The Apocalypse Code
and over one million other books are available for Amazon Kindle .
Learn more
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Did you know you can trade in your old books for an Amazon.co.uk Gift Card to spend on the things you want? Plus, get an extra £5 Gift Certificate when you trade in books worth £10 or more before June 30, 2012. Visit the Books Trade-In Store for more details. |
Frequently Bought Together
Product details
|
More About the Author
Product Description
Product Description
The book that Hank Hanegraaff considers his masterwork. "Most of what you've heard, read or been told about the end times is wrong," says popular radio host and best-selling 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 the end times and why what we believe matters so much in today's world.
Inside This Book
(Learn More)
Tag this product(What's this?)Think of a tag as a keyword or label you consider is strongly related to this product.
Tags will help all customers organise and find favourite items. |
Customer Reviews
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
3 of 4 people found the following review helpful
Format:Paperback
To be blunt, this book seemed, to me, to have three basic flaws - it's vindictive, it's pretentious, and it's ridiculously and completely unnecessarily, in my opinion, convoluted.
I have read a number of books over the last few years by Christian academics addressing attacks on one aspect of "Christianity" or another ("Misquoting Jesus", "The Da Vinci Code", etc.).
In each case the commentator is obviously well aware that the attack is based - by intention or through ignorance - on erroneous ideas, yet they maintain a calm and courteous manner in their responses. They act/write in a mature and tolerant manner, without being patronising or trying to score points.
All of which is in sharp contrast to the style of "The Apocalypse Code".
Amongst the "pocket" reviews at the very front of the book is one which starts:
"This book is a withering and unrelenting critique ..."
Personally I'd alter the two adjectives to "venomous" and "self-defeating".
In its most basic form, the entire contents of the 250 pages (approx.) of the main text can be summed up in just two sentences:
1. Hank Hanegraaff doesn't like the doctrine of "dispensation" and what that involves;
2. Hank Hanegraaff especially doesn't like author Tim LeHaye, whose many books on the "Last Days" scenario adhere to a dispensationalist interpretation of the apocalyptic prophecies in Daniel, the Revelation, etc.
Which are two opinions that might be enough to support two articles, but certainly aren't enough to warrant the writing of a whole book. Not this book, at least.
The first error comes in one of Hanegraaff's many attacks upon LeHaye, in this case on page 11, where Hanegraaff tries to persuade his readers that "the mark of the beast" is purely metaphorical in meaning. LeHaye's references to social security numbers or microchips, we are assured, are nothing but "the product of a fertile imagination".
Presumably Hanegraaff has no idea that a university professor in the UK already has a microchip embedded in his arm to demonstrate how useful it can be at identifying a person in various contexts. And maybe the experiment in at least one Japanese department store has escaped Hanegraaff's notice - the one where customers are given head bands with identifying codes so that they can make purchases merely by standing in front of a camera with the product without even showing a conventional credit card.
I don't know what value there is or isn't in LeHaye's interpretation of the book of Revelation, but I'm quite sure there is no value in dismissing as fantasy ideas that have already been put into practice.
Another shortcoming that characterises the book, though possibly not so important as the first, is the poor quality of the structure and presentation.
The ideas are set out like a plate of well-stirred spaghetti, with ideas popping up, disappearing and then popping up again elsewhere in a way that may have made senses to the author but, I feely admit, left me totally confused on numerous occasions.
Moreover the writing itself is nothing to write home about (!). The author regularly repeats phrases and sentences, not only creating redundancies all over the place but also inducing a deju vu effect that is again confusing, and pointless other than as a way of filling space.
But the biggest mistakes are the self-congratulatory tone and the continual sniping at Tim LeHaye. I have never read any of LeHaye's work, and I doubt if I ever will. But if I ever did it would be this book - `The Apocalypse Code' - which tipped the balance in LeHaye's favour. If only to find out if any book can really be as bad as Hanegraaff implies is true of LeHaye's books in general?
What we actually get here is a classic example of preaching to the converted in a style that has much in common with zoologist Richard Dawkins at his most vehement.
It is, moreover, "divine" - but only in the sense of the Japanese WW2 "divine wind". The kamikaze/suicide pilots who turned their planes (and themselves) into not very effective, and ultimately pointless, exploding coffins.
The self-destruction might be seen as starting at the beginning of Chapter 4. In a largely irrelevant sideswipe at ex-President Bill Clinton, Hanegraaff launches into an "exposition" on linguistics that really doesn't stand close examination. He is quite wrong in his assumptions about the words "is", "here", "now", "you", "soon", etc., are as simple as the author seems to imagine, mainly because he ignores all possibility of words being used subjectively *as well as* objectively.
The first stage of the real train wreck, however, starts on page 109. Hanegraaff argues that:
"For LeHaye everything hinges on proving that the book of Revelation was written long after the destruction of the temple in AD 70. If, like the rest of Scripture, Revelation was written prior to AD 70, his entire Left Behind juggernaut is compromised."
Apparently without realising that he has just put the same "knife" to his own throat, Hanegraaff argues that the book of Revelation was written in the AD 60s. So if Revelation was written close to the *end* of the first century AD then it is Hanegraaff's own argument which will be destroyed.
This matters because the notion of early authorship is not well supported, whereas a later date is widely accepted by genuine experts on the subject. Professor Emeritus Bruce Metzger, for example, writes in his book on Revelation - `Breaking the Code':
"The book of Revelation was composed ... at some point between A.D. 69 and 96 .... Although some scholars have identified the persecutions alluded to in the book as originating from the Emperor Nero (A.D. 54-68), it is more likely that the book reflects the conditions prevailing during the latter years of the Emperor Domitian (A.D. 81-96)."
(Page 16)
After some supporting discussion, Metzger says:
"One may conclude, therefore, that the book of Revelation was written towards the end of Domitian's reign, about A.D. 90-95. This date is corroborated by the testimony of early church fathers, such as Iranaeus (A.D. 180), Clement of Alexandrea (200), Origen (254) and Eusebius (325)."
(page 17)
Given that Metzger is a genuinely renowned Bible scholar, and seems to reflect the view of the majority of Biblical scholars, this puts Hanegraaff's "minority report" in serious doubt.
The next error occurs only two or three pages later when there is more evidence of tampering with the evidence. Thus on page 112, in a passage about Pilate and Jesus (see John 19), Hanegraaff writes that when Pilate asked the crowd "Shall I crucify your kind:
`They roared back, "We have no king but Caesar." (John 19:15)
But if we look at the text in the Bible apparently used for the quotes in this book, the NIV, we find that it actually says:
"'We have no king but Caesar,' the chief priests answered."
So nobody "roared" anything, and the source of the answer is incorrect. This is poor evidence of any commitment to accuracy. Especially when the author does much the same thing about halfway down page 118 where he quotes from Revelation:
"A woman on a scarlet beast that was covered with blasphemous names and had seven heads and ten horns."
Yet at the bottom that page and the start of the next the text refers to:
"... the mother of prostitutes and the abominations of the earth covered with blasphemous names ..."
How on earth did the blasphemous names migrate from the scarlet beast to the woman? Or did Hanegraaff simply not understand that the first use of the word "and" indicates that everything after "a scarlet beast" refers solely to that beast, not the woman?
Maybe I'm being naive, but to repetitiously criticise LeHaye whilst making such basic mistakes seems a mite over the top. In fact when we add everything together - poor writing, a blinkered view of linguistics, inaccurate quoting, a poor grasp of chronology, etc., etc. there seems little point to buying this book at all.
In practice I suspect that this book will sell well to those who already agree with Hanegraaff, whilst those for whom the book is ostensibly written will be so alienated by the aggressive, confrontational tone that they are more likely to abandon it without reading more than a few paragraphs at most.
I have read a number of books over the last few years by Christian academics addressing attacks on one aspect of "Christianity" or another ("Misquoting Jesus", "The Da Vinci Code", etc.).
In each case the commentator is obviously well aware that the attack is based - by intention or through ignorance - on erroneous ideas, yet they maintain a calm and courteous manner in their responses. They act/write in a mature and tolerant manner, without being patronising or trying to score points.
All of which is in sharp contrast to the style of "The Apocalypse Code".
Amongst the "pocket" reviews at the very front of the book is one which starts:
"This book is a withering and unrelenting critique ..."
Personally I'd alter the two adjectives to "venomous" and "self-defeating".
In its most basic form, the entire contents of the 250 pages (approx.) of the main text can be summed up in just two sentences:
1. Hank Hanegraaff doesn't like the doctrine of "dispensation" and what that involves;
2. Hank Hanegraaff especially doesn't like author Tim LeHaye, whose many books on the "Last Days" scenario adhere to a dispensationalist interpretation of the apocalyptic prophecies in Daniel, the Revelation, etc.
Which are two opinions that might be enough to support two articles, but certainly aren't enough to warrant the writing of a whole book. Not this book, at least.
The first error comes in one of Hanegraaff's many attacks upon LeHaye, in this case on page 11, where Hanegraaff tries to persuade his readers that "the mark of the beast" is purely metaphorical in meaning. LeHaye's references to social security numbers or microchips, we are assured, are nothing but "the product of a fertile imagination".
Presumably Hanegraaff has no idea that a university professor in the UK already has a microchip embedded in his arm to demonstrate how useful it can be at identifying a person in various contexts. And maybe the experiment in at least one Japanese department store has escaped Hanegraaff's notice - the one where customers are given head bands with identifying codes so that they can make purchases merely by standing in front of a camera with the product without even showing a conventional credit card.
I don't know what value there is or isn't in LeHaye's interpretation of the book of Revelation, but I'm quite sure there is no value in dismissing as fantasy ideas that have already been put into practice.
Another shortcoming that characterises the book, though possibly not so important as the first, is the poor quality of the structure and presentation.
The ideas are set out like a plate of well-stirred spaghetti, with ideas popping up, disappearing and then popping up again elsewhere in a way that may have made senses to the author but, I feely admit, left me totally confused on numerous occasions.
Moreover the writing itself is nothing to write home about (!). The author regularly repeats phrases and sentences, not only creating redundancies all over the place but also inducing a deju vu effect that is again confusing, and pointless other than as a way of filling space.
But the biggest mistakes are the self-congratulatory tone and the continual sniping at Tim LeHaye. I have never read any of LeHaye's work, and I doubt if I ever will. But if I ever did it would be this book - `The Apocalypse Code' - which tipped the balance in LeHaye's favour. If only to find out if any book can really be as bad as Hanegraaff implies is true of LeHaye's books in general?
What we actually get here is a classic example of preaching to the converted in a style that has much in common with zoologist Richard Dawkins at his most vehement.
It is, moreover, "divine" - but only in the sense of the Japanese WW2 "divine wind". The kamikaze/suicide pilots who turned their planes (and themselves) into not very effective, and ultimately pointless, exploding coffins.
The self-destruction might be seen as starting at the beginning of Chapter 4. In a largely irrelevant sideswipe at ex-President Bill Clinton, Hanegraaff launches into an "exposition" on linguistics that really doesn't stand close examination. He is quite wrong in his assumptions about the words "is", "here", "now", "you", "soon", etc., are as simple as the author seems to imagine, mainly because he ignores all possibility of words being used subjectively *as well as* objectively.
The first stage of the real train wreck, however, starts on page 109. Hanegraaff argues that:
"For LeHaye everything hinges on proving that the book of Revelation was written long after the destruction of the temple in AD 70. If, like the rest of Scripture, Revelation was written prior to AD 70, his entire Left Behind juggernaut is compromised."
Apparently without realising that he has just put the same "knife" to his own throat, Hanegraaff argues that the book of Revelation was written in the AD 60s. So if Revelation was written close to the *end* of the first century AD then it is Hanegraaff's own argument which will be destroyed.
This matters because the notion of early authorship is not well supported, whereas a later date is widely accepted by genuine experts on the subject. Professor Emeritus Bruce Metzger, for example, writes in his book on Revelation - `Breaking the Code':
"The book of Revelation was composed ... at some point between A.D. 69 and 96 .... Although some scholars have identified the persecutions alluded to in the book as originating from the Emperor Nero (A.D. 54-68), it is more likely that the book reflects the conditions prevailing during the latter years of the Emperor Domitian (A.D. 81-96)."
(Page 16)
After some supporting discussion, Metzger says:
"One may conclude, therefore, that the book of Revelation was written towards the end of Domitian's reign, about A.D. 90-95. This date is corroborated by the testimony of early church fathers, such as Iranaeus (A.D. 180), Clement of Alexandrea (200), Origen (254) and Eusebius (325)."
(page 17)
Given that Metzger is a genuinely renowned Bible scholar, and seems to reflect the view of the majority of Biblical scholars, this puts Hanegraaff's "minority report" in serious doubt.
The next error occurs only two or three pages later when there is more evidence of tampering with the evidence. Thus on page 112, in a passage about Pilate and Jesus (see John 19), Hanegraaff writes that when Pilate asked the crowd "Shall I crucify your kind:
`They roared back, "We have no king but Caesar." (John 19:15)
But if we look at the text in the Bible apparently used for the quotes in this book, the NIV, we find that it actually says:
"'We have no king but Caesar,' the chief priests answered."
So nobody "roared" anything, and the source of the answer is incorrect. This is poor evidence of any commitment to accuracy. Especially when the author does much the same thing about halfway down page 118 where he quotes from Revelation:
"A woman on a scarlet beast that was covered with blasphemous names and had seven heads and ten horns."
Yet at the bottom that page and the start of the next the text refers to:
"... the mother of prostitutes and the abominations of the earth covered with blasphemous names ..."
How on earth did the blasphemous names migrate from the scarlet beast to the woman? Or did Hanegraaff simply not understand that the first use of the word "and" indicates that everything after "a scarlet beast" refers solely to that beast, not the woman?
Maybe I'm being naive, but to repetitiously criticise LeHaye whilst making such basic mistakes seems a mite over the top. In fact when we add everything together - poor writing, a blinkered view of linguistics, inaccurate quoting, a poor grasp of chronology, etc., etc. there seems little point to buying this book at all.
In practice I suspect that this book will sell well to those who already agree with Hanegraaff, whilst those for whom the book is ostensibly written will be so alienated by the aggressive, confrontational tone that they are more likely to abandon it without reading more than a few paragraphs at most.
Most Helpful Customer Reviews on Amazon.com (beta)
Amazon.com:
105 reviews
144 of 162 people found the following review helpful
A Paradigm-Shifting Work!
15 April 2007
Format:Hardcover
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 say that "this generation" in verse 34 refers to 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 refer to something other than "this generation." The problem is, on all four earlier occasions in Matthew, Jesus's use of "this generation" seems to always refers to the people alive at the time. It doesn't 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 referring to 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 only referring to his second coming in his Olivet Discourse, but also to his coming in 70 AD (the end of the age) on a cloud in judgment (as with many prophecies there is a near term and long term fulfillment). 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 Robertson 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 viewpoint, 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. Frankly, I haven't seen any eschatological viewpoint that answers every question, so I still don't firmly subscribe to any particular view. But The Apocalypse Code does provide you with some very practical tools and insights to help you discover many of the answers for yourself.
Matthew 24 is a prime example. For their model to work, dispensationalists must say that "this generation" in verse 34 refers to 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 refer to something other than "this generation." The problem is, on all four earlier occasions in Matthew, Jesus's use of "this generation" seems to always refers to the people alive at the time. It doesn't 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 referring to 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 only referring to his second coming in his Olivet Discourse, but also to his coming in 70 AD (the end of the age) on a cloud in judgment (as with many prophecies there is a near term and long term fulfillment). 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 Robertson 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 viewpoint, 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. Frankly, I haven't seen any eschatological viewpoint that answers every question, so I still don't firmly subscribe to any particular view. But The Apocalypse Code does provide you with some very practical tools and insights to help you discover many of the answers for yourself.
148 of 169 people found the following review helpful
A Purposeful Attack on Dispensational Sensationalism
1 April 2007
Format:Hardcover
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!
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!
21 of 23 people found the following review helpful
Responds to the Lightweight Views of Tim La Haye but not Serious Futurist Scholarship
5 Jun 2007
Format:Hardcover
Some Observations about Hanegraaf's Book :
1) Having been a long-time listener of the radio program, THE BIBLE ANSWER MAN, I have waited for years for Hanegraaf to spell out his eschatological view. To my disappointment, this book offers nothing really new to the Eschatological debate among Christians. To summarize... Hanegraaff wants to sidestep criticisms of "his" hermeneutics by disavowing himself of the commonly accepted title for his view --- which is partial preterism. Nothing heretical about that. What disappoints me is his denial that he is a partial preterist when his view clearly falls in concert with those who espouse his views of realized eschatology. If you read the book carefully, his views are really partial preterism, popularized for the common layman. Why not just admit it ?
2) I have to inform the reader that Hanegraaf calls his methodology Exegetical Eschatology. Exegesis is of course sound methodology. We have to let the Bible speak for itself and let scripture interprete scripture. However, every other serious Bible scholar who does not fall into the partial preterist camp makes the same claim as well. Every serious Bible scholar believe they are being exegetical in their eschatology. Hanegraaf's use of this term is a little tricky because it gives the impression that his own eschatology is being exegetical while those of others appear not be be.
Nothing could be further from the truth. A Dispensational Premillenialist could claim that they came up with their view not by assuming a model of the last days and making the Scripture fit this model, but rather by applying rules of hermeneutics to formulate their view of the last days.
How is this view not exegetical eschatology ?
It would really be more useful for the reader had Hanegraaf been more forthcoming and use the term that fits his view of the last days -- Partial Preterism. If the shoe fits, wear it.
3) Hanegraaf does little to engage the many scholarly views espoused by serious Futurist Biblical scholars, prefering instead to limit his critique to the Tim Lahaye wing of the "dispensationalist" view. Please don't get me wrong, I am not belittling Lahaye or his intellect or scholarship. But Lahaye's popular work should not really be the basis by which dispensational scholarship should be judged.
Instead of engaging serious dispensational scholars, Hanegraaff's responses are leveled against pop culture speakers like John Hagee, Worldnetdaily columnist Hal Lindsay and fiction authors like Tim LaHaye, who popularized the LEFT BEHIND series and made them into hit movies.
Simply peruse the end notes of Apocalypse Code's and you will find countless citations of Tim LaHaye, Hal Lindsey, and John Hagee. What you will NOT find on the other hand, is Hanegraaf engaging serious
Dispensationalist scholars like John Walvoord, Dwight Pentecost or Charles Ryrie. These men have spent years studying the Bible to come up with their conclusion. Why engage pop culture writers and writers of fiction instead of serious eschatological scholars ? A few of them were not even cited once !!
A more useful book would engage the exegesis of the above mentioned dispensational scholars to explain why their conclusions cannot be right. This book does very little of that.
So, do I recommend that you read the Apocalypse code ? Of course. Christians should study God's word and seriously investigate what other Christians say in order to find out if "these things are so" ( The Berean model ). But please do yourself a favor --- compare his arguments with those presented by scholary futurists who have spent years studying the Bible like John Piper, George Eldon Ladd (the premier Historical Premillenialist IMHO ), Charles Ryrie, Lewis Sperry Chafer and the like. By the way, This review is not a defense of the dispensationalist view, it is simply my personal insight into what readers should expect from the book. Read it with discernment and be aware that it is not engaging serious futurist scholars but popular writers. If you want a better, in depth and more scholarly understanding of the preterist view, the books written by Kenneth Gentry are more recommendable.
One last point to consider --- An important point for Hanegraaf's view to be true is an early dating of the writing of the book of Revelation. If Revelations was written in the mid 90's and not before 70 A.D., then Partial Preterism cannot be true. It's as simple as that. Hence, for Hanegraaf's view to be true, The Book of Revelation must be written in the years before the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem.
Hanegraaf in my view, did not convincingly present his view of why he believes the Book Of Revelation was written before Jerusalem's fall. For a good argument on why Revelations was written prior to 70 AD, Kenneth Gentry's book --- BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL is the best treatment of the subject.
1) Having been a long-time listener of the radio program, THE BIBLE ANSWER MAN, I have waited for years for Hanegraaf to spell out his eschatological view. To my disappointment, this book offers nothing really new to the Eschatological debate among Christians. To summarize... Hanegraaff wants to sidestep criticisms of "his" hermeneutics by disavowing himself of the commonly accepted title for his view --- which is partial preterism. Nothing heretical about that. What disappoints me is his denial that he is a partial preterist when his view clearly falls in concert with those who espouse his views of realized eschatology. If you read the book carefully, his views are really partial preterism, popularized for the common layman. Why not just admit it ?
2) I have to inform the reader that Hanegraaf calls his methodology Exegetical Eschatology. Exegesis is of course sound methodology. We have to let the Bible speak for itself and let scripture interprete scripture. However, every other serious Bible scholar who does not fall into the partial preterist camp makes the same claim as well. Every serious Bible scholar believe they are being exegetical in their eschatology. Hanegraaf's use of this term is a little tricky because it gives the impression that his own eschatology is being exegetical while those of others appear not be be.
Nothing could be further from the truth. A Dispensational Premillenialist could claim that they came up with their view not by assuming a model of the last days and making the Scripture fit this model, but rather by applying rules of hermeneutics to formulate their view of the last days.
How is this view not exegetical eschatology ?
It would really be more useful for the reader had Hanegraaf been more forthcoming and use the term that fits his view of the last days -- Partial Preterism. If the shoe fits, wear it.
3) Hanegraaf does little to engage the many scholarly views espoused by serious Futurist Biblical scholars, prefering instead to limit his critique to the Tim Lahaye wing of the "dispensationalist" view. Please don't get me wrong, I am not belittling Lahaye or his intellect or scholarship. But Lahaye's popular work should not really be the basis by which dispensational scholarship should be judged.
Instead of engaging serious dispensational scholars, Hanegraaff's responses are leveled against pop culture speakers like John Hagee, Worldnetdaily columnist Hal Lindsay and fiction authors like Tim LaHaye, who popularized the LEFT BEHIND series and made them into hit movies.
Simply peruse the end notes of Apocalypse Code's and you will find countless citations of Tim LaHaye, Hal Lindsey, and John Hagee. What you will NOT find on the other hand, is Hanegraaf engaging serious
Dispensationalist scholars like John Walvoord, Dwight Pentecost or Charles Ryrie. These men have spent years studying the Bible to come up with their conclusion. Why engage pop culture writers and writers of fiction instead of serious eschatological scholars ? A few of them were not even cited once !!
A more useful book would engage the exegesis of the above mentioned dispensational scholars to explain why their conclusions cannot be right. This book does very little of that.
So, do I recommend that you read the Apocalypse code ? Of course. Christians should study God's word and seriously investigate what other Christians say in order to find out if "these things are so" ( The Berean model ). But please do yourself a favor --- compare his arguments with those presented by scholary futurists who have spent years studying the Bible like John Piper, George Eldon Ladd (the premier Historical Premillenialist IMHO ), Charles Ryrie, Lewis Sperry Chafer and the like. By the way, This review is not a defense of the dispensationalist view, it is simply my personal insight into what readers should expect from the book. Read it with discernment and be aware that it is not engaging serious futurist scholars but popular writers. If you want a better, in depth and more scholarly understanding of the preterist view, the books written by Kenneth Gentry are more recommendable.
One last point to consider --- An important point for Hanegraaf's view to be true is an early dating of the writing of the book of Revelation. If Revelations was written in the mid 90's and not before 70 A.D., then Partial Preterism cannot be true. It's as simple as that. Hence, for Hanegraaf's view to be true, The Book of Revelation must be written in the years before the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem.
Hanegraaf in my view, did not convincingly present his view of why he believes the Book Of Revelation was written before Jerusalem's fall. For a good argument on why Revelations was written prior to 70 AD, Kenneth Gentry's book --- BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL is the best treatment of the subject.
Were these reviews helpful?
Let us know
Customer Discussions
|
This product's forum
Active discussions in related forums
Search Customer Discussions
|
Related forums
|
Listmania!
Look for similar items by category
Look for similar items by subject
Feedback
- Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
- I am the Author, and I want to comment on my book.
- I am the Publisher, and I want to comment on this book.
|
