exact.
Hanegraaff argues that the majority of so-called end times prophesies were fulfilled in the first century, in Nero's persecution of the church, destruction of Jerusalem, and the destruction of the Jewish temple which took place from 64-70 A.D. I want to make clear that Hanegraaff does NOT deny the second coming of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the saints, or the creation of a new heavens and earth. However, most of what we take to be referring to the end times aren't actually referring to the end times. For example, The Olivet Discourse just isn't predicting a series of signs prior to the rise of the anti-Christ, rapture, and physical and visible return of Christ. It's predicting that "this generation will not pass away before" there are wars, rumors of wars, Earthquakes and famines in various places, false teachers claiming to be the Christ, and The Son of Man "coming" "on the clouds of Heaven". Hanegraaff shows that the language of "coming on the clouds" was a common Old Testament motif for Yahweh coming in judgment upon a nation. One example given is God's pronouncement of Babylon in Isaiah 13 in which God describes his judgment as "a day of clouds" and proceeds to say that the sun, moon, and stars will go dark. Precisely the same language used by Jesus in Matthew 24. Now, God did not come VISIBLY to the people of Babylon, nor did the stars literally cease to shine. All of this was metaphorical language describing fierce judgment Yahweh would unleash upon the Babylonians. Jesus was employing that same language to describe fierce judgment that would come upon Jerusalem for rejecting Him as Messiah. Just as the Babylonians B.C didn't see Yahweh visibly cloud-surfing, we have no reason to
think that "The Son Of Man coming on the clouds of Heaven" has to mean that Jesus would show up visibly, riding on top of a cloud in the sky. That this is a prophecy of what would occur in the first century is strongly supported by two primary things. First; Jesus was speaking to his disciples constantly using the second person pronoun "You". "You" "You" "You". This strongly suggests that Jesus was speaking to his first-century audience rather than some 21st or 22nd-century audience. As Brian Godawa once put it, what would we think of a preacher who preached a sermon constantly using the word "You" from the pulpit, but in reality he was addressing congregation thousands of years in the future. We would think "If he doesn't mean US, why doesn't he say the word 'they'?" Secondly, Jesus said that "This generation will not pass away before all these things came to pass". Hanegraaff absolutely dismantles any attempt to make "this generation" mean the generation beginning in 1948 or the Jewish race. As Hanegraaff pointed out, whenever the word "This generation" (genea in Greek) is used in the New Testament, it always refers to the people living at that point in time.
Of course, this is just the Olivet Discourse. Hanegraaff talks about the book of Revelation and argues that the first-century emperor Nero perfectly fits the image of the beast of Revelation. The Harlot who rides the beast is not The Roman Catholic Church, it is apostate Israel. The 7 hills on which the beast rests on is Rome. Secular history reveals that Rome was famous for being the nation of 7 mountains. The beast waging war against the saints was fulfilled in Nero's persecution of the church in A.D 64.
After I read this book for the first time, my mind was blown. The eschatology that I had just presupposed to be true was left in shambles. This book makes such a powerful case for Partial Preterism that I would be surprised how anyone could read this book from cover to cover and still think Left Behind accurately reflects the end times by the time they put it down. I cannot recommend this book strongly enough.
By the way, when you're finished, check out Brian Godawa's novel series "The Chronicles Of The Apocalypse". After all, the dispensationalists can't have all the good novels.
October 11, 2024
I did not know the author was "Bible Answer Man" until I had finished the book. I recommend this book for all Christians. There were two things that did not jive between what I was hearing in church and what I was reading in the Bible. One is Calvinism and the other is Dispensationalism. No matter how many times I heard preachers, Sunday School material/classes, and books discuss Dispensationalism and then attach different points of Scripture to support the view. It never added up.
The problem I had was, who was I to question all these experts? I accepted this for about a decade, but the more I read the Bible, the more I understood the huge/giant leaps of fancy to arrive at the conclusions advanced by those who believe in a pre-tribulation rapture. I started slowly to realize there was an entire philosophical and political worldview that relied on these suppositions to justify their present behavior and policies, especially as concerns the modern Israel. The problem with going to the source and not listening to experts is, the primary source, the Bible itself, does not match their theology.
Then I started noticing the sheer amount of money generated by this view. Authors banked it. Publish something on "The Apocalypse" and it will sell. Preach it from the pulpit and they will give cash because you are telling the people in the pew they will avoid facing trouble and get to skip it, and you can also host/sponsor field trips to modern Israel and just pretend there are two people and two plans and Christians can speed up God's plan in regards to Jews by helping them build a temple, kill their neighbors, and extract trillions from the United States in cash and gear to make it happen.
Hanegraaff does a good job exposing the bad theology underpinning this world view. The only real problem with the book is his choice of title. I think the book should have been "Refuting the Apocalypse" or something like that. The books title in my opinion limits its spread, but I sure wish Christians would read this book and I wish I could have found it twenty years ago because it would have aided me to abandon Dispensationalism sooner and with way less work.
The problem I had was, who was I to question all these experts? I accepted this for about a decade, but the more I read the Bible, the more I understood the huge/giant leaps of fancy to arrive at the conclusions advanced by those who believe in a pre-tribulation rapture. I started slowly to realize there was an entire philosophical and political worldview that relied on these suppositions to justify their present behavior and policies, especially as concerns the modern Israel. The problem with going to the source and not listening to experts is, the primary source, the Bible itself, does not match their theology.
Then I started noticing the sheer amount of money generated by this view. Authors banked it. Publish something on "The Apocalypse" and it will sell. Preach it from the pulpit and they will give cash because you are telling the people in the pew they will avoid facing trouble and get to skip it, and you can also host/sponsor field trips to modern Israel and just pretend there are two people and two plans and Christians can speed up God's plan in regards to Jews by helping them build a temple, kill their neighbors, and extract trillions from the United States in cash and gear to make it happen.
Hanegraaff does a good job exposing the bad theology underpinning this world view. The only real problem with the book is his choice of title. I think the book should have been "Refuting the Apocalypse" or something like that. The books title in my opinion limits its spread, but I sure wish Christians would read this book and I wish I could have found it twenty years ago because it would have aided me to abandon Dispensationalism sooner and with way less work.
November 30, 2020
I read the Apocalypse Code, to gain a clear understanding of the Historicist and Preterist approaches to the book of Revelation, as well as the historical teachings and interpretations of Augustine, Athanasius and Anselm. In this regard, Hanegraaff's work accomplishes what he sets out to do with precision and enjoyable to read. The tools he uses to look at the book of Revelation through the lens of textual criticism methodologies and principles, what he calls the Exegetical Eschatology, and his well known "LIGHTS Principles" (Literal, Illumination, Grammatical, Historical, Typology, Scriptural Synergy). I do recommend this book for a nicely-illustrated example of this methodology.
Hanegraaff is critical of Hal Lindsey (whom I have not read) and his original "Apocalypse Code" and Lindsey's premise that "prophecies can be fully understood only when their fulfillment drew near." I agree with Hanegraaff that scripture needs to be interpreted with scripture and not with conjecture or speculation. However, because Lindsey got the conjecture part wrong (i.e. comparing locusts to black hawk helicopters, etc.) in taking a stab at Revelation's symbolic descriptions, this does not negate (in my opinion) the premise that prophetic writings become more clearly understood as their fulfillment draws near, since this is explicitly written by Daniel, such as in Daniel 9:4 “But you, Daniel, keep these words secret and seal the book until the time of the end. Many will roam about, and knowledge will increase.”
So, Hanegraaff's criticism that it is not possible for a fuller understanding of Revelation to have been hidden for 2000 years, is a non-sequiter to me. Lumping together speculation and conjecture (exegetical error) with the possibility of unfolding understanding (scriptural insight unsealed in due time) does not equate.
Bottom line: Apocalypse Code does a great job helping the reader to understand the methodology and interpretations of a historicist view of Revelation and for that reason is worthy of reading in light of today's events.
Hanegraaff is critical of Hal Lindsey (whom I have not read) and his original "Apocalypse Code" and Lindsey's premise that "prophecies can be fully understood only when their fulfillment drew near." I agree with Hanegraaff that scripture needs to be interpreted with scripture and not with conjecture or speculation. However, because Lindsey got the conjecture part wrong (i.e. comparing locusts to black hawk helicopters, etc.) in taking a stab at Revelation's symbolic descriptions, this does not negate (in my opinion) the premise that prophetic writings become more clearly understood as their fulfillment draws near, since this is explicitly written by Daniel, such as in Daniel 9:4 “But you, Daniel, keep these words secret and seal the book until the time of the end. Many will roam about, and knowledge will increase.”
So, Hanegraaff's criticism that it is not possible for a fuller understanding of Revelation to have been hidden for 2000 years, is a non-sequiter to me. Lumping together speculation and conjecture (exegetical error) with the possibility of unfolding understanding (scriptural insight unsealed in due time) does not equate.
Bottom line: Apocalypse Code does a great job helping the reader to understand the methodology and interpretations of a historicist view of Revelation and for that reason is worthy of reading in light of today's events.
September 20, 2025
Very hard getting through the book. The author's main approach to defeat premellinialism was to attack Tim Lahey, who is not a representative for every one with premrllinial views, but an easy target. Hank bases his whole pretorist on Revelation early date, which is very weak compared to the later date of writing. Forcing every prophecy as the AD70 fulfilment produces unscriptural conclusions. Like Israel being the great who're of Babylon. Very antisemitic replacement theology even though Hank argued the opposite.
Disappointing that "the code" is not at all a code, but simply some hermeneutical principles mixed with his own. Glad I read it because it gave me some clues what my pretorist friends got wrong.
Not happy with Hank's ungracious attacks while building argiementd many would not hokd to anyway.
Disappointing that "the code" is not at all a code, but simply some hermeneutical principles mixed with his own. Glad I read it because it gave me some clues what my pretorist friends got wrong.
Not happy with Hank's ungracious attacks while building argiementd many would not hokd to anyway.
March 29, 2025
What certainly started as an old fashioned grudge match between Hank Hanegraaff and Tim LaHaye (Left Behind Author), turned into a very convincing indictment on the dispensational hyper literalism that plagues modern evangelicals.
Reading Revelation is complex. Concerning however is that many have taken dogmatic approaches in the midst of the complexity and have landed in dangerous territory that has real world consequences.
Hanegraaff does a great job at providing an alternative and compelling explanation of Revelation that flows far better with Scripture as a whole and how we as believers should apply it.
I enjoyed this book and will recommend it for anyone seeking counters to the far too popular Left Behind version of interpretation.
Reading Revelation is complex. Concerning however is that many have taken dogmatic approaches in the midst of the complexity and have landed in dangerous territory that has real world consequences.
Hanegraaff does a great job at providing an alternative and compelling explanation of Revelation that flows far better with Scripture as a whole and how we as believers should apply it.
I enjoyed this book and will recommend it for anyone seeking counters to the far too popular Left Behind version of interpretation.
September 20, 2020
Excellent Book for those who love the scripture and truth!
I did not put this book aside until I consumed every word. If you are a person who wants truth over men’s interpretation you want to read this book. No nonsense and easy to understand and read. Every word was backed by scriptural prooftext. I loved this book because it’s all laid out in such a way that you will be able to share this truth in an understandable way to others. I am a person who wants to not only understand myself but able to express it to others.
Great Job Hank!
I did not put this book aside until I consumed every word. If you are a person who wants truth over men’s interpretation you want to read this book. No nonsense and easy to understand and read. Every word was backed by scriptural prooftext. I loved this book because it’s all laid out in such a way that you will be able to share this truth in an understandable way to others. I am a person who wants to not only understand myself but able to express it to others.
Great Job Hank!
July 17, 2022
La tesis argumental de esta literatura trata de mostrarte de manera introductoria como deberíamos tener un acercamiento a la hora de trata la rama de la teología llamada Escatología. Más allá de apasionamientos del momento, la biblia debe tratarse bajo esta postura : Interpretarla de manera literal conforme al género literario escrito ( y aquí es donde se pierden muchos de los lectores). Al no entender esta premisa básica y fundamental, empezamos agregarle "revelaciones especiales " que matan la verdadera intención del autor.
¡Lectura Recomendada!
¡Lectura Recomendada!
April 7, 2020
A Partial Preterist book that is well written. With a strong attention to the way we should read the Bible, Hanegraaff shows good principles we all should keep in mind when developing our end time view.
The book has its focus on debunking Tim LaHay’s work, which is done very good but sometimes in a too agressive way.
The book has its focus on debunking Tim LaHay’s work, which is done very good but sometimes in a too agressive way.
November 15, 2023
outstanding in his explanations
Although not popular teaching in todays crowded “end times” world this book clearly illustrates why it’s important to interpret scripture by scripture and not rely on so called end times biblical “experts” who excel in selling books and nothing else. Highly recommend this book
Although not popular teaching in todays crowded “end times” world this book clearly illustrates why it’s important to interpret scripture by scripture and not rely on so called end times biblical “experts” who excel in selling books and nothing else. Highly recommend this book
March 6, 2020
This book was one of the first Christian authors that I’ve read. It introduced me into non-fiction and fiction Christian authors. This one I remember most than the Afterlife book I’ve read on iBooks. I give this book 5 stars, because it’s such enlightenment and positivity.
November 14, 2023
Very easy read. He lays out biblical explanation of why the book of revelation mostly prophesies about destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD versus prophesies about the 21st century rebuilding of the temple and the rapture. Great book
May 14, 2025
4.0
I think Hank is right, but who's going to read this book? Well, I guess I did, at least. It seems too combative to hold the attention of someone from the position he wishes to refute. Brevity also aludes him throughout this book. Every time he puts his own views forward, it's so good, but he spends 80% of the book refuting LaHaye-style dispensationalism. To his credit, this does need refuted, but I'm just not sure the book's framing and proportions achieve that end even though, again, I think he's right. It's also written around an accrostic hermenuetic mnemonic (say that 5 times fast) device, L.I.G.H.T.S., that is good enough to be helpful to someone who has no rules for interpretation but doesnt always work and catch phrases like Exegetical Eschatology (literally called "E-squared" throughout) that I didn't like. I think Hank's ideas could help some people, but I'm not sure about the packaging.
I think Hank is right, but who's going to read this book? Well, I guess I did, at least. It seems too combative to hold the attention of someone from the position he wishes to refute. Brevity also aludes him throughout this book. Every time he puts his own views forward, it's so good, but he spends 80% of the book refuting LaHaye-style dispensationalism. To his credit, this does need refuted, but I'm just not sure the book's framing and proportions achieve that end even though, again, I think he's right. It's also written around an accrostic hermenuetic mnemonic (say that 5 times fast) device, L.I.G.H.T.S., that is good enough to be helpful to someone who has no rules for interpretation but doesnt always work and catch phrases like Exegetical Eschatology (literally called "E-squared" throughout) that I didn't like. I think Hank's ideas could help some people, but I'm not sure about the packaging.
June 10, 2017
Very different take on what Scripture says about the end times, than that presented in "Left Behind."
February 24, 2021
Excellent. Dispels modern myths on the return of Christ made popular by the “Left Behind” series using solid Biblical interpretation methods. A must read.
November 4, 2022
While certain parts were very interesting, other parts seemed to ramble on forever.
November 6, 2023
Most excellent apologetics !!! Five stars!!!
January 3, 2025
I remember reading the “Left Behind” series as a kid and taking for granted rapture theology… having no idea it was made up in the 19th century.
February 29, 2024
Eye Opener
I have been reading another book on end times, as I am trying to understand the current Israel/Palestinian conflict, and some things don't sit well with me. I feel over my 46 years as a Christian, I have not had accurate faithful teaching in this area. This book has opened my eyes. It is like a light has come on. I will be reading the Word in a way I haven't in many years. Interestingly, my pastor will be teaching a series on "reading the Bible for all it's worth." I can't wait to see if it is on par with what I have learned in this book.
I have been reading another book on end times, as I am trying to understand the current Israel/Palestinian conflict, and some things don't sit well with me. I feel over my 46 years as a Christian, I have not had accurate faithful teaching in this area. This book has opened my eyes. It is like a light has come on. I will be reading the Word in a way I haven't in many years. Interestingly, my pastor will be teaching a series on "reading the Bible for all it's worth." I can't wait to see if it is on par with what I have learned in this book.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 56 reviews