1994?: A Critical Review

The book 1994? has caused a stir in many churches because a specific dating of the second coming of our Lord Jesus Christ is being advocated by the co-founder, president and teacher of a generally respected ministry, Family Radio. Pastors who felt no particular need to invest time in answering the predictions of such people as the South Korean pastor Hyoo-go who predicted a 1992 second advent, suddenly are faced with the need to investigate the projections of Harold Camping. This is to adjust to its peculiarities. The concerned pastor is left to plunge into a nearly opaque and ponderously written tome of 550 pages. It can be a frustrating work in the face of many day-to-day needs of the local church.

The Danger

While admitting not to know the day or the hour, Camping suggests that through biblical evidence the year and month may be discovered, "Last Day and return of Christ sometime on or between: September 15, 1994: Beginning of 1994 Jubilee year, and September 27. 1994: Last Day of Feast of Tabernacles." (1)

One area of pastoral concern, and a reason for a careful examination of a work like 1994? is that it relieves this tension of expectation in its adherents. Although, some have maintained a healthy realization that their own personal eschatology is only ever a breath away, the heart has gone out of works and preparations for works that are long range in focus. Why attend seminary? Why build the new Christian education wing? It is too late to study a new language for the foreign mission field. It is wasteful to save for a child's education, or to plan for retirement. These things which are good stewardship if the Lord does not return in our day, and which are the sort of works that we wish to be found doing when he returns unexpectedly, no longer seem defensible if we are certain that he is coming back in September, 1994.

This is precisely the effect this teaching is having on the ministry of Family Radio. In an interview for the Christian Research Journal, Camping responded to a question about how he is planning for the future, "Look, let's put it this way. My wife came to me and said we needed new linoleum in the kitchen. I told her that we should hold off on the effort and the expense of doing it until October or November of 1994–after the time I predict Christ's return. Now, while it is likely that Christ will return in September of '94, it is not absolute. That's why I take the position I do." (2)

But the conviction of Family Radio's president is having a far more deleterious effect beyond his kitchen floor. In the same article, an anonymous staffer at family Radio has cited the effect on the outreach:

China is finally opening up to us, and this has been in the working for almost two years now. We had a meeting with the president of China and mapped out what we wanted to accomplish there, and submitted everything we wanted to distribute to the people for approval.





After submitting the material, Harold said he was going to change some of it to include his 1994? information. When we told him he couldn't do it"–because officials would cancel the entire project, as happened earlier in Vietnam–"he went ballistic. We had one of our biggest knockdown, drag-outs over it. See, this is the kind of thing that can kill what the ministry is trying to build, and it's causing the kind of turmoil you just can't believe.



Furthermore, we were going to build a huge transmitter in Russia, with a greater ability to blanket Europe. Everything was set, and Harold gave it away to a third party, even though Family Radio was still obligated to pay for it and build it. Why? Harold said, 'Well, Jesus is coming back, and we don't want to deal with this.' We wanted to buy a station that would cover Canada, but Harold refuses–not because we don't have the money, but because he feels Christ is coming back in September, 1994, and it'll be totally useless to buy it. (3)

This tragedy of lost opportunity and division is being repeated throughout the Church.

But, what credit is there in guessing the right date of the Lord's return? Will Peter meet us at the pearly gates to hand out door prizes to those who guessed the right date? Is it not better to be found doing the Lord's work within his Church and be surprised by his advent, than to be found forsaken or divided because Christians have elevated a conviction about the exact date of the Lord's return above the doctrines of salvation and church order which once drew them to a particular church. Is that a state in which we wish to be found when he returns?

Runners will tell you that it is best to run through the finish line in a race. An amateur may seek the extra inch by leaving his feet in a head first dive toward the tape. There is no evidence that such a strategy pays off even when the tape is correctly judged. Certainly the race is lost if it is misjudged. Yet, if the Lord does not return in September, 1994, Family Radio and many other Christians will be climbing back up off their faces, and the cause of Christ generally will have suffered.

Having touched on the effects of the conviction that the Lord will return in 1994, it is appropriate to examine the case made by Camping to inspire such conviction.

The Dates

Camping admits that his evidence is circumstantial:

As we continue, we will find many paths that hone in on a certain year that looks increasingly like the year of Christ's return. Each of these paths are somewhat circumstantial in character. Even though they become exceedingly plausible because they constantly bring us to the same year, we would never dare to say that we have found absolute truth. We have to admit that we could have overlooked something in the Bible that could invalidate our conclusions. (4)

These paths are numerological calculations which lead to the year 1994. They seem strange to most Bible students who are not accustomed to numerological interpretation.

The first is based upon the creation date of 11,013. To this Camping adds 13,000 years and arrives at 1988. To this date he adds 2300 days as a time of tribulation thereby arriving at 1994.

The second is based upon the world beginning anew after the flood of 4990 B.C. To this Camping adds 7000 years as a number of perfection less the shortening of the tribulation period of 17 years, 17 being a number for heaven.

The third is based upon the birth date of Jacob, 2007 B.C. To this he adds 4000 years arriving at 1994.

The fourth is based upon the date Jacob becomes Israel, 1907 B.C. according to Camping. To this the addition of 3900 years results in 1994.

The fifth bridge begins with the date Camping says Israel entered Egypt, 1877 B.C. To this Camping adds 3 x 1290 years arriving at 1994.

The sixth begins when Israel enters Canaan 1407 B.C. and reaches 1994 by adding 3400 years which is 2 x 17 (the number of heaven) x 100.

A seventh is counted from the year David became king 1007 B.C. 3 represents the purpose of god so the addition of 3000 bring us to 1994.

An eighth path begins at 7 B.C. the date of Jesus' birth according to Camping. The addition of 2000 years results in the year 1994. (5)

Camping's paths are "somewhat circumstantial" because none of them are based upon clear statements in Scripture. These paths are traversed by means of significant numbers. To Camping the Scriptures contain numbers which have meanings; for example, 17 represents heaven. These numbers do not lose their meaning when zeroes are added to them. So 17, 170, 1700 and etc. still maintain the essential meaning of heaven. Since these meanings are not based upon any flat statement within the Scriptures, their meaning must be inferred. For example, Camping cites Joseph as a great figure of Christ. Joseph was 17 when he began to dream. These dreams showed him ruling over his brothers. "To reign over his brethren is surely a picture of Christ reigning over the Kingdom of Christ. Christ reigns from heaven as King of kings and Lord of lords; therefore, we can see that the number seventeen, Joseph's age at this time, may be identified with heaven." (6) Then again, the inference is less than clear. The number seventeen may be in the text simply because it was Joseph's age.

But, Camping typically supports a significant number by heaping up several examples to make up in many the argumentative weight lacking in any one. Joseph saved his father Jacob from severe famine by bringing him into Egypt. Jacob also named Israel represents God's people, and Joseph represents the Savior. Since Jacob lived for 17 years in Egypt, the number 17 "points to heaven." "The seventeen years of Jacob under the care of Joseph becomes equivalent to our spending eternity under the care of Christ." (7) In spite of God's gracious provision for his covenant people it seems odd to equate Egypt with heaven in any case.

Finally, Camping turns to Jeremiah. In the face of the destruction of Judah, the prophet is instructed to purchase a field. This field becomes an object lesson. Although the nation will be carried away captive, one day it would return. "Thus we see that the purchase of the land by Jeremiah relates to our salvation and the fact that we inherit the new heavens and the new earth." Camping observes that the fact that the field was purchased for 17 shekels of silver. "In other words, the value of our spiritual inheritance is typified by the price of seventeen shekels of silver." (8) In this example , 17 might better symbolize the atonement.

These three examples hardly make a compelling case unless the reader is willing to accept Camping's presupposition that the Bible is numerological in nature. Therefore, the force of his case in 1994? rests upon assertions about the very nature of biblical revelation. The first assertion is that the significant dates of salvation history can be calculated from the Scriptures. The second is that these dates are interconnected by significant numbers. The prediction of 1994 is simply the logical projection of a pattern which is evident in the Bible.

The first assertion will be examined by looking at Camping's dating of the creation of Adam and the flood. These calculations were first published years ago in Adam When? (9)

Camping's dating begins with establishing the date of Adam's creation at 11, 013 B.C. In order to arrive at this date Camping utilizes the genealogical tables of Genesis 5 and 11. He acknowledges that not every generation is listed in these tables. Indeed, the genealogies of the Bible have many gaps which are not clearly signaled in the text. (10)

In a novel twist Camping insists that the running total of years in these tables is unbroken. The lists are intended to be a calendar. He argues that the life span numbers should be placed end to end. Each name represents a chosen patriarch time keeper, a sort of poster boy for the calendar. The year that the time keeping patriarch died, one of his descendants who was born in that very year would be selected as the new keeper, and the calendar would then be kept according to the year in his life. The mention of the year that the ancestor became the father of the descendant merely indicates the line from which that particular new time keeper came. The exceptions to this end to end calculation are those places in the genealogies where the phrase "and called his name" is used. This extra phrase ensures that the link in the chain is one of the immediate father-son relationship, thus the entire life span of the father could not be counted in figuring chronology, but only the years up to the beginning of the son's life span.

The immediate weakness in this theory is that it is not found in the Bible. That is to say, we neither find these genealogies explained in such terms, nor do we see them used in that way. Where the Bible sets dates different methods are used; for example, "And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month Zif, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the Lord" begins 1 Kings 6; "Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia" begins the book of Ezra; "And it came to pass in those days that a decree went out from Quirinius was governing Syria," begins the second chapter of the Gospel according to Luke.

It is important to note that the fact that there are gaps in this particular genealogy had long been accepted without adopting Camping's view which places a gap between each of the names. The link between Levi and Kohath is clearly that of father to son. It is very likely that Amram who married Jochebed is Levi's grandson (Nm 3:9, 27-28). The grandsons apparently become the reference heads of the divisions of the tribe of Levi at the time of Aaron and Moses' births (Ex 6:20). No more specific references is made to the father and mother of Aaron and Moses than "And a man of the house of Levi went and took his wife a daughter of Levi" (Ex 2:1). A single gap between Amram and Aaron would explain the apparent difficulties in this genealogy. The gap of uncertain length placed between Amram and Aaron is the suggestion made by William Henry Green in his work on Primeval Chronology already cited. (11)

Whether of not the list begins with those in immediate father, son and grandson relationship, clearly any attempt to pluck Kohath out of the list of those who went with Israel into Egypt does violence to the plain meaning of Scripture.

Beyond this parallel which weighs against and not in favor of Camping's handling of the Genesis tables, he cites two uses of a patriarchal calendar in Scripture. He points out that the flood was recorded as occurring in the 600th year of the life of Noah. This carries little persuasive weight since it is contained within the story of Noah. Camping's case does not turn on whether time reference was ever made to the year in the life of an important character in which it occurred, but whether such a tabulation was maintained from one generation to the next. Again, this dating of the flood is consistent with Camping's theory only if you presuppose it. It therefore fails to carry persuasive weight in establishing it. (12)

His other bit of evidence is more dubious still. He points to the Lord Jesus's Christ's words in Matthew 24:34, "Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." He interprets those words from the olivet discourse as applying to the entire New Testament era as being the generation of Christ, which may be proper interpretation of that passage, but certainly may be disputed.

This was the situation that existed in man's early history. The time was divided into patriarchal periods of generations even as the New Testament period is the generation of Jesus Christ and as the Egyptian sojourn was so divided. (13)

All of history since Matthew 24 should therefore be calculated as the year in the generation of our Lord Jesus Christ. This may be a commendation of the current state of our calendar; to whit Anno Domini, but we never see this dating technique employed in the New Testament.

Camping's interpretation of the Genesis genealogies therefore remains unsupported. In the Scriptures it is never explained, never used and without parallel.

It is timely to observe that several of Camping's paths therefore must be stripped of any argumentative force in establishing 1994 as the date of the Lord's return. With neither a firm date for the creation of Adam nor for the flood, 1988 loses its significance as the 13,000th year since the creation. 1994 therefore no longer can be asserted as the 13000th year of the creation plus 2300 days of tribulation. The path from the flood, which is traversed by adding 7000 years less 17 as a number for heaven no longer reaches to 1994. Camping's dates for Jacob's life from which he begins a path from the date of his name change to Israel is also without weight, since it is the product of guess work which Camping nails down only by presupposing that the genealogy between Levi and Aaron is governed by his theory, which has already been disproved.

More importantly than lightening the load of Camping's circumstantial evidence is the refutation of his basic premise that the Bible contains the necessary clues for establishing the significant dates of salvation history. The Lord has not placed the calculation of such dates within the purview of men.

The Design

The second underlying assumption we must examine is that there is a sort of numerological symmetry underlying the significant events of salvation history which is not only demonstrable in Scripture, but is clear enough to justify projections into the future. Specifically, Camping argues that this numerological symmetry is clear in the first coming of Christ. By applying his method to the first coming he seeks to establish his warrant for applying it to the second as well:

If we can find strictly within the Old Testament information that gives us clues concerning the timing of the first coming of Christ, then utilizing the whole Bible and following the same methodology and the same kind of data, we may be able to find clues concerning the timing of the second coming of Christ and the end of the world. (14)

Camping argues for two dates regarding the first coming of Christ. They are 7 B.C. and 33 A.D. The first he claims is the birth date of our Lord Jesus Christ. The second is the year of his crucifixion and resurrection. It is not that either of these days alone is without support, but the use of both of these dates creates a problem. For by means of this calculation our Lord would have died on the cross at 39 years of age.

This runs counter to the information of the Gospel of John which presents three or four Passovers in the ministry of Jesus which when combined with the statement of Luke 3:23, "Now Jesus Himself began His ministry at approximately thirty years of age," has lead to the estimation that Jesus was about 33 years old when he was crucified. (15)

Clearly Jude could have written "about 35" or "about 40" if that were Jesus' age when his ministry began. Luke 3:23 mentions Jesus' age and begins the account of his genealogy. It is hard to imagine Camping interpreting "about 30" as 36 years old when he treats other genealogical dates with such precision. The other alternative for having Jesus 39 years of age at his crucifixion is to add years to the length of Jesus' ministry. While this is not impossible, it is without justification in the Gospels.

In order to set forth 7 B.C. as the birth year for our Lord Jesus, Camping argues as follows: Herod died in 4 B.C. therefore Jesus must have been born before 4 B.C.. Herod ordered the slaying of the children two years old and younger. Therefore, Jesus could have been born two years before that order. Also a period of time may have elapsed between the time of the killing the babies and the death of Herod. "Thus, we may be reasonably certain that on the basis of this evidence concerning Herod, Jesus must have been born between 9 B.C. and 6 BC." (16)

At this point Camping argues that the choice of 7 B.C. over 9, 8 and 6 B.C. depends upon his numerological indicators which point to 7 B.C. "From Biblical data discovered in previous chapters that repeatedly focused on 7 BC, we know that Jesus must have been born in the year 7 BC." (17)

Once again Camping's argument comes full circle. He seeks to demonstrate the reliability of his numerological method by the certainty of a birth date of 7 BC. He attempts to demonstrate the certainty of the birth date of 7 B.C. by the reliability of his numerological method.

A perfectly reasonable alternative which takes into account Josephus' account of the death of Herod would suggest that he died in the early spring of 4 B.C. Jesus could reasonably have been between one and two years of age at the time of Herod's order to kill the children. We should note that Herod gives a range of age in his order because of either uncertainty as to the child's age, a desire to leave no room for error, or for both reasons. We do not know how long beyond giving the infamous order Herod lived. It could have been a very brief time. It is not unreasonable to suggest that Jesus was born 5 or 6 B.C.

This combined with the opening words of Luke which place the beginning of John the Baptist's ministry "in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar" which when his two or three year co-reign with Augustus is considered would place the beginning of John's ministry and soon thereafter our Lord Jesus' ministry in 26 or 27 A.D… This combined with a 5 or 6 B.C. birth date would satisfy the statement of Luke that our Lord was about 30 at the beginning of his public ministry.

These suggestions are also speculative, but they offer a reasonable enough alternative to refute Camping's claim that, "We cannot deny that Nathanael's study accurately predicted 7 B.C." There is not such certainty.

In order to establish the year 33 A.D. Camping examines the 70 weeks of Daniel 9. By beginning with the year 458, the year of the decree of Artaxerxes recorded in Ezra, Camping counts out 490 years to 33 A.D. Again, while his interpretation of the seventy weeks as years is not unusual, nor his beginning place of 458, his conclusion may be challenged. The cutting off of the Messiah does not come at week's end. It comes in the middle of the last week.

There shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks . . . And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off . . . Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; but in the middle of the week he shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. (18)

Returning to our alternative than would yield the anointing of the Lord Jesus at the outset of the final week of years, or 26 A.D. The three-and-a-half years of ministry would bring his ministry to Passover 30 A.D. Thus we have an alternative that meets every test that Camping's does and still maintains the integrity of Luke's "about thirty" information.

Nonetheless, 7 B.C. and 33 A.D. are the dates Camping aims to tie into his overall numerological symmetry. To illustrate his method, Camping invents a mythical numerologist who lived several decades before the first coming of our Lord Jesus. This devout man he has named Nathanael. Nathanael traces out numerous paths. It is at this point that Camping betrays even more clearly that his methodology is unsupportable. For his mythical Nathanael finds nine paths which lead to the year 34 A.D. in addition to the three or four paths which lead to 33 A.D. He admits that nine of his paths lead to the wrong date based upon the Old Testament information at the mythical Nathanael's disposal:

We cannot deny that Nathanael's study accurately predicted 7 B.C., and it was accurate concerning the importance of 33 A.D. Therefore, we are reluctant to conclude that our entire study is of no consequence. What are we to do with all this Biblical data that points to 34 A.D.?





The solution would not have been available to Nathanael but it is available to us. (19)

Here is the admission that even given Camping's timetable for the life of Christ, his numerology has failed. In order to keep from consigning it to the bin marked "no consequence" Camping introduces an extra-biblical source of revelation. It is an error in the Julian/Gregorian calendar. This calendar was produced long after the birth of Christ and beyond miscalculating the date of his birth it failed to account for the year zero. Therefore, 1 B.C. was followed immediately by 1 A.D. When calculating spans of time which cross these years, a total number of years cannot be calculated by simply adding the total of years B.C. and A.D. The sum of years must be corrected by subtracting one.

Camping points to this error as the answer to his nine faulty paths. (20) For if we calculate some of the paths by "actual" years and others by "calendar" years every path can be made to arrive at 33 A.D. At this point the "tilt" light would flash on a pinball machine.

When we realize that God rules the world, these difficulties can be explained. I am certain that these errors were incorporated into the calendar that most of the world uses because of the express intent of God. We thus see that this error that was built into our calendar was not accidental no incidental. It was part of God's plan by which He demonstrates his truths. (21)





The importance of this principle is very great. We saw that Nathanael had found three or four paths that led to 33 A.D. as the year that Christ was crucified in 33 A.D. There were eight or nine paths that led Nathanael to 34 A.D. This year is not accurate because, as we know from our vantage point, no part of the atonement occurred in 34 A.D.

However, if we recognize that these eight or nine paths are to be understood as calendar years rather than actual years, then all of these paths came to 33 A.D. (22)

The importance of these words are clear. More than simply providential, God's sovereign hand at work in the monastic error of omitting the year zero from the Julian calendar was a part of the progress of revelation. Without it the Old Testament revelation of the birth of Christ was incomplete. With it the Bible's information on the coming of the Messiah has become complete.

By allowing the development of a calendar with no year zero between the Old Testament and the New Testament dates, God greatly increased the number of clues that point to the timing of the atonement. (23)

Of course, a wag could suggest that the error in the calendar was a way God has enabled us to show that Camping has got all of his paths wrong. For we could apply it and make all his paths lead to 34 A.D.

More importantly if we take up Camping's own test for the anticipation of the first coming as a test of his numerological method; then, we must conclude that he has failed to carry his burden of proof. Consider again his own requirement:

If we can find strictly within the Old Testament information that gives us clues concerning the timing of the first coming of Christ, then utilizing the whole Bible and following the same methodology and the same kind of data, we may be able to find clues concerning the timing of Christ and the end of the world. (24)

Even before we return to Camping's remaining path to 1994 we see that his wave has broken, and we have little more than foam at our feet. There is no justification for saying that God has placed the actual dates of key events in redemptive history within our purview. There is no justification for suggesting that the Scriptures contain a sort of numerological symmetry which connects these dates. Camping, therefore, has no warrant for calculating the date of Christ's return, nor for connecting it with other dates.

The Denouement

A final question remains, and that is of accountability. If the Lord does not return in September 1994, what will Camping and his followers do? Will they simply return to their numerology and calculate a new date? Or will they acknowledge that their assertions about the very nature of the Bible are in error? Harold Camping in some places speaks of his certainty about 1994 as less than absolute, but in other places his claims approach the prophetic.

I believe there is much more in the Bible concerning the timing of the return of Christ than most theologians realize. I also believe that it can be shown that we are very near the end of time and therefore it is time for additional understanding concerning Christ's return to be realized by the careful and faithful student of the Bible. God declares in Amos 3:7, "Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets." (25) And, this is why, I believe, God has given the information written in this book. Very little of it can be found in any commentary or theological treatise. This is not because the writer of this book is smarter or more intelligent than anyone else. It is simply because we are living in a time close to the end. (26)

Camping's accountability remains an open question. In the meantime, all would do well to attend to the Apostle Peter's words in 2 Peter 3:13 &14,

Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.

Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace.