My Thoughts on Hank Hanegraaff’s Apocalypse Code
By Michael J. Vlach, Ph.D.
As one who teaches eschatology from a dispensational perspective at an evangelical seminary I like to read a variety of books on end times issues or what is often called “eschatology.” In fact, I probably read more books I disagree with than books that agree with my perspective. When looking at books that differ from my own views, I sometimes am able to glean a nugget of knowledge or perspective. Sometimes I am challenged to rethink a particular point. Normally I do not feel compelled to sit down and write a response to each book I read. But an exception has been made after my reading of Hank Hanegraaff’s 2007 book, The Apocalypse Code: Find out What the Bible Says about the End Times and Why it Matters Today.
In sum, popular author and radio host Hank Hanegraaff, the Bible Answer Man, has offered a critique of Tim LaHaye and dispensational theology. In doing so he offers a perspective that is often known as Partial Preterism—a view that interprets most prophetic passages in the Bible as being fulfilled in A.D. 70 with the destruction of Jerusalem.
Going into this book I had a good amount of respect for Hank Hanegraaff. I have enjoyed listening to his radio show over the years although I had lost track of his program recently. I had heard that Hanegraaff had landed on a partial or modified preterist view. So when I picked up Apocalypse Code, I figured that I would not find much areas of agreement. I am a dispensationalist who affirms premillennialism and a future salvation and restoration of the nation Israel. After years of personal research I am settled on these issues. Yet I had often found Hank Hanegraaff to be a thoughtful man so I looked forward to reading his book.
I have read several books and articles from a preterist perspective. I am familiar with their basic arguments and their often strong criticisms of Dispensationalism. In addition to strongly disagreeing with the major claims of Preterism, I have often been concerned by the tone of some of these works. I have found some of them to be condescending and sarcastic. From my perspective, it seems as if mocking Dispensationalism was as important as offering a reasoned defense of Preterism. Yet preterists bring up some important issues that should be discussed. Issues such as what Jesus means by “this generation”, the meaning of the timing texts in Revelation, and the dating of the Book of Revelation.
Since I have enjoyed some of his other books, I was hoping that Hanegraaff would bring a passionate but cool reason to the table. I was wrong. As I read Hanegraaff’s book I was shocked by the tone and the irresponsible scholarship. Halfway through the Introduction I could no longer take Hanegraaff’s book seriously. When one violates basic principles of scholarship when dealing with a theological issue, his or her credibility on that topic has been lost. This happened over and over again in regard to Hanegraaff’s book.
Thus, for me, there is a real need to respond to Hanegraaff’s book, but I will not proceed in the usual fashion of summarizing a book’s contents and then offering a critique of the arguments made therein. For me, there is a more foundational issue that needs to be addressed and that is the utter lack of perspective from someone who is a respected evangelical leader. I personally do not believe this book is helpful for anyone whether they are preterist, dispensationalist, premillennialist, postmillennialist, amillennialist, or any other eschatological view. For those looking for good reading on eschatology no matter what their eschatological perspective, I recommend looking elsewhere.
As a seminary professor I talk to my students about the importance of integrity in their scholarship. Under the mandate of Scripture they are to teach the Word and refute those who contradict. We also talk about the importance of perspective and wisdom when dealing with positions and people with whom they disagree. When the Gospel or essential Christian doctrine is at stake, we are to remain firm and uncompromising. To the death we should defend the doctrines of the Trinity, the deity of Christ, salvation by grace alone through faith alone, substitutionary atonement, and other essential doctrines.
Yet we also discuss that within the spectrum of evangelical theology there are areas where we can disagree without believing that Christianity is at stake. All doctrine is important but when it comes to issues such as church government, spiritual gifts, eschatological views, and other areas, there is usually room for flexibility and showing tolerance toward those holding differing views. In other words, though all doctrine is important not every area of doctrine qualifies as a make or break issue for Christianity. There are issues that, even if wrongly believed, do not threaten the heart of Christianity.
Within the broader evangelical community we should heed basic principles of respect and integrity. This especially applies when we offer critiques of views held by other believers. We may disagree with another Christian over the issues of cessation of the sign gifts, millennial views, rapture views, limited and unlimited atonement, etc., but there are certain things we should never be guilty of. This includes misrepresenting our opponent’s view with straw man arguments, using sarcastic and belittling language, and presenting our theological opponent in the worst light possible. This should be true even if our opponent does not always play by the rules. Responsible scholarship also entails putting theological issues into proper perspective. We need a ‘theological depth perception,’ a wisdom that allows us to discern issues that are at the core of Christianity and those issues that are important but are not salvation issues or threats to historic Christianity.
Sometimes when we passionately believe something we adopt a passion that is out of balance. We may come to conclusions about others who disagree with us that are not appropriate. For example, I am a strong premillennialist and I strongly disagree with amillennialism and postmillennialism. But if I ever got to the point where I challenged the orthodoxy of those who held these views or said that those who held these views were dangerous people, then a line would have been crossed and I should be criticized. Unfortunately, as I look at Apocalypse Code, I believe Hank Hanegraaff has done more harm than good. On an issue that is sometimes difficult, he has made it more confusing. Many who look to him as an expert on the Bible will believe things that are not true. That is disappointing. In fact, he has become an example of what not to do when evaluating an opposing view. I will now address some of the issues that I believe detract from Apocalypse Code being a credible book.
- Lack of perspective
Perhaps the number one thing that strikes me about Hanegraaff’s book is that it shows a gross lack of perspective. Apocalypse Code is a book about the end times, an issue in which evangelicals have usually agreed to disagree. In particular it is a book that is critical of the views of Tim LaHaye and dispensationalists who believe in a pre-tribulational rapture. It is also a presentation of a Partial Preterist view.
Now there is nothing wrong with writing a book about the end times. And, there is nothing wrong with Hanegraaff writing a book defending his preterist perspective against those of others. What is in error, though, is the linkage he makes between the pre-trib rapture view of Dispensationalism and essential Christian doctrine:
Make no mistake: this is not the stuff of ivory-tower debates. The stakes for Christianity and the culture in the controversy surrounding eschatology are enormous! Not only are great and glorious passages believed throughout church history to refer directly to the blessed hope of the resurrection arrogated for the dispensational pretribulational rapture theory first popularized in the nineteenth century by a priest named John Nelson Darby, but by logical extension the uniqueness and significance of Christ’s resurrection are undermined (xviii-xix).
This statement, which comes in the Introduction, sets the tone for the book. The issue at hand is the dispensational pre-tribulational theory. According to Hanegraaff “the stakes for Christianity and the culture” regarding this view “are enormous!” At stake is “the uniqueness and significance of Christ’s resurrection” which is being “undermined.” To raise the stakes even more, he claims that the pre-trib view threatens the traditional Christian view on the uniqueness and significance of Christ’s resurrection. And not only that. For Hanegraaff, the dispensational view “erodes epistemic warrant” for “the deity of our Lord” (xix). This is serious stuff!
What is important here is that Hanegraaff is claiming that the pre-trib rapture view is a threat to true historic Christianity. For him this doctrine undermines the resurrection and deity of Christ. The problem with this claim is that it is false. And not only that, it lacks what we referred to earlier as ‘theological depth perception.’ The issue of the timing of the rapture is important. It has also been controversial. But it does not threaten the uniqueness and significance of Christ’s resurrection and the deity of Christ. To claim that it does shows a complete lack of perspective. This charge does not find support in respected evangelical scholarship. In my years of intense study of Dispensationalism, I have never heard of this charge, even amongst some of the strongest critics of Dispensationalism. This simply is an unfounded accusation that should be rejected.
According to Hanegraaff, since Tim LaHaye, who to Hanegraaff represents dispensationalists today, promotes a view in his fiction books that the Antichrist will be resurrected from the dead, this must mean that the significance of Jesus’ resurrection is somehow undermined and the deity of Christ is under attack. This is the old trick of “If you believe this, then you must believe that.” I also call this “gotcha logic.” But it is not a logical necessity to conclude that if there is a literal resurrection of the Antichrist from the dead, then the resurrection and deity of Christ is undermined. According to the futurist view, Jesus would soon smash the Antichrist with His coming so there is no doubt as to the superiority of the risen Jesus. LaHaye himself believes in the superiority of Jesus’ resurrection and the deity of Jesus, as do all dispensationalists. As I survey the landscape of Dispensationalism I see no trend away from Jesus’ resurrection or deity. The Left Behind series has been out for years now, and I see no movement away from these doctrines. Besides, belief in a resurrection of the Antichrist is not an essential belief of Dispensationalism. There are also dispensationalists who disagree on this issue and have different views on what actually happens to the Antichrist.
I also think that Hanegraaff’s claim shows a lack of understanding of evangelical scholarship on this issue. The timing of the rapture has been a heavily debated issue for years. I think of the great theological debates between John Walvoord and members of Dallas Theological Seminary as they interacted with post-trib advocates like George Eldon Ladd. Those were great interactions. But even the strongest debaters of the pre-trib rapture view have usually put this issue in perspective. C. I. Scofield, who authored the immensely popular Scofield Reference Bible, which promoted a pre-trib rapture view, had two consulting editors who took a post-trib rapture view. A great example of perspective is also found with the book, The Rapture: Pre,-Mid,-or Post-Tribulational? published by Zondervan. Three excellent scholars, Douglas Moo (post-trib), Paul Feinberg (pre-trib), and Gleason Archer (mid-trib) intelligently debated the issue of the timing of the rapture, yet it was done with integrity and graciousness. Paul Feinberg in his section made the wise statement that, “The time of the Rapture is neither the most important nor the most unimportant point of Christian theology.” He also stated, “When one considers the whole spectrum of Christian theology, eschatology is only a small part of it. Moreover, the Rapture question constitutes only a small segment of eschatology” (47). This is the kind of perspective that allows for intelligent and mature discussion of this issue. No scholar in this important work made any bombastic statements that any opposing rapture view had dire consequences for historic Christianity. Thus, within evangelical scholarship there is disagreement on the timing of the rapture but there is no debate as to whether the pre-trib rapture view threatens essential Christian doctrine.
- Inflammatory language
Another disturbing feature of Hanegraaff’s book is his use of inflammatory language. In fact he often commits the ad hominem (“attack against the man”) fallacy in which a person uses name calling and personal attacks. Certainly, biblical writers used strong language when referring to false teachers and false doctrine, but the language Hanegraaff uses in an intramural Christian debate over eschatology is disturbing. In his introduction, he links Tim LaHaye and Dispensationalism with racism and the promotion of ethnic cleansing. He says, “Furthermore, there is the very real problem of racial discrimination. Biblical theology knows nothing of racism” (xx). Not only that, dispensationalists are guilty of justifying “ethnic cleansing based on the pretext of a promise made to Abraham” (xx).
The charge of racism and ethnic cleansing is very serious. And in my opinion, it is outrageous, especially from a respected Christian leader. According to Hanegraaff, if one holds that Israel will be brought into their land in a state of unbelief or that Israel will undergo a severe period of persecution, then he is a racist and a promoter of ethnic cleansing.
Again, of all the books that I have read on Dispensationalism, the charge of racism is not made by those who have offered serious critiques or explanations of Dispensationalism. And personally, I have never heard of this accusation. Dispensationalists believe in a restoration of Israel because they believe the Bible teaches it. They are not saying that Jews are saved merely because they are biological Jews. They are not saying that the Jews are superior to everyone else. They believe that God has a special role for Israel in a coming kingdom in which Israel will serve the nations. One may disagree with this view, but it is hardly a racist view. In the Old Testament God explicitly chose Israel from all the nations (see Deut. 7:6). One question for Hanegraaff is this—“Was God a racist in the Old Testament?” He chose to love ethnic Israel in a way that He did not with the other peoples of the earth.
To support his view Hanegraaff places a lot of emphasis on Galatians 3:26-29 and its statements that there is neither “Jew nor Greek” and that we are “Abraham’s seed” and “heirs according to promise.” This supposedly shows that there cannot be a future role for the nation Israel. This is a tired argument that has been adequately answered. Equality in salvation and spiritual blessings does not nullify functional and historical distinctions between groups. Galatians 3:26-29 also states that there is neither “male nor female” but does this mean that there are no functional distinctions between men and women? How about believing parents and children? They, too, are one in Christ but does this rule out functional distinctions between parents and children? No it does not. The same could be said of elders and non-elders in a church. Even within the Trinity there is ontological equality with functional distinctions. My point is that spiritual equality does not erase all functional, gender, and historical distinctions. Even in the Eternal State there are nations (see Rev. 21:24; 22:2) so there are some nationalistic distinctions even in Eternity.
In addition to the accusations of racism and ethnic cleansing, Hanegraaff has a host of other charges and associations for dispensationalists. He compares Dispensationalism to Darwinian evolution (38), Bill Clinton (70), Joseph Smith (44), and the Jehovah’s Witnesses (124). He favorably uses a quote in regard to premillennialism that describes premillennialists as “the socially disinherited, psychologically disturbed, and theologically naïve” (44). According to Hanegraaff, today’s dispensationalists threaten the entire human race. They are “bent on ensuring that the horrors of Armageddon become a self-fulfilling prophecy” (47). In fact, the only way to save the world according to Hanegraaff is to reject Dispensationalism: “If the evangelical death march toward the endgame of Armageddon is to be subverted, it will be because believers recommit themselves to faithful illumination” (48).
Dispensationalists are also those who shout down their opponents as those who are “peddlers of godless heresy” (68). For those who encounter dispensationalists who believe that “this generation” in Matt. 24 refers to a future generation, one should have “baloney detectors” that “surely flash, ‘Warning! Grammatical gyrations ahead!!!’” (77). The three exclamation points at the end of this statement really emphasize the need to beware of the Scripture- twisting dispensationalists. These dispensationalists are those who “interpret Scripture Clintonian style” and “turn Scripture into a wax nose capable of being twisted any way the interpreter likes” (94). Dispensationalists are also those who “hyperventilate over tiny areas of land” (178). Note that they do not just believe this they “hyperventilate” over it. Likewise, the dispensationalist belief in a pre-trib rapture is not based on any reason, instead, it is “the ripened fruit of a fertile imagination” (64).
Christians who have a concern for responsible scholarship should be disturbed by such emotional rhetoric and accusations. I am writing this review during an election year. Often on the news I hear that one political candidate is using a “kitchen sink strategy” to defeat her opponent. This means throwing every conceivable charge and innuendo hoping that something sticks and everyone will think her opponent is a bad guy. It is difficult not to think of Hanegraaff also using a kitchen sink strategy. But such a strategy should be rejected. Make no mistake, for Hanegraaff, dispensationalists are not good Christian people who are misguided on secondary theological issues related to eschatology. They are intentional Scripture-twisters, racists, ethnic cleansing proponents, and deceivers. They have much in common with Darwinian evolution and the cults—and even Bill Clinton.
- Poor logic
Hanegraaff’s book is filled with logic fallacies. In addition to the ad hominem fallacy mentioned above, another logic fallacy he often commits is the false dilemma fallacy. With this a person presents an argument in which there are only two options given when in reality there may be three or more. Hanegraaff consistently manipulates the playing field to make sure those who disagree with him are viewed in the most negative light possible. For example,
--If you believe that Israel will be saved and restored to her land or that Israel will undergo persectuion you are a racist who supports ethnic cleansing (xx–xxiii).
--If you believe in a future Antichrist who will be raised from the dead you are diminishing the resurrection of Christ and His deity (xix).
--If you believe that the “this generation” of Matt 24 is a future generation you are a Scripture-twister (77).
These types of over-simplistic arguments occur usually when one has little understanding of his opponent’s view or simply wants to paint his opponent in the worst light possible. Often when one passionately believes that his or her view is correct against another view, there is a tendency to twist and mangle the opponent’s view into something it really is not. That is why when you want to learn what a person or group believes about an issue, you should read what proponents of that position say. Often opponents of a view are simply too biased to give a fair representation of the view they disagree with. This is clearly the case with Hanegraaff’s critique of Dispensationalism. His representation of Dispensationalism is not accurate nor do his conclusions correspond to reality.
I do not believe that the following positions listed above lead to the conclusions that Hanegraaff says they do. There are other options. Perhaps dispensationalists believe in a future salvation and restoration of Israel because they believe the Old Testament teaches this and the New Testament reaffirms this belief (Matt. 19:28; Rom. 11:25-27; Acts 1:6). Perhaps some (not all) dispensationalists believe that the resurrection of the Antichrist is a unique one-time Satanic counterfeit that is soon crushed by the true King of Kings who leaves no doubt who is the superior Lord. Perhaps dispensationalists believe that the “this generation” of Matt 24 is future because the context of Matt 24 is on future events. You may disagree with these views but they are a far cry from leading to racism, heresy, and Scripture twisting.
Another logic fallacy found in the book is the straw man argument. This is when one misrepresents his opponent’s view and then knocks down the misrepresentation and declares victory. In the midst of the bombastic, highly inflammatory language used of Dispensationalism it is hard to view Hanegraaff as remotely being able to represent Dispensationalism accurately. Frankly, the Dispensationalism he promotes is not my Dispensationalism and to be honest, I do not think it is the Dispensationalism of Tim LaHaye either. Hanegraaff clearly believes it is necessary to demonize his theological opponent and present him in the worst light possible. This ties into my next point.
- Lack of understanding of Dispensationalism
Hanegraaff has a woeful understanding of Dispensationalism and this is evident throughout his book. Early on he makes clear that Tim LaHaye is the main target of his criticism, but clearly Hanegraaff has a lot to say about Dispensationalism as a whole. He makes no statement that Tim LaHaye believes this and that but other dispensationalists believe different things on certain issues. There are no qualifications that show careful thinking or an awareness of current scholarship on this issue. Instead, the criticism of LaHaye quickly bleeds over into all of Dispensationalism. In fact, I believe his shrill criticism of LaHaye is really a declaration of war on all of Dispensationalism. But instead of bringing in the vast amount of scholarly literature from Dispensationalism as a whole with leading dispensationalists like Robert Saucy, John Feinberg, Darrell Bock, Craig Blaising, John MacArthur and the seminary faculties at dispensational schools, his main target is Tim LaHaye and his fictional series—Left Behind. To be objective, the Left Behind books are a fair target since they are so influential and they are in the public domain. But in my view, he hand picks a few popular dispensationalists and John Hagee, with whom many dispensationalists have serious problems, and makes it look like they represent all of Dispensationalism.
The reader also should understand that Hanegraaff makes no attempt to define Dispensationalism as dispensationalists define it. Dispensationalists like Charles Ryrie, John Feinberg, Darrell Bock, and Craig Blaising have offered formal descriptions of what is at the essence of Dispensationalism, but these find no place in Apocalypse Code. What goes in print about Dispensationalism in his book goes through his interpretation of what he thinks (or wants to think) about Dispensationalism. It appears that Hanegraaff’s view of Dispensationalism is that of others who are critical of Dispensationalism. As I survey his bibliography I see many anti-dispensational books mentioned but very little recognition of more current scholarly dispensational works. If I assigned my students to research an eschatological view, and they returned with a few popular theologians and showed no recognition of current scholarship their paper would be considered unacceptable. That is not good scholarship. This is what Hanegraaff has done.
To further show his lack of understanding of the issues, Hanegraaff states that the pre-trib rapture is the “cardinal doctrine” of Dispensationalism. To be sure, belief in a pre-trib rapture is an important facet of Dispensationalism, but most dispensationalists do not list this as an essential belief of Dispensationalism. If one looks at the descriptions of Dispensationalism by Ryrie, Feinberg, and Blaising and Bock, one will see that the pre-trib rapture is not listed as a core essential belief of Dispensationalism. Belief in a literal fulfillment of eternal and unconditional promises to Israel is an essential belief. So too is belief that the church and Israel are somehow distinct. Also essential is the belief that Old Testament promises and prophecies about Israel must be fulfilled according to the authorial intent of the Old Testament authors. But I would not say the pre-trib rapture is the doctrine upon which Dispensationalism stands or falls. I personally believe it and I think it is important, but it is not the cardinal doctrine of Dispensationalism. Paul Benware, a dispensationalist, mentions in his book, Understanding End Times Prophecy, that there is such a thing as “Dispensational Posttribulationism (241-42).” Also, there are dispensationalists today who criticize other dispensationalists for ignoring the pre-trib rapture and not emphasizing it enough.
Hanegraaff is also not interested in discussing that dispensationalists are not a monolith on every issue. There are variations within Dispensationalism. Not every dispensationalist believes there will be a literal resurrection of the Antichrist. Some see it as a Satanic counterfeit but not a true resurrection. Plus, there is a scale within Dispensationalism on how much continuity and discontinuity there is between Israel and the church. Also, when Hanegraaff begins to discuss Dispensationalism’s views on Israel and the land, he so quickly brings in issues of racism and ethnic cleansing that there is no way that the true dispensational views on these issues can be understood.
Perhaps a reader of this review may conclude that I am simply unhappy because I am a dispensationalist and Hank Hanegraaff is being critical of my theological view. To address this let me say that I enjoy and appreciate good spirited debates over theology. Excellent scholars such as Vern Poythress, O. Palmer Robertson, Willem VanGemeren, and Anthony Hoekema have offered serious critiques of Dispensationalism that were done with a proper balance of scholarship, perspective, and graciousness. I disagree with most of their conclusions but all of them have made me think through the issues even more and I respect them for that. If one wants to examine Dispensationalism he or she should read the works of these men along with the works of leading dispensationalists. If one desires to read a book promoting Partial Preterism he should consider R.C. Sproul’s, The Last Days According to Jesus. This work explains the partial preterist view without the inflammatory rhetoric that Hanegraaff offers. I disagree with the conclusions of this book, but it is a rational work. Sadly, contrary to the scholarship of the men mentioned above there are people who with their straw man arguments and inflammatory language add fuel to the theological fire and offer way more heat than light.
In closing, I assume that some who already have a disdain for Dispensationalism will enjoy this book. That is to be expected. I am also confident that dispensationalists who are reasonably aware of what Dispensationalism is will know that this is not a fair treatment of their views. I am concerned, though, for the many who are searching for truth in the area of eschatology and will not have the background to see through this book. Hank Hanegraaff is such a respected figure that many will naturally trust him. I pray that those people would not stop at Hanegraaff’s book and instead read books that deal more fairly with the theological issues. Personally, I will be using this book with my seminary students, mostly as an example of what not to do.
As I mentioned earlier, this review is not really a refutation of Hanegraaff’s specific views. In fact, it is not really about Preterism vs. Futurism or Dispensationalism vs. Non-dispensationalism. Those are topics for another paper. It is more about a call to responsible scholarship and a call to elevate the discussion concerning eschatology and reject the works of those who offer more heat than light no matter what their perspective is.
As I survey the literature regarding eschatology over the last two decades I think the old adage, “two steps forward, one step back” fits the current situation well. Dispensational and Non-dispensational scholars have welcomed a more irenic and gracious spirit in their theological debates. Definitely two steps forward. But unfortunately, every now and then there is a book like Apocalypse Code that takes us one step backward. Personally, I am looking forward to the books that again take us forward when it comes to understanding eschatology.
Those who teach that repentance is extraneous to saving faith are forced to make a firm but unbiblical distinction between salvation and discipleship. This dichotomy, like that of the carnal/spiritual Christian, sets up two classes of Christians: believers only and true disciples. Most who hold this position discard the evangelistic intent of virtually every recorded invitation of Jesus, saying those apply to discipleship, not to salvation.
God’s grace is not a static attribute whereby He passively accepts hardened, unrepentant sinners. Grace does not change a person’s standing before God yet leave His character untouched. Real grace does not include, as Chafer claimed, “the Christian’s liberty to do precisely as he chooses.” True grace, according to Scripture, teaches us “to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age” (Titus 2:12). Grace is the power of God to fulfill our New Covenant duties (cf. 1 Cor. 7:19), however inconsistently we obey at times. Clearly, grace does not grant permission to live in the flesh; it supplies power to live in the Spirit (cf. Rom. 6:1-2).
Our Lord’s point in relating that account was to demonstrate that repentance is at the core of saving faith. The Greek word for repentance, metanoia, literally means “to think after.” It implies a change of mind, and some who oppose lordship salvation have tried to limit its meaning to that. But a definition of repentance cannot be drawn solely from the etymology of the Greek word.
How do we know when to confront and when to quietly forgive and forget?
