Hanegraaff's "The Apocalypse Code"
Wednesday, August 15, 2007 at 11:22AM 
Several of you have asked me about my take on Hank Hanegraaff's recent book, The Apocalypse Code (Click here: Amazon.com: The Apocalypse Code: Find Out What the Bible REALLY Says About the End Times . . . and Why It Matters). So, here goes.
On the one hand, Hanegraaff does a very good job debunking the popular dispensational end-times scenarios set out by the likes of John Hagee and Tim LaHaye. Hanegraaff exposes the embarrassing problem faced by dispensationalists who claim to interpret the Bible literally, and who cannot make good on that promise. While John (Revelation 1:3; 22:10) tells us that the things recorded in his apocalyptic vision are soon to come to pass, dispensationalists are forced to tell us that "near" and "soon" don't really mean "near" and "soon." Instead, dispensationalists tell us, these things don't come to pass until the end of the age--a rather embarrassing problem given their insistence that they take the Bible (especially prophecy) "literally."
Hanegraaff also does a very good job debunking the Israel-centered hermeneutic of popular dispensational writers. Hanegraaff capably demonstrates that Jesus Christ is the true hermeneutical center of all of Scripture and that many of the things dispensationalists assign to the future and the end of the age (i.e., in the millennium), are already fulfilled in Christ! This includes the land promise of the Abrahamic covenant, the fact that Christ is the true temple, and so on. Hanegraaff also effectively replies to the common dispensational rant that non-dispensationalists are intrinsically anti-Semitic.
In all of these regards, Hanegraaff's book offers an effective rebuttal to dispensational claims. Would that all those who read Lindsey, LaHaye, and Hagee, and think their stuff is gospel, would also read Hanegraaff and consider well the biblical evidence he adduces which undoes the dispensational system.
On the other hand, Hanegraaff's The Apocalypse Code, has several serious weaknesses. I hate to criticize Hank personally, since he was so gracious to me when I was a guest on the Bible Answer Man several years ago. Hank was still working through his position on these matters and gave me two full hours on national radio to make my case. He had read my first book (A Case for Amillennialism) from cover to cover, was thoroughly conversant with all of the key issues and was very nice to my teenage son who went to the studio with me. Dads remember such things and I am grateful.
That being said, here are what I see as the main problems with The Apocalypse Code, and which detract from its overall impact and import.
First, the use of neo-logisms ("I coined the phrase Exegetical Eschatology -- e2", implying that dispensationalists don't do exegesis), the use of mnemonic devices (LIGHTS), and guilt by association arguments (LaHaye is juxtaposed with Bill Maher and Bill Clinton, among others) seriously undercuts the very point that Hanegraaff is trying to make--which is that LaHaye, Hagee, et al., can't be taken seriously. Inventing your own self-designation ("Exegetical Eschatology") requires that you do serious exegesis, not stoop to the sensationalist genre of those whom you are endeavoring to refute.
Refuting sensationalist eschatology with sensationalism might sell books, but this approach seriously detracts from Hanegraaff's overall case. The result is, in my opinion, Hanegraaff's book has a "snotty," condescending and sensationalist tone to it. This would make me reluctant to give The Apocalypse Code to a dispensational friend who was not yet at the point of re-thinking their entire eschatology.
Second, Hanegraaff adopts the partial preterist interpretation of the eschatological language of the New Testament. That's fine by me, since I too believe that the Olivet Discourse is primarily aimed to the disciples and that the events predicted there (with the exception of the Second Advent), are largely fulfilled by the events of A.D. 70. But Hanegraaff's "partial" preterism leads to the usual (and in my estimation, flawed) interpretation of a number of key points.
Preterists of all stripes are forced to argue for a pre-70 A.D. date for the Book of Revelation. I think the internal evidence points strongly for a date much closer to 95 A.D--although the dating of Revelation ultimately does not effect my overall eschatological position, which is Reformed amillennialism. I get the sense from writers like Hanegraaff (and Ken Gentry), that once you make the leap to some form of preterism, you've got to make the case for an early date for Revelation. You now have to "prove" this early date, not objectively examine evidence as to when John might have been given his vision.
Because of this preterist presupposition demanding an early date for the apocalypse, you get all kinds of far-fetched interpretations from Hanegraaff: Babylon (Revelation 17-18) is apostate Israel, not Rome; Nero and the current Roman Caesars fulfill in its entirety the beast motif (Revelation 13); and that the Jerusalem Temple was still standing when John was given his vision (based upon a misinterpretation of Revelation 11:1-3).
It is also highly problematic to argue that Christ returned (in a some form of parousia) with the events of 70 A. D. No doubt, the destruction of the temple marks the end of the Jewish era (not the end of "this age,") and it clearly led to the diaspora and the curse upon apostate Israel being tragically realized as foretold by Jesus in Matthew 23:37-39. But such does not constitute a "coming of Jesus." How many second comings are there? One or two? And isn't one of the criticisms of dispensationalists that they teach a "real coming" at the Rapture which no one sees?
Hanegraaff's The Apocalypse Code has enough weaknesses that I would be hesitant to give it to a dispensationalist who was not at the point of jettisoning their dispensationalism. I would give it (and therefore recommend it) to someone who was widely-read in this field, had thought about these issues for some time, and who understood most of the nuances and differences associated with these issues. The Apocalypse Code might just give that person the final shove they need.
Since this is my blog and I'm therefore entitled to make shameless appeals to those who read it, let me just say that I too have written a book which covers much of the same ground, and which I think is more exegetically based. Reformed amillennialism (i.e., Horton, Vos, Kline, Hoekema, Venema, Johnson, Beale) is not only able to deal with the "time is near" language of the Book of Revelation, it also does not strip the New Testament of those eschatological events which are yet to be fulfilled in the future.
You can find more information about my book, The Man of Sin, here: Click here: Riddleblog - Man of Sin - Uncovering the Truth About Antichrist
Reader Comments (33)
I think we can differentiate between the views we embrace (and thus the views we reject) ... and the attitudes we have.
Also, I think it's only right to embrace some views (e.g., the deity of Christ, the substitutionary/penal nature of His death), and consequently reject contrary views as heretical (though I would never say that the postmil view is heretical)! But even then, we don't (necessarily) do so in a spirit of arrogance.
Of course it's always possible to be dismissive of a view without giving it a fair shake.
But seems to me that many amillennialists reject the postmil view simply because, having studied the millennial issue (including the postmil view), they've come to the conclusion that the Bible teaches the amil view rather than the postmil view.
As Kim has said, "Jesus returns not to a saved earth, but to save the earth!" To me, that neatly summarizes one of the key differences between the amil and postmil views.
At least premils agree with amils on one thing: the grand and glorious fulfillment of God's promises cannot occur until Jesus Himself returns in glory! (And unlike both postmils and premils, who try to squeeze the prophecies of perfection and eternity into a millennium on this old imperfect and temporal earth, the amil view alone sees the ultimate fulfillment of such prophecies in the new heaven/earth.)
Just something to think about...
The millennial debate is not only about the timing of the millennium but also about its nature. Futhermore, a whole host of issues are involved, including the way in which various promises about the land, the throne, and various spiritual blessings are fulfilled.
To figure out the varieties of dispensationalism, I'd recommend the two books by Bock and Blaising on progressive dispenationalism (and, to a lesser extent, the one by Saucy). For an explanation of historic premillennialism, a number of books by George Ladd are helpful.
But to see something a bit more up-to-date, I'd check out "The Kingdom of Christ" by Russell Moore.
Of course I also think that people like Hoekema, Poythress, Riddlebarger, et al do a good job of pointing out the deficiencies of all the dispensational views, as well as of any premil views. Progressive "Ds" have come a long way (and, in my opinion are very close to the historic premil view), but clearly I think that all premils (dispensational or not) are on the wrong side of the millennial fence!
Partial Preterists insist on a date of pre AD 70 for the Revelation.
Classic Amils insist on a c. AD 95.
In all fairness, I am not sure how either side has proven their case, and in all fairness I am not altogether certain it is fair to simply label partial-preterism PostMil, and it is certainly not even-handed to label Amils as not taking the Revelation seriously or literally.
I know some are not going to like this:
but an accusation regarding another's point of view is not a sound alternative theory necessarily.
Secondly, another alternative theory is not a sound theory necessarily either.
In reading regarding this issue, can't one be Partial Preterist and still be Amil?
About a year ago, I attempted to learn the reasons from a PHD friend for his "Reformed Historic PreMil" stance.
Let's just say, he was holding onto a "literal hermeneutic" alot more similiar to Dispensationalists than he was willing to concede. Honestly, it was like running into a brick wall again and again.
Now, I ask, what is the internal evidence for dating the Revelation of Jesus Christ as either pre- AD 70 or c. AD 95?
Thanks everyone!
If you've got a copy of my book, Man of Sin, look through the appendix where I discuss the internal evidence for a late date (95 A.D.) of Revelation. I'd also recommend reading the introductory sections of Beale's commentary on Revelation.
Yes, you can be a preterist and amill. Jay Adams' book, The Time is At Hand, comes to mind. Some would put Warfield in this camp as well, although he was amill in much of his exegesis, Warfield self-conciously rejected the view of Vos and Kuyper (amillennialism).
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1672
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1627
I started becoming disillusioned with that view in the mid-90s, after I had been a Christian for about 15 years and things weren't working out quite the way Hal Lindsey SAID they were going to work out. I started thinking that these guys didn't really know what they were talking about, but I didn't have any alternative ideas on the topic until I heard Mr. Hanegraff discussing them on his radio program around 2001 or so. This was also about the time I was being challenged by RC Sproul's radio program on Reformed theology. To be honest, I started drinking up these new ideas like a man in the desert who had discovered a full canteen!
I have truely appreciated all of Dr. Riddlebarder's work in explaining the amillenial view. Thank you!
I have your Amil book and have read several chapters, but do not have the two works you referenced to me in this thread.
Thanks Again!
I, for one, do not believe Hanegraaff to be the best rep. of the partial preterist position. Not that Hanegraaff is not a competent “bible answer man,” but simply there are others out there that have written more on the matter. For any of the curious ones out there Kenneth Gentry is a much more thorough writer on the preterism issue. I just finished reading Gentry’s “The Beast of Revelation” as well as Gentry’s doctrinal dissertation “Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the book of Revelation” and I must say I have never yet come across such a precise assessment of the early date of Revelation. Riddlebarger, I was wondering if you ever wrote a review of Gentry’s dissertation (kind of like Robert Thomas of the Masters Seminary, “Theonomy and Dating the book of Revelation”), or maybe if you had touched upon some points in your “The Man of Sin: Uncovering the truth about the Anti-christ?” At the moment, my family and I sat through the Gaffin and Gentry debate over Postmillennialism vs Amillennialism. I (biased of course) and my family (dispensational) must say that Gentry bested Gaffin in that debate. Richard Gaffin simply did not make any lead way in the cross examination, whereas Gentry hammered away during the cross examination clarifying the Post-mill position clearly.
So Riddlebarger, I wanted to know if you have any materials with yourself (or anyone for that matter, preferably an a-mill) interacting with exegetes from the partial preterist position. I think that may prove helpful in juxtaposing the intricacies of a hermeneutical tool like preterism to an eschatological body like A-mill. Noted: one may be an A-mill as well as a preterist, but more times than not the preterist turn out post-mill.
I noticed that you mentioned Horton, Vos, Kline, Hoekema, Venema, Johnson,and Beale as having Reformed views on Amillennialism. I was wondering what you thought of "More than Conquerors" by William Hendriksen. I found this book very easy to read and understand. Is it in your opinion a good book to learn about Amillenialism?
I have two questions:
1) On page 263 of your book A Case for Amillennialism, you admit that "in at least two other instances Christ's Parousia has a different sense (Matt. 10:23; 16:28)," so what basis do you have to continue to ridicule the postmil view that says exactly that - not all comings of Christ are the Second Coming?
2) You say above, "dispensationalists are forced to tell us that "near" and "soon" don't really mean "near" and "soon." Instead, dispensationalists tell us, these things don't come to pass until the end of the age." But don't you have the same problem? You interpret "near" in Matt. 32-33 to mean "immanent and inevitable, even though he himself has not appeared in his glory" (p.176).
Mike
Eschatology
I am Jonah Immanu, an adimtted pretribulation rapturist whose basis for my faith in the pretibulation rapture is on what Jesus Himself spoke in the gospels of Matthew and Luke and what His Apostle Paul spoke in his first epistles to the early church at Corinth and Thessalonica.
In May 2005, I authored: Alienated Planet Earth and the End that will be Coming to our World available on-line: trafford.com/04-2823. In light of the gospel of Jesus at Matthew, Chapter 24, verses 40 & 41 and the gospel of Luke, Chapter 17,verses 34, 35 & 36, the Messiah's so great Mercy and Grace
to those who believe in Him, His offering of a final refuge from the wrath that will befall our fallen world under the antichrist before the Tribulation and Great Tribulation seems to me the best
interpretation in light of the whole dispensational texts written for Christ's faithful believers in the Old and New Testament.
This is especially true in the context of the first epistles of Paul to the church at Corinth, Chapter 15 verses 51 through 57 and his first epistle to the Thessalonians, Chapter 4, verses 13 through 18 expounding upon the refuging of the raptured faithful Christians by Jesus, our Messiah. Verse 17 says that those who are alive and remain will meet the Lord in the air. Chapter 18 concludes:
Wherefore, comfort one another with these words. This represents Paul's closure on this matter and the conclusion of the
Chapter 4 of Thessalonians. It seems to me that Christ's gospel and Paul's epistles are describing the future rapture (catching-away) prophecy and leaves very little room for any other interpretation by Hank Hanegraff or by his fellow end-time author, Kim Riddlebarger.
In Jesus Name,
Jonah Immanu
Christian Eschatological Author
His was my first exposure to amillenialism way back in the early 80's, and for that I'll ever be grateful.