We may begin by admitting that eschatology is an oft-malnourished doctrine within many
Christian circles. For some Christians, eschatology represents the uncomfortable specter of
church squabbles regarding things such as the identity of the antichrist or the mark of the beast.
Visions of walls cluttered with charts and yarn assail our thoughts, and we immediately feel
disoriented and uneasy at the prospect of delving much further. For others, eschatology seems to
be entirely concerned with the correct interpretation of the millennial period in the Revelation to
John, the millennial “kingdom” or “reign.” In any case, Christian conversations concerning
eschatology frequently seem to generate far more heat than light, and relationships between
involved parties often suffer in the aftermath. For all of these reasons, eschatology has become a
doctrine which brings fear rather than hope for many Christians, and it accordingly holds very
little impact on their lives and undertakings in this world.

Narrow View
One cause for this cognitive disconnect is a narrow hermeneutic concerning the category
of eschatology. That is to say, for many Christians the study of eschatology is synonymous with
the study of the book of the Revelation, and quite little else. 2 Eschatology is the Revelation, and
the Revelation is eschatology—the one being simply referenced as a sort of shorthand for the
other (or so the unstated belief often goes). Even pressing in a bit further, eschatology typically
progresses past the primary substantive sections of the Revelation and devotes the entirety of its
attention to the Revelation’s twentieth chapter (and often only that chapter’s opening verses, at
that). A Christian’s eschatological beliefs are regularly expressed as their views about the
millennial period (chiliasm), as if this is the singular issue at stake in eschatology. 3 In this case,
eschatology is frequently reduced to the question of whether one is pre-, mid-, or post-
tribulational, with the unstated assumption that these options somehow encapsulate one’s
convictions regarding eschatology. Suffice it to say, this anemic perspective on eschatology is
quite unfortunate.
On the contrary to the above, I would argue that the church is in desperate need of a
recovery of sound biblical eschatology. Simply put, eschatology is the biblical language of hope,

1 Joshua P. Howard, PhD, is Teaching Elder at Grace Community Church in Battle Creek,
Michigan.
2 I am using the language “the Revelation” to refer specifically to the final book of the
Protestant Christian canon, the Revelation of Jesus Christ (to John): Ἀποκάλυψις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ
(“the Revelation of Jesus Christ;” Rev 1:1). See Kurt Aland et al., Novum Testamentum Graece,
28th Edition. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012).
3 Taken from the Greek word χίλιοι, chiliasm referring to a specific interpretation of the
thousand-year reign of Revelation 20 that includes an earthly thousand year of Christ following
the Second Coming. See F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingstone, eds., The Oxford Dictionary of the
Christian Church, 3rd Revised edition. (Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press, 2005),
332; Alan Cairns, Dictionary of Theological Terms (Greenville: Ambassador Emerald
International, 2002), 85. Foundationally, chiliasm recognizes two eschatological resurrections
and two kingdoms (one Messianic and one divine); see Geerhardus Vos, “The Pauline
Eschatology and Chiliasm,” The Princeton Theological Review IX, no. 1 (1911): 33.

Hope for Tomorrow

and it provides Christians with an indispensable sense of bearing and comfort in this life. The
church desperately needs a return to a biblical eschatology that provides Christians with both
courage for today and hope for tomorrow. Additionally, if we may borrow a bit from Paul’s
terminology, Christians need a wartime eschatology that is fit for the conflict at hand (cf. 2 Cor
10:3–6). In the pages that follow, I will make the appeal that a truly robust eschatology is
thoroughly biblical, immanently practical, and tenaciously warlike as it is presented in Scripture.
To borrow from Geerhardus Vos, we will operate under the presupposition that “the Christian
life is semi-eschatological,” in that “it partakes in principle of the powers and privileges of the
world to come.” 4 Christians are eschatological creatures in need of eschatological formation.
Toward that end, this contribution will observe how Scripture often directs believers toward
building an overall eschatology that is orthodox, confident, and Christocentric in order to equip
Christians for the battles of this age. Again, a healthy eschatology is a whole-Bible eschatology
that provides Christians with faith and hope in the face of trials and tribulations, precisely
because Christ is victorious (see John 16:33). What the Christian church needs is not escapism or
storm-shelter eschatology, but a wartime eschatology for the battles of this age.
Let me offer a brief personal story to frame the discussion that will follow. 

In the waning
years of World War II, my paternal grandfather was serving as a paratrooper in the U.S. Army.
Paratroopers had a notoriously difficult job in the war effort, and their units frequently suffered
quite high mortality rates as a result of their task. As the war entered its final days and political
endgames began to unfold, the Nazi threat in Germany had already been roundly defeated (May
1945), and the threat of the Japanese empire was the primary Axis opponent still standing. As the
United States and its allies advanced on the island of Japan, fighting in the Pacific grew
increasingly determined, and the prospect of invading Japan was a daunting proposal. Reports
circulated that Japanese military leadership had commanded units to fight to the last man. Use of
Allied paratroopers (such as my grandfather) as part of an Allied invasion would almost certainly
have incurred steep casualties, and the toll of human carnage would have been staggering,
potentially eclipsing even Normandy. As it stood, Japan was almost certainly defeated by all
accounts and the final outcome of the war was undoubtedly decided; yet incredibly fierce
fighting still lay ahead. Only the unprecedented use of atomic weapons changed the course and
contour of Japan’s defeat, and the ground fighting on Japan’s home soil never materialized. 5
So then, what does a world war have to do with eschatology? Simply put, eschatology is
the biblical language of Christ’s defeat over the powers of darkness in this world. In one sense,
this means that eschatology is a story of what has already been accomplished. This should ring
true, as Christ has declared with finality that “It is finished” (Τετέλεσται, John 19:30). 6 Yet just
as in a world war whose outcome has been decided, and there are still fierce battles ahead to be

4 Vos, “The Pauline Eschatology and Chiliasm,” 34. Vos continues: “The most
fundamental way of affirming this is by ascribing to the Christian a ‘spiritual’ state of existence,
for the πνεῦμα is the characteristic element of the heavenly life of the αἰὼν μέλλων.”
5 Japan was finally brought to surrender by use of two atomic bombs on the cities of
Hiroshima & Nagasaki two days apart from one another, leading to Japan’s unconditional
surrender in September of 1945.
6 Unless otherwise specified, all Bible references in this work are to the English Standard
Version (ESV) (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2016). Greek references reflect Aland et al.,
Novum Testamentum Graece; also Barbara Aland et al., eds., The Greek New Testament, Fifth
Revised Edition (with Morphology). (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2014).

fought, the enemy is still present; the threat is extant and palpable; and there are undeniable
struggles ahead that appear just as intense as those that have come before. 7 Yet in another
sense—one which we cannot overlook—the war has been decided in the fullest measure. There
may be real fighting and grave threats which persist in this world, but the war has truly been
won. Christ has “disarmed [ἀπεκδύομαι] the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame,
by triumphing [θριαμβεύω] over them in him” (Col 2:15). 8 It is on this theme of ongoing triumph
that the following discussion will focus, though a few words of definition are first in order.

The Need for Robust Eschatology

If this is an appeal for a wartime eschatology, we must certainly be precise in what we
mean by the term eschatology. The precise definition of eschatology has been fraught with no
small amount of disagreement over its meaning, though in general terms we may recognize
eschatology to refer to the last things, or perhaps to the final or ultimate things. 9 The word
eschatology is a blend of the Greek words ἔσχατος (“last”) and λόγος (“word”), carrying the
sense that it is generally a study of the consummating, ultimate, and conclusive events that are to
take place in redemptive history. 10 As such, eschatology generally occupies the closing chapters
of various theological textbooks. However, isolating eschatology to a theological bookend is
certainly a detrimentally truncated view of this expansive doctrine. As the reader of Scripture
considers the Great Story that is progressively unfolding, one may recognize that this story
extends far deeper and ranges far wider than a description of a few concluding events. 11 For
example, Greg Beale addresses the prescient concern with such a truncated view of eschatology:

7 The common comparison regarding this dynamic in eschatology is often represented
with the analogy of D-Day and V-Day (or perhaps V-E Day and V-J Day) in World War II; see
the use of this analogy in Oscar Cullmann, Christ and Time, trans. Floyd V. Filson (Philadelphia:
Westminster Press, 1950), 87; Anthony A. Hoekema, The Bible and the Future (Grand Rapids:
Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2000), 21; G. K. Beale, “The Millennium in Revelation 20:1-10: An
Amillennial Perspective,” Criswell Theological Review 11, no. 1 (2013): 62; George Eldon Ladd,
The Presence of the Future: The Eschatology of Biblical Realism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Pub.
Co, 1974), 120; William F. Cook and Charles E Lawless, Spiritual Warfare in the Storyline of
Scripture: A Biblical, Theological, and Practical Approach, 2019, 96.
8 Both terms of military triumph, while θριαμβεύω occurs only here and in the “triumphal
procession” of 2 Cor 2:14; see Walter Bauer and Frederick W. Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon
of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (BDAG), 3rd Ed. (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 2000), 100, 459.
9 I. Howard Marshall, “Slippery Words 1: Eschatology,” Expository Times 89 (1978):
264–269. Cf. G. K. Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology: The Unfolding of the Old
Testament in the New (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011), 129.
10 See Bauer and Danker, BDAG, 313; Wayne A. Grudem, Systematic Theology: An
Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Inter-Varsity Press ; Zondervan Pub. House,
1994), 1091; David F. Wright, Sinclair B. Ferguson, and J. I. Packer, eds., New Dictionary of
Theology, First Ed. (Downers Grove, Ill: IVP Academic, 1988), 228–231.
11 I will borrow from the parlance of C.S. Lewis by using the phrase “Great Story” to
refer to the whole of the biblical meta-narrative. On reading the Bible as an eschatological
storyline, see Beale, NTBT, 163.

However, such an understanding of the latter days that views them as arriving
only at the very end of history needs rethinking. The phrase "latter days" (and
similar phrases) occurs numerous times in the NT and often does not refer
exclusively to the very end of history, as we typically think of it. This wording is
used frequently to describe the end times as beginning already in the first century.
Consequently, a survey of these phrases in the NT as well as a brief overview of
the language in the OT, Judaism, and the Apostolic Fathers demand that the
popular and even often-held scholarly view be reassessed. 12
Beale’s appeal for a reassessment amounts to viewing eschatology in light of the whole of the
biblical canon, and not simply relegating such a doctrine to the final chapters of the story. The
things of the end reach quite far and range quite wide. Yet in order to speak about these things of
the end, the biblical reader must first get a bit of perspective on the whole of the story in order to
fully appreciate its conclusion.
Instead of a truncated view, we may instead pursue a more robust eschatology, one that
takes into account the eschatological flow of the whole of Scripture. Keith Mathison
encapsulates this impetus quite well when he observes:
Eschatology in a broader sense, however, concerns what Scripture teaches about
God’s purposes in Christ for history. As such, eschatology does include a study of
the consummation of God’s purposes at the end of history, but it also includes a
study of the stages in the unfolding of those purposes. […] If, for example, the
first coming of Christ inaugurated the last days, then a study of biblical
eschatology must include a study of Christ’s first advent as well as his second. It
must also include a study of God’s preparation in history for the eschatological
first advent of Christ. In other words, eschatology must involve a redemptive-
historical study of the entire Bible. 13
A robust understanding of eschatology gives the Christian definite theological bearings regarding
their place in the flow of the redemptive saga, containing elements that are both personal and
global, both present and future. The telos (τέλος, goal or aim) of a robust eschatology will
produce a reading of Scripture which places great emphasis on the new-creational paradigm of
the consummated order of the coming eschaton. 14 The things of this age are moving in a
direction, and that movement must be kept in sharp focus. God has redemptive plans for the
created order, and those redemptive plans involve an eschatological escalation toward a new
created order in which all the promises of God find their ultimate consummation. The telos of
eschatology accordingly recognizes the reclamation and restoration that are found in the
redemptive flow accomplished in the work of Christ, concluding with Christ’s reclamation and
restoration of His people amidst the fiery judgment that accompanies His return (see 1 John 4:17;
2 Pet 3:7).
Eschatology is fundamentally the account of how God is restoring all things to Himself
through the victorious work of Jesus Christ: “For all the promises of God find their Yes in him”
(2 Cor 1:20). Therefore, eschatology proper concerns the things of the end (Christ’s return, the

12 Beale, NTBT, 130.
13 Keith A. Mathison, From Age to Age (P & R Publishing Co, 2014), 2.
14 See Charles R. Kennedy, “Telos,” in William Smith, ed., Dictionary of Greek and
Roman Antiquities (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1865), 1103; Hoekema, The Bible and
the Future, 280–281; Bauer and Danker, BDAG, 998.

final judgment, the glorification of the saints, the New Heavens and Earth, etc.), but it also
involves the totality of events that propel the story along toward its final conclusion. 15 This is
quite important to note, because eschatology is not only found in one chapter of Scripture, nor
even within one book of Scripture. Instead, eschatology stretches across the whole breadth and
depth of Scripture. The message of the Bible is an inherently eschatological message—it is a
redemption narrative that is insuppressibly moving toward a glorious, definitive consummation.
There is a quite widely-circulated illustration about a group of blind men who are attempting to
describe an elephant based on their sense of touch, while each man is limited by what his hands
can feel (whether its leg, or ear, etc.). None of the men provides an accurate description of the
entire elephant, because examining only a portion of the elephant (to the detriment of the other
parts) does not give an accurate representation of the whole. Similarly, eschatology entails all of
Scripture, and a robust interpretation of eschatology must develop accordingly. What is being
advocated here is a sort of “whole-canon biblical eschatology,” in which all of Scripture is
considered by observing the constituent themes and topics that progressively weave together to
form the whole. 16
Accordingly, if our eschatological reading does not provide a clear and compelling
picture of the victorious Christ, we have most certainly made grievous mistakes in our study.
Christ is the prophesied victor of the story (Gen 3:15), the one of whom the prophets spoke (John
1:45), the one who possesses all authority in both heaven and earth (Matt 28:18), the one whose
Spirit indwells His children (Rom 8:9), and the one who will return in glory to judge the living
and the dead (Rev 22:12). But this goes far beyond a simple declaration or assertion—in other
words, one cannot affirm this statement yet deny it in practice. If an understanding of
eschatology places the focus of the Great Story on anyone or anything other than Christ, if it
markets fear and does not generate peace, or if it produces despair and not hope, we must
staunchly caution that such a venture does not sound like the eschatological message of
Scripture.

Eschatology Built for Battle

What may we say about a robust and biblical eschatology? More specifically, what of the
assertion concerning a wartime eschatology? As an initial observation toward that end, we may

15 See also Geerhardus Vos, The Pauline Eschatology (Phillipsburg: P & R Publishing,
1995), 1; Mathison, From Age to Age, 2.
16 On thematic developments within Scripture and a whole-Bible reading, see Andreas J.
Köstenberger and Richard Duane Patterson, Invitation to Biblical Interpretation: Exploring the
Hermeneutical Triad of History, Literature, and Theology (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications,
2011), 58. On applying both a “canonical” and “theological” approach, see Jeremy M. Kimble
and Ched Spellman, Invitation to Biblical Theology: Exploring the Shape, Storyline, and Themes
of Scripture, Invitation to Theological Studies Series (Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic, 2020),
42; cf. Brevard S. Childs, Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments: Theological
Reflection on the Christian Bible, 1st Fortress Press ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993);
Charles H. H. Scobie, The Ways of Our God: An Approach to Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids:
W.B. Eerdmans Pub, 2003), 81ff; William J Dumbrell, The Search for Order: Biblical
Eschatology in Focus (Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 2001), 9, 11; T. Desmond Alexander, From
Eden to the New Jerusalem: An Introduction to Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids: Kregel
Publications, 2013).

recognize that there is a sense in which Christians are commanded to be destructive in their
eschatology. That does not mean that eschatology is inherently caustic or disparaging, but there
is certainly a sense in which Christian eschatology involves an offensive approach. 17 Paul’s
words are instructive in this regard:
For though we walk in the flesh, we are not waging war according to the flesh.
For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to
destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against
the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ, being ready
to punish every disobedience, when your obedience is complete. (2 Cor 10:3–5)
In this passage, Paul uses terms that are quite noticeably expressions of military conquest. 18 Paul
exhorts the Corinthian believers to “wage war” (στρατεύω), yet not according to their “flesh”
(σάρξ, σαρκός). Likewise, the Corinthian Christians have been given weapons to be used for
“warfare” (στρατεία) that are not of the “flesh” (σαρκικός) but are of weapons of divine power.
Consequently, the are instructed to “destroy” (καθαιρέω). The objects of their destruction are
those things that are raised against the knowledge of God, and they are to likewise take every
thought “captive” (αἰχμαλωτίζω) in the course of their obedience. Accordingly, Christians are
admonished to put on the appropriate armor for battle, described as the “whole armor of God”
(Eph 6:10,13), in order that they may wage war “against the rulers, against the authorities,
against the cosmic powers [κοσμοκράτορας] 19 over this present darkness, against the spiritual
forces of evil in the heavenly places” (Eph 6:12). The eschatological admonition for Christians
(those on whom the end of the ages has come; see 1 Cor 10:11) is to pick up the armor of war.
An example from the Gospels may clarify this picture of eschatological warfare. In the
passage referred to as the “Strong Man” passage (or alternatively as the “Beelzebul
Controversy,” found in Matt 12:22–30 // Mark 3:22–27 // Luke 11:14–23), Christ describes some
of the eschatological consequences of His first coming in a way that must surely be described as
warlike language. 20 Though this passage is found in all three Synoptics, we will consider the
account as it is recorded by Matthew:
Then a demon-oppressed man who was blind and mute was brought to him, and
he healed him, so that the man spoke and saw. And all the people were amazed,
and said, “Can this be the Son of David?” But when the Pharisees heard it, they
said, “It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this man casts out
[ἐκβάλλει] demons.” Knowing their thoughts, he said to them, “Every kingdom
divided [μερισθεῖσα] against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided
[μερισθεῖσα] against itself will stand. And if Satan casts out [ἐκβάλλει] Satan, he
is divided [ἐμερίσθη] against himself. How then will his kingdom stand? And if I
cast out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore

17 Offensive as opposed to defensive, though the word’s alternate meaning could well
apply in certain cases.
18 Roger L. Omanson and John Ellington, A Handbook on Paul’s Second Letter to the
Corinthians, UBS Handbook Series (New York: United Bible Societies, 1993), 178.
19 Κοσμοκράτωρ, a hapax legomenon carrying the sense of supernatural “world rulers.”
See Bauer and Danker, BDAG, 561.
20 Extended treatment of this passage in relation to satanic defeat may be found in Joshua
P. Howard, The Exorcism of Satan: The Binding of the Strong Man by Christ the King, New
Studies in Theology (Conway: Free Grace Press, 2022), 103–112.

they will be your judges. But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out [ἐκβάλλω]
demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. Or how can someone enter
a strong man's house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds [δήσῃ] the
strong man? Then indeed he may plunder his house. Whoever is not with me is
against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.

(Matt 12:22–30)

Certain aspects of this foundational eschatological passage shed some helpful light on the theme
of wartime eschatology. The words used in the passage itself are quite evocative of warfare:
casting out (ἐκβάλλω), forcible division (μερίζω), and binding (δέω) are all quite visceral,
militaristic terms of description, yet their combination here is quite instructive concerning a
wartime eschatology.
In His response to the Pharisaical charges levied against Him, Christ responded by
describing His ministry as having cast out (ἐκβάλλω) both Satan and his demons. The setting of
this passage is one of recent demonic exorcism, and Christ is thus framing His ministry by giving
an explanation of His exorcistic work. Pursuant to that aim, Christ portrays an illustration of a
“strong man” (τὸν ἰσχυρόν), yet one who had lost authority and power over the “house” he had
once occupied. This strong man had instead been forcibly bound (δέω), and the one binding him
had taken away the authority and power that the strong man previously enjoyed. 21 Within the
flow of the Gospel narrative, this passage is a sort of escalation of Christ’s earlier rebuking of
Satan during the wilderness temptations (Matt 4:1–11 // Mark 1:12–13 // Luke 4:1–13). In this
previous temptation interaction, Satan is seen exercising (or at least boasting in) a level of
authority and power that is soon curtailed by Christ. Hiers observes: “however it had come
about, synoptic tradition presupposes that Satan holds sway (ἐξουσία) over the kingdoms of the
world (Matt. 4.8f=Luke 4.5f) and attempts to retain and exercise that power over men through
his household, the demons.” 22 Yet this passage depicts Christ forcibly binding the satanic strong
man and entering into his habitation.
If this fails to seem sufficiently warlike, we may consider the broader context of this
binding and eviction of the strong man, as well as the plundering of his goods, which is an
important narratival component to acknowledge. Warlike victory over the forces of evil is a
distinctively divine description of the one true God. Therefore, Scripture leads us to expect a
divine actor behind the warlike defeat of evil: “Who is this King of glory? The LORD, strong and
mighty, the LORD, mighty in battle!” (Ps 24:8). The first man, Adam, had been successfully
tempted in the Garden and succumbed to the destructive results of sin (Gen 3:14–15; cf. Rom
5:12–14). His battle was lost, and the tenor of the story immediately changed—yet it was not the
end of the story. Adam’s temptation was successful and led to sin and death for all humanity,
whereas the temptation of Christ was un-successful and led to peace and life for all who are His
(Rom 5:12–21). 23 This is an eschatological turning of the tide—Christ succeeding where man had

21 Twelftree accurately observes that the language and context of this passage refer to a
Satanic exorcism; Graham H. Twelftree, Jesus the Exorcist: A Contribution to the Study of the
Historical Jesus (Wipf and Stock, 2011), 112. We may also note that the term for binding (δέω)
is the same found in Rev 20:3: “And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil
and Satan, and bound [ἔδησεν—δέω] him for a thousand years.”
22 Richard H. Hiers, “Satan, Demons, and the Kingdom of God,” Scottish Journal of
Theology 27, no. 1 (1974): 41.

fallen.
Following this early turn of events, there is a sense in which the postlapsarian world is in
a state of spiritual warfare, and the descendants of Adam and Eve lay in the grip of the evil
forces of this age. The prophet Isaiah accordingly cried (in language quite similar to that used in
the Strong Man passage):
For thus says the LORD:
“Even the captives of the mighty shall be taken,
and the prey of the tyrant be rescued,
for I will contend with those who contend with you,
and I will save your children.” (Isa 49:25)
Isaiah’s vision foretells of the strong rescue of a divine warrior, one who would liberate God’s
people and defeat those who had taken them captive. 24 This is the language of eschatological
warfare: the divine Warrior has made conquest against the forces of evil, forcibly casting them
out and freeing their captives.
In response to their confrontation with Christ and His disciples, the Pharisees levied a
charge of satanic fidelity against Christ regarding His exorcism of a demon. Christ had already
waded through various challenges presented about the proper Sabbath observance of His
disciples (Matt 12:1–8, 9–14), while now a charge was levied against Him due to an exorcism
performed on a “demon-oppressed man who was blind and mute” (Matt 12:22). The Pharisees
responded by accusing Christ of covertly operating in league with “Beelzebul, the prince of
demons” (τῷ Βεελζεβοὺλ ἄρχοντι τῶν δαιμονίων, Matt 12:24). 25 In response to the absurdity of
the accusation (12:26–27), Christ describes His incarnational ministry in the evocative language
of a home invasion in which the “strong man” (τὸν ἰσχυρόν; 12:29, p. Mark 3:27 and Luke
11:22) who has inhabited the house is forcibly restrained. Once restrained, the house is
subsequently entered and plundered by the triumphant invader. 26
What is to be understood from such a statement? Christ is certainly not comparing His
work with a criminal act, nor suggesting that His works are evil in any shape or form. Rather, the
focal point of the passage is on the Strong Man’s (that is, Christ’s) defeat of the earthly
inhabitant (Satan). With the background of a demonic exorcism in view, Christ explains the
larger context in which His exorcisms were accomplished: that of eschatological warfare. This

23 “Exorcisms anticipate God removing sin from His people;” D. A. Carson, When Jesus
Confronts the World: An Exposition of Matthew 8-10 (Grand Rapids: Baker Publishing Group,
1987), 33. Referring to Matt 4:6, Beale observes: : “Jesus’s refusal to follow Satan’s advice
during the wilderness temptations was the beginning victory over Satan prophesied in the psalm
[91]. [This] further reveals the theme of Jesus’s victory over opposition.” Beale, NTBT, 420.
24 G. K. Beale and Benjamin L. Gladd, The Story Retold: A Biblical-Theological
Introduction to the New Testament (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2020), 85. See also J Lyle
Story, “Jesus’ ‘Enemy’ in the Gospels,” American Theological Inquiry 6, no. 1 (2013): 52.
25 In this passage, the comparable terms Βεελζεβοὺλ and Σατανᾶς are both used for Satan,
though it is uncertain how the former term (“lord of flies” used in 2 Kings 1) came to be
synonymous with Satan in first-century Galilee. See “Be-Elzebul, Beelzebub” in Walter A
Elwell and Barry J Beitzel, Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House,
1988), 273; Cross and Livingstone, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 179.
26 Lemma: ἰσχυρός; used Matt 12:29, Luke 11:21, Luke 11:22 (example describes taking
“away his armor in which he trusted”); also, Matt 3:11 (“mighty”).

passage is describing nothing short of a divine invasion of the fortresses of evil. Christ’s work is
accomplished through the power of the Holy Spirit (πνεύματι θεοῦ; Matt 12:28 // Mark 3:28–30),
as opposed to blasphemous accusation of the Pharisees that Christ was in league with the
demonic spirits instead. This was also an eschatological victory that Christ would pass on to His
disciples following His ascension, the same Holy Spirit who had rested on Him in His
incarnation (John 1:33–34; Matt 3:16–17) was sent to dwell within His followers (Acts 2:4; Rom
8:11) in order to accomplish the task to the nations to which Christ had assigned them (Matt
28:19). 27
The evil occupant of this world (the Strong Man) has been restrained, as we may think of
one restraining a prisoner of war or a captured enemy combatant. This is quite important, as it is
Christ’s description of the spiritual reality of things. From a creaturely perspective, it may not
always appear that the forces of evil have been defeated and that victory is being accomplished,
yet this is the truthful description which Christ provides His disciples. The Strong Man is
described as being bound (δέω, see Matt 13:30, 16:19, 18:18) in a defeat that is both decisive and
yet ongoing. By way of context, this is the same binding language (δέω) which Matthew later
uses to describe Herod binding John the Baptist (δέω; 14:3), the donkey being bound by a rope
which His disciples found (δέω; 21:2), and Christ Himself being bound when He was brought
before Herod (δέω; 27:2). 28 Likewise, Luke uses the similar language of the Strong Man having
been “overcome” (νικήσῃ, Luke 11:22), which is hardly a less martial description, as this
singular use by Luke reflects triumphant language of conquest similar to that as John uses in the
Apocalypse. 29
This invasion into the Strong Man’s territory is further corroborated by Christ’s
subsequent announcement of His possession of all authority in this world: “And Jesus came and
said to them, ‘All authority [πᾶσα ἐξουσία] in heaven and on earth has been given to me’” (Matt
28:18). We may observe that this is neither a new acquisition of authority nor an unexpected
procurement of power in the way we may conceive of it, but it is most certainly a great
affirmation of the true possession of power in this world. 30 Christ has accomplished a conquest in
His first coming, invading the dark territory of this world and claiming it as His own. Greg Beale
gives an insightful summary of the situation when he observes that this passage describes
“Jesus’s beginning rule over Satan’s kingdom.” 31 It is fitting that this description of the binding
of the Strong Man is given in close narrative proximity to the passage detailing the advance of
the kingdom: “But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God
has come upon you” (Matt 12:28b). 32 This divine spiritual offensive into this age is led by an

27 Andreas J. Köstenberger and Scott R. Swain, Father, Son and Spirit: The Trinity and
John’s Gospel, New Studies in Biblical Theology (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2008), 146,
93–96.
28 Also, see Matt 16:19 regarding “whatever you bind [δήσῃς] on earth.”
29 Νικήσῃ (nikēsē) / νικάω (nikaō)—see esp. Rev. 6:2; 12:11; 17:4.
30 Carson, When Jesus Confronts the World: An Exposition of Matthew 8-10, 21.
31 Beale, NTBT, 435. Though Satan’s specific category within the angelic realm is not
clear, he is described as the prince of demons (Mark 3:22–30; Luke 13:10–17) and leader of
certain angelic beings (Matt 25:41; 2 Cor 12:7; Rev 12:7–9); see Ryan E. Stokes and John J.
Collins, The Satan: How God’s Executioner Became the Enemy (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2019), 197.

extended incursion on the part of Christ’s disciples. That is, Christ’s victory is followed by the
subsequent commissioning of His disciples in this world to make disciples of all nations (Matt
28:29–20). 33

Eschatology of Hope

Though this conception of wartime eschatology is a spiritual call to arms, it is likewise a
call to revel in a victory that has already been achieved. That is to say, the call of a wartime
eschatology is foundationally a message of hope. When John penned the opening passage of the
Revelation, he described himself as his recipients’ “brother and partner in the tribulation and the
kingdom and the patient endurance that are in Jesus” (Rev 1:9). John’s eschatological message
was one of camaraderie and brotherhood, affirming that he participated alongside the church in
the tribulation (θλῖψις) that is experienced in the expansion of the kingdom. These words are
soon followed by the admonition of Christ (specifically in the section to the church in Thyatira)
to “hold fast what you have until I come” (Rev 2:25). Tribulation is present, therefore hold fast
and persevere.
Christians are in need of a proper perspective on eschatology because it is the means
through which encouragement is communicated to the church in peril. When the tribulation of
this world rises, Christians are commanded to hold fast until the time of ultimate victory. The
vast expanse of what God is accomplishing in this age is often difficult for finite creatures to
comprehend—indeed, when different prophets were given glimpses into the unfolding vision of
God’s redemptive plan, the gravity and radiance of God’s work left them wholly undone (see
Dan 8:27; Rev 1:17). Yet this is precisely where the encouragement of a wartime eschatology
brings comfort and security in the uncertain times of this life: “Therefore encourage one another
and build one another up, just as you are doing” (1 Thess 5:11). The biblical message of
eschatology gives Christians the language of that encouragement.
Finally, the message of eschatology is given for conflict, not in spite of conflict (or in its
absence). Following Joshua’s death and Israel’s continuing conquest of Canaan during the time
of the judges over Israel, there was a growing forgetfulness experienced among the people of
God. Specifically, Israel forgot the redemptive works of God in their midst: “And there arose
another generation after them who did not know the LORD or the work that he had done for
Israel” (Judges 2:10). As a resolution to this problem, God allowed Israel’s enemies to persist
among them for a specific purpose: “Now these are the nations that the LORD left, to test Israel
by them, that is, all in Israel who had not experienced all the wars in Canaan” (Judges 3:1). The
pagan nations who made war with Israel were preserved precisely in order to remind Israel of
war, as the next verse clarifies: “It was only in order that the generations of the people of Israel
might know war, to teach war to those who had not known it before” (3:2). God’s people cannot
afford to forget the sounds of battle and war, and the message of eschatology is a potent reminder
of the war that rages (though its outcome is secure).

32 For further on the inaugurated aspect of the kingdom of God, see Michael Horton, The
Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
2011); Herman N. Ridderbos, The Coming of the Kingdom, ed. Raymond O Zorn, trans. H. de
Jongste (Phillipsburg: P & R Publishing, 1962); George Eldon Ladd, The Gospel of the
Kingdom: Scriptural Studies in the Kingdom of God (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2011).
33 See Frank Thielman, Theology of the New Testament: A Canonical and Synthetic
Approach (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 634.

If we are studying eschatology appropriately, we should be quite steadfast and
immovable in our faith as a normative result (1 Cor 15:58). Our eschatology should not be driven
about by the whims and emotions of the given moment, as if our eschatological perception was
molded by the momentary experiences of this present life. Instead, the Christian must allow
biblical eschatology to form and mold the very way we perceive the world itself, with our
eschatology functioning as a sort of corrective lens given to us that we might see rightly. 34 If
Christ claims to possess all authority in heaven and on earth (Matt 28:18), we dare not look
around us at evil and tragedy and question whether He was correct in this assessment.
Newspaper headlines and the troubles of this life do not determine the true state of this world.
Instead, we take the words of Christ to be the true truth of things, and we rely on this truth to
properly understand the world around us. A natural disaster does not disprove the words of
Christ, but instead the words of Christ give us the proper vision and context through which to
view the natural disaster. Vos correctly observes that this is the true context of eschatological
hope when we speak of salvation and deliverance:
The idea of σωτηρία is with Paul originally an eschatological idea: it denotes
salvation in the day of judgment, salvation from the wrath to come, and from this
it is transferred to the present state, inasmuch as the believer receives this
immunity, this deliverance in principle now. It is thus of the very essence of
salvation that it correlates the Christian’s standing with the great issues of the last
day and the world to come. Hence also the καινὴ κτίσις spoken of in 2 Cor. 5:17,
undoubtedly means to the Apostle the personal beginning of that world-renewal in
which all eschatology culminates: “If any one is in Christ, he is a new creation”. 35
When we try to determine eschatology by what feels right or makes sense to us in the moment,
we will inevitably construct an eschatology of our own making. Likewise, when we venture
beyond what is revealed, we find ourselves in perilous waters (cf. Deut 29:29). Rather, the call of
the Christian is to find peace, hope, and joy in the biblical message of eschatology—that is to
say, in the Person of Jesus Christ. Through this Christ-centered lens, we may begin to form a
truly robust wartime eschatology for this age.