A Review of Hank Hanegraaff's The Apocalypse Code

Dr. Thomas Ice

For the lastfifteen years or so when I have heard Hank Hanegraaff, host of the BibleAnswer Man radio program, fieldquestions on eschatology (end times prophecy) it was very clear that he hasbeen decidedly against the futurist perspective. Hanegraaff has told his audience for years that he wasstudying the field of eschatology and would announce his views in a book oneday. Hanegraaff's book has nowbeen released, entitled The Apocalypse Code[1],and has confirmed his rhetoric and tone heard for the last fifteen years on theradio as Hanegraaff has been treating dispensationalism as if it were acult. Yes, Hanegraaff has been"culting" dispensationalism! Eventhough Hanegraaff always insisted that he was open to and had not adopted aspecific view of eschatology, it has always been equally clear to anyone who isschooled in the various views of the end times that he had all along rejecteddispensationalism and embraced his own version of a preterist/idealist scheme. Yet, he has never admitted this; andeven after the release of his book, he still refuses to classify his ownconclusions in spite of the fact that he assigns labels to virtually everyoneelse.

Some Factual Errors

As I firststarted reading the book, I noticed a number of factual errors. Let me chronicle just a couple ofthem. Hanegraaff says Tim LaHayeis "Unlike early dispensationalists, who believed that the Jews would beregathered in Palestine because of belief in their Redeemer."[2] Hanegraaff gives no documentation forthis statement, which is factually in error. In fact, J. N. Darby (the earliest of dispensationalists)believed that the Jews would return to their land in unbelief. He says, "At the end of the age thesame fact will be reproduced: the Jews-returned to their own land, thoughwithout being converted-will find themselves in connection with the fourthbeast."[3] Historian David Rausch in his Ph.D.dissertation entitled: Zionism Within Early American Fundamentalism1878-1918, says, "TheProto-Fundamentalist believed that the Jewish people would return to Palestine,the 'Promised Land,' without converting enmasse to Christianity."[4] More examples could be given, but it isclear that most dispensationalists have always agreed with LaHaye on thismatter.

Anothererror in fact by Hanegraaff is his statement that Author James Balfour "wasraised on a steady diet of dispensationalism."[5] Lord Balfour was foreign secretary whenthe British government issues a statement in 1917 supporting thereestablishment of a Jewish state in Israel called the BalfourDeclaration. Balfour was aZionist, but his views were not based upon eschatology, let alonedispensationalism. His sister andbiographer said the following:

Balfour's interest in the Jews andtheir history was lifelong. It originatedin the Old Testament training of his mother, and in his Scottishupbringing. As he grew up, hisintellectual admiration and sympathy for certain aspects of Jewish philosophyand culture grew also, and the problem of the Jews in the modern world seemedto him of immense importance. Healways talked eagerly on this, and I remember in childhood imbibing from himthe idea that Christian religion and civilization owes to Judaism animmeasurable debt, shamefully ill repaid.[6]

Historian BarbaraTuckman tells us that Balfour was "not ardent but a skeptic, not a religiousenthusiast but a philosophical pessimist, . . . that Christian religion andcivilization owes to Judaism an immeasurable debt, shamefully ill repaid."[7] Hardly one influenced by dispensationalism,as Hanegraaff would have his readers believe. In fact, it is probably true that none of the ChristianZionists of the early twentieth century in Britain were influenced at all bydispensationalism. Most of theChristian Zionists in Britain at this time were usually members of the Churchof England.[8]

Humble Hank

Humble HankHanegraaff ridicules Hal Lindsey's 1997 book, Apocalypse Code[9], as one who claimed to understand the book ofRevelation. "Until the presentgeneration," declares Hanegraaff of Lindsey, "the encrypted message of theApocalypse had remained unrealized" until Lindsey cracked the code.[10] Now Hanegraaff meekly declares of therelease of his new book: "I think it will create a major paradigm shift in ourunderstanding of the end times that is long overdue."[11] He modestly predicts that his book willlead a movement of Evangelicals away from dispensational futurism and towardhis preterism/idealism scheme.

Hanegraaffcontends that his book is about "Exegetical Eschatology to underscore thatabove all else I am deeply committed to a proper method of biblical interpretation rather than to anyparticular model ofeschatology."[12] If that is his goal then he has fallenfar short of the mark! Hanegraaff's proposed interpretative approaches, if implemented, wouldsend the church back to the Dark Ages hermeneutically. He may want to produce only a method ofinterpretation, but the moment anyone applies a method it produces an outcomeor model of eschatology. Further,the book of Revelation is not written in code (where does Revelation saythat?); thus, no need to break the code as Hanegraaff contends.

The greatmajority of the book is a rant against Hanegraaff's distorted view ofdispensationalism in general and Tim LaHaye in particular. There is precious little actualexegesis, if any at all, to support his preterist/idealist eschatology;however, there are great quantities of some of the most vicious tirades against LaHaye and many other Bible prophecyteachers that I have ever read in print.

Hanegraaffappears rather proud to tell readers that the principles of his methodology is "called ExegeticalEschatology or e²,"[13]as if no one before he came along had ever produced a view of eschatology fromproper exegesis. Interestingly,for someone who claims such a deep commitment "to a proper method of biblical interpretation,"[14]it is stunning to realize that Hanegraaff's "method" is stated as principles,rather than an actual method like the historical-grammatical, contextualapproach.

"I have organizedthe principles that are foundational to e² around the acronymLIGHTS,"[15]says Hanegraaff. The letters ofthe acronym LIGHTS stands for the following principles: L refers to the literalprinciple, I represents the illumination principle, G stands for thegrammatical principle, H for the historical principle, T means the typologyprinciple, and S is for the principle of scriptural synergy.[16] Only half of Hanegraaff's principlescan even be classified as interpretative methods, the other three are bestclassified as theological beliefs.

Illumination is awork of the Holy Spirit on the believer that enables him to see or understandGod's Word. An unbeliever isblinded to the truth of God (1 Cor. 2:14); however, a believer is in a state inwhich he is able to see and understand God's truth (1 Cor. 2:9-3:2). This theological truth is not aninterpretative method. Typology isnot a method for exegeting Scripture; instead, as Paul says, some Old Testamentevents were types, patterns, illustrations, or examples to help us live theChristian life (1 Cor. 10:6, 11). Hanegraaff defines his principle of scriptural synergy as a belief "thatthe whole of Scripture is greater than the sum of its individual passages. . .. that individual Bible passages may never be interpreted in such a way as toconflict with the whole of Scripture."[17] Traditionally this is called theanalogy of faith, that Scripture interprets Scripture. This also is a theological outcome andnot a method. This principle alsopresupposes that one already properly understands the meaning of all of theother passages that are supposed to shed light upon the one in dispute. Such is not the case.

Tim LaHaye Racist andBlasphemer?

Hanegraaff's newbook anoints Tim LaHaye as the head of this new cult, replacing Hal Lindsey(the former whipping boy), and is the prime target in his sub-Christian attackon LaHaye and other Bible prophecy advocates. Strangely, Hanegraaff is known for often quoting the famousmaxim: "In essentials, unity; in nonessentials, liberty; in all things,charity."[18] So where are the liberty and charity inpractice that he advocates in theory? Charity and liberty towards those he disagrees with is totally absent inHanegraaff's new book. In fact,his new book actually competes with the writings of Gary North for the mostinvective per paragraph and makes Gary DeMar appear to have a moderatetone. It is one thing to disagreewith another Christian (Hanegraaff and any other Christian has a right to voicetheir disagreement with other Christians), but to call his fellow brother inChrist a racist[19] and ablasphemer[20] because headvocates a different view of Bible prophecy goes well beyond the pale.

"Furthermore,"says Hanegraaff, "there is the very real problem of racial discrimination."[21] Watch how Hanegraaff plays the racecard: he takes LaHaye's commonly held view that Israel has a future in God'splan, adds a touch of his famous misrepresentation of another's view, andpresto, LaHaye has become a racist. It would seem to me that the same Hanegraaff logic applied to God in theOld Testament would also make the Lord a racist for choosing Israel "out of allthe peoples who are on the face of the earth" (Deut. 6:6-8). It follows that if you side with God onthis issue then Hanegraaff would believe that you believe in salvation by raceinstead of grace. Yes, LaHayebelieves that God has chosen Israel, but like all dispensationalists, he alsobelieves that Israel will be saved in the future by the same gracious gospelthat is available to all mankind-Jew or Gentile.

Anti-Israel andPro-Palestinian

Hanegraaff'sblend of preterism and idealism produces an eschatology that is viciouslyanti-Israel and pro-Palestinian. His brand of replacement theology teaches that national Israel has nofuture since she is replaced by the church.

Just as Joshua is a type of Jesus wholeads the true children of Israel into the eternal land of promise, so KingDavid is a type of the "King of Kings and Lord or Lords" who forever rules andreigns from the New Jerusalem in faithfulness and in truth (Revelation 19:16;cf. 19:11). In each case, thelesser is fulfilled and rendered obsolete by the greater.[22]

As is typicalwithin systems of replacement theology, Hanegraaff renders much of the OldTestament obsolete by what is said to have happened in New Testamenttheology. He says, the"relationship between the Testaments is in essence typological."[23] Future prophetic promises, whichusually relate to Israel, are rendered as mythical or mere types and shadows ofsomething else, but never what they actually say. Through alleged hermeneutical ideas, such as Hanegraaff'sso-called, "typology principle," he interprets future promises to Israelallegorically as fulfilled through the church. He actually says, with a straight face, that some of thesymbols in Revelation, such as the dragon (Rev. 12) are "fantasy imagery."[24] Such deconstruction of God's Wordrenders the future promises to Israel as mythological and not true historicalrecords of God's veracity.[25] Thus, the reader should not besurprised to learn that Hanegraaff does not believe that the seventy weeks ofyears (490 years) in Daniel refer to literal years that actually elapse inspecific history. Instead, hesays, "the seventy sevens of Daniel encompass ten Jubilee eras and representthe extended exile of the Jews that would end in the fullness of time-thequintessential Jubilee-when the people of God would experience ultimateredemption and restoration, not in the harlot city, but in the holy Christ."[26] Hanegraaff regularly calls Jerusalem"the harlot city."

Conclusion

This book is notonly filled with factual error throughout, but teaches that most Bible prophecyhas already been fulfilled and advocates the following preterist viewpoints:Nero was the beast of Revelation (i.e., the antichrist), Christ's Olivetdiscourse and most of the Book of Revelation were fulfilled by eventssurrounding the a.d. 70destruction of Jerusalem, and the tribulation was also fulfilled in the firstcentury. Hanegraaff is certainlyno lover of Israel since he teaches that God divorced the harlot Israel (heneeds to read the end of Hosea) and took a new bride-the church, supports thepro-Palestinian claims against Israel, and even accuses Israel of the ethniccleansing of Palestinians. Hanegraaff embraces and argues for many viewpoints that are detrimentalto sound Bible study and interpretation. Not surprisingly, I do not recommend this book, unless one is lookingfor an example of how not to study the Bible for all its worth. Maranatha!

Endnotes

[1] Hank Hanegraaff, TheApocalypse Code: Find Out What the Bible Really Says About The End Times andWhy It Matters Today(Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2007), 300 pages.

[2] Hanegraaff, The ApocalypseCode, p. xxii.

[3] John Nelson Darby, The Hopesof the Church of God, in Connection with the Destiny of the Jews and theNations as Revealed in Prophecy (1840), Collected Writings, (Winschoten, Netherlands: H.L. Heijkoop, reprint 1971), vol. 2, p. 324.

[4] David A. Rausch, ZionismWithin Early American Fundamentalism 1878-1918: A Convergence of Two Traditions(New York: TheEdwin Mellen Press, 1979), p. 64.

[5] Hanegraaff, The ApocalypseCode, p. 183.

[6] Blanche E. C. Dugdale, ArthurJames Balfour: First Earl of Balfour, 1848-1906 (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons,1937), p. 324.

[7] Barbara W. Tuchman, Bible andSword: England and Palestine from the Bronze Age to Balfour (New York: Ballatine Press,1956), p. 311.

[8] For an overview of the historyof Christian Zionism see Thomas Ice, "Lovers of Zion: A History of ChristianZionism" at the following internet site:http://www.pre-trib.org/article-view.php?id=295.

[9] Hal Lindsey, Apocalypse Code (Palos Verdes, CA: WesternFront, 1997).

[10] Hanegraaff, The ApocalypseCode, pp. xv-xvi.

[11] Hank Hanegraaff,www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976960023.

[12] Hanegraaff, The ApocalypseCode, p. 2.

[13] Hanegraaff, The ApocalypseCode, p. xxvii.

[14] Hanegraaff, The ApocalypseCode, p. 2. Italics original.

[15] Hanegraaff, The ApocalypseCode, p. 3.

[16] Hanegraaff, The ApocalypseCode, pp. 3-10.

[17] Hanegraaff, The ApocalypseCode, p. 9.

[18] Hank Hanegraaff and SigmundBrouwer, The Last Disciple (Wheaton: Tyndale, 2004), p. 395.

[19] Hanegraaff, The ApocalypseCode, pp.xx-xxiii.

[20] Hanegraaff, The ApocalypseCode, pp. 189,225.

[21] Hanegraaff, The ApocalypseCode, p.xx. Italics original.

[22] Hanegraaff, The ApocalypseCode, p. 201.

[23] Hanegraaff, The ApocalypseCode, p. 170.

[24] Hanegraaff, The ApocalypseCode, pp. 32-35.

[25] Hanegraaff realizes that histypological principle would come across as allegorical interpretation so heattempts to deny this, The Apocalypse Code, pp. 171-72.

[26] Hanegraaff, The ApocalypseCode, p. 194.