I was raised and discipled as a dispensational Christian. All of the radio preachers that I grew up listening to were dispensational (J. Vernon McGee, David Jeremiah, John MacArthur, Chuck Swindoll, Theodore Epp, Warren Wiersbe, etc.) I remember watching the “Thief in the Night” films with fascination and fear. I attended Moody Bible Institute (a dispensational stronghold) and Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary (which is committed to dispensationalism, but at least exposed me to other views) I began to do some serious thinking about my dispensational presuppositions, but never came to any other conclusions. I switched from a “solid” dispensationalist to a “default” dispensationalist—I was not as convinced, but in the absence of any other firm conviction, this was my “default” mode.

At Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, I began to seriously question dispensationalism and finally abandoned the concept of a pre-trib rapture in favor of historic premillennialism. Then, a little over two years ago, I took my final class at Trinity for my Th. M. The class was Revelation and Apocalyptic Literature. It was here (in classroom presentation and discussion) that I first began to understand the possibility that the Olivet Discourse and the Book of Revelation might not refer to the end of the world, but to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. As I would drive home for an hour each week after class, I would listen to Hank Hanegraaff’s “Bible Answer Man” program. This was the time that he was beginning to promote Exegetical Eschatology and was revealing that he had come to the same conclusion that I was beginning to entertain—that much of what dispensationalists think will happen at the “end of the world” had really happened in AD 70. I began to eagerly await his forthcoming book. In the mean time I continued to read and research and have become all but fully convinced (say 97% convinced) that believers in Christ (Jew and Gentile) make up true Israel, and that the Olivet Discourse and Revelation foretold events that would happen in the first century. Some would label thus label me a preterist, but like Hank, I would prefer not to accept a label although I would agree that my approach to the above mentioned passages is preterist. (Preteris from the Latin word for past--as in the prophecy has already been fulfilled in the past, we are not waiting for a future fulfillment at "the end of the world." Indeed, the doomsday prophecies do not refer to the end of the world but to the end of Jerusalem in AD 70)

So, when I finally figured out that Hank’s book was out, and that it was called The Apocalypse Code not Exegetical Eschatology (a title which I had regularly checked amazon.com for) I purchased it new. (It is rare that I purchase a new book. With the price of books, and the fact that a good used book is just as good, but much less expensive, I normally wait for the price to come down.) However, with great anticipation, I purchased this one new, and could not wait to get started. I hoped that this book would answer what few questions I had remaining.

What I hoped for in this book was a careful exegesis of some key passages, careful analysis along with supporting documentation, and thoughtful interaction with opposing views. Unfortunately, this book contained none of the above. I must say that as sympathetic as I am to Hank’s position and conclusions, I was very disappointed in the book.

In addition to the lack of the things mentioned above, I also found the following to be very annoying:
Seemingly personal attacks on Tim LaHaye: I say “seemingly” personal, because Hank does not attack Tim’s person, but it seems clear that he has a real axe to grind with LaHaye that seems to go deeper than just interacting with LaHaye’s teaching.
Apparently there is some “bad blood” between the two of them and perhaps LaHaye “started it” but I think the rebuttal would have been much more effective by a charitable interaction with LaHaye’s teachings. I also did not care for some of the examples that he used that compared LaHaye’s hermeneutical errors with the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the anti-religious comedic zealot Bill Maher. Hank seems to be more charitable to the Roman Catholic Church which does not preach the gospel of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, than to LaHaye who does.

The book seems to ramble: I had a real tough time following the first 75% of the book. I am not saying that the writing is incoherent, but the flow to the argument was very hard to follow. It bounced all around to all kinds of topics--more like one of Hank’s (spontaneous?) monologues on the radio than a carefully crafted essay. It was organized around the acrostics “LEGACY” and “LIGHTS” but I would have a hard time telling you what each of these stands for even now—having read the book yesterday and today. I think it a good outline along with clear and simple headings and subheadings in the text would have been much easier to follow and remember.

Lack of documentation: The book has plenty of end notes—a layout which I do not like because it is much more difficult to read if you really want to see the documentation. I would much prefer footnotes so that you can see the documentation on the same page. But beyond that, much of the book is not well documented. So many times he presents an opinion or statement of fact and I was left thinking to myself, “OK, great if it is true—but where did you get the information? How can I verify it?” Just to cite one instance, he notes that all the Roman emperors had aspirations to deity and lists off the various ways that they were deified or demanded worship. However, this is a key point that many dispute (as to how widespread this was or as to how seriously the emperors themselves took it.) Some documented examples and scholarly historical opinion would have been very helpful here. As it is, I just have to take Hank’s word for it.

On the positive side, I found the last chapter “Typological Principle” to be very enlightening and to contain some truly challenging information. I would certainly recommend this chapter for an alternative understanding of the importance of Israel and the land. The book also contains a helpful glossary, extensive subject and scripture index.

One word of defense for Hank. Because of his treatment of certain topics relating to Israel, the charge of anti-Semitism will (and in fact already has been) leveled at him. This is totally unfounded. He is simply using some of the same language as Jeremiah and Isaiah. It is his contention (and I agree) that Revelation uses some of the same language when speaking of Jerusalem/Israel. He also points out that the Law required proper treatment of the foreigners and strangers in the midst of the people. How is this consistent with ethnic cleansing of Palestinains? There is no need for name callling here. Interact with the facts and the arguments.

All in all, I am sad to say that this book did little to answer my questions or further my confidence in the approach that I am 97% convinced is the correct one. Reading the book will do you no harm, but you don’t need to buy it. Check it out at the library and read the “Typology’ chapter. (However, I plan to sell my used copy on amazon.com, so I hope one of you will buy mine—the rest of you should get if from the library!) If you have a dispensationalist friend and you want something that will challenge him/her to consider another view—this is not the book even though Paul L. Maier states just the opposite on the flyleaf of the dust jacket. If you want to give someone a carefully thought-out and charitable introduction to this perspective I recommend the following instead:
The Beast of Revelation by Kenneth Gentry
The Last Days According to Jesus by R. C. Sproul
Before Jerusalem Fell by Kenneth Gentry
Revelation: Four Views edited by Marvin Pate (chapter on the preterist view Kenneth Gentry)

The more I think about this book, the more I just scratch my head and think to myself "why didn't somebody--an editor or one of the pre-press reviewers tell Hank that he needed to do a lot more work on this much-anticipated book?" I don't understand why it took him so long to release it--it must be that he was too busy with other things. I really expected top quality research, exegesis, interaction with other viewpoints (scholarly, not popular futurists), and careful and thorough documentation.




Recommended: Yes