The thing with eschatology, my dear ___, is this; we shouldn’t come to the discussion asking the question: “where are these symbols manifest in reality”? e.g. who is the anti-Christ? At least not as an end in and of itself. We shouldn’t even come to it asking for a hope of what’s to come or for a Biblical worldview and outlook on what’s taking place right now on a worldwide scale. Those things both occur within eschatology, and we are called to study to find answers to those questions. But that isn’t why we should study eschatology. That isn’t what eschatology is. We must come to the discussion asking one vital question; does our eschatology teach the testimony/”revelation” of Jesus Christ? If yes, we can know that it fulfills its primary purpose. St. John’s Revelation begins with these holy words; “The revelation of Jesus Christ” (Revelation 1:1). The word ‘Αποκαλυψις’ can be rendered as the unveiling, the uncovering, the revealing. The book of revelation is not a list of events to look out for. It is the unveiling of the Christ formerly veiled. Just as all New Testament texts serve this purpose. The primary purpose of every book, every chapter, every page, is Christ. We must do theology, propter Christum (on account of, on behalf of, for the sake of, Christ). If our answer to this is yes, then next time somebody asks you what your eschatology is, instead of telling them, A-mill, pre-mill, post-mill, tell them that your eschatology is the unveiling of the once typified and shadowed Christ. You know, of course when Christ gave the Olivet discourse in Matthew 24, He warned His disciples of what was to come. Not to be tricked into thinking that He had returned before He had, and to be prepared for the dangers to body and soul that were to shortly come. He did this to warn, yes, but Christ didn’t put speak the Olivet simply to warn one generation of people, or even to warn every generation of generic tribulations (looking at you, idealists). He gave it to teach all men, from that moment until the end of time about Himself, about the evil powers of this world, about spiritual and physical affliction, about His victory over all of it, and His eternal kingdom reign both in heaven and on earth. If the answer is no, then we have utterly and completely failed to understand the eschatological texts, to understand the principle of propter Christum, and to receive the grace offered in the relevant Scriptures. What the church needs in its eschatology is not more scaffolding around Christ, it needs to realize that we are the temple built around Him as our cornerstone. Well what exactly am I saying? I’m saying with Martin Luther, “the cross alone is our theology”. Which means our theology is not separated into primary fundamentals and a secondary structure. But rather, it all flows out from the heart and core of our faith – the cross. Where the creator took upon Himself His own creation, where He simultaneously sustained and suffered under those who mutilated, shamed, and slaughtered Him, where He further more took their sin upon Himself, where a king took the death penalty of His own trespassers, where the hidden becomes revealed, where the grace of God becomes manifest, where light breaks through the darkness, where the death of death, brought forth life. The cross isn’t just the core of Christianity. It’s all of Christianity. This is what it looks like, practically, to have a “Christocentric” theology. Is that what our eschatology is? Does it look at the eschatological texts in this way? Futurism is good in that it believes that the eschatological prophecies should be understood to have direct fulfilment of its symbolism. But if the story conveyed in these texts has not yet happened then they tell us of a work of Christ to come, not a work of Christ already done. The benefit of eschatological schools such as A-mill, post-mill and hermeneutic methodologies like historicism, preterism, cyclicalism, and idealism is that they seek to reveal in full, through apocalyptic symbolism, the finished work of Christ in past, present, and future so that we might know Him. This is A-mill, post-mill, Historicism, preterism, idealism 101, and if we have it any other way, we do not have an eschatology of the cross.
The anti-Christ, the beast, and the whore aren’t just incidental necessities as certain pre-mills teach (generally of the dispensationalist variety), they have symbolic meaning. I would not say that they are meaning alone without an actual vehicle as the idealists would say, but they are symbolic. Not idealistic, but symbolic. It is a thing itself, but the purpose it serves is to represent another thing.
Getting this wrong will lead to paranoia, a hatred for our fellow man, a disdain for government, and a fetishism for doomsdayism and martyrdom. Getting this right, turns what seems for some to be “a tertiary issue”, or an unnecessary cause of strife and factionism into the greatest and holiest unveiling of the person and work of Christ in the entire Canon of the Holy Writ. Rightly understood eschatological texts aren’t unsolvable brain teasers that are given for us to joke about with our friends, but they are the clearest and most striking gospel texts revealed to man.
if there’s persecution coming your way, move. Your possible jail sentence or death adds nothing to the story of Christ’s revelation. If your eschatology is focused around a near or future suffering of the church at the hands of unregenerate people in a dualistic battle between those inside and outside of Christ it is not an eschatology of the cross. If the liberalizing or de-Christianizing of countries shakes your eschatology to the core it is not an eschatology of the cross. If who or what the anti-Christ is compromises your eschatology it is not an eschatology of the cross. If 1:1 fulfilment of symbolism compromises your eschatology it is not an eschatology of the cross. Brothers and sisters, if we are going to have an eschatology of the cross, a Christian eschatology, it will be so because it is founded upon the person and work of Christ. And if it is founded upon the person and work of Christ, no de-Christianization, no lack of tribulation in your life, no evidential change in symbolic fulfillment can shake it. An eschatology of the cross is unmovable, unshakable, and un-debunkable. It depends on Christ to give us a full and complete eschatology. And He has already succeeded in doing so. Our eschatology ought to cause us to love Christ more, and to love our neighbour more. To seek the grace of God in Christ by faith, and to replicate the grace of our father in relation to our fellow humans. An eschatology of the cross, is a theology, and a practice of grace. If your eschatology doesn’t make you feel more loved, and it doesn’t cause you to love more, its not a Christian eschatology. I hate to point fingers, but the two big culprits here are futurism, and pessimism. The above statements from the beginning to the end of this article should provide answer enough to why (check top of paragraph).
The term eschatology, does not serve us well in this discussion. It means ‘last things.’ And as such, people come to the study of eschatology thinking that the purpose they have come ought to be to prepare for the future, to build a worldview of Christian progression and to receive hope for what’s to come. As I always must remind the reader, I assure you, I am not a reductionist. Those things are attached to an ought, and they are promised to be received. The problem however, is that that’s not how it is portrayed in the Scriptures. In the Scriptures it is the revelation, the revealing of Christ who was there the whole time. Going back to Daniel, yes, there’s answers to the question; What’s next?” for the immediate audience. But what was then to come is a symbol of what was happening the entire time. When we read Daniel, sure, its debated whether it is or isn’t entirely fulfilled. But there are portions that are entirely fulfilled without question. Looking at the kingdom made without hands which crushes the statue in Daniel 2, who among men would dare to say that God’s kingdom hadn’t crushed civilizations before Babylon, or that it didn’t exist before this time, or even before the New Testament. They would have to ignore the entire Old Testament up until the exile for such a mistake to occur. The line of Cain, the city of Babel, the entire world at the flood, the Canaanite kingdoms. And will someone else dare to say that after Rome, the last part of that statue in Daniel 2, had been conquered by Christ and destroyed that there is no more meaning of this being manifest in reality right now? The symbol is temporal yes, but the symbolized thing is eternal. Right now, there are nations all over the earth who contest for power with Christ’s kingdom. And right now, at that same time, the rock that is Christ’s kingdom strikes at them and crushes them into rubble surely to be forgotten by men in years to come. You see that clearly in Daniel, in the Olivet, in Thessalonians 1 and 2, and even most explicitly in revelation the texts mean to communicate the eternal Christ, not the incidental symbols of His story. A symbol that represents itself is not a symbol it’s an idol. The “consummation theology” or the “what’s next theology” in the Scriptures is secondary to the revelation of Christ. If your eschatology is a “what’s next theology” its not an eschatology of the cross. Instead of asking someone about their eschatology we should really ask them about their revelation to the world. And all our answers should be the exact same. We reveal Christ and Him crucified to the world and all which that entails. Consummation theology and how the revelation of Christ manifests itself in sovereign orchestration is secondary to what that manifestation teaches. The reason that eschatology can be such an idol for certain people is twofold. Firstly, the current discussion on eschatology in the world is founded upon incidental symbols representing themselves which as said before cease to be symbols and become idols. Secondly, certain people in the church left undisciplined and improperly ministered to will instead of Christ, chase after idols. Certainly, you see how these two things fit together to create the perfect storm out of what should be a valid and undefiled branch of theology. The way to fix this: only come to theology through Christ. Not as a cute phrase to be flippantly thrown around as ‘Christocentric’ is, but as explained throughout this article. If somebody you know is trying to study the “what’s next” for the sake of excitement and anticipation of suffering, natural disasters, global Christianization or anything that would make them feel special, stop them. We as fallen humans tend to want to be set apart from the rest and made to feel different. We desire to be one of the 1% of Christians that actually lived in the last times. That sinful lust for unique and special status among the common needs to be put to death within us. If we study the “what’s next” and we must, it must be through and because of and on account of (propter Christum) our study of Christ from the eschatological texts. We must have a theology of ‘unveiling’ not a theology of “what’s next”. And once we do, we will have an eschatology of the cross.
To further demonstrate this practice of doing theology by through and in light of the cross let’s look at some examples of how this works. Why does it matter if I place Nero as the anti-Christ? It doesn’t. But it does matter that Christ crushed the anti-Christ. That truth, even if you have an improper understanding of who the specific anti-Christ mentioned was can be seen elsewhere in the past, present, and future. Example: what happened in the crusades? Christ crushed that which was ‘anti-Christ’. Not the anti-Christ but that which was anti-Christ. What happened at the temple destruction in 70AD? Likewise. The fall of the Roman empire? Likewise. The liberalization of the Vatican. likewise. Protestants reformation? Likewise. the East splitting from Rome? Likewise. the future reformation of the Eastern church? Likewise. the liberalization to the point of non theism in the mainline church? Likewise. Homosexuality? Likewise (Rom 1:21). the same story told through Nero let’s say as the anti-Christ and Israel let’s say as the whore of Babylon is told elsewhere across all time from creation to consummation. And the same would go for a historicist, a cyclicalist, an idealist, and even a futurist approach. The job of an eschatology is to teach Christ. Whether that’s under a post-mill or an A-mill title I don’t care as long as you do it in a way that stirs up a deeper and pract loving of neigbour and grants greater assurance that you are loved by Christ through His person and work given for you. A-mill, Post-mill, and Pre-mill are not even accurate, or meaningful terms (the millennium only has 1 verse in the entire Canon) and they’re so new and ecclesiological irrelvant to the discussion of revelation and things to come that it would be best to scrap them and go back to the ancient taxonomies. In my mind, it can be seen from 3 sides each dualistically. There are firstly two eschatologies; pessimism, and optimism. Secondly there are two eschatologies; Chiliasm, and non – Chiliasm. Thirdly there are two eschatologies; one which focuses on Christs person and work through symbology, and one which makes idols out of symbols. All 3 of these sides are of one dualism; the eschatology of the cross; God revealed, grace applied, death defeated, kingdom eternal, or the eschatology of glory; God hidden, wrath unleashed, law applied, death repeated, Christian statism idolized, power and domination romanticised, Christ ignored.
Your Eschatology should be propter Christum. Your Eschatology should help you in your everyday struggles in the spirit and the flesh. Your Eschatology should be a gospel presentation.
