THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST, AS AMILLENNIALISTS who adhere to the CENI hermeneutic (Command, Example, Necessary Inference), face a significant challenge in interpreting eschatology and the Book of Revelation consistently with their own principles. While the churches of Christ are known for their commitment to rigorous Bible study and their aim to restore New Testament Christianity, their application of CENI to prophetic texts appears to be incomplete and inconsistent with their approach to other Scriptures.
The Amillennial eschatology prevalent in the churches of Christ relies heavily on allegorical interpretations and speculative inferences that go beyond what CENI would typically allow. For example, key symbols in Revelation like Babylon, the fourth kingdom, and the number 666 are often interpreted as referring to the Roman Catholic Church, the Roman Empire, and Nero or the papacy, respectively. However, these identifications are based more on tradition and assumption than on clear textual evidence or necessary inference.
In contrast, a strict application of CENI principles to Revelation would likely lead to different conclusions. It would pay closer attention to the Old Testament background of John's symbols, the historical context of the original audience, and the need for inferences to be truly necessary, not just speculative. For instance, the number 666 in Revelation 13:18 has a striking parallel in the Old Testament, where it is associated with the amount of gold Solomon collected each year (1 Kings 10:14; 2 Chronicles 9:13). This suggests that 666 may be a symbol for a ruler who sins in the likeness of Solomon, rather than a reference to Nero or the papacy. Similarly, identifying Babylon with Jerusalem and the fourth kingdom with Judea, as some scholars have argued, could be seen as more consistent with the Old Testament background and the historical context of Revelation.
Moreover, the portrayal of the New Jerusalem in Revelation as thoroughly Jewish in character, with its twelve tribes and apostles, fits well with a covenantal theology where the church is the spiritual continuation of Israel. This challenges the common Amillennial assumption that Revelation is mainly about the church's future struggles with political powers, and suggests a more Judeo-centric focus on the early church's vindication and the judgment of Jerusalem in AD 70.
So the churches of Christ may need to re-examine not just their general Amillennial framework, but their specific identifications of key prophetic symbols in light of CENI principles and the Old Testament background. They may need to consider an Atavist reading of Revelation that sees its fulfillment primarily in the first-century judgment of Jerusalem and the church's spiritual victory, rather than in the ongoing course of church history. This would require rethinking some long-held assumptions, but could potentially resolve the hermeneutical tensions between CENI and traditional Amillennial interpretations.
To be clear, this is not to say that an Atavist view of Revelation is beyond question or that all arguments for Amillennialism are invalid. Thoughtful Christians can and do disagree on these complex issues. But the churches of Christ, with their strong commitment to CENI, have a particular responsibility to ensure that their eschatology is truly consistent with their hermeneutical principles. They must be willing to follow the text where it leads, even if it challenges traditional beliefs.
This may be an unsettling prospect, as it requires re-examining cherished assumptions and being open to new perspectives. But it is a necessary task if the churches of Christ are to be faithful to their restorationist vision and their high view of Scripture. The goal must be to understand and apply all of God's Word consistently, not just the parts that fit comfortably with inherited traditions.
In practice, this may mean that the churches of Christ need to continue and complete the work of restoration they began in the 19th century. They may need to bring their eschatology into line with their CENI hermeneutic, just as they have sought to do with other areas of doctrine and practice. This could lead to a more Atavist understanding of Revelation, or to some other position that is more textually grounded and contextually sensitive. But whatever the outcome, the process of grappling honestly with these questions is vital for any church committed to being radically biblical.
The challenges raised in this essay are not meant to undermine the churches of Christ, but to encourage them to live up to their own highest ideals of biblical fidelity and interpretive consistency. By applying CENI principles rigorously to eschatology and Revelation, as they do to other areas, and by taking seriously the Old Testament background of key symbols like 666, the churches of Christ have an opportunity to deepen their understanding of Scripture and to model a hermeneutic that is both consistent and open to correction. This is a difficult but worthwhile task, one that could have far-reaching implications for the churches of Christ's witness and impact in the world.
In the end, the aim is not to arrive at a perfect or unassailable interpretation, but to engage in the ongoing process of studying, understanding, and applying Scripture as faithfully as possible. The churches of Christ have a rich heritage of taking this process seriously, and by continuing to do so in the area of eschatology, they can contribute to the wider church's understanding of these vital issues. May they have the courage and humility to follow the text where it leads, for the sake of the gospel and the glory of God.