Arguing the Apocalypse

A Theory of Millennial Rhetoric

By Stephen O’Leary

Oxford University Press

ISBN 0-19-5080 45-9


Abstract 
This article summarises the accounts of  the ‘End of the World’ theories of William Miller in the Nineteenth century and Hal Lindsey in the Twentieth. It then discusses the author’s theory of ‘millennial rhetoric’ in explaining these phenomena and suggests political cynicism as a important explanation for apocalypticism. The conclusion is an analysis of Waco and the Branch Davidians. 

Definitions 
The Christian doctrine of the millennium refers to a thousand year period of peace, prosperity and holiness. 

Premillenialism holds that the return of Christ will precede and actually inaugurate the millennium, while postmillennialism advocates a temporal scheme in which Christ’s physical return would follow the millennium, conceived in more spiritualised terms as a time when God’s rule over the earth would be  progressively established through missionary activity. 


With the year 2000 fast approaching, ‘End of the Age’ theories are increasing in prominence. The survivors of Waco are talking about Koresh returning in the year 2000 to punish the United States, and many other sources from Nostradamus to New Age "channelers" give the dawn of a new millennium cosmic significance.

Claims that the world is about to end have always been with us. The early Christians believed Jesus would soon return and bring the Last Judgement, Puritans in the English Civil war believed they were fighting a Holy War at the end of time. In the 1830s many people in the United States believed William Miller’s claim that the world would end  in 1843/44 and in our own time Hal Lindsey’s best-selling book The Last Great Planet Earth argued that events such as the creation of the state of Israel and the formation of the European Union were fulfilment’s of Biblical prophecy, proving that we are living in the "Last Days".

Stephen O’Leary is Assistant Professor in the Department of Communications Arts and Sciences at the University of Southern California and provides a fascinating analysis of the rhetoric of the apocalypse, looking in detail at William Miller and Hal Lindsey’s arguments and influence.

We shall first summarise O’Leary’s account of Miller and Lindsey’s apocalyptic revivals, then analyse O’Leary’s explanation of such phenomenon.

In 1831 William Miller began travelling the eastern states of the USA preaching that the Bible prophecy showed that the world would end in 1843. Unlike many "revivalist" preachers of the time he was not a "charismatic" or emotional preacher, instead he used reason and logic to persuade his audiences. O’Leary describes the influence of Miller by 1843.

"there were probably well over fifty thousand dedicated Millerites by this time, and as many as a million who, though they might not count themselves as full believers, were expecting or at least watching for something to occur on the predicted date" (p.104).

Miller argued that the Biblical prophecies in the books of Daniel and Revelation were codes that could be deciphered.  The codes were of two types: time periods in the Bible were decoded by substituting a "day for a year" (p. 117) whilst figures in prophecy represented kingdoms, governments, kings etc. This formula, Miller claimed, came from the Bible itself. For example Ezekiel 4:6 says Here God instructs the prophet Ezekiel to "bear the sin of the of the House of Judah" for 40 days, to symbolise "the same number of days as the years of their sin". In the book of Daniel visions are explained as being symbolic, for example Using this methodology, Miller identified a starting date of 457 BCE (Before Common Era) to map out various events in history. This was the date for the "issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem" (Daniel 9:25) and is used in the book of Daniel as a starting date from which to calculate when the Anointed One would come. Using the "day for a year" principle, Miller argued that the date for the Anointed One could be calculated as follows.
"seven ‘sevens’" =
7x7 = 
  49
"sixty-two ‘sevens’" =
62x7 = 
434
total
483 

Starting from 457 BCE and counting forwards 483 years took Miller to 26 CE (Common Era), the time of Jesus Christ - the Anointed One. Having shown that Biblical prophecy has correctly predicted the date of Christ, Miller argued that other events in history were also foretold, the most important of which was 2300 days after 457 BCE. 2,300 years after 457 BCE is 1843 CE. This Miller calculated was the time of the "cleansing of the sanctuary" (Daniel 8:14), which he believed represented the Last Judgement at the end of the world.

Lectures and literature convinced people of Miller’s case "against their will through the force of logic" (p. 119). O’Leary gives us an apparently true transcript of Miller in conversation with a fellow minister, successfully using Socratic cross-examination to derive his conclusion.

The failure of Miller’s prediction caused any future claimants for predicting the soon end of the world to have to fundamentally change their reasoning. Miller’s methodology was called "historicist" in that it attempted to map prophecy to history, and so understand where we were in history using the symbols of prophecy. This methodology was finally replaced by a new way of understanding prophecy: the futurist methodology of Dispensationalism.

The reconstitution of American premillennialism took place gradually through the mid-1800s to the 1920s. Influenced by John Nelson Darby, men such as James H. Brooks, C.I. Scofield, Dwight L. Moody and Arno Gaebelein developed a theory called "Dispensationalism".

Dispensationalism argues that all prophecy will be fulfilled at the end of time. Exactly when this end is, is unknown - there is no date we can calculate - however there are signs which indicate the ‘time of the end’. In Matthew 24 Jesus answers a disciple’s question "what will be the signs of your coming at the end of the world?" (Matt 24:3) by listing a series of events which will mark the time of the end. Hal Lindsey uses the Dispensationalist method of understanding prophecy in his books The Late Great Planet Earth and The 1980s: Countdown to Armageddon. In these books Lindsey interprets political events as marking the ‘signs’ of the end. Events such as the founding of the state of Israel, formation of the European Union and the development of nuclear weapons are all seen by Lindsey as signs of the end. Although he doesn’t give a date for the end of the world, Lindsey quotes Jesus This Lindsey interprets to mean, we don’t know the date of the end, but because these signs have happened we know we are the last generation.

Whilst Miller’s theories may be seen as a historical curiosity, Lindsey’s have had a major political effect. The names of other Christians who hold Lindsey’s views may bring into focus the larger picture: Jerry Falwell, Jim Bakker, Pat Robertson, Jimmy Swaggart and Ronald Reagan. In the USA in the 1980s the Republican right were heavily influenced by the politicisation of fundamentalist born-again Christians - the "moral majority".

According to Lindsey in The Late Great Planet Earth the Bible prophesies a nuclear war in the Middle-East caused by a military alliance between Soviet Russia, Iran and Africa. This is taken from a text in Ezekiel 38:2 which refers to "Magog", "Rosh", "Mesech" and "Tupal" (it is argued that Magog and Rosh are tribal ancestors of the modern Russian people, Mesech=Moscow, Tupal=Tobolsk etc). Following this war, China will invade the Middle-East (see Revelation 16:12-16, the "Kings of the East" etc). Next will come an evil dictator who will take control of the European Common Market (Daniel 7:23-25), following this the US will cease being a leader of the West and become a part of the European sphere of power.

Lindsey says that Christians can escape this terrible future through a ‘secret rapture’ where God takes Christians into heaven to avoid the last plagues of Earth.

In The Late Great Planet Earth, written and published in the 1970s, Lindsey explains the current political situation in terms of prophecy, but he does not show any interest in becoming involved in politics. His message is: the current political, social and ecological situation is terrible, the world is about to end, the only solution is to become born-again so that God will save you. In the 1980s this all changes.

Lindsey’s book for the 1980s Countdown to Armageddon does not sound like much of a departure from his 1970s writings. Theologically he changed only slightly, but politically this change made a huge difference. What Lindsey says in Countdown to Armageddon is that it is not inevitable that the USA will become dominated by Europe. Instead he lists four possible fates for the USA.
  1. Taken over by Communists.
  2. Destruction by the Soviet Union.
  3. Dependent upon Europe.
  4. The US retains her independence.
This last possibility Lindsey calls ‘A RAY OF HOPE’ and he explains it as follows.

"If some difficult choices are made by the American people right now it is possible to see the US remain a world power. We could become an equal ally of the European Confederation… In that way, America could keep much of its sovereignty and freedom." (p. 176)

This "hold the fort" doctrine was characterised by Jerry Falwell’s phrase that Christians were "called to occupy until He comes" (p.179). So although politically Lindsey has made only a minor qualification to his original position, the difference is crucial. The Christian political right-wing actively supported Ronald Reagan’s Presidency and it is clear that Reagan himself shared many of Lindsey’s views.

Reagan’s Legal Secretary said Reagan had read and repeatedly discussed The Late Great Planet Earth while Governor of California (p.182). Reagan himself said "these prophecies… certainly describe the times we are going through" (p.182). Reagan’s Secretary of the Interior, James Watt, said "I don’t know how many future generations we can count on until the Lord returns" (p.182), Reagan’s Secretary of Defence Casper Weinberger said "I have read the Book of Revelation and, yes, I believe the world is going to end - by an act of God, I hope - but every day I think that time is running out" (p.273).

Despite critics using Reagan’s fascination with the apocalypse to question his suitability for President, he was repeatedly returned by the electors, causing O’Leary to comment:

 "from the evidence it seems legitimate to conclude that a vast proportion of the American audience seems willing to engage in (or at least tolerate) apocalyptic speculation… the critical alarm over his public and private statements was apparently not shared by the voters who re-elected him… Reagan gave voice to thoughts shared by millions of Americans" (p.183).

In the 1990s things changed for the right. Pat Robertson responded to pre-millennialist charges by developing a post-millennialist theology. Whilst running for President he spoke of "a vision that will take us past these troubled days… We’re going to see a society that’s a description of the Millennium when Jesus comes back… but these things can take place now in this time" (p. 185). This change only resulted in his alienating the religious right (Jimmy Swaggart has attacked Robertson’s change of views) while the secular media fail to appreciate the implications of his theological shift and continue to quote his pre-millennial statements from the 1980s against him.

O’Leary finishes with a weak epilogue on Waco in which he stands back from any analysis, saying "there are still too many facts to be sorted out" and "the Branch Davidians who died in the fire at Ranch Apocalypse are now forever silenced", noting only that the siege need not have ended the way it did, and using this as a lesson that history itself is made by us, and no end is inevitable.

Analysing why people accept apocalyptic beliefs O’Leary is dismissive of theories which set believers in the margins - those dislocated and disoriented by the modern world. He shows instead that apocalyptic beliefs cut across class lines and argues for a more complex explanation based on an analysis of the rhetoric used within the social context. The Millerite movement based its arguments on Biblical inerrancy - an assumption shared by Miller’s audience. In the post-modern 1970s and 80s, Lindsey succeeds by exploiting the market for pop-psychology, pseudo-science and futurism. There is no "Lindseyite" movement - only consumers and markets. Changes in society have made repeating Miller’s simple appeal to the Bible ineffective. The cover of The Late Great Planet Earth was similar to Chariots of the Gods and bookstores sold Lindsey’s book alongside books on the I Ching and Transcendental Meditation. In part the success of the book was marketing it at those with an interest in the supernatural.

O’Leary’s complex rhetorical analysis is fascinating but ignores an important ingredient in reception of apocalyptic arguments: political cynicism. In the 1830s Miller particularly attracted anti-slavery and temperance campaigners, exhausted from their efforts in the early 1800s to win their cause through conversion of individuals. These campaigners had reached a dead-end in their political efforts, and their mood of political pessimism coincided with Miller’s message of pessimism about the future.

Similarly in the 1970s the US was experiencing a crisis of self-confidence. The defeat in Vietnam was being compounded with the Iranian hostage crisis, while the rise in the price of oil had had the same savage impact on the US economy as the rest of the West.

Into this political pessimism came Hal Lindsey and Ronald Reagan. They took this pessimism and used it to construct a new political landscape. The world might be about to end, Russia and China might be able to attack and take over the world, but if America turned to God and increased defence spending it just might ‘occupy until he comes’.

If O’Leary gave more importance to the political causes of apocalypticism he might be able to make more sense of Waco. From a rhetorical perspective Waco yields very little - as O’Leary’s muted analysis shows. Waco’s Branch Davidians were not a mass movement, indeed their theology has all the complexity of a sect (Branch Davidians led by Koresh) that has split from a sect (Branch Davidians led by Ben Roden, in the 1970s), that have split from a sect (Davidian Seventh-day Adventists , in the 1960s) that have split from an at-best unorthodox religious organisation (Seventh-day Adventists, in the 1930s). While O’Leary would probably have very little to say about the ‘rhetoric’ that Koresh used to persuade his handful of followers to join him (O’Leary is wrong to claim the belief’s of the Branch Davidians died with them, there is in fact a large amount of material available on the Internet). However if we look at Koresh from a political perspective we can see he has a much broader influence. To do this we need to briefly look back at the history and origins of the Branch Davidians.

In the 1920s Victor Houteff split from the Seventh-day Adventist church partly by advocating doctrines which appear to be influenced by Dispensationalism - particularly stressing the importance of Israel in prophecy. As the beliefs of the Davidians and Branch Davidians developed, the Seventh-day Adventist "historicist" prophetical interpretations were dropped and Dispensationalist style "futurist" interpretations adopted. However while Lindsey and Reagan thought the USA should re-arm to defend themselves from the Evil Empire of the Soviet Union, in order to "occupy until he comes", Koresh and his followers came to see the USA itself as the ‘Evil Empire’ and it was the Branch Davidians who should re-arm and "occupy until he comes".

For those who believed the ‘moral majority’ political rhetoric of the 1980s - that unless America turned to God "right now" she was lost - it must have made sense for a group of Christians in the 1990s to accept that the USA was lost and the only political solution was for individuals to re-arm. The huge symbolism of the USA killing a 33 year old son of a carpenter who claimed to be the Son of God  could not have been lost on many Americans. Waco became a defining point for clarifying to a sizeable number of Americans that the US Government was now a satanic force.

As to whether we shall see a mass movement of premillennialism leading up to the year 2000, I believe we can look to how cynical people are about politics for the answer. If people have hope in this world they won’t wish for the next one.


John Mann 31st May 1997


Return to main page