Charting the End of Days

Harold Camping has a blueprint for humanity. Those billboards reading “Judgment Day May 21” are the brainchild of the 89-year-old, who hosts a daily internationally-syndicated radio show, “Family Radio.” Judgment Day arrives Saturday with the rapture of God’s faithful. At six o’clock p.m. Standard Time, an earthquake will occur at the International Date Line, and will spread over the whole world. For the next five months, quakes and fires and suffering will rack what remains of humanity. The fantastic machinery of the cosmos will enter a new era as the “salvation program” ends and the “judgment program” begins. The final stroke comes on October 21, with the end of the world.

That is the blueprint for the End of Days.

Camping’s reasoning comes about from cherry-picked passages stitched together into biblical mathematics, substituting verses the way mathematicians substitute variables. (See the run-down on his website)

Camping’s history as an engineer no doubt helped him in charting the apocalypse. D.T. Brown’s interview at Killing the Buddha quotes him as saying:

I was an engineer and that helped me enormously in studying the Bible, because, just like engineering, the Bible is very analytical. ...I approached the Bible the same way I approached any engineering question, in a very analytical way.

This “analytical way” means a mapping out of the end times, something hardly new in eschatology. Many of Camping’s adversaries are quick point to 2 Peter 3.10: “But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night…” However, there is an enduring and perhaps innate desire to know exactly when the end will occur, and to identify and map out the signs of the times leading to it.

Micheael Shermer in the Wall Street Journal writes about “The Enduring Appeal of the Apocalypse,” suggesting that eschatology helps us to cope with a world we do not completely understand:

For human beings, it is much easier to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune when we believe that it is all part of a deeper, unfolding plan. We may feel like flotsam and jetsam on the vast rivers of history, but when the currents are directed toward a final destination, it gives us purpose and meaning. We want to feel that no matter how chaotic, oppressive or evil the world may be, all will be made right in the end.

Camping’s eschatology, like many other eschatologies, is based on a succession of eras. In these, there are one or more watershed moments that delineate between the old, sinful time, and the new time of salvation.

I remember the first time I was given a handout of the “Chart of Ages” by the Chicago Bible Students. A series of colored arcs intersect and overlap in a number of ages and dispensations. The timeline resembled a dome temple, and within it were pyramids and fragments of pyramids, all explaining events from the bible and those still to come in human history. What I held was a blueprint of all time, starting with the creation of the world and “ending” with a period of eternal perfection. At the time, I did not know what a “dispensation” was. That knowledge came later, with scholarly study.

The chart owed a lot to the evangelist John Nelson Darby (1800-1882), who popularized the idea of the rapture as well as dispensationalism. Darby’s dispensations organized history very neatly, making clear the evolution of God’s relationship with humankind through the past and as it extends into eternity. Though he takes Martin Luther’s idea of sola scriptura to an extreme, surely Camping draws something from Darby in the way he maps out the end times.

In fact, though, there is a man even further back that informs both of them. Joachim of Fiore (1135-1202) was a medieval theologian whose ornate diagrams (figurae) traced history from the beginning of the world through three distinct ages. Through these elaborate charts of interlocked rings and seven-headed dragons, the man attempted to chart God’s plan from creation to the eternal kingdom. Joachim saw order in biblical numbers, and relied on the trinity for his idea about the history of the world. The Age of the Father was explicated in the Hebrew Scriptures, and was typified by God’s revealed law. The Age of the Son was explicated in the Gospels, and was typified by the “good news” brought by Jesus Christ. The Age of the Spirit was foreshadowed by Revelation and other apocalyptic literature. Joachim believed the Age of the Son was coming to an end, and the Age of the Spirit was to begin at some point between 1200 and 1260. That span came and went, with a fair amount of terror and repentance, but the Age of the Spirit was never ushered in.

Camping has applied his own eras to history. The “Age of the Church” ended in 1988, nearly coinciding with his failed attempt at forming a congregation. The “Age of Salvation” will end with the rapture, and the age of judgment will begin Saturday.

These three men have in common something that we are very familiar with today: a desire to classify the world. I recall being frustrated as a child that my history book charted the history of specific areas, rather than plotting all history on a gigantic timeline. There it would be much easier to see cause and effect – and I realize now – even perceived effects without true causes. Camping is not searching for Gog or Magog or the Four Horseman, but he shares a similar desire with those who do. With the signs he offers, we are able to see where we are going. The bible becomes a guidebook, and Camping becomes out guide.

Camping believes that the world will end, and to a degree he is correct. Whether or not the rapture occurs, May 21, 2011 stands as a demarcation in the long history of expected doomsdays. If the faithful are not raptured, their beliefs will be shaken. They will have to deal with the consequences of decisions made in preparation for the end times, especially those who gave up their friends, family, possessions, and wealth in anticipation of the end time. An old history will end, and a new one begins, awaiting yet another blueprint for the future.

---

Post Script
Eschatological blueprints are not limited to Christians. The Mayans also used a system of cycles to define history. Most people have heard of the impending “Mayan apocalypse” December 21, 2012. The key thing to remember here is that the end of a Mayan cycle does not indicate an apocalyptic end of life, but rather a renewal. On December 21, 2012, the old cycle will be shed and the new one will begin fresh. Ten days later we will ring in a secular new year, and a new cycle of interest in the end times will begin.

2 Samuel 1-10: Poetry, Christian Interpretation, and Quantum Physics

Last week's entry concluded with the deaths of Saul and his son Jonathan, and David killing the man who claimed to mercifully murder Saul.

Today I will focus on David's early campaign as king. I will go about it a little differently than normal. Let me know if you like it! Or hate it!

David's Lamentation: 2 Samuel 1.19-27
David's mourning over Jonathan takes the form of poetry, in fact a complete poem with a great deal of repetition. The repetition helps to clarify David's psychology. Let's take a look:

Your glory, O Israel, lies slain upon your high places!

How the mighty have fallen! 


Tell it not in Gath,

proclaim it not in the streets of Ashkelon;

or the daughters of the Philistines will rejoice,

the daughters of the uncircumcised will exult.


You mountains of Gilboa,

let there be no dew or rain upon you,

nor bounteous fields!


For there the shield of the mighty was defiled,

the shield of Saul, anointed with oil no more.


From the blood of the slain,

from the fat of the mighty,

the bow of Jonathan did not turn back,

nor the sword of Saul return empty.


Saul and Jonathan, beloved and lovely!

In life and in death they were not divided;

they were swifter than eagles,

they were stronger than lions.


O daughters of Israel, weep over Saul,

who clothed you with crimson, in luxury,

who put ornaments of gold on your apparel.

How the mighty have fallen

in the midst of the battle!


Jonathan lies slain upon your high places. 

I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan;

greatly beloved were you to me;

your love to me was wonderful,

passing the love of women.


How the mighty have fallen,

and the weapons of war perished!

The formula "How the mighty have fallen!" serves to structure the poem, appearing at the beginning and end as well as in the middle. However, the poem truly pivots on the verses that mention both Saul and Jonathan: "The bow of Jonathan did not turn back, / nor the sword of Saul return empty. / Saul and Jonathan, beloved and lovely!" The poem begins with general lamentations for the glory of Israel, before focusing on the death of Saul. But David's mind isn't truly on Saul, for soon after the reference he includes Jonathan, before displaying his greater appreciation of Jonathan.

Over the course of the poem the formula: "X lies slain upon your high places" is repeated twice, opening first with Your Glory, O Israel and then with Jonathan, so that Jonathan is equated with the Glory of Israel, as opposed to his father, Saul. Of course, it is David and later his son Solomon that are the true glory of Israel, but David's sentiment exemplifies the great love he shared with Jonathan. Even with his emphatic defense of Saul, David appears to value Jonathan more. David is "distressed for you, my brother Jonathan," a sentiment that involves himself personally with Saul's son. On the other hand, David has the "daughters of Israel" "weep over Saul." As much as he supported King Saul, it was with Jonathan that David shared the truest friendship: "greatly beloved were you to me; / your love to me was wonderful, / passing the love of women." [For more on this type of friendship, read "Of Friendship" by Montaigne.]

Christian Interpretation of 2 Samuel 7
Christian interpretation of the bible is something I have steered away from thus far, but I just finished reading Hal Lindsey's The Late Great Planet Earth and feel the need to speak out if only a little on this phenomenon.

David has built a house for himself and expresses a desire to build one for the Lord as well. The Lord's response, given to the prophet Nathan in a dream, explores the literal and figurative meanings of house and place. His speech is excerpted below:

Thus says the Lord: Are you the one to build me a house to live in?...I took you from the pasture, from following the sheep to be prince over my people Israel; and I have been with you wherever you went, and have cut off all your enemies from before you; and I will make for you a great name, like the name of the great ones of the earth. 

And I will appoint a place for my people Israel and will plant them, so that they may live in their own place, and be disturbed no more; and evildoers shall afflict them no more, as formerly, from the time that I appointed judges over my people Israel; and I will give you rest from all your enemies. 

Moreover the Lord declares to you that the Lord will make you a house. When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your ancestors, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come forth from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 

I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me. When he commits iniquity, I will punish him with a rod such as mortals use, with blows inflicted by human beings. But I will not take my steadfast love from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away from before you. Your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me; your throne shall be established forever.

The Lord's speech represents a new iteration of the covenant of land and progeny, the patriarchal covenant that stretches back to Abraham. The old iteration of that covenant has been fulfilled: the land promised - Canaan - is now inhabited by the progeny - the Israelites. God's newly designated land will be Jerusalem, where the ark of the covenant will be kept. the promise of progeny is still "a great name," but that comes through one person: David's son Solomon. The old covenant being fulfilled, a new one is established. The spirit of both is the same, while the terms change. Of course, the Israelites are also still bound to the covenant of faithfulness to God established under Joshua.

God's emphasis on location is fitting in a conversation that centers around a house. David builds for himself a house without building a resting place for God. Yet God insists that he does not have to settle down just yet; David's progeny will take care of the house and its location. Not only will David not need to build a temple/house (literal) for God; God will in fact build a (metaphorical) house for David! What wordplay! [Does anyone speak Hebrew? Are the roots similar? Do both connote house?] The house the Lord will "build" for David is part of the promise of progeny. A great kingdom will be established through David's offspring. The new king will be a great man, his relationship with God like that between father and son. But God will not punish this man on his own. Instead, humans will inflict blows on him for his iniquity. Nevertheless, David's kingdom will be eternal.

That sounds like Solomon, right? David's progeny, iniquity, establishing God's house...The only place where the whole thing breaks down is at the very end, the establishment of the throne forever. The United Monarchy only lasted 5 generations.

Were you able to read that passage without thinking of Jesus? I wasn't. [Those two preceding sentences mimic the style of Hal Lindsey's book. You should check it out if you're still interested. Fair warning, though, it's a bit outdated.] Read enough prophecy and you will see Jesus everywhere. Who established an eternal kingdom on earth? Jesus! Who is an ancestor of David? Jesus! Who endured the blows of human beings? Jesus!

Despite these rather *ahem* remarkable findings, it is highly improbably that this section refers to Jesus. On its own, this is merely the story of God's promise to David of Solomon and a temple in Jerusalem. The problem is that the people who believe that the passage does point to Jesus are drawing from a number of different sources. Two interpretation issues come into play: Biblical inerrancy and metaphor.

God creates metaphor in this section by making the tangible idea of David's house intangible in the sense of the "house of David" - his line of successors. To a degree this gives the reader a license to interpret other things as metaphorical as well, such as the kingdom, which is taken by some Christian readers to mean the so-called "kingdom of heaven" that Jesus ushers in. The biblical inerrantist also has license to assume that the time of David's kingdom has not come yet because, well, the throne clearly was not established forever. By this reading the throne must be established in the future.

The biblical inerrantist has some problems to deal with as well, such as Saul's actions fulfilling most of God's promise. Also, God specifically states that David's son will be punished for his "iniquity" with "blows inflicted by human beings." Certainly Jesus was brutalized, but it definitely was not on account of any iniquity!

Occam's Razor, the idea that the simplest explanation for a quandary is the most likely choice, would seem to apply here. Why jump through hoops to prove Jesus when Solomon is a simpler explanation? Why forecast so far into the future when Solomon is a few years away?

If I haven't confused you enough, let me make one last attempt.

Context is key here. Suppose I was traveling along X road at Y speed in a car with mass Z. According to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, I would only be able to know either my momentum or my location at any given moment. In fact, this is not true. My momentum is given by the equation ZY and my location by X. So what happened?

It seems I have misapplied the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which is applicable only at the quantum level. Context changes everything. If I am looking for a way to support my argument for Jesus, that is what I see. It might not be correct, and the way I apply laws may not yield a proper solution, but I can do it.

And because we are talking about something that no one can definitively prove either way [even if the author were alive, some would say the text could not be proven either way!] I am liable to believe whatever I like.

What do I believe? That a literary reading of the bible should acknowledge religious influences both inside and outside of the text. And so you have today's entry.