I recently read The Apocalypse Code and was simultaneously very impressed and very disappointed. On the whole, the book is an excellent guide for how to let the Bible interpret itself. Hank is very strong on the "Typological Principle" which is one of the most important principles of real Biblical hermeneutics, too often ignored in modern seminaries.
The disappointment arose from Hank's extremely biased view of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. As everyone knows, the current conflict has been going on for over 50 years, and both sides have committed all kinds of atrocities. People can argue which side bears the greater guilt - some see the Israeli oppression as justified because they are fighting for survival against barbaric enemies who use their own children as bombs, while others see the Palestinian suicide tactics as justified given the extreme oppression of the Jews.
But there is nothing in Hank's book that even suggests there are two sides to the story. In his roughly 300 page book, he repeatedly refers to the Israeli massacre at Deir Yassin (1948), and does not mention a single crime from the other side. On the contrary, in a seeming attempt to win the sympathy of his Christian audience, Hank portrays the typical Palestinian as a meek, peace-loving Christian suffering under Jewish brutality! His portrait of the conflict is sureal. But it gets worse. Hank used inflated figures to make the massacre appear worse than it was! On page xxiv, Hank states:
Two hundred fifty? Is that an accurate number? Not according to the Palestinians! They themselves declare that the figure was inflated by the perpetrators to instill fear in those who remained. Here is the truth from the Palestinian website created as a memorial to those who died at Deir Yassin:Originally Posted by The Apocalypse Code
They say that the actual number was roughly 100 - 120. That doesn't make it any less of a crime, but it does make one wonder what Hank's motives really are. Why did he present only one side of the conflict? And why did he publish a false fact that is so easy to disprove?
Well, that's the downside of the book. My hope for this thread is that we can discuss both its positive and the negative aspects. As stated above, I am very impressed with how he teaches hermeneutics. It truly is a very valuable book that corrects a lot of the errors in pop "end-time" literature. But I can not recommend his book without a warning that he is completely unbalanced with regards to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.