The Apocalypse Code

At LIFE group a couple of weeks ago I saw a book by Hank Hanegraaff entitled 'The Apocalypse Code'. I had been hearing about it on his radio show (The Bible Answer Man) and was very intrigued. From what I had heard it sounded like this was a treatment of eschatology (study of the end times) that was completely different from what I had been taught all of my life.

Over the last several years my paradigm has changed in the way I view things, especially doctrine. In the past I would've heard of something new and dismissed it because it was just that, new. However, as I've gotten older I've come to recognize the wisdom of my mentor at Texas A&M, Marlin Crouse, who said: "The more you know the more you realize you don't know" and "Ignorance is bliss!".

Now, just because something is 'new' doesn't mean it's true. I'm reminded by what I'm learning about the Emergent Church Movement (ECM) that 'new' sometimes means ignoring or invalidating essential doctrines of the faith. We must submit ourselves to God and to the authority of his word. The bible is the final authority for all faith and practice. Without the absolute truths (old truths) of the bible we would be left to our own imaginations which invariably leads to anarchy (cf. Judges 17:6). We must follow the example of a group of first-century believers, called Bereans, and examine everything against what the bible says:

"Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so" (Acts. 17:11 ESV).

The 'Apocalypse Code' is basically a defense of partial preterism (Latin praeter, meaning "past"). A preterist believes that most end-time prophecy was fulfilled in A.D. 70 with the destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish temple. An aberrant view of preterism, called full or consistent preterism, believes that ALL prophecy was fulfilled including Jesus' 2nd-coming. This book does not subscribe to the latter view.

Hanegraaff does a masterful job in refuting the dispensational premillennialist position of such well known authors and prophecy 'experts' as Tim LaHaye and Hal Lindsay. He consistently uses scripture, especially the Old Testament, as his basis of interpretation. The reader is reminded again and again that scripture must interpret scripture. In fact, the book is based on a hermeneutic or basis of interpretation from an acronym he developed called LIGHTS. Each letter of the word describes an interpretation method which is critical to our understanding of not only eschatology but the bible in general:

L - Literal Principle
I - Illumination Principle (exegesis)
G - Grammatical Principle
H - Historical Princple
T - Typology Principle
S - Scriptural Synergy (harmony)

One of the most compelling arguments that the book makes is for an earlier dating of the New Testament (NT) than what we had previously thought or had been told. I'm convinced that the book of Revelation must have been written prior to A.D. 70 if for no other reason than the Apostle John doesn't mention the destruction of the temple at all (or any of the other NT books for that matter). How can the most important thing in Jewish life, the center of their 'universe' both sociologically and theologically, not be mentioned anywhere unless the writings preceded the event?! And if the cataclysm of A.D. 70 hadn't occurred, then it's highly probable that most, if not all, of the allusions to judgment and the apocalypse, especially in Revelation, would be a reference to the impending destruction of Jerusalem. It also follows, logically, that the canon would have been completed before the destruction of Jerusalem as God's way of preserving and disseminating his word due to the dispersion of true Israel (diaspora).

One of main distinctives of dispensationalism is its emphasis on a literalistic interpretation of the bible. That's OK if you understand that the bible is literature and you recognize the different genres within it (e.g. history, poetry, prophecy, allegory, etc.). Hanegraaff exposes the inconsistencies of the dispensational method in such passages as Matthew 24. The dispensationalist wants to interpret the personal pronoun 'you' as some future (21st?) generation (cf. Mt. 24:33-34). How would this have made any sense to the intended audience, the disciples, in this context? He also does a masterful job at explaining the apocalyptic language (grammatical principle) that Jesus uses (cf. Mt. 24:29; Mk. 13:24-25; Lk. 21:25) and how it has its basis in the Old Testament (cf. Is. 13:9-10).

There's so much good stuff it's hard to know where to stop. I highly recommend the book to anyone. It's an easy-read if you have a dictionary handy and can get past Hank's frequent use of alliterations!

God gave us his word for us to understand: "and you will KNOW the truth, and the truth will set you free" (John 8:32). For so long I've mistakenly thought that the book of Revelation was a mystery that couldn't be understood. The mystery of Revelation and the whole bible, for that matter, is the person of Jesus Christ. If we understand nothing else it should be about him and his sacrifice for his church: "The revelation of Jesus Christ..." (Rev. 1:1a).

Further Reading:
The Future of Israel Re-examined, James B. Jordan