Review of John Foxe's "Acts and Monuments"

I've just crossed the finish-line on my trek through the monumental “Acts and Monuments” of John Foxe, known popularly as Foxe's Book of Martyrs. The original work runs a full 7,058 pages and consists of 8 volumes. The popular 300-page paperback edition you will find in the Christian bookstore is a “Reader's Digest” version of a “Reader's Digest” version of a “Reader's Digest” version. Archbishop Grindal, who supplied Foxe with many of the official records he cites, and who financially supported Foxe during his exile in Strasbourg, once referred to the work as Foxe's “book or martyrs,” and the name has stuck.

This will not be a book review in the traditional sense, because reviewing a work of over 7,000 pages would be impossibly long, and would make the work seem undesirable. It is a massive work. Writing it must have been an herculean feat, but reading it is not. I did not breeze through it, but many portions are so engaging that 100-150 pages seem to fly by. This will be more of a review by impression.

One of the most important thoughts I've had while reading this work is expressed by George Townsend in his introductory dissertation: “If Foxe's Acts and Monuments had not been written, and this is the best criterion of its merits, no book in the English language can be mentioned, which could supply its place. Whoever will but impartially and candidly consider the mass of the materials collected, and remember that this work was the first attempt to give to the common reader a history of the church of Christ, as well as a narrative of the evil consequences of the one false principle, that the soul of the Christian is to be governed by authority that is fallible, on the supposition that such authority is infallible, unchangeable and divine,—must, I think, acknowledge, that the work of John Foxe is one of the most useful, most important, and most valuable books we still possess. It has never been superseded.”

As Townsend points out, the value of the work is multi-faceted. First, there is the sheer vastness of the accumulated knowledge and materials. Foxe, through a multitude of influential connections, had access to countless records and documents which no other historian could have gotten their hands on – at least at the time of his writing. Secondly, his work proved that the ministers of the Church are to be our useful directors, not infallible teachers. Thirdly, an individual Christian might be in the right, while the great body of the Church's leaders may be in the wrong. Hence each individual must deem himself responsible to God alone. Fourthly, Foxe's work taught the supremacy of Scripture for governing the conscience. Fifthly, we are shown that every system of laws must be founded upon the conviction of their usefulness and truth, or they cannot be made permanent even by the most unrelenting persecutions, of the most formidable power.

One of the most interesting features of Foxe's work is his eschatology. The best description I have read of his view, is “ Amillennial historicist.” The more I have thought about it, the more convincing his view is.

In setting the stage for what I am about to say, let me point out that all Christians are agreed (at least in theory) that the prevalence or sparseness of a subject in Scripture, is an indicator of its relative importance. Anything revealed by God is important, but in the hierarchy of doctrine, frequency and prevalence determines rank. Having said that, isn't ironic that every eschatological position held in Christendom is defined by its relation to the Millennium – something mentioned a grand total of two times in the space of a couple verses, and that in the most difficult book to interpret? Based on what we have already said, it would seem to be a more balanced approach to view the Millennium as something - while real - less central, less definitive, less overall important, to our view of eschatology. Foxe's view does just this.

In sum, Foxe believes the Millennium was a specific 1000 year period in the Church's history, and that this period is now past. It is not the grid upon which all redemption history is written. Like hundreds of other events in the life of God's people foretold in Scripture, it came to pass exactly as foretold, and thus verifies the truth of God's Word.

Foxe reads Revelation 8 telling of a period of 294 years of vicious persecution against the Church. This coincides exactly with the cessation of state-sanctioned persecution at Constantine's conversion. This is the beginning of the Millennium, according to Foxe. For a literal 1000 years, there was no state-sanctioned, state-sponsored wholesale persecution of the Church. The 1000 year period ends in the early 1300's when persecution, which included prison and execution begins, with the sanction of church and state, against men who proclaimed the Gospel truths which were buried under the accumulated doctrinal pollutions of the Middle Ages. This marks the period spoken of in Revelation 20 that Satan is let loose to persecute the Church again as he did in the first 300 years of Church history. This period is extremely intense because Satan knows his time is short. What we often forget is how incredibly intense the persecution of Christians was in the decades after 1517. We seem to imagine that Luther nailed up his 95 Theses, and Boom! everything was changed. The fact is, that in many European nations (Foxe focuses mostly on England), the Reformation was a slow, grinding process, with many false starts, and nearly endless opposition.

Perhaps I should let Foxe speak in his own words:

Concerning the interpretation of which times, I see the common opinion of many to be deceived by ignorance of histories, and the state of things done in the church; they supposing that the chaining loosing up of Satan for a thousand years, spoken of in the Revelation, was meant from the birth of Christ our Lord. Wherein I grant that spiritually the strength and dominion of Satan, in accusing and condemning us for sin, was cast down at the passion and by the passion of Christ our Saviour, and locked up, not only for a thousand years, but for ever and ever. Albeit, as touching the malicious hatred and fury of that serpent against the outward bodies of Christ's poor saints (which is the heel of Christ), to afflict and torment the church outwardly; that I judge to be meant in the Revelation of St. John, not to be restrained till the ceasing of those terrible persecutions of the primitive church, at the time when it pleased God to pity the sorrowful affliction of his poor flock, being so long under persecution, the space of three hundred years, and so to assuage their griefs and torments; which is meant by the binding up of Satan, worker of all those mischiefs: understanding thereby, that forasmuch as the devil, the prince of this world, had now, by the death of Christ the Son of God, lost all his power and interest against the soul of man, he should turn his furious rage and malice, which he had to Christ, against the people of Christ, which is meant by the heel of the seed [Gen. iii.], in tormenting their outward bodies; which yet should not be forever, but for a determinate time, when it should please the Lord to bridle the malice, and snaffle the power, of the old serpent, and give rest unto his church for the term of a thousand years; which time being expired, the said serpent should be suffered loose again for a certain or a small time. [Apoc. xx.]

And thus to expound this prophetical place of Scripture, I am led Three by three reasons:

The first is, for that the binding up of Satan, and closing him in first the bottomless pit by the angel, importeth as much as that he was at liberty, raging and doing mischief before. And, certes, those so terrible and so horrible persecutions of the primitive time universally through the whole world, during the space of three hundred years of the church, do declare no less. Wherein it is to be thought and supposed that Satan, all that time, was not fastened and closed up.

The second reason moving me to think that the closing up of Satan was after the ten persecutions of the primitive church, is taken out of the twelfth chapter of the Apocalypse; where we read, that after the woman, meaning the church, had travailed forth her man-child, the old dragon, the devil, the same time being cast down from heaven, drawing the third part of the stars with him, stood before the woman with great anger, and persecuted her (that is, the church of God) with a whole flood of water (that is, with abundance of all kinds of torments), and from thence went, moreover, to fight against the residue of her seed, and stood upon the sands of the sea; whereby it appeareth that he was not as yet locked up.

The third reason I collect out of the Apocalypse, chapter xiii., where it is written of the beast, signifying the imperial monarchy of Rome, that he had power to make war forty and two months; by which months is meant, no doubt, the time that the dragon and the persecuting emperors should have in afflicting the saints of the primitive church. The computation of which forty-two months (counting Forty-two every month for a Sabbath of years; that is, for seven years, after the order of Scripture), riseth to the sum (counting from the passion of the Lord Christ) of three hundred years, lacking six; at which time Maxentius, the last persecutor in Rome, fighting against Constantine, was drowned with his soldiers, like as Pharaoh, persecuting the children of Israel, was drowned in the Red Sea. Unto the which forty-two months, or Sabbaths of years, if ye add the other six years wherein Licinius persecuted in the East, ye shall find just three hundred years, as is specified before in the first book (vol. i. Page 291). After the which forty and two months were expired, manifest it is that the fury of Satan, that is, his violent malice and power over the saints of Christ, was diminished and restrained universally throughout the whole world. Thus then, the matter standing evident that Satan, after three hundred years, counting from the passion of Christ, began to be chained up, at which time the persecution of the primitive church began to cease, now let us see how long this binding up of Satan should continue, which was promised in the Book of the Revelation to be a thousand years; which thousand years, if ye add to the forty-two months of years, that is, to two hundred and ninety-four years, they make one thousand two hundred and ninety-four years after the passion of the Lord. To these, moreover, add the thirty years of the age of Christ, and it cometh to the year of our Lord 1324, which was the year of the letting out of Satan, according to the prophecy in the Apocalypse.

The first persecution of the primitive church, beginning at the thirtieth year of Christ, was prophesied to continue forty-two months; that is, till a.d. 294.

The ceasing of the last persecution of the primitive church by the death of Licinius, the last persecutor, began in the three hundred and twenty-fourth year from the nativity of Christ; which was from the thirtieth year of his age, two hundred and ninety-four years.

The binding up of Satan after peace given to the church, counting from the thirty years of Christ, began a.d. 294, and lasted a thousand years, that is, counting from the thirtieth year of Christ, to the year 1294.

About which year, pope Boniface VIII was pope, and made the sixth book of the Decretals, confirmed the orders of friars, and privileged them with great freedoms; as appeareth by his constitution, Super Cathedram a.d. 1294...

These things thus premised for the loosing out of Satan, according to the prophecy of the Apocalypse, now let us enter (Christ willing) upon the declaration of these latter times which followed after the letting out of Satan into the world; describing the wondrous perturbations and cruel tyranny stirred up by him against Christ's church, and also the valiant resistance of the church of Christ against him and Antichrist, as in these our books here under following may appear, the argument of which consisteth in two parts: first, to treat of the raging fury of Satan now loosed, and of Antichrist, against the saints of Christ fighting and travailing for the maintenance of truth, and the reformation of the church. Secondly, to declare the decay and ruin of the said Antichrist, through the power of the word of God; being at length, either in a great part of the world overthrown, or, at least, universally in the whole world detected. - John Foxe, Acts and Monuments, Book V (Volume 2 of 8), pages 724-727 of the 1843 edition

This framework and exposition of prophecy surfaces again and again in Foxe's work. It is the defining characteristic of the work. The little paperback edition will not convey this. Foxe is not merely recounting history and giving Protestants a “Remember the Alamo,” he is interpreting history through his interpretation of Scripture. The matter-of-factness with which Foxe treats biblical prophecies and historical fulfillments, leaves one with the impression that Foxe's view was the standard view of most of his contemporaries. Every single one of Foxe's critics, whether the papists of his own day, or those of subsequent centuries, have focused their attention on pretended reliability issues of Foxe's primary sources, or whether Foxe was accurately presenting the facts. No one, I repeat, no one – has ever tackled his eschatology. To me, this speaks volumes. When one is faced with a mountain of inconvenient evidence, from a purely pragmatic stance, sometimes ignoring its existence is more effective than taking it on point by point.

As far as Foxe's reliability as a historian goes, Townsend writes, “His frequent appeals to eye-witnesses of the things he relates, the manner in which the declarations he received from the persecuted of their examinations and sufferings, are affirmed by him, not to be credited for their own words only, even though in one remarkable case the narrative of their sorrows was written with their own blood, and not with ink. All these things prove to us that Foxe is worthy of our confidence, and that his 'veracity and fidelity' cannot be assailed with either truth or honour. Disgrace has followed every attempt to destroy its value.” Subsequent historical investigations have further strengthened Townsend's assessment.

I will never forget the impact the little paperback "Book of Martyrs" had on me when I read it as a young teen. I was inspired, appalled, edified, and frightened all at the same time. For days I remember living with a gloomy cloud over my head - a cloud of fear that I could never possibly endure what so many men, women, and children before me endured. As time passed, I began to realize that most of them would've felt the same way, and that it was the same grace of God which enabled them to witness to God's truth in their deaths that enabled me to witness to God's truth in my life. But that impact is nothing compared to the impressions that this complete edition makes and leaves. I know millions of readers love the little paperback, but in all honesty, it is a travesty of the original. Far too much ended up on the cutting-room floor. And what gets left out is precisely what gives impact to what got left in.

For example: The little paperback version tells how Nicholas Ridley was tied to a stake and burned alive for his faith. What the little paperback doesn't give you is the full context of Ridley's trial. “Acts and Monuments” includes dozens of pages of court transcripts. It provides letters between the key players giving the reader a background and framework to the story that the little paperback will never convey. You can read the verbatim back and forth between Ridley and “bloody” Bonner. You can read Mary's ecclesiastics twist his words on purpose and order court recorders falsify his answers. You can read how he was publicly humiliated in the courtroom. Men forcibly restrained him and dressed him up as a popish priest while a man behind him read out the ceremony of the mass in Latin, pretending that he (Ridley) was saying it, thus “making” Ridley commit the transubstantiation he repudiated. The humiliation goes on and on for days. Ridley bears up under it and continues to appeal to Scripture against Gardiner and Bonner. If you only read the account of Ridley, you would be inclined to think that a greater travesty of justice has never been committed. But Foxe provides nearly the same documentary evidence for another 200 Marian martyrs, not to mention all the martyrs whose lives and sufferings he presents from the days of the Apostles through the days of Wycliffe, Hus, and Savanarola. Ironically, the concentrated emphasis on torture and death in the little paperback actually lessens its impact. The real personhood of both the sufferers and the persecutors gets lost.

Besides all this, Foxe's honesty will not let you reduce his work to a hagiography. Along with hundreds of accounts of the brave sufferings of countless martyrs and confessors, he also includes court transcripts and letters of men and women who could not bear up under the persecution and who lapsed and recanted. Foxe never scorns these men and women, either. In fact, he seems to include the stories, often quite elaborate and long, to emphasize the prodigious power the Romish church had. It took extraordinary men and women to buck up under the pressure and set the bar for other martyrs and confessors. Foxe openly acknowledges that men, in human frailty, may recoil from the prospect of torture and cave in to the temptation to recant. He is surprisingly understanding of this phenomenon, yet without condoning it as an expedient to save one's life.

This honesty is another feature that slips through the cracks in the little paperback. That small edition will beat you over the head with blood and gore. This edition will provide text and context to the sufferings – and will also tell you about those who ran from the sufferings and recanted. He will even give you their two or three-page-long letters of recantation – shameful as they may be.

In a very real sense, this work is not a “book of martyrs.” It is so much more. It is an indispensable resource whose absence could not be filled by anything else ever written.

I conclude with a couple of thoughts:

1. This is really more of a reference work than a history. When Foxe relates the life of particular martyr, he frequently includes actual court transcripts of his trial, condemnation, and sentencing. He also not infrequently includes letters written to and from the person under consideration. Many of these letters are to found nowhere else but in the Acts and Monuments. Foxe has done the Church an inestimable service in preserving these materials. Foxe was personally known to many of the martyrs and confessors whose lives and deaths he chronicles. His connections to the official documents through Grindal and others, gave him access to records no one else alive at the time could've gotten their hands on. This is no superficial history. Foxe lives in primary sources. Many of these sources are inaccessible to today's readers because the only extant copies are in special sections of museums, or else they are in Latin or Anglo-Saxon (Old English). Foxe has provided both original transcriptions of the original texts and English translations of these. The sources which are readily available (Bede, Matthew Paris, Henry of Huntingdon, etc) will more than verify the veracity of Foxe's accounts.
2. This work needs to be republished in its full form. This 1843 edition should be a standard reference work in every pastor's library. It is a great disservice and insult to the memory of our martyred Protestant forebears that the full version of this work has been out of print for so long. And it is an even greater insult to their memory that many of the modern editions include the deaths of papists, as if in the end, they belong in the same company as our sainted Protestant martyrs – whom they killed!
3. Nothing can prepare you for encountering the barbarity and despicable cruelty of Stephen Gardiner and “bloody” Edmund Bonner. Under the auspices of Queen Mary, these two moral monsters account for 288 executions, not to mention those who were mercilessly whipped, those who died in prison, those whose bones were exhumed to be desecrated, and those who lived in a self-imposed exile overseas (one of whom was Foxe).

Reading the whole work was truly a monumental task. The sheer amount of information is overwhelming. The graphic descriptions of the torture and execution of so many men, women, and children, is heart-rending. I had a sick feeling deep in my gut through many parts of this work. Foxe concludes his account of Mary's reign with these words: “Of queen Mary this truly may be affirmed, and left in story for a perpetual memorial or epitaph for all kings and queens that shall succeed her, to be noted—that before her, never was read in story of any king or queen of England, since the time of king Lucius, under whom, in time of peace, by hanging, beheading, burning, and prisoning, so much Christian blood, so many Englishmen's lives, were spilled within this realm, as under the said queen Mary for the space of four years was to be seen, and I beseech the Lord never may be seen here after.”

Foxe concludes the work by reminding his readers that he had access to enough information to have made the work considerably longer! His final paragraphs read: 

“And thus to conclude, good christian reader, this present tractation, not for lack of matter, but to shorten rather the matter for largeness of the volume, I here stay for this present time, without further addition of more discourse, either to overweary thee with longer tediousness, or overcharge the book with longer prolixity; having hitherto set forth the acts and proceedings of the whole church of Christ, namely, of the church of England, although not in such particular perfection, that nothing hath overpassed us; yet in such general sufficiency, that I trust, not very much hath escaped us, necessary to be known, touching the principal affairs, doings and proceedings of the church and churchmen. Wherein may be seen the whole state, order, descent, course, and continuance of the same, the increase and decrease of true religion, the creeping in of superstition, the horrible troubles of persecution, the wonderful assistance of the Almighty in maintaining his truth, the glorious constancy of Christ's martyrs, the rage of the enemies, the alteration of times, the travails and troubles of the church, from the first primitive age of Christ's gospel, to the end of queen Mary, and the beginning of this our gracious queen Elizabeth. During the time of her happy reign, which hath hitherto continued (through the gracious protection of the Lord) the space now of twenty-four years, as my wish is, so I would be glad the good will of the Lord were so, that no more matter of such lamentable stories may ever be offered hereafter to write upon. But so it is, I cannot tell how, the elder the world waxeth, the longer it continueth, the nearer it hasteneth to its end, the more Satan rageth; giving still new matter of writing books and volumes: insomuch that if all were recorded and committed to history, that within the said compass of this queen's reign hitherto hath happened, in Scotland, Flanders, France, Spain, Germany, besides this our own country of England and Ireland, with other countries more, I verily suppose one Eusebius, or Polyhistor, which Pliny writeth of, would not suffice thereunto. 

"But of these incidents and occurrents hereafter more, as it shall please the Lord to give grace and space. In the mean time, the grace of the Lord Jesus work with thee, gentle reader, in all thy studious readings. And while thou hast space, so employ thyself to read, that by reading thou mayest learn daily to know that which may profit thy soul, may teach thee experience, may arm thee with patience, and instruct thee in all spiritual knowledge more and more to thy perpetual comfort and salvation in Christ Jesus our Lord; to whom be glory in secula seculorum, Amen.”

Uncomfortable as reading much of this material was, it must be read, and it must be kept in the Church's view. We dishonor our Protestant forebears and the Lord they suffered, bled, and died for, by neglecting and forgetting their lives and sufferings. We must never forget.

For those who may be interested in reading it, there are a couple of sources.

Still Waters Revival Books has the set available in pdf format. One can purchase either the entire 8 volume set, or the individual volumes. It is available here.

Also, the individual volumes can be found on Google Books. Below are the links to each volume.

Volume 1

Volume 2

Volume 3

Volume 4

Volume 5

Volume 6

Volume 7

Volume 8

Review of He Shall Have Dominion

In reviewing this book one feels almost compelled to interact with Gray North's foreword, because he makes some rather extreme claims in it regarding the book itself, and the position it espouses. For this reason, many of my comments, while pertaining to the book, will be written with North's foreword in mind. Having recently read North's “Crossed Fingers,” I found the foreword to be incredibly weak, and I don't use that word lightly. In "Crossed Fingers," he speaks harshly against seminaries with accreditation, and mocks the PhD as an invention of liberal German education (He has one). Then, in this volume, after sweeping some Premillennialist opponent aside, he puts a snarky comment in the footnotes implying that the man is small potatoes and shouldn't be taken seriously because he teaches as some "obscure" seminary that isn't even accredited. He imputes beliefs to Premillennial and Amillennial folk that are simply not true. For a guy who talks about God's Law so much, he plays fast and loose with the 9th Commandment. He lets you know that Amillennialism has been the standard position of the Church for most of her existence. But he's fine with glibly kicking it to the curb because no one, in his estimation, has written a book on the scale of Gentry's. I fail to see how that is an argument at all. But the whole force of his argument seems to be that Gentry's book can make postmillennialism happen even if it isn't true because no one else could ever write a better eschatology book. I would have liked to see Gentry say something like "The views expressed in the foreword do not necessarily represent the views of the author."

If one were to believe Gary North's foreword, this should be the mother of all eschatology books. It isn't. And I hate to break it to Mr. North, but neither I nor anyone else is on the hook to write a point by point refutation of Mr. Gentry's book to make that assertion. There are good, standard works on Amillennialism, for instance (Hendrickson, Riddlebarger, Cox), which neither North nor Gentry has taken on point by point, which they nonetheless reject. That knife cuts both ways.

Moreover, it is hard to take North's high praise of the books references (and the sheer volume of them) as an indication of the greatness of the book, when many of the works referenced are his own. North claims that Gentry will drown his critics in footnotes. At least 80% of the boasted footnotes do not pertain directly to the defense of Postmillennialism. They are just references to various authors – not directly contributing to the building of Gentry's case. And several of the authors he does cite to bolster his position are authors of dubious quality. These are primarily his fellow theonomist Reconstructionists. If he wants to prove his point to those outside this small circle, he needs to demonstrate a consensus outside this circle. Hanko has rightly noted the vaunted support is illusory. Either the supposed references don’t really address the subject, or they are appealed to anachronistically, or they appeared to be pulled out of thin air. For example, in Postmillennialist literature, one will find several references to Charles Hodge. The fact is however that the one passage of Hodge that is marshalled in as proof, is the single line addressing the issue in his entire 3-volume Systematic Theology. Most of the citations provided in the book are not the earth-shattering proof North bragged about in his foreword. He hasn’t drown anyone in footnotes; he’s only cumbered up the ground.

Secondly, I find myself over 200 pages into the book (including the foreword and preface) still being told that there is an imminent powerhouse exegetical case for Postmillennialism just around the corner. And when the actual exegesis begins, much of it (most, in fact), falls squarely within the purview of Amillennialism, as well.

I hardly view myself as a cutting-edge thinker, so I can't imagine that my fundamental objections to are unique to me. So it is more than a little disappointing to not find them addressed in what is touted as the end-all text book on the subject. To demonstrate what I mean, I will list my objections, and briefly detail how (or if) they are dealt with in this book.

My fundamental objections to Postmillennialism:

1. Optimism vs. Pessimism argument. I fail to find this argument even remotely compelling. Gentry, like all modern Postmillennialists, promote their position by appealing to its optimistic view of the future – in opposition to the “negative” view held by Premillennialists and Amillennialists. My question (which I found completely absent) is this: Who says that one’s eschatology is to be assessed on the basis of pessimism or optimism? Is or is not the Second Advent of Christ the “blessed hope” of the Church? Is or is not the Second Advent of Christ therefore a most optimistic hope? So, how in the name of the 9^th Commandment, is it fair to accuse men who believe in the glorious Second Advent of being pessimists? And how does Postmillennialism not fall under the condemnation of the Second Helvetic Confession, which reads: “We further condemn Jewish dreams that there will be a golden age on earth before the Day of Judgment, and that the pious, having subdued all their godless enemies, will possess all the kingdoms of the earth”? This condemnation clearly applied to Postmillennialism, not Premillennialism, because the Jewish fable being rejected is a golden age before the Day of Judgment. So throwing out the opposing views merely on account of a supposed “pessimism” is no argument at all. It is logically fallacious. Every time Gentry interacts with Amillennialism, rather than seriously addressing the theological objections that are raised by acknowledging the effects of Original Sin, and the enmity between the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman, he glibly shoves them aside as “pessimistic.” There is a third word that is missing from his optimism/pessimism debate: realism. Who says that his opponents' views are pessimistic? This is begging the question. This arbitrary classification keeps his opponents' view held in a pejorative light, regardless of the validity of any of their objections.
2. Entangling of Church and State. Gentry repeatedly denies this connection, but every single book he cites in his favor advocates this very thing. And because his particular notion is built on Abraham Kuyper's notion of “common grace,” the way in which the Church is to influence society always terminates in compromise and worldliness. It denies, in action if not on paper, that God has placed enmity between the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman. There is no conceivable way that the church can influence society along Postmillennialist terms without joint efforts between elect and reprobate. Any honest Christian will acknowledge that whenever compromise occurs between the Church and the world, it is always on the world's terms. It was the PCUSA's incipient Postmillennialism that facilitated her apostasy into Liberalism. Norh acknowledges as much in Crossed Fingers. Gentry, with absolutely no explanation or defense for the switch, starts using the word “culture” where he had once spoken of dominion. This is why the appeal to common grace bothers me so much. Whose culture is the Church called to promote? That is never defined. Presumably what is meant by the word is whatever is pleasing and aesthetic in any culture influenced by a Christian worldview. And it is precisely here that Gentry and company would fall afoul of their Postmillennialist predecessors. Part of the Postmillennialist “cultural mandate” always includes Christian involvement (and supposed superiority – leading to eventual control of) in whatever fields of interest society's “culture” develops – be it sports, the arts, and entertainment. Advocating Christian involvement in any of these fields prior to the early 20^th century would've gotten you excommunicated. It's not simply that this is compromise and worldliness, but it is a fascination with the things of this world that makes little sense. Am I to believe that in the eternal state, I have no better pastime to look forward to than the music of Beethoven or Mozart? This cheapens the glory of the eternal state. And it does so precisely by promoting secular society's culture. It acts as if, divorced from God, humans are capable, and in fact do, create a culture that deserves to be imported into the Eternal state. Gentry makes a brief reference to the “salt” principle, but it seems like quite an exegetical stretch to say that the Church acts like salt by preserving the world's culture. 17^th and 18^th century Postmillennialists might not have advocated such worldliness, but it lies at the base of the system because it ignores the reality of total depravity and the enmity God has placed between the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman. I’m not accusing Gentry of promoting this particular view of “culture,” but he has left the term entirely undefined – and this view of human culture is precisely what is held by most advocates of “common grace.”
3. Confusing the person and work of Christ with His mystical body. This seems to me to be the most obvious objection. I defy anyone to show me in Scripture one single benefit the Church enjoys that does not flow to her from Christ, her Federal Head. And yet, if the Postmillennial position be true, it looks suspiciously as if Christ receives victory over His enemies through the Church, rather than her enjoying said victory through His work. I see no way of escaping this dilemma. In His office as King, Christ rules over all creation and He subjects His enemies to Himself. If I were to claim that it is our responsibility as Christians to work out a perfect sanctification in this life and then present this to Christ as a ground for His claim of sanctifying His people through the work of the Holy Spirit, you'd say I was a Pelagian – and you'd be right. What am I to make of an eschatology that posits the same thing in reference to the cosmos? And this objection is not so much as even noticed in the book. The references to Psalm 8 substantiate my claim. Hebrews clearly teaches that Psalm 8 refers specifically to Christ. Christ is the “son of man” in Psalm 8 under whose feet all things will be subjected. Yet, even after noting the Hebrews citation of Psalm 8, Gentry continues on as if the “son of man” is the Church putting all things under it own feet.
4. The newness of the position. Novelty is never a good thing theologically. Gentry fails to convince me of the antiquity of his position. He make a few references to respected Patristic sources, but freely acknowledges that not one of these men would recognize, or accept, Postmillennialism as a system. Sorry, you can’t claim in your favor people who wouldn't even recognize the position. He marshals in Augustine, who every scholar I have ever read on the subject affirms is primarily responsible for the first clear and developed exposition of the Amillennial position. He notes that certain comments in Augustine’s writings are capable of even a Premillennial construction. If this is true, then let’s call it a draw and say that no one gets to claim Augustine for their eschatological system. He then leaps over a 1000 years (an actual millennium) to Daniel Whitby (1703). Mr. Gentry hastens to inform us that the Postmillennial system predates Whitby, and as evidence he submits the work A Revelation of the Revelation, by Thomas Brightman (1562- 1607). Even granting this to be the case, this is a virtual admission that Postmillennialism as a recognizable theological position did not exist prior to the 17^th century. Let’s assume for a moment that all Christians are myopic, viewing the struggle between the Church and the world through the lens of their own condition. If this be true, Christian for most of Church history would not be inclined to hold to the Postmillennial position. Amillennialism makes sense. Even Premillennialism makes sense, in this light, assuming it carries water. But there has only been one brief period in Church history where the societal milieu would lead anyone to view the struggle between the Church and the world in Postmillennial terms: the 17^th century – which is exactly when we first find the system developed and promoted. This may not be conclusive, but it certainly must count for something.
5. It only works if everyone believes it. This is more of an observation than an objection. But it surfaces everywhere. North's foreword leaves the impression that the book is so compelling that it will literally make Postmillennialism be true simply by sheer force of argumentation. One of the most common laments of the book, stated or implied, is that the Church has not achieved her destined Millennial kingdom because not everyone is on board. What does one make of such a feeling? It seems to fly right in the face of the ostensible Reformed commitment to Divine sovereignty. If God is sovereign, and He plans (wills) to convert the whole world to Christianity, why does the dissent in anyone's eschatology matter? What fulfillment of any Scripture prophecy ever hinged on the belief and/or acceptance of it by anyone – in or out of Israel? Scripture tells us that scoffers will say, “Where is the promise of his coming,” and yet this will not hinder Christ's return to judge the world in righteousness.
6. Scripture repeatedly speaks of the time prior to Christ's return as mirroring the days of Noah and Lot. These were hardly characterized by mass conversion to faith in the God of Israel. And, just as an aside, had there been more righteous men in Sodom besides Lot, would Lot's “saltiness” have been intended to save Sodom's culture? To ask the question is to answer it. This raises the whole question of history. This objection Gentry does take on, although he treats is as a practical objection, rather than a theological one – which is surely is. The objection he responds to take the form of questioning how one can hold such an ameliorating view of the future in the same century that witnessed World War I and II? His response is that, all things considered, this is a rather small sample, and that the world present an overall more positive picture if your sample is bigger than the 20^th century. Granted, there is something to be said for this reply, but the problem isn't stated accurately. It's not just that the 20^th century witnessed so much war and bloodshed. This is the legacy of mankind since Cain murdered Abel. That is not a small sample. Plus, does the history of Israel's apostasy, the apostasy of Papal Rome, and the apostasy of mainline Protestantism not count for anything? Does this not verify the fact that Christ's church is always a remnant, a “little flock,” who are among the few that find and walk the narrow path that leads to salvation?

I realize it sounds insane to say this of a book clocking in at over 600 pages, but it is strikingly superficial. I felt like I was reading clickbait: “You won't believe what happens next” - only to find the case presented skims along the surface of the doctrine being presented and the supposed Scriptural support for it. When it takes you 8 chapters, plus a foreword and preface to set up your exegesis, it's hard to expect anything compelling. And the 8 chapters don't really bear directly on the Postmillennial position, per se. So one feels cheated when Gentry marches into Chapter 9 triumphantly as if he's decimated every semblance of an objection. And the exegesis comes in rather sideways most of the time as well. Instead of going to the prophecies of Isaiah and arguing that the triumph of the Messiah's kingdom is most faithfully understood as a golden age on the earth prior to Christ's return, he argues from the “be fruitful and multiply” command in Genesis. As I stated already, this completely overlooks the Fall. And it doesn't do anything for his case (he thinks it does) to show how man, after the Fall, immediately took to dominating nature. The command was given to man prior to the Fall, and ignoring the Fall to assert that the command is still equally binding is poor exegesis. It neglects to explain why such dominion-behavior was good when fallen sinners did it, yet it is actually only the domain of the Church. That is no small oversight. Prior to the mission of the Twelve Spies, Israel was commanded to enter the Promised Land and conquer it. The morning after God sentenced Israel to wander 40 years in the wilderness, some of the men of war arose to enter Canaan to, as they put it, to “go up to the place that the Lord has promised, for we have sinned.” Yet, this apparent act of obedience to the dominion mandate, was now sinful. In fact, the men who did attempt this conquering of Canaan were defeated in battle precisely for trying to do now what God had commanded them to do before their sin had entered the picture. Gentry doesn't come within a country mile of this objection. And based on the Scripture precedent of Numbers 14, one would be inclined to think that defeat is exactly what Postmillennialism should expect.

Starting at Chapter 10, Gentry launches into the exegesis proper, but by this point he has worn the reader’s patience with 200+ pages of “any moment now, I’m gonna blow everyone out of the water.” And even granting that his exegesis is fair, it suffers from two defects that weaken his use for his case. A). Much of what he says doesn't represent Postmillennialism as a whole, and some of it could be agreed upon by both Premillennialists and Amillennialists. That hardly can be counted in his favor. B). All of his exegetical work is based on the Dominion Mandate which he inexplicably bait-and-switched into a “cultural mandate” within minutes of introducing the subject. It doesn't matter how formidable his edifice appears when it is built on the rotten foundation of cultural compromise as a way of Christianizing the world.

There is an unbalanced, I almost said inconsistent, presentation of the opposing views’ hermeneutical principles. In the foreword, North castigates Amillennialists for a “spiritualizing” hermeneutic – the same slander hurled by Dispensationalists at both Amillennialists and Postmillennialists. Then, in the body of the work, Gentry rides herd on the Dispensationalists for their “literal” method of interpretation. Let’s be honest, Dispensationalists treat Scripture in many ways, but most of them are not literal. I have never understood people who can affirm that the chariots in Nahum 2:4 were modern-day automobiles, and the locusts of Revelation were Bell-Huey helicopters, have any room to boast of a literal hermeneutic. What surprises me, is that after criticizing Dispensationalists for their silly literalism with regard to prophecy, the Postmillennial position advocated by Gentry (and North) understands the same prophecies in a literal sense as well – the only difference being whether the “golden age” takes place before or after the Second Advent of Christ. It hardly seems consistent to squawk about one opponent advocating a “literal” hermeneutic when you’re going to use it yourself. Or to squawk about another opponent’s advocating a “spiritualizing” hermeneutic, when you periodically have recourse to the same approach. In fact, Chapter 15 ends with what is essentially a concession of this point. Mr. Gentry spends several pages treating the New Heavens and the New Earth in quite a literal fashion, and ends the segment by saying Premillennialists and Postmillennialists have no problem interpreting the New Heaven and Earth because both interpret it as a literal golden age upon the earth. Only Amillennialists, he says, have exegetical problems, because the relevant passages lend themselves more easily to a literal interpretation.

Chapter 16 is where I take the biggest issue. He spends a full twenty-eight pages on the “characters” of eschatology (the Beast, the Antichrist, etc). Never once does he even so much as mention the Papacy. I know that it is controversial today to say that. But controversy aside, there is no other doctrine about which ALL the Reformers were monolithically agreed than that the Papacy is the Antichrist! Zwingli, Luther, Bucer, Calvin, Martyr, Beza, Musculus, Cranmer, Melanchthon, (I could do this all day) to a man held that the Antichrist is the Papacy and that the Beast is his Romish church. And this includes both the 17^th and 18^th century predecessors of his theonomic version of Postmillennialism: the Pilgrim Fathers! Until the early 20^th century, nothing would get you suspected more quickly of apostasy than expressing doubts regarding the identity of the Antichrist and the Papacy. The various streams of Reformation thought may have differed on their understanding of the Sacraments, on the nature of the Church, on the relation of the Church to the State, but there was zero difference on their view that the Papacy was the Antichrist! The Reformers, to a man, provided long, detailed exegetical explanations to prove the identity. They weren't simply engaging in rhetorical retaliation against their persecutors, and it is libel to suggest it. Anyone is free to deny the identity if they please, but you cannot offer your position as authoritative without explaining point by point why the Reformers were wrong. After all, this is what North says you must do if you disagree with this book (hence the inordinate length of this review!)

This is actually a monumental error in his hermeneutic. By making the Beast and Antichrist stand for Nero and Pagan Rome, he ignores a central motif of Scripture: covenant – which is ironic because he talks about it so much. All the judgment language in Revelation is lifted from the Old Testament – and every bit of it comes from the warnings of the prophets against apostate Israel. The Great Whore of Revelation is set in terms that mirror the description of the Bride (which is clearly the Church). This means that the Whore should be understood as an unfaithful whore of a church. This is precise verbiage of the Lord against Israel: “playing the whore.” So it’s not that Gentry is wrong to notice the covenant language, it’s that he’s wrong regarding the referent. God is in covenant with His Church, not with mankind in general. You can talk Reformed theology till you’re blue in the face, but if you miss this, you've missed the essence of Reformed theology. The view that makes the Beast and the Antichrist identical to pagan Rome (as opposed to Papal Rome and the Pope), was invented by Counter-Reformation Jesuit theologians precisely to create an alternative interpretation to the Reformers. It is one thing to disagree with a position, but it is quite another thing to skirt a reasonable opposing view by completely ignoring its existence. And the view that identifies the Antichrist with the Papacy is not one of several views held by the Reformers: It is the distinctive view!

After this, Gentry turns his attention to his interpretation of the book of Revelation. This is where his work will be hardest to swallow. In his attempt to prove that everything in the book is past and has already taken place, one is left wondering why we aren't in the Millennium already. He literally (pun intended) has the entirety of the prophecy of Revelation accomplished by 70 AD.  He argues this based on the preterit tense of many of the verbs in Revelation – and that phrases such as “must soon come to pass” in Chapter 1 don’t allow for a long delay in the fulfillment of any of the contents of the book. There are a couple of reasonable objections to this. First, many Scripture prophecies are in tenses that sound past even when the event is far off into the future. If anything, this emphasizes God’s power by showing that He speak with certainty about future events because He has ordained them. Secondly, think of the promise in Isaiah 7: “The Lord Himself will give a sign – a virgin will conceive.” Am I to reject an interpretation that refers this to Jesus because it would be unreasonable to tell Ahaz that God was giving a sign that was still hundreds of years in the future? Of course not! Further, his interpretation method is not consistent. When dealing with Daniel’s 70 Weeks, he follows the standard 1 day = 1 year method to arrive at 490 years. But when he comes to the 1280 days of Revelation, he suddenly takes a 1 day = 1 day approach and has the whole 1280 days prophecy fulfilled in 3 ½ years. Perhaps this is correct, but he gives no clue as to why he has switched hermeneutics all of a sudden. He can’t see how it would be honest or fair to tell people of things that would soon coming to pass, when the fulfillment might be far in the future. My question is: How was it fair and honest to offer Ahaz a sign which neither he nor his great-great-great-great grandchildren would live to see? That knife cuts both ways. Plus, he is averse to injecting a long time into the fulfillments of the prophesies of Revelation, but he doesn't mind injecting indeterminate centuries into the space between the Fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD and the Second Coming. And if we follow the 1 day=1 year formula, why shouldn't the Millennium be 365,000 years instead of 1,000?

His argument that Nero is the Beast relies on a speculative guess at the reason behind a variant reading of the number of the beast verse, which says “616” instead of “666.” He suspects that a copyist unaware of the numerical value of “Nero” in Hebrew altered 666 into 616. Now, granting that this took place, why are we to place any interpretive value on a purposeful alteration of God’s inspired word? I don’t how I’m supposed to take this argument seriously. He asserts that “Nero” in Hebrew letters (which all have numerical values), equals 666. But Revelation was written in Greek, so why are we to think that the Hebrew numbering system is what we are to use? Besides, nearly every author who has written on eschatology has his own explanation of the infamous 666. Gentry neglects to take this into account and explain why his peculiar way of deciphering it is superior to anyone else’s.

In concluding the book Gentry has three chapters devoted to fielding the objections, which he categorizes as “Pragmatic,” “Theological,” and “Biblical.” The answers to the pragmatic objections are fairly good, but this is because the objections he tackles are Dispensationalist objections. But not every Premillennialist is a Dispensationalist, so tearing Dispensationalist objections to ribbons doesn't necessarily deal with the objections that a classic Premillennialist might offer. Little is said of pragmatic objections by Amillennialists, and this is because their objections are largely related to exegesis of Scripture, not the daily newspaper.

The answers to the Theological and Biblical objections follow the same pattern: tear the Dispensationalists to ribbons, and call it a day. When handling the Amillennialists’ objections, he generally does little more than state the objection and move on. His most formidable Amillennialist opponent is Professor Herman Hanko, and it is clear that Gentry knows this. When presenting an Amillennialist objection or interpretation that is easy to refute, he goes to Hoekema, but when he wants to present the strongest Amillennial arguments, he cites Hanko. The work by Hanko that he most commonly cites is an unpublished lecture found in the PRC’s magazine The Standard Bearer, from the April, 1978 issue. I read that article (An Exegetical Refutation of Postmillennialism), and I must say, Gentry’s handling of Hanko’s paper leaves a lot to be desired. Essentially, it boils down to labeling it “pessimistic.” Again, I fail to see this to be a category derived from Scripture. Theological debate should focus on true versus false, correct versus incorrect, exegetical versus eisegetical, not optimistic versus pessimistic. And Hanko has an additional card up his sleeve that never gets addressed: The appeal to the Church Fathers and Calvin is pure anachronism. No one had ever heard of Gentry’s  theonomic Reconstructionist form of Postmillennialism in either the Patristic or Reformation era, so they cannot be cited as authorities or backers of the position. It’s like citing Euclid to support Newton or Einstein. Moreover, the optimism versus pessimism gambit is misleading anyway. Both Premillennialists and Amillennialists believe the Christ rules and reigns and that the Eternal State will be an everlasting display of Christ’s triumph. That is optimism, is it not? Plus, this sees the enjoyment of the triumph as the culmination of all things. In the Postmillennialist view the Millennium isn't a full display of Christ’s triumph. That still has to wait for 1000 years. Even if Christians outnumber unbelievers by 5:1, as Gentry suggests, Christ’s triumph is still not displayed as complete. For that to happen, all His foes must be forever vanquished.

Apart from these issues, the book is horribly formatted. Typos abound. Nearly every page has very noticeable typos. The whole section of Dispensationalism's pretended appeal to a literal reading of prophecy is so fraught with typos, it makes is nearly impossible to read. The word intended is obviously “literal.” But in nearly half of the instances of the word, the text reads “liberalism.” This is clearly a formatting problem occasioned by the OCR conversion to pdf, but it is very poor on the part of North’s and Gentry's organization to distribute a book they are undoubtedly aware has so many typographical errors. Plus there are countless instances of words and phrases in bold face font – as if they are being emphasized. But the context will reveal that there could be no possible reason to emphasize these words and/or phrases. Now, it may be nitpicky to bring this poor formatting up, but for a book that claims to be scholarly, and claims to trounce the scholarship of its opponents, lousy formatting is unacceptable. The book was written in 1992. Presumably someone could have edited it for typos since then, or at least since the conversion to pdf. Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

Hippolytus On The Antichrist

The Reformers are frequently accused of malice when they identify the Pope with the Antichrist. It is asserted, or at least, assumed, that they were retaliating against Rome for persecuting them. What has been largely forgotten is the eschatology of the early Church Fathers, particularly the 2nd & 3rd Century Fathers, such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Hippolytus.

Of particular interest is the short work of Hippolytus (died ca. 236), entitled “On the Antichrist.” Several factors are highly prominent in this work.

1. Rome is the 4th beast of Daniel 7.

2. The great whore in Revelation 17 is identical with the reorganized Roman kingdom, ruled by the Antichrist.

3. The Antichrist will rule over a “whore,” which is a universally understood Scriptural figure for an apostate church.

4. This “whore” will be a kingdom that will arise out of the remnants of a destroyed Roman Empire.

5. This “whore” will be Latin in orientation.

6. Antichrist, as head to this whore church-kingdom, will wage war on the saints, sending a second crop of martyrs to join those who were crying out under the altar (Rev. 6:9-10).

7. The Roman Empire is that which “letteth,” (hinders) the rise of Antichrist (2 Thess. 2:7).

8. Antichrist is the “little horn” of Daniel 7 & 8.

9. Antichrist is the man of sin/son of perdition (2 Thess. 2).

These are all amazing observations. First of all, the idea that Rome would fall and be divided into 10 lesser kingdoms could never have been guessed without the prophecy of Daniel. Identifying Rome with Daniel’s 4th Beast is easy for us, centuries after the fact. It is astounding though for Hippolytus to have realized this and to have understood that Christ’s church would ultimately be victorious over pagan Rome. Hippolytus wrote during the Age of Martyrs!

Secondly, Hippolytus bluntly says that the Roman Empire is the hindrance, “that which letteth,” (2 Thess. 2:7) which must be removed for the Antichrist to rise to power. Again, this would have been easy to see in the 16th Century, but Hippolytus wrote during the 3rd. Tertullian had made the exact same assertion. In chapter 24 of “Resurrection of the Flesh,” Tertullian wrote, ““What obstacle is there but the Roman state, the falling away of which, by being scattered into ten kingdoms, shall introduce Antichrist upon its own ruins?”

Later Fathers held the same belief. When Rome was sacked by Alaric the Visigoth in 410, Jerome wrote to Ageruchia (Epistle 123), regarding the fallof Rome: “He that letteth is removed, and shall we not know that Antichrist is near at hand?"

Compare this with the following from the commentary of Matthew Henry on 2 Thessalonians 2:7 – “Something hindered or withheld the man of sin. It is supposed to be the power of the Roman Empire, which the apostle did not mention more plainly at that time…These prophecies have, in a great measure, come to pass, and confirm the truth of the Scriptures. This passage exactly agrees with the system of popery, as it prevails in the Romish church, and under the Romish popes.”

Thirdly, he identifies the Antichrist with the little horn of Daniel 7 & 8. He identifies the great whore Babylon in Revelation 17 with the kingdom ruled by the little horn (Antichrist) who comes to power out of the remnants of the Roman Empire that is broken into 10 lesser kingdoms.

Fourthly, he affirms that this Antichristian kingdom will be Latin in orientation, based on understanding the number 666 as referring to Rome. Irenaeus made the exact same identification (Against Heresies 5.30.3).

Fifthly, Antichrist would persecute the Church with more ferocity than pagan Rome ever did. The martyrs of pagan Rome were under the altar (Rev. 6:9-10) crying out to God for justice. These martyrs would have to wait for their brothers who Antichrist’s Rome would kill. Tertullian understood Revelation 6 in exactly the same way. In chapter 25 of his “Resurrection of the Flesh,” Tertullian writes, “In the Revelation of John, again, the order of these times is spread out to view, which “the souls of the martyrs” are taught to wait for beneath the altar, whilst they earnestly pray to be avenged and judged: (taught, I say, to wait), in order that the world may first drink to the dregs the plagues that await it out of the vials of the angels, and that the city of fornication may receive from the ten kings its deserved doom, and that the beast Antichrist with his false prophet may wage war on the Church of God; and that, after the casting of the devil into the bottomless pit for a while, the blessed prerogative of the first resurrection may be ordained from the thrones; and then again, after the consignment of him to the fire, that the judgment of the final and universal resurrection may be determined out of the books.”

To read Hippolytus’ work on the Antichrist, you would think it was written in the 16th Century by a Reformer. The main difference was that the Fathers believed that the 1260 days of Revelation were a literal 3 ½ years. They knew Rome would fall, but they seemed to have expected Antichrist’s Rome to fall after only 3 ½ years.

It is therefore quite libelous against the Reformers to quibble with their interpretation of Scripture with regard to the Antichrist. Christ is the head of His Church. Antichrist, if he be an impostor (which he is), must be the head of a false church. Antichrist is not a secular political figure. The Fathers held the exact same view as the Reformers in this regard. How incredible is it to realize that in the 230's AD someone was asserting that the Antichrist will be the head of an apostate kingdom-church based in Rome, built on the ruins of the fallen Roman Empire? The Reformers were not innovators!

Hippolytus’ work can be found here.