A Review of Hank Hanegraffs Book, The Apocalypse Code

by Norman L. Geisler
Points of Agreement
There are numerous things with which we are in agreement with the author of The Apocalypse Code. First and
foremost, I agree with Hank on all the essential salvation doctrines of the Christian Faith, including the
fundamental teachings about the future physical return of Christ, and the bodily resurrection of all men and the
final judgment. So, the intramural debate on the millennium and tribulation is not one of the great essentials of
the Faith. Further, we agree that:

The date of a view has no necessary connection with the truth of the view (57).
The part must be interpreted in the light of the whole (228, 230);
We should not impose a model on Scripture but should derive it from Scripture (236);
The literal method is the correct method of interpreting Scripture (10, 14,230);
The literal interpretation is the one that takes the text in its most obvious and natural sense (230);
The correct meaning is generally what the original audience understand by it (1);
Literal is not the same as literalistic. The Bible uses symbols and figures of speech (10);
Typology is an important part of biblical interpretation (161);
The Old Testament is often the key to understanding the New Testament (161, 230);
Ideas have consequences (47).

Strangely, the differences between our views comes not so much in these basic principles, but in the
interpretation and application of them.
Logical Fallacies
Since ones conclusion are no better than his premises and the logic (or illogic) by which he draws conclusions
from them. We will begin our evaluation of The Apocalypse Code (hereafter, The Code) by looking at its logic.
A careful examination off the text in the light of the laws of logic and deviations from them reveals some
serious flaws. First of all, the general argument of the book turns out to be a classic Straw Man fallacy.
Straw Man Fallacy
The Code takes one particular form of the premillennial view, in which it sees extremes, and tacitly uses it to
dismiss all who hold to premillennialism. A case in point is Tim LaHayes view that Satan can resurrect the
dead, as he did in the case of the Antichrist (Rev. 13). Most premills do not hold this interpretation, and it is not
essential to the premill or pretrib view to do so. But the implication is left by The Code that by destroying this
straw man one has said something telling against the pretrib and premillennial views as well. Hence, one
popularized and sometimes sensationalized extreme is set up as a straw man to attack a general futurist view
held by an untold number of churches, a vast number of Seminaries and Bible Colleges, and numerous radio
guests and authors associated with Hanks own Christian Research Institute. So what is going on here is not
merely an attack on a popular version of pretribulationism but a subtle broad brush assault on all premill and
futurist beliefs.
Guilt by Association
Another logical fallacy found in The Code is Guilt by Association. For example, arguments against a pretrib
position in particular do not thereby affect premillennialism in general. There are many premillennialist who are
not pretrib, including midtrib, prewrath, and posttribs. Hence, what argues against pretribs does not thereby

destroy either premillennialism or even dispensationalisma point that The Code is not anxious to acknowledge.
Yet it implicitly dismisses one with the other by the guilt of association.
False Disjunctions
The Code also contains many False Disjunctions. The example from anti-dispensationalist John Gerstner is a
case in point (81). The Code agrees that either one holds that Israels land promises will be fulfilled in a piece of
land east of the Mediterranean or else it will be fulfilled in Christ Himself. But this is a false either/or
disjunctions since it could be both, as the returned Jews share their place in a literal kingdom in Israel under the
Christ (Messiah). Another false either/or in The Code is: God is either pro-Jew or pro-justice. But there is no
reason He cannot be both by faithfully fulfilling His promise to both Jews (to give them their land) and Gentiles
to give believing non-Jews a place in His earthly kingdom too. Another false dichotomy is: either Gods
promises will be fulfilled in an earthly Jerusalem or else in a heavenly city (198). But the heavenly city is said
to come down to earth from heaven in Revelation 21:2. Another example is the statement: It is Paradisea new
heaven and a new earthnot Palestine for which our hearts yearn (225). For the believing Jew restored to his
land under his Messiah it can be both. Why cant it be both when the heavenly city comes to earth and the
Lords prayer is literally fulfilled: Thy kingdom come on earth, as it is in heaven!
False Analogy
Hanegraaffs Code also makes false analogies. For example, it argues that just as race has no consequence in
Christ, neither does real estate (182). This reference to our spiritual status in Christ allegedly negates Gods
unconditional land promise to Abrahams literal descendents. But this clearly does not follow. It is a false
analogy.
A Text Out of Context
In general The Code repeatedly takes the Old Testament promises to Jews out of their original context by
replacing Israel with the New Testament church. The Replacement Theology is a classic example of taking
texts out of their context. In particular, The Code also takes a quote from our book out of context in an attempt
to support their view by showing that I believe John was written before AD 70 (154-156). I never said any such
thing. I was merely emphasizing that most, if not all, of the New Testament was written early. I never said,
nor do I believe that John wrote Revelation before A.D. 70. I have held the late date for Johns Gospel and The
Apocalypse for the last fifty years! I merely admitted the possibility, not probability, of an early date for Johns
writings. The claim that I used John 5 and Revelation 11 to show these books were written before AD 70 (157)
is based on an error in a footnote not caught in proof reading that was made by my co-author.
A Genetic Fallacy
This fallacy supposes a view is wrong because it came from a questionable or bad source. This fallacy occurs
in The Code when it dismisses the dispensational pretrib view because of its alleged source in John Nelson
Darby (4041) whom Hank calls a disillusioned priest from the 19th cent. By the same logic one could reject
modern scientific inventions because some were derived from questionable sources like Teslas AC motor from
a vision while reading a pantheistic poet and Kekules model of the benzine molecule from a vision of a snake
bitting its tail!
The Fallacy of Chronological Snobbery
The Code utilizes this fallacy to advance its cause by pointing to the alleged late time period that pretrib
premillennialism appears in church history (40-44). But the truth is that truth is not determined by the time of its
discovery. Most widely held scientific views appeared relatively late in the history of the world, namely, the last
few centuries. It is well known that many heretical teachings are old and some orthodox teachings are relatively
new. Time is no sure test of truth. What is more, premillennialism, which The Code rejects, appears early in
church history (2nd cent.), and covenant theology which most amillennialists accept appears late (17th cent).
Besides logical fallacies, there are repeated false charges like pretribs believe that certain texts are speaking to
21st century Christians (117,129,144, 159, 181). This fails to understand the realistic concept of imminence held
by pretribs that affirms Christ may come at any time. Hence, the text is applicable to any age, including the 21st

century, but it was not directed at any century in particular. In addition, The Code is also filled with
overstatements and exaggerations. These include the following:
Overstatement and Exaggerations
There is a wild comparison of John Nelson Darby dispensationalism with Darwins evolutionary dogma (37f,
69). Other than the time period in which they wrote there is very little agreement between the two. Also,
dispensationalists are bedeviled as socially disinherited, psychologically disturbed, and theologically naive
(44). I personally take offense at this and believe Hank owes an apology to his former employee Dr. Ron
Rhodes, some of his frequent guests and writers, like Dr. Wayne House, Dr. Thomas Howe, and myself, to
mention only a few dispensationalist. Likewise, The Code makes the unnecessary, unkind, and excessive
statement that dispensationalism is associated with the cultic fringe like Mormonism (44). In one incredible
exaggeration The Code blasts pretribulationism as blasphemous (63-64). One only loses credibility by such
statements. A close second for exaggeration is the contention that believing in unconditional land promises for
Israel borders on blasphemy(225). As a matter of fact, it borders on unbelief to deny that Gods unconditional
promises to Israel will not be fulfilled just as He predicted them and as the original audience understood them
(1). Further, the well established view (by early and continuous testimony) that John wrote after AD 70 is called
incredible (157) by Hank. That in itself is a rather incredible position in view of the facts (see below).
And The Code boasts concerning the highly disputed number of the Antichrist it is absolutely certain that 666
is the number of Neros name (146)! This is in conflict with The Codes contention elsewhere that other
prophetic details like those in Daniel 9 (247). It is strange that a relatively obscure point of eschatology on a
non-essential doctrine should be held as absolutely certain and yet some essential doctrines with less certainty
is a sad testimony to the skewed perspective in The Code.
Hermeneutics
While we have many points of agreement with The Code on the method of interpretation (see above), there are
some significant differences in Hanegraaffs amill form of partial preterism. A few call for comment.
First, The Code made a false dichotomy between the method of interpretation and the model of eschatology (2,
3), falsely claiming that it is doing the former, not the latter. The truth is that ones methodology leads to ones
theology, as is clear from the discussion below showing how Hanks preteristic bad methodological procedures
lead to his bad theological premises.
Second, The Code made a common mistake by claiming that one must make an up-front determination of genre
before a passage can be interpreted properly (20). The truth is that one cannot even know the genre of a text
unless he first uses the historical-grammatical (i.e., literal) method of interpretation to determine its genre.
Third, the book reveals a misunderstanding that in the progression of revelation things always move from lesser
(earthly) to greater (heavenly), not the reverse (224). This is misapplied in an attempt to show that God will not
fulfill His unconditional promises to the nation of Israel. But Gods purpose in reaching the Gentiles does not
negate the necessity of His later fulfillment of His unconditional Throne and Land promises to Israel (cf. Rom.
11).
Fourth, there is an inconsistency in Hanks partial preterist interpretation of the Tribulation as having its primary
fulfillment in A.D. 70 but allowing for further applications in the future and his contention that the ultimate
fulfillment is greater than the near ones. On the one hand, he argues that the predominant meaning of the
Tribulation texts is that it will be fulfilled soon in AD 70. On the other hand, he believes there are lesser
future applications, since the AD 70 events do not exhaust their application. For Revelation foretells final-future
events that are not exhausted in the AD 70 events (34). Hank says John . . . uses final consummation language
to describe near-future events (135). On the other hand, he claims that 2 Peter 3 is fulfilled in 70 AD even
though its cosmic language did not apply predominantly to AD 70 but points forward to an even greater day

of judgment at the Second Coming (135). If so, then all the terms like quickly and near apply to far distant
events tooin which case preterists lose some of their better arguments.
Fifth, there is a serious misunderstanding of typology in The Code. This deserves special attention since it is at
the heart of the issue.
Typology
In his own summary of the book, Hanegraaff declares: All the types and shadows of the old covenant,
including the holy land of Israel, the holy city Jerusalem, and the holy temple of God, have been fulfilled
in the Holy Christ (224-225, emphasis added). Few Bible scholars would dispute the typology of the Old
Testament priesthood and sacrificial system. The New Testament clearly teaches that Christ, our Passover, was
sacrificed for us (1 Cor. 5:7). And the book of Hebrews shows emphatically how Christ fulfilled the Old
Testament priesthood and sacrifices (19, 85). Adam is the prototype of Christ, as 1 Corinthians 15 says (15,
171). Jesus tabernacled among us (Jn. 1:14) and fulfilled the tabernacle and temple types (215). Jonah was a
prototype to which Jesus referred (Mt. 12:40-42). As The Codesays typology means Old Testament person,
event or institution prefigures a corresponding great reality [antitype] in the New Testament (169).
However, there is no biblical principle of typology that says the literal and unconditional Davidic throne and
Abrahamic land promises are fulfilled in Christ, as The Code wrongly contends (224-225). There is no principle
of typology that negates the land promises to Abrahams literal descendants forever by claiming that the
lesser is fulfilled and rendered obsolete by the greater (201). One could agree in a sense that The importance
of understanding typology can hardly be overstated(262), but it can also be easily overextended, as The
Code does. Nor is it a proper New Testament typological interpretation of the Old to claim it is an ultimate
corrective of Zionisms (223) affirmation of a literal fulfillment of Gods unconditional promises to Israel.
Israels Land and Throne Promises
God promised unconditionally that He would give the land from Egypt to Iraq to Abrahams literal descendants
forever (Gen. 12, 13, 15, 17). The land promise was a unilateral covenant since Abraham was not even
conscious and only God passed through the sacrifice (Gen. 15), thus unilaterally ratifying it. Likewise, the
Davidic throne promise that a descendant of David would reign on his throne forever was unconditional (2 Sam.
7). Indeed, Psalm 89 declares that He will fulfill it even if they disobey God because He cannot allow His
faithfulness to fall (15:33). He said, Once I have sworn by My holiness; I will not lie to David; His seed shall
endure forever and his throne as the sun before me (vs. 36-37). Now on any literal interpretation of these texts
and as understood by Hanks own principle this is what the original audience would have understood (1)this
calls for a literal future fulfillment just as dispensationalists contend. And to deny a literal interpretation of these
Land and Throne promises, claiming they are only a shadow of what we have in Christ (174), is a classic misuse
of typology. Further, the unconditional nature of the promises flies in the face of The Codes contention that
Land promises were inviolately conditioned upon belief and faithfulness(196).
Speaking in the context of Gods faithfulness to Israel, Paul declares the gifts and callings of God are
irrevocable (Rom. 11:29). It is indeed ironic that the very covenant theologians who believe in Gods
unconditional election of the Church are the ones who so strongly deny His unconditional election of Israel.
And, ironically, they use Gods promises to Israel to do it.
To spiritualize this away as fulfilled in Christ (50, 171) and the New Testament Church (174) is simply a
violation of the literal, historical-grammatical hermeneutic. Indeed, it is contrary to Hanks own principle that
the true meaning is the one the original audience would have understood it to be (1). Clearly, the Jews
understood this predictions about future Messianic kingdom to be literal. This is to is to say nothing of the
principle that prophecies should be understood in same literal sense in which Old Testament prophecies about
Christs first coming were literally fulfilled. Hence, predictions surrounding Christs second coming should also
be understood literally. And to claim that it cant be fulfilled literally because the Ten Tribes lost their identity in
Assyrian captivity (126), is an insult to the omniscience of God. Certainly He who names and numbers the stars
(Isa. 40:20) and will reconstruct the dispersed particles of our decayed bodies in the resurrection both knows

who those lost tribes are and how to regather them. And it is a strange twist of logic to claim that Abrahams
spiritual descendants (believers today) will fulfill Gods land promise to Israel because they will get more than
was promised to Israel: they will get the cosmos according to Romans 4:13 (178). The question is not whether
Abrahams spiritual seed will get more than God promised but whether his literal descendants will get less than
the Land He promised them. After all, through Abraham all the families of the earth were to be blessed (Gen.
12:3).
There is also an equivocation about the Land promises in The Code. On the one hand, it claims they are
irrelevant in Gods redemptive purposes in Christ (194). On the other hand, it claims Land promises were
fulfilled: near futureJoshua; far futureJesus; final futureParadise (182179). Then, it insists that they were
fulfilled in Nehemiah 9:8, 22-24 (180). Indeed, some claim they were already fulfilled in Joshua (21:43-45).
Yet The Code claims they await a future spiritual fulfillment in Jesus the true Israelite (181,182,194. 197).
Further, if, as Hank contends, the land promises were inviolately conditioned upon belief and faithfulness
(196), why then must there be some kind of fulfillment of them forever in the final futureParadise (182,
179). Reversing, the usual order, The Code declares that John . . . uses final consummation language to
describe near-future events. (134135). Which is it? Is the near event the predominant referent or the far event?
I will leave it to the preterists to untangle this prophetic pretzel, but one thing is certain: There never has been a
literal fulfillment wherein the nation Israel has possessed all the land given by God from Egypt to Iraq
forever,that is, as long as the sun and moon are in the sky (Psa. 89:37-37). So, any other interpretation given,
such as that in The Code, is not a literal one.
Millennialism
This same equivocal literal/spiritual interpretation is evident in The Codes Amillennialism. It affirms that there
will be no millennial golden age (202, 236, 256). Yet even non-dispensational premills like George Ladd
demonstrated that a literal understand of Revelation 20 demands a premill view. In spite of this Hank insists on
spiritualizing a thousand years, claiming is not a literal prophetic chronology. Rather, the two resurrections
at either end of the millennium are said to be symbolic chronological bookends to highlight a qualitative, not
quantitative vindication of martyrs(256, 275). This so-called symbolic qualitative victory is a hermeneutical
spiritualization that manifests an exegetical stretch of a preterists imagination. Particularly this is so since Hank
believes, as do other amills, that Revelation 20 speaks of a literal resurrection and a literal Devil. Why then is
the rest of the passage to be taken symbolically? Also, how can a thousand years represent eternity. The
thousand years have a beginning and an end. It has one resurrection before it and one after it. It has a limited
time when Satan is in prison after which he will be released. Both resurrections are referred to by the same
Greek term come alive. Yet amills insist that there is really only one physical resurrection here, claiming the
other is a spiritual regeneration. Yet the word resurrection is always used elsewhere of a physical resurrection
in the Bible. Further, one general resurrection of the dead (276) which Hank affirms is contrary to the fact that
the plain meaning of the text says that only part of the dead were resurrected before the millennium and the
rest of the dead were not raised until after the millennium. Amill preterism seriously falters at this point.
Indeed, the futurists premill view is firmly planted in the early Fathers, including luminaries like Justin Martyr,
Clement of Alexander, Tertullian, and even the early Augustine. Other futurists (anti-preterists) include
Irenaeus, Ignatius, The Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas, Papias, Clement of tome, Lactantius,
Methodius, Epiphanius, and others (see George Peters, The Theocratic Kingdom, vol. 2, pp. 304, 324, 451).
Preterists
Hanks Code denies full preterism. He lists two types: partial- and hyper-preterist the later of which he admits
is clearly heretical (275). He claims that orthodox preterist hold future resurrection and second coming
(269). But if these are literal events, then why are associated events in the same passage not taken literally? The
Code offers several arguments for its form of preterism.
The Use of Words Like Shortly and Quickly
One of the most basic arguments for preterism, of either variety, is its contention that the New Testament use of
words like shortly and quickly clearly refer to first century events, not distant events. Hank claims that the

plain interpretation of near, soon, and at hand mean near future in Revelation 1:1, 3, 2:16; 3:11; 11:14; 22:6, 7,
10, 12, 20 and means within Johns near future (251). They claim that if Revelation were about the future, it
would have been irrelevant to first century Christians (159). Yet, by the same token passages about the
resurrection and second coming (which partial preterists admit is yet future) are relevant. Indeed, they are used
to comfort and exhort believers in the present (cf. 1 Thes. 4:18; 2 Pet. 3:11). Further, if terms like soon mean
in the near future, then the resurrection and second coming must also have been before AD 70 since Revelation
speaks of both of these events as part of the revelation that would be fulfilled quickly (1:1,3: 22:6-12, 20).
The truth is that standard Greek lexicons like Arndt and Gingrich define quickly (Gk: tachu) as quick, swift,
speedy (p. 814). So, the term does not mean soon but suddenly. Likewise, the word near (Gk: eggus) does
not necessary mean immediate future since it is used in both Testaments of events that were hundreds of years
away (cf. Haggai 2:6-7; Heb. 10:37). Interestingly, The Code admits that A.D. 70 does not exhaust the meaning
of these prophetic texts but is only the predominant meaning (92). If so, then, the terms must also refer to a
more remote generation as well.
The Use of You
Another argument for the preterist view is that you in many texts must refer to the immediate first century
audience (7). They cite Matthew 23:35 as proof: On you may come all the blood shed on the earth . . . .
Ironically, that very verse proves the contrary since a you is used in it of the people who slew Zechariah in the
Old Testament who was long dead. So, you can be used historically to refer to your ancestors just as it can
be used proleptically of your descendants. For example, Blessed are you when they revile and persecute
you (Mt. 5:11) in the Sermon on the Mount is not limited to Jesus immediate audience but also for future
generations.
The Use of This Generation
The Code argues that This generation appears fourteen times in the Gospels and always applies to Jesus
contemporaries (77, 81). But this begs the question by assuming references given in a prophetic context must
be understood like all the other ones which are not. The best the argument could prove is that in all other nonprophetic references it means contemporaries which does nothing to prove what it means in a prophetic context.
Also, it confuses sense and reference. In every instance it has the same sense/meaning, but in different instances
it has a different referent. Further, as virtually all acknowledge, it can mean this [Jewish] race will not pass
awaywhich it has not. Greek experts Arndt and Gingrich acknowledge that the term genera can have an ethnic
use of family, descent clan, then race (Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 249, emphasis added).
Furthermore, even if it is a reference to contemporaries, it might be the contemporaries in the future context
when these things begin to happen. What is more, even The Code admits there is an ultimate fulfillment [of
Mt. 24] in the second coming of Christ (136). So, even according to preterists, this generation extends
beyond the immediate generation in its fulfillment.
The Alleged Early Date for Johns Writings
Preterists attempt to show the Book of Revelation was written before AD 70 in Neros time because of 666
being the numerical equivalent of Neros name (Rev. 13) and the reference to the sixth king who, according to
their claim, was Nero (Rev. 17:10). However, other names also equal 666 like Caesar of the Romans in
Hebrew and even the Popes name in Latin (see Eric Sauer, The Triumph of the Crucified, 121, 122). Further, it
may be a symbolic way of referring to a man (man was created on the sixth day) who claims to be the triune (3
sixes) God (Ibid., 129). Further, the sixth king need not be Nero but could be the sixth great kingdom (Egypt,
Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome [Ellicotts Commentary, 7.613 and Seiss,The Apocalypse, 393]).
What is more Revelation 11 may be referring to the Tribulation temple, not the one standing in AD 70 (213).
Furthermore, there is strong internal evidence indicating that the conditions found in the seven churches (Rev.
2-3) reflect a time period of some considerable time after that of the last books written before AD 70 (like 2
Tim., 2 Peter, Hebrews). These later conditions include the absence of Peter and Paul, the apostasy of the
church, more persecution and martyrdom, and Johns exiled condition on Patmos.

Furthermore, as even partial preterist Kenneth Gentry admits, there is strong external witness that John wrote
after AD 70 during Domitians reign (260). Indeed, the earliest witness (Irenaeus) knew Polycarp (1st cent), the
disciple of the apostle John. With him there is an unbroken series of early Fathers who held that John wrote
after AD 70 including Irenaeus (2nd cent), Victorinus (3rd cent), and Eusebius (4th ent.). The significance of
this cannot be overstated. For the early view of John does not destroy the futurist view (that the Tribulation is
after AD 70). However, the late view totally destroys the preterist since it is referring to the Tribulation as yet
future after AD 70.
As for the a priori argument that if John wrote after AD 70 he would have highlighted the fulfillment of Jesus
prediction (252), we need only observe that John is not writing a history of this whole period but only of the
life, death, and resurrection of Christ. So, there was no reason to refer to an event nearly 40 years later. The
other Gospels were written before AD 70. So, they have predictions of Jerusalems destruction in them.
Finally, there are many things predicted of this period that were not literally fulfilled in AD 70 such as one third
of the rivers drying up (Rev. 8:10) and every living creature in the sea dying (Rev. 16:3). There is no language
in the Old Testament where any comparable judgment is described in this kind of language. Indeed, other Old
Testament judgments on governmental opponents of Israel (like Pharaoh) were literal judgments like the
plagues on Egypt (Ex. 7-12). The only way to avoid this conclusion is for the preterist to resort to hyperbolic
spiritualizing away of the literal meaning of the text.
Spiritualizing
Examples of preterist spiritualizing abound in The Code. This is called looking for a deeper meaning (19). A
more apt description might be reading beneath the lines rather than reading the lines. For example, the mark of
the Beast on their forehead is said to be symbolic of identity with. But if it was not an observable mark, then
how could it be recognized for identity in marketing? (12, 13). Literal judgment that fell on Egypt is said to be
symbolized by clouds. Likewise, in Matthew 26:64 and Revelation 1:7 cf. Isa. 19:1 (26, 229) clouds are
symbols of judgment This same spiritualizing is applied to Jesus literal second coming in Revelation 1:7.
Every eye will see Him is said to be symbolic (27). Yet in the same text it speaks of Jesus being pierced
which comes from the same prophecy in Zechariah 12:10 which is also applied to Jesus literal piercing in John
19:37. Another example of The Codes claim is that Revelation has much fantasy imagery(33). There is in fact
no basis for such a fantastic claim.
In another false dichotomy, The Code asserts that Revelation is rich in the symbolism of the number 7 (62), as
though this were reason not to take it literally. But both could be true. For example, 7 is the number of earthly
perfection, but there are also 7 literal days in an earthly week and the 7 actual churches in Asia to whom John
was writing. Likewise, 40 is the number of testing, yet Israel was tested for forty literal years in the wilderness
and Jesus was tested after fasting for forty literal days. Denying a literal 144,000 Jews sealed during the
Tribulation, Hank argues that 1000 is figurative in the whole Old Testament. But how about when it is used
many times for numbering the actual people (Num. 1) or animals (2 Chrn. 9:25). The Two Witnesses of
Revelation 11 a said to be figurative (130) witnesses to the Antichrist. The Code calls them literary
characters forming composite image of the Law and the Prophets (131). Yet The Codeurges us to interpret
the New Testament in the light of its Old Testament background. But there two literal witnesses (Moses and
Aaron) brought down literal plagues on the Antichrist of their day (Pharaoh).
Also, the tree of life in the New Paradise is said to be symbolic, yet the one in the first Paradise was literal along
with two literal people and another literal tree from which they ate literal fruit. Further, how can The Code
embrace a literal resurrection to a New Paradise, unless it too is a literal place with literal trees. Here again, full
preterism is more consistent, albeit, heretical. The fact is, were this amill preterism consistent, it would have to
deny the historicity of Genesis 1-3. But the inspired New Testament refers to it as literal history (Luke 3; Rom.
5; 1 Cor. 15; I Tim. 2; Mt. 19). Further, not only are 144,000 Jews (in Rev. 7, 14) taken as figurative of
relationships (125), but according to The Code these Jewish tribes refer to Gentiles as well. Likewise, the
literal earthly throne of David is made into a spiritual reign already begun (201) and which will last forever

(145), involving no literal throne in Jerusalem (202). The author of The Code is so mesmerized by symbols that
he even has symbols of symbols. Daniel 9s seventy sevens is said to be a double symbol where the return
under Nehemiah was symbolic of Judas Maccabeeus who was symbolic of the Messiah (193)!
The failure of the preteristic hermeneutic is nowhere more obvious when they claim that 2 Peter 3:10-13 was
fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in the events of AD 70 when he wrote: The heavens will disappear
with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare (135).
Nothing even close to this cosmic event occurred in AD 70! And to claim that this points forward to an even
greater day of judgment only exacerbates the problem. Why not just admit that it does not refer to AD 70 at all
but only the final judgment of the world by fire, as Noahs flood refers to the first great judgment by water (2
Peter 3:6-7). Thus, it is not inconceivable (160) that Jesus was exhorting first century Christians by events
that could happen much later since Jesus coming is imminent (Phil. 4:5) and could happen at any time.
Dispensationalism
The Code misunderstands and misconstrues dispensationalism, claiming the heart of dispensationalism is
two distinct people (48) with two distinct plans (51), and two destinies (272). Most dispensationalist
today believe there is only one God, one plan (with many phases), one purpose (to glorify God), one Gospel
(Gal. 1:8 cf 3:8), one ultimate destiny of one people of God (Rev. 21-22) wherein differing parts of Gods
greater family are united (Heb 12:23; Eph. 1:10). Nonetheless, God is faithful to His unconditional promises to
his ancient people Israel. Thus, it is false that to affirm that the true church is true Israel, and true Israel is truly
the church (1 Pet 2:4) (49). The mystery of Jew and Gentile being united into one body (Eph. 3:3-5) was, as
Paul said, hidden from ages and from generations, but now has been revealed to His saintsin the church (Col.
1:26). This is so, even though the Old Testament made predictions about Gentile blessing during the period
between Christs comings (Acts 15:17). Nonetheless, they had no idea of how Jew and Gentile would be united
in one body (Col. 1:27). But even after the church began (Act 2), the promised earthly kingdom was offered to
Israel (Acts 3:12-21). Indeed, Jesus implied the kingdom would yet be restored to Israel was yet to come (Acts
1:6-8). And Paul said there was yet a national restoration of Israel (Rom. 11:11-26) whom he calls my kinsmen
according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of
the law, the service of God, and the promises (Rom. 9:3-4).
Tribulation
The Codes rejection of a future seven year Tribulation described in Revelation 6-18 is unfounded for several
reasons.
First, as shown above, Revelation was probably written after AD 70 and, so, could not have been fulfilled by
then.
Second, no literal interpretation of either Matthew 24-25 or Revelation 6-18 was fulfilled in AD 70.
Third, the Tribulation is described as just prior to Christs return and the resurrection (Rev. 19-20) which did not
take place around AD 70. To claim they did is the heresy of full-preterism.
Fourth, it is not impossible for these events to be literal. Even symbols in Revelation have a literal meaning
(1:20). Contrary to The Code (136), Stars (heavenly bodies) can and do fall out of the sky. And actual stars
can die.
Fifth, even The Code admits there will be a tribulation before Christ returns, claiming Nero was the archetype of
it (114, 136). As for a pretrib rapture, The Code ignores virtually all the biblical arguments for it (see Geisler,
Systematic Theology, vol. 4, Chap. 17 and Renald Showers, Maranatha: Our Lord Come). Contrary to The
Codes claim that there is no seven year tribulation in biblical text (61), Daniel 9:27 speaks of a seven year
period in the end times that is determined to bring judgment on the Jewish nation. The book of Revelation
speaks of the last half of this period as 42 months, 1260 days, and three and a half years (Rev. 11:2-3; 12:6)
which The Code mistakenly adds together rather than seeing them as descriptions of the same time period (61).

As for the argument that prior to the 19th century all Christians were post-trib, even if it were true it would not
prove anything. Even Hanegraaff agrees that only the Bible is the infallible basis for doctrine. So, ultimately the
only thing that matters is what the Scriptures teach on this matter, not what the Fathers said.
Further, it is not true that the early Fathers did not believe in an imminent rapture (see Geisler, ibid.). And a
realistic concept of imminence logically implies a pretrib view since no signs (such as are in the Tribulation)
need to occur before it happens. What is more, The Code ignores the more important issue of premillennialism
which has abundant support in the early Fathers (see Geisler, ibid, Chap. 16). And if believing an early view
eliminates its opposing view, then Hanegraaffs amill view is thereby eliminated. The truth is that time is not a
test for truth. There are new truths and old errors. Indeed, covenant theology embraced by most preterist was
itself a late invention of Cocceius in the seventeenth century.
Conclusion
If these non-essential differences in eschatology are not fundamentals of the Faith, then why exert so much
energy on them? Why defend minor points of these minor doctrines as absolutely certain? The answer is: We
shouldnt. We should stick to the dictum: In essentials unity; in non-essentials, liberty Having said that,
there is a fundamental here worth fighting overthe fundamental by which we derive the other fundamentals.
That is to say, while minor points of end times events are not essential salvation doctrines, nonetheless, the
hermeneutic by which we derive teachings about end times and other doctrines is a fundamentalit is a
hermeneutical fundamental. In short, we must defend the literal historical-grammatical interpretation of the
Bible since it is the means by which we understand the salvation fundamentals.
We began by agreeing with The Code on several important principles:
1. The date of a view has no necessary connection with the truth of the view (57).
2. The part must be interpreted in the light of the whole (228, 230).
3. We should not impose a model on Scripture but should derive it from Scripture (236).
4. The literal method is the correct method of interpreting Scripture (10, 23).
5. The literal interpretation is the one that takes the text in its most obvious and natural sense (230).
6. The correct meaning is generally what the original audience understand by it (1)
7. Literal is not the same as literalistic. The Bible uses symbols and figures of speech (10).
8. Typology is an important part of biblical interpretation (161).
9. The Old Testament is often the key to understanding the New Testament (161, 230).
10. Ideas have consequences (47).
Now lets apply these concepts of The Code (with which we agree) to conclusions of The Code (with which we
disagree).
First, contrary to this principle, The Code argued repeatedly that the pretib view should be rejected because it
was late in appearing. However, heresies can be early, even in apostolic times (cf. 1 Tim. 4 and 1 Jn. 4), and
(re)discovery of some truths can be later (like pretrib). The final question is not whether the early Fathers held it
but wether the New Testament taught it.
Second, the part must be understood in the light of the whole because God does not contradict himself. But The
Code spiritualizes the fulfillment of the Throne and Land promises in a way that contradicts what had been
promised in the context in which was promised.
Third, in violation of this principle, The Code imposes a spiritual fulfillment model that is contrary to the literal
Land and Throne promises made.

Fourth, as indicated in applying the first three principles, The Coderepeatedly violates this principle by
imposing a spiritual (typological) interpretation model on Scripture that is contrary to the literal truth of
Scripture.
Fifth, as the contrasts below will reveal The Code does not interpret prophetic passages in the most obvious and
natural sense. Rather, the sense is neither obvious nor natural. It is in fact fanciful.
Sixth, clearly the original Jewish audience of the Old and New Testament understood the Davidic throne
promises to be literal. Hence, their response on Palm Sunday; their disappointment with Jesus death, and their
last question to Christ about restoring the kingdom to Israel (Acts 1:6-8).
Seventh, The Code often confuses a legitimate figure of speech with an illegitimate spiritualistic interpretation.
For example, while there are figures of speech in Revelation 20 like key and chain, this is not grounds to
conclude that there is not a literal Satan or a literal thousand year reign of Christ and two literal resurrections.
Eighth, on the surface it would appear that The Code fulfilled this principle, and in many ways it did. However,
it over-extended by applying it to areas like the Abrahamic land promises and the Davidic throne promises.
Unlike the Levitical sacrificial system (which were prototypes), these promises were not prototypes, and they
have never been fulfilled as promised. But since God cannot break an unconditional promise (Rom. 11:29; Heb.
6:13-18), the land and throne promises must yet be literally fulfilled.
Ninth, The Old Testament is the background for understanding the New. This is why preterists fail when they do
not take its predictions literal as meant by its authors and understood by their audience. Further, this is why their
allegorical interpretation of the plagues in Revelation and the Two Witnesses fails to understand their
background in the prototype of the Antichrist in Pharaoh with Gods two witnesses (Moses and Aaron) and the
literal plagues they brought on him.
Tenth, ideas do have consequences, and the typological-allegorical idea has had severe consequences in the
history of the church. Denying a literal fulfillment of Gods promises to Israel have led to anti-semitism. For
example, God said to Abraham I will bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you (Gen. 12:3).
Others, like replacement theologians who replace literal Israel with a spiritual church, nullify the literal land and
throne promises, thus opening the door to liberalism and cultism.
This brings me to my chief concern about The Codeit is based on an allegorical method of interpreting
prophetic Scripture that, if applied to other teachings of Scripture, would undermine the salvation essentials of
the Christian Faith. Let me illustrate the extent to which The Apocalypse Code goes in allegorizing away the
literal truth of Scripture from above cited texts. It transforms

The plain meaning of the Bible into a so-called deeper meaning

Literal promises into spiritual ones
Unconditional promises into conditional ones
Jewish tribes into Gentiles
A thousand years into eternity
A literal resurrection into a spiritual one
Land Promises for National Israel into spiritual life in Christ
A literal mark of the Beast into a mere symbol of identity with him
Physical clouds into mere symbols of judgment
A literal earthly throne of David into a heavenly reign of Christ
Two literal witnesses into literary representatives of the Law and Prophets
Cosmic judgment into the destruction of a small city (Jerusalem)

All of this Hank is fond of calling Reading the Bible for all it is worth. Well, for all it is worth, this is not
reading the Bible; it is a serious misreading of the Bible. So serious a misreading it is that were it a reading on
an essential doctrine of the Bible like the virgin birth, the sacrificial atonement, the bodily resurrection, or the
second comingit would be a rank heresy!
It is sad that a man who has fought so hard for so long against cults and aberrant teachings has himself
succumbed to a method of interpreting the Bible that is not significantly different from those used by the
cults which he so vigorously opposes.