Propositional Eschatology: Authority, Judgment, and the End of Explanation

Modern Christian eschatology is dominated by explanatory systems that seek to stabilise meaning through historical sequencing, predictive coherence, and interpretive architecture. Premillennial, postmillennial, amillennial, and preterist frameworks, despite their theological differences, share a common methodological assumption: that the end exists to be explained. This paper argues that this assumption is itself the source of eschatological stalemate. Drawing on juridical reasoning, biblical theology, and propositional method, the paper advances a jurisdictional account of eschatology in which the end is understood primarily as judgment rather than event, authority rather than sequence, and disclosure rather than informational completion. It contends that eschatology is jurisdictional before it is temporal, that revelation—not historical inference—is the sole medium by which the end may be known, and that Scripture functions as authorised testimony rather than neutral data. The paper further argues that Christ is not a participant within an eschatological programme but the eschatological authority itself, that the cross constitutes judgment already enacted, and that delay functions as mercy rather than absence of verdict. The study concludes by demonstrating that explanatory eschatological systems necessarily exempt themselves from judgment and therefore collapse jurisdictionally. Propositional eschatology is offered not as a new system, but as a methodological reordering that marks the end of explanation as court and restores eschatology as verdict.