Jeremiah 1-10: The Israelite Perspective

Jeremiah was a prophet who was first commissioned by God in the year 627 BCE. As a prophet, Jeremiah takes issue with the status quo. One of his primary causes is the belief that temple worship is not as important as strict obedience to the Lord's law. He has other causes as well, such as the great guilt of Judah and the general unfaithfulness of the people. But all these coalesce in the issue of temple worship. For Jeremiah, temple sacrifice has nothing to do with obedience to God. The prophet channels the Lord:

I did not speak to them or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices. But this commandment I gave them, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and you shall be my people; and walk only in the way that I command you, so that it may be well with you.
(Jeremiah 7.22-23)

Jeremiah here perhaps is attempting to censor history: Deuteronomy 16 explicitly calls for a Passover sacrifice. Numbers calls for sacrifices and offerings in many places. But Jeremiah's rebellion is not a simple matter of textual analysis. Rather, he may be arguing against an institution that supports the temple monarchy. Jeremiah is a descendant of Abiathar, a Levitical priest who was removed from power by Solomon for political reasons. Jeremiah therefore may be rebelling against the institution in general, and the sacrifice - which sustains the rival non-Levitical priests - in particular. Jeremiah goes so far as to reject the very centerpiece of the temple, the ark of the covenant:

I will give you shepherds after my own heart, who will feed you with knowledge and understanding. And when you have multiplied and increased in the land, in those days, says the Lord, they shall no longer say, "The ark of the covenant of the Lord." It shall not come to mind, or be remembered, or missed; nor shall another one remain.
(Jeremiah 3.15-16)

Jeremiah has other reasons to hate the Davidic monarchy, centered in Jerusalem. A resident of Benjamin, he identifies with the plight of Israel, rather than that of Judah. Unlike Isaiah (1-39, 40-55, 56-66), who was from the southern kingdom, Jeremiah favors the northern kingdom for salvation.

This belief puts him in a difficult position. Israel fell first to invading armies, which by Isaiah's logic indicates that the kingdom was less faithful, or at least lost faith in the Lord sooner than the South:

She saw that for all the adulteries of that faithless one, Israel, I had sent her away with a decree of divorce; yet her false sister Judah did not fear, but she too went and played the whore.
(Jeremiah 3.8)

Both Israel and Judah are in the wrong, and both are punished, but for some reason not explained, Judah is more in guilt:

Then the Lord said to me: Faithless Israel has shown herself less guilty than false Judah.
(Jeremiah 3.11)

This is set against a backdrop of general unfaithfulness, revealing in yet another biblical book the dialectical tensions that inform the entire corpus of the bible:

Has a nation changed its gods,
even though they are no gods?
But my people have changed their glory
for something that does not profit.
(Jeremiah 2.11)

Other peoples do not change their gods, but Israel, whose God is the one true God, does not remain faithful to its own God. Israel's unfaithfulness is examined in graphic terms: an ox that breaks it yoke, a whore, a choice vine that becomes wild, and a stain that cannot be washed out. God's people follow a winding path, and act like a wild donkey in heat, a notorious lover of strangers.

This is expressed in poetry through the imagery of husband and wife. In typical patriarchal fashion, God is the husband and his people the wife. Israel suffers "divorce" when it falls into apostasy, which means oppression or defeat. God poses the question to his people:

If a man divorces his wife
and she goes from him
and becomes another man's wife,
will he return to her?
Would not such a land be greatly polluted?
You have played the whore with many lovers;
and would you return to me?
says the Lord.
(Jeremiah 3.1)

And yet, in the Lord's mystery, he does accept the people that return to him. God takes back his whore of a wife, under the assumption that she will again become faithful.

There will be punishment for the loss of faith. Jeremiah in the end of chapter 10 warns that the exile is imminent:
I am going to sling out the inhabitants of the land at this time,
and I will bring distress on them,
so that they shall feel it.
(Jeremiah 10.18)

The doomed nation, having been conquered, is expressed in a return to the primordial chaos:

I look on the earth, and lo, it was a waste and void;
and to the heavens, and they had no light.
I looked on the mountains, and lo, they were quaking,
and all the hills moved to and fro.
I looked, and lo, there was no one at all,
and all the birds of the air had fled.
I looked, and lo, the fruitful land was a desert,
and all its cities were laid in ruins
before the Lord, before his fierce anger.
For thus says the Lord: The whole land shall be a desolation; yet I will not make a full end.
Because of this the earth shall mourn,
and the heavens above grow black;
for I have spoken, I have purposed;
I have not relented nor will I turn back.
(Jeremiah 4.23-28)

Like the world before creation, the earth is "waste and void," the heavens shining no light upon it. There are no humans, no birds, and no plants. The imagery suggests strongly (and uses the language of) the first story of creation to express how the great building up of the Israelite people will be utterly undone.

But within chapter 10 we can also find a message of redemption. retribution will come to the persecuting nations after Israel has been conquered.

Pour out your wrath on the nations that do not know you,
and on the peoples that do not call on your name;
for they have devoured Jacob;
they have devoured him and consumed him,
and have laid waste his habitation.
(Jeremiah 10.25)

As we have seen in Isaiah, this is exactly what happens. Israel will one day be vindicated.

Isaiah 56-66: Belief and Prediction

Third Isaiah

First Isaiah presents Zion/Jerusalem on the brink of destruction, Second Isaiah presents Zion in Babylon, and Third Isaiah presents God's people as they have returned to Judah from their captivity in Babylon. Even though the people have returned to their land in Third Isaiah, the prophet's grandiose prophecies have not all come true. Oppression remains, even in the homeland as the Israelites start to rebuild their home city and temple. Therefore, Isaiah must deliver new oracles to clarify the old ones.

That's the trouble with prophecy: it is rarely exactly correct, and so the prophet must modify the prophecy in order to suit his worldview. We see this tradition continue even today. Evangelist Harold Camping, who predicted the rapture would occur on May 21, 2011 and the end of the world on October 21 of the same year, is by no means a biblical-level prophet, but his predictions thrust him into the realm of prophecy. When no apparent rapture occurred, he had to change his prediction somewhat.

Camping had in fact originally predicted the end of the world for September, 1994. When that did not occur, he insisted that he had not done enough research. He was much more certain about the events of May and October 2011. When the faithful were not corporeally ascended on May 21, Camping held strong in his assertion of rapture, but clarified that it was largely symbolic, or spiritual, as opposed to physical. The proposed date for the destruction of the world remains.

Isaiah also fails on a number of counts. The wilderness of Zion is not like Eden, the nursing child does not play over the hole of the asp. These things have not even come true in metaphorical terms. But part of his prophecies did come true: Judah was conquered, then delivered, and its people were allowed to return to their homeland. But because so much did not come true, the new message represents a departure from previous predictions.

The reasons Isaiah's visions do not come true are attributed to the Israelites' apostasy. God is not worshipped as he should be. And when pagan practices are in vogue, the normal signs of worship: sacrifices of oxes, lambs, grain, and aromatics like frankincense do not count, and actually bring sin upon a person.

But one day, all these people will be put to shame, when the new kingdom comes. A much different kingdom it shall be.

Deliverance and Social Justice
In Third Isaiah, deliverance is not longer reserved for those related to Israel. Now foreigners who obey the Lord will be called to the house of God. (Isaiah 56.8) They stand in stark contrast to Israel's rulers, the “wild animals,” and blind sentinels with mighty appetites and meager understanding.

The reason for the concession to foreigners seems to be the lack of regard that Israel has for God. They simply go through the motions of Judaism, without proper belief or practice. They ask:

“Why do we fast, but you do not see?
Why humble ourselves, but you do not notice?”
(Isaiah 58.3)

God responds:

Look, you serve your own interest on your fast day,
and oppress all your workers.
Look, you fast only to quarrel and to fight
and to strike with a wicked fist.
Such fasting as you do today
will not make your voice heard on high.
Is such the fast that I choose,
a day to humble oneself?
Is it to bow down the head like a bulrush,
and to lie in sackcloth and ashes?
Will you call this a fast, a day acceptable to the Lord?
(Isaiah 58.3-5)

Fasting, the Lord asserts, should be accompanied by humility, even in the face of hunger. Fasts are meant to “loose the bonds of injustice,” “let the oppressed go free,” “share your bread with the hungry,” “bring the homeless poor into your house,” and cover the naked. (Isaiah 58.6-7)

The simple orthopraxy emphasized in the days of Moses must now be accompanied by social justice. Israel's relationship with God is no longer simply based on obedience of his commandments, but also a sense of caring for one another. In prophesy short of apocalypticism, there is always an opportunity for the audience to change its ways.

Prophets, we must remember, were always on the fringe, and rarely believed by the aristocracy or the common people. So it remains today. Our new prophets, uninspired by any god we comprehend, continue to fail in their predictions. It is up to us whether they serve as an example of piety or errancy.

Isaiah 40-55: Cyrus the Conquerer

 Second Isaiah

Cyrus the Conquerer
The complex tensions in First Isaiah carry over into Second Isaiah, which sees a great new conquerer coming to free Israel from its captivity in Babylon. A new tension is added: this conquerer is Cyrus the Great, a Persian king. Israel's own monarchy has failed; considering that 1 Samuel portrays the monarchy as a rejection of the Lord, one might say it was doomed from the start. In fact, Babylonian captivity springs directly from the evil kings of the divided monarchy. But since the divine covenant still exists between Israel and God, God is able to redeem his people by exerting his will through Cyrus. This is not without precedent. The Lord formerly aided his people directly through the judges:

Whenever the Lord raised up judges for them, the Lord was with the judge, and he delivered them from the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge; for the Lord would be moved to pity by their groaning because of those who persecuted and oppressed them.
(Judges 2.18)

The innovation is that Cyrus is not an Israelite, as the Israelites are unable to fight against the strong oppression they face. The historical fact of Cyrus' conquering Babylon is given the theological gloss of God's divine will. It is easy to make this connection when we consider that Cyrus not only conquered Babylon, but also brought freedom of religion to the Israelites and allowed them to rebuild the temple. This is historical fact that is also recalled in Ezra:

"Thus says King Cyrus of Persia: The Lord, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth, and he has charged me to build him a house at Jerusalem in Judah. Any of those among you who are is people - may their God be with them! - are now permitted to go to Jerusalem in Judah, and rebuild the house of the Lord, the God of Israel - he is the God who is in Jerusalem..."
(Ezra 1.2-3)

We discover in Second Isaiah that God was behind this decree all along. In fact, Cyrus is referred to as God's  "anointed," a moniker reserved - with this one exception - for Israelite kings and high priests. Isaiah 45 describes God will go before Cyrus and conquer everything in his way. Victory is never Cyrus' accomplishment, but rather that of the Lord.

On Poetry
Why are we to believe that Cyrus is the Lord's agent? The biblical author attempts to convince the reader in the lead-up to the description of Cyrus' campaign in Isaiah 45. A poem in Isaiah 44.24-28 eases us into the idea of Cyrus by asserting God's greatness and revealing truths that we are likely to believe. By the time we learn that Cyrus will act as God's agent, we have already agreed with the rest of the poem, so why not tack on one more thing?

It begins with an invocation

Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer,

before addressing the reader in particular:

who formed you in the womb:

The Lord then shifts from particular to universal, displaying his mastery of everything great and small:

I am the Lord, who made all things,
who alone stretched out the heavens,
who by myself spread out the earth: 

After this comes a rejection of false prophets

who frustrates the omens of liars,
and makes fools of diviners;

and a rejection of knowledge (or certain kinds of knowledge):

who turns back the wise,
and makes their knowledge foolish;

Prophets like Isaiah are to be trusted because God validates their oracles:

who confirms the word of his servant
and fulfills the predication of his messengers;

Next comes a promise, one meant to instill hope in its audience:

Who says of Jerusalem, "It shall be inhabited,"
and of the cities of Judah, "They shall be rebuilt,
and I will raise up their ruins";

What follows is an image that invokes the past while looking to the future. A reference to the deep and a dried up river recalls the exodus, one in which the Israelites will again return home.

who says of the deep, "Be dry -
I will dry up your rivers";

Finally comes the biter pill. Israel's savior will not be an Israelite. Unable to save itself, the Lord will act through an intermediary. Since the Lord has already established his track record of greatness, rejecting book knowledge in favor of prophecy, the foundation is laid for us to believe that Cyrus indeed will save Israel as an agent of God:

who says of Cyrus, "He is my shepherd,
and he shall carry out all my purpose";

Finally, the poem closes with a positive look toward the future, one inevitable as predicted by Isaiah and executed by Cyrus, both agents of the Lord himself:

and who says of Jerusalem, "It shall be rebuilt,"
and of the temple, "Your foundation shall be laid."

This is exactly what happens. The word of the Lord and the prediction of Isaiah come true and Israel once again finds itself with a place of centralized worship. We are led to believe it by a chain of plausible claims, and historically, the prediction became a reality. How much farther must one strain faith to believe it was God and not Cyrus? That answer does not come from the bible, but from the reader.

Isaiah 1-39: Politician and Prophet

First Isaiah

Isaiah is a prophet who lived during the time of Kings Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah of Judah.  This was a tumultuous time - as times tend to be when prophets appear. Isaiah was very concerned about the proper treatment of those with little protection in society, namely the orphans and widows. His vision for the future was one of violence and loss, but ultimately the kingdom of God would be restored.

Isaiah the Politician

If we discount God's revelation to Isaiah - say the prophet made it all up - we would be able to see Isaiah as a political reformer who uses a clever scheme to convince his audience of his position. Isaiah attributes probable events to a higher authority (God) as retribution for perceived injustices done by human agents. Isaiah's genius - and the genius of all the prophets - lies in his misdirection. He uses a clever sleight of hand to convince his audience. For example, Isaiah does not says that the Assyrians invaded Israel in order to gain land and resources. Rather, he asserts that the Assyrians acted under God's control in order to punish the Israelites for their sins.

This assertion holds an implicit value judgment that the Israelites, as God's chosen people, are better than the Assyrians. Assyria is merely God's puppet, used by the almighty to punish those people who matter more. In fact, it is this mentality that allowed Jews to cope with oppression, invasion and deportation all the way to today. The notion is bittersweet: bitter because they were scattered directly because of their sins, sweet because God was still willing to protect them in accordance with the divine covenant. It is the sweet that keep the Israelites going. No matter how bitter a situation, that sweetness is upheld by an agreement that transcends sin, the covenant between God and his people.

It is no surprise, then, that Isaiah's message speaks of redemption in addition to its dire warning.

But we don't have to view Isaiah that way...

...Because his story is really interesting! Isaiah is fortunate/pious enough to have a direct encounter with God. His description in Isaiah 6 is almost in mystical terms: God is so large that the hem of his garment fills the temple, and he is accompanied by seraphs, each with six wings. Since the encounter is in the temple, we might imagine God on the throne formed by the wings of the cherubim described in 1 Kings 6.23-28. Therefore we have a multitude of creatures. The seraphim are winged cobras that use one pair of wings to cover their genitals out of modesty, another to cover their faces from the glory of the Lord, and a third to fly. Even God's attendants may not look upon him, so Isaiah's discomfort comes as no surprise:

"Woe is me! I am lost, for I am a an of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips; yet my eyes have seen the king, the Lord of hosts!"
(Isaiah 6.5)

His lips are cleansed with a live coal from the altar, and he becomes able to speak with God. The message is dire:

“Go and say to this people: ‘Keep listening, but do not comprehend; keep looking, but do not understand.’ Make the mind of this people dull, and stop their ears, and shut their eyes, so that they may not look with their eyes, and listen with their ears, and comprehend with their minds, and turn and be healed.”
(Isaiah 6.9-10)

No one will listen to the message, but God knows and expects this. Therefore he will bring armies against the Israelites. Israel will be punished for its sins.

Isaiah (speaking on behalf of God) asserts that simple sacrifices are not enough to expiate the sins of the people. Rather, the poor and orphans and widows must be protected as well. But because this has not happened, the Israelites will be conquered ad dispersed.

Eventually, though, there will come a great peace, when all the earth acknowledges and worships the Lord. In this time of great obedience, there will be peace.

On Prophets...

The most important thing to remember about prophets...is that they are visionaries. I am no prophet. However, I do have vision problems right now that are keeping me from blogging adequately. I will return with a post on the book of Isaiah as soon as possible. Thank you in advance for your understanding.

Feminism, Song of Solomon, and Breakfast at Tiffany's

The New York Times published a fun little quiz about the bible and sex in the May 22 Sunday Edition. Op-ed columnist Nicholas D. Kristof does a good job of showing how human interpretation of the bible colors our understanding of the actual text. [Follow up: read an explanation and reader responses.]

Question number four is of particular interest for this week's reading: the "Song of Solomon" or "Song of Songs." This short biblical book details in rich poetry the relationship between two young lovers. Anyway, that is the surface reading (and very possible the Song's original intention).

Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth!
For your love is better than wine,
your anointing oils are fragrant,
your name is perfume poured out;
therefore the maidens love you.
Draw me after you, let us make haste.
The king has brought me into his chambers.
We will exult and rejoice in you;
we will extol your love more than wine;
rightly do they love you.
(Song of Solomon 1.2-4)

This love song, however, does not square well with religious hierarchy of many denominations. Why would an erotic poem - one that does not even mention God - be featured among scripture? In his introduction to the poem in a the Harper Collins Study Bible, Michael V. Fox explains that the Song is traditionally interpreted as describing the relationship between God and his followers. For Jews, this mean's God's love for Israel. For Christians, this means God's love for the Church. These explanations affirm God's love, but do so at great peril. The language, as we see above, is sexually-charged. It is no wonder that Song is attributed to Solomon, who was known for his great wisdom and love of women!

By some strange confluence of literature and teachers, many English majors are able to read sex in anything (and if not, some are more than happy to inject it themselves). I had a fantastic English professor in college who was very much into feminism interpretation but very conscious of Freudian psychology. It made for intriguing courses about the role of women in male-dominated societies. Song of Solomon is remarkable for the equality of the two lovers. This is not the sort of unequal relationship we see in the sex-libertine Restoration comedies, but rather the parity of two young lovers more typical of Shakespeare: Romeo and Juliet, for instance. But even millennia before Freud, the sexual imagery seems undeniable.

The praises the two lavish on one another seem to demonstrate complete equality. The society they live in, however, is not so accommodating. The girl is even beaten and stripped for wandering the city at night. Perhaps they thought she was a prostitute, but in any case this is a strong example of misogyny within the culture. The girl, prostitute or not, did nothing to deserve her injury and humiliation. It is worth noting that the boy does not suffer the same test of love. The girl faces much stronger oppression, and must remain within certain physical and social constraints.
 
The girl, soon to be a young woman, is warded over by her two brothers, who guard her womanhood (read: virginity) jealously:

My mother's sons were angry with me;
they made me keeper of the vineyards,
but my own vineyard I have not kept!
(Song of Solomon 1.6)

Patriarchal rule ensures that she only marries a man that is approved by the men of her family. This sentiment is typical of the times (and many times later!), but not echoed in her lover. Still, the sentiment is restated at the end of the Song, fencing the girl in a textual corral from which she cannot escape. The two brothers, at the end of the song:

We have a little sister,
and she has no breasts.
What shall we do for our sister,
on the day when she is spoken for?
If she is a wall,
we will build upon her a battlement of silver;
but if she is a door,
we will enclose her with boards of cedar.
(Song of Solomon 8.8-9)

Even non English-majors should be able to identify what is symbolized by the wall versus the door. But by this point, with all the loving-tenderness that passes between the lovers, the girl-woman is ready to respond to her brothers, and finds herself ready for marriage:

I was a wall,
and my breasts were like towers;
then I was in his eyes
as one who brings peace.

The girl-woman is prepared for marriage, as is the boy-man:

Solomon had a vineyard at Baal-hamon;
he entrusted the vineyard to keepers;
each one was to bring for its fruit a thousand pieces of silver.
My vineyard, my very own, is for myself;
you, O Solomon, may have the thousand,
and the keepers of the fruit two hundred!
(Song of Solomon 8.10-12)

The boy takes up the girl's image of the vineyard and...wait. It's his? As in he owns it?

I don't think we can blame the guy - he is acting informed by the culture around him. And as far as misogynistic statements go, this is pretty tame, as they will be each other's eventually. If you would like to argue against the institution of marriage, you might have a case for misogyny. I am taking this instance of marriage for granted, because, well, it makes my argument a lot neater. Here is something to consider, though:



Paul Varjak (Fred): "I love you. You belong to me."

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.