Agony, Irony, And The Postmillennialist: A Response To Gaffin, Strimple, And White

by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr. is Dean of Faculty and Professor of Systematic Theology at Westminster Classical College in Elkton, Maryland.

I. Introduction

The eschatological debate between amillennialists and postmillennialists in the Reformed camp has been taking a new turn of late. Whereas amillennialists of the recent past (e.g., Hoekema and Berkouwer[1]) concentrated more on the formal eschatological (i.e., prophetic) statements of Scripture in rebutting postmillennialism, contemporary amillennialists (e.g. Gaffin, Strimple, and White[2]) are pressing the basic soteriological revelation. Though both amillennialists and postmillennialists (largely) agree with Geerhardus Vos on the eschatological nature of salvation and the redemptive-historical structure of history,[3] the differences between our visions remain. Amillennialists still maintain a decidedly pessimistic expectation for the church’s historical experience before the Second Advent, whereas postmillennialists urge a robust optimism.

As I indicate elsewhere,[4] the particular nature of this pessimism must be understood as presented in the debate. Obviously, all evangelical perspectives are ultimately optimistic: the righteous will be eternally blessed and the wicked forever doomed on judgment day. Nevertheless, historical pessimism characterizes the amillennial outlook in holding that: our Spirit-empowered gospel labors will never result in worldwide revival,[5] the forces of Satan will always claim the majority of the human race,[6] our promotion of God’s word will not effect a cosmic cultural renewal,[7] and our future is destined to collapse into horror.[8] Thus, amillennialism is pessimistic when looking at historical results and when compared to postmillennialism.

The recent amillennial emphasis on Christian suffering in history underscores the postmillennialist’s pessimism charge in this regard. For instance, R. Fowler White’s important article in the Fall 2001 issue of WTJ well illustrates the matter for us. He opens with scholarly citations, highlighting the moral decline our culture is enduring. And he does so in order to reflect upon the perplexing question of “the victorious reign of Christ and his church” in light of such conditions—which conditions amillennialists deem a permanent and “ironic” feature of pre-consummational history.

Before I engage the debate I must express my deep appreciation for White’s clear, fair, and perceptive article. Overall, he presents an accurate portrayal of my postmillennial writings and those of Bahnsen and North.[9] In the process he makes some important advances on Gaffm and Strimple’s suffering argument. Their concern was to show that the church is called to suffer as a matter of her union with Christ; and so they explain and emphasize the reality of Christ’s present victorious reign despite our suffering. White suggests that the suffering argument needs to be “refocused and elaborated” upon (167), because it has been “insufficiently or inconsistently applied” (176), therefore requiring “a fresh elucidation” (168). He urges considering more closely the victory of the church in addition to that of Christ. He suggests that the church victoriously reigns with Christ as she faithfully endures her earthly trials (167, 168, 174). Highlighting the differences, White summarizes Strimple’s argument as teaching that “inaugurated eschatology comes across as ‘victory now for the One (Christ) and not yet for the many (the church)’” (167). Over against Gaffin and Strimple, White insists “the church’s present victorious reign is not merely in principle” (175). He does not discount Strimple or Gaffin, but transforms the negative argument into a positive one, while correcting some deficiencies in Strimple (167, 168).

Unfortunately, as this factor of the debate illustrates, postmillennialism is the easiest eschatological option to misconstrue.[10] Too often faulty hidden presuppositions taint the arguments, even though the Evangelical and Reformed critics are seldom aware of these. In this regard I must note up front that postmillen-nialists do not assert: (1) universalism (not all will be saved at any point in history); (2) perfectionism (the saved are never perfect on earth); or (3) satisfactionism (we do not prefer earthly dominion over consummational glory). If the critics would do a “virus check” for these three latent errors, we could more accurately and fruitfully focus the debate.

In this article I will take up White’s admirable concern that “discussion should continue” (175) by briefly responding to the twofold suffering argument: both Gaffin and Strimple’s “Christ’s Present Victory Despite Our Suffering” argument; and White’s “The Church’s Ongoing Victory Through Her Suffering” argument. Of course, just as White confesses that space constraints prohibit his fuller interaction and explication (168, 171–72, 175), so must I. This is not only due to the broad theological implications of the debate, but also my fighting a battle on two fronts: the emphases of both Gaffin-Strimple and White.[11] I hope, however, to show that the postmillennialist largely accepts such a redemptive-eschatological methodology while maintaining the postmillennial outlook—when the issues are better understood (i. e., both the expectations of postmillennialism and the broader nature of suffering).

II. Christ’s Present Victory Despite Our Suffering

Gaffin and Strimple vigorously assert that the suffering motif (which results because of our union with Christ) contradicts the postmillennial outlook. And in this the recent amillennial textbook by Cornelis Venema concurs.[12]

Gaffin is fond of declaring: “the church ‘wins’ by ‘losing’” (216). He argues that “over the interadvental period in its entirety, from beginning to end, a fundamental aspect of the church’s existence is (to be) ‘suffering with Christ’; nothing, the NT teaches, is more basic to its identity than that.”[13] Strimple boldly declares that Jesus “tells his disciples that in this present age they cannot expect anything other than oppression and persecution” (63).[14] White speaks of an “amillennial hermeneutic of persecution” (176) noting that the church’s perseverance “despite persecution is her present, indeed her perpetual, supra-cultural victory in history” (162, emphasis mine).

Thus, this suffering argument suggests to the amillennialist the impossibility of the large-scale elimination of suffering demanded in the postmillennial scheme. In fact, Gaffin denies that our “frustration factor will be demonstrably reduced, and the church’s suffering service noticeably alleviated” (214–15). Indeed, according to Strimple, the postmillennial vision of ameliorated suffering “is out of harmony with the New Testament revelation” (67).

How shall the postmillennialist respond? I would urge the following for clarifying both our Reformed interpretation of Scripture and our accurate understanding of postmillennialism.

1. Scripture is occasional and historical. We must always recognize that Scripture speaks to real people in their original settings. For instance, may we argue that revelation and prophecy continue today because Paul strongly commands in Scripture: “Therefore, my brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak in tongues” (1 Cor 14:39)? Is that a universal, ecclesiastical expectation for all times, or an occasional assertion for those times? Surely the latter.

Historically, the early church to whom the apostles wrote found herself in the throes of a rapidly expanding and increasingly deepening persecution. Consequently, warnings of persecutional suffering apply to the original recipients in a direct and relevant way. We misconstrue them if we universalize them so as to require the continued persecution of the church until the second advent. Of course, on those occasions in which we are led by God through similar circumstances, the directives and/or principles would certainly apply.

2. Persecution is serious external oppression. As we reflect on this point in the debate we must bear in mind a vitally important matter: The only kind of suffering that contradicts postmillennialism is suffering rooted in dangerous external threats and oppression (especially when designed to suppress or punish the Christian faith).[15] The New-Testament-era Christians were indeed a suffering people seriously besieged by “threats and murder” (Acts 9:1–2), capital punishment (Acts 7:59; 12:1–2), and imprisonments and beatings (2 Cor 11:23–25), while being made a “public spectacle” and having their “property seized” (Heb 10:32–34). And were these conditions to continue until the end, postmillennialism could not be true.

If amillennialists claim the church is under persecutional suffering here in America, then we effectively discount the grievous nature of our early forefathers’ persecution, while exaggerating our own trials.[16] And since the end has not yet come, what if our (imperfect but welcome) advantageous conditions were to spread throughout all the world? We know from our experience that Christianity can exist in a large-scale, long-lasting external peace from persecutional suffering.

3. Persecution does not always prevail. Remembering the form of persecution highlighted in point I. 2 above, I am always surprised to hear amillennialists overstate their case when arguing that we as disciples of Christ, as Strimple puts it, “cannot expect anything other than oppression and persecution” (63). Moule noted well what we all know from history: “No attentive observer can doubt that many and many a loving and humble disciple, called to lead a quiet life before the Lord in the ‘sequestered vale,’ ‘serves his generation’ with faithful diligence, and passes at last to rest, encountering scarcely one perceptible collision on the way.”[17]

Strimple’s bold assertion is falsified by the facts of the condition in which he himself lives. Is Strimple suffering in a way that proves his point? If persecutional suffering is, as Gaffin puts it, the “fundamental aspect of the church’s existence” of which nothing “is more basic to its identity” (210–11), then those of us living in America should not be identified with Christ as members of his church!

4. Corporate personality may account for some statements of persecutional suffering. The church is a corporate personality; the “body of Christ” is not “one member but many” (1 Cor 12:14). The corpus Christi extends through time, so that early believers are our “fathers” (Rom 15:8; 1 Cor 10:1), the very root of our existence (Rom 11:17). Their struggles should be remembered (e.g., Heb 11:32–40). Consequently, the early persecution of believers in antiquity (and the contemporary trials of our brothers in various foreign lands) in a real and important sense is our suffering, for “if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it” (1 Cor 12:26). The persecutional suffering in much of church history, then, is a persecution of the body of Christ and a source of sorrow even when the body finally comes to peace in temporal history. The Coliseum is, as it were, our Wailing Wall.

5. Suffering is broader than external oppression and compatible with postmillennialism. As I indicated in my introduction, postmillennialists can affirm suffering-with-Christ as a basic element of our Christian experience even up to the end—when we carefully reflect on the biblical requirements of the suffering argument.[18]

The error of the suffering argument as employed in the debate is akin to the Baptist error regarding baptismal mode: Baptists focus on one implication of baptism (death to sin in Rom 6) and then require that that one aspect establish the mode. However, baptism is fuller than that, in that it represents union with Christ in all that he does, not just his death and resurrection.[19] Likewise, persecutional suffering is only one aspect of the church’s suffering-with-Christ. But there are others:

(a) We suffer as fallen creatures enduring physical weakness in this age. In Rom 8:17 Paul argues that if we are his children, then we are “heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him in order that we may also be glorified with Him.” He explains this suffering in the next few verses when he reminds us that “the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope” and that “the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now” (8:20, 22). Paul is explaining why believers, though “free from the law of sin and of death” (8:2), still suffer “the whole range of the weakness which characterize us in this life,”[20] “the whole gamut of suffering, including things such as illness, bereavement, hunger, financial reverses, and death itself.”[21] How can this be? Our glory awaits the future “redemption” of the body (8:23) by the Spirit of God (8:11). We are even too weak to pray as we ought, so the Spirit (who resurrects) intercedes for us (8:26–27).

Thus, Paul laments his being in a “mortal [θνητός] body” (Rom 6:12; 8:11), a body subject to corruption and decay (2 Cor 4:16); he declares that ultimately this “mortality” must put on “immortality” (1 Cor 15:53–57).[22] We suffer in bodies that are mere “earthen vessels” (2 Cor 4:7), subject to “bodily illness” (Gal 4:13), “frequent infirmities” (1 Tim 5:23), “sickness to the point of death” (Phil 1:27). Elders in the church must assist in prayers for healing (Jas 5:17) because sickness is painful and limiting (Gal 4:13), “to the point of death” (Phil 1:27) and may even cause death and its bereavement (John 11:33; Acts 9:36–37).

Gaffin, with other amillennialists, even recognizes that “Christian suffering ought not to be conceived of too narrowly,” for it “includes but is more than persecution and martyrdom” (213). Gaffin speaks of the “breadth” of the Christian conception of suffering which includes the “frustration/ futility” principle and our “bondage to decay.” Indeed, “suffering is everything that pertains to creaturely experience of this death-principle.” “It is the totality of existence ‘in the mortal body’ and within ‘this world in its present form [that] is passing away. …. Christian suffering is literally all the ways in which this ‘weakness-existence’ (v. 26) is borne, by faith, in the service of Christ—the mundane, ‘trivial’ but often so easily exasperating and unsettling frustrations of daily living, as well as monumental testing and glaring persecution” (214).

White urges us to understand that “the relationship between the church’s victory and suffering in Rom 8 reflects a theologically fundamental consideration” (167). But when we properly analyze the suffering argument, postmillennialists are not confronted with an insurmountable wall. For postmillennialism does not expect the elimination of mortality this side of the resurrection. And so these sufferings due to mortality will continue even at the height of the advance of the gospel.[23] These should be borne as Christians, not as “the rest who have no hope” (1 Thess 4:13; cf. Eph 2:12; Jas 1:2–4; Titus 2:7).

(b) We suffer in a world with the principle of evil present. As regenerate, spiritually (semi-eschatological) resurrected believers, we abhor the sinful tendencies present in ourselves and in others. Paul was torn as he struggled to please God (Rom 7:21–23). He cried out in misery: “Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death?” (Rom 7:24). As Bruce puts it: “Paul himself knows what it means to be torn this way and that by the law of his mind which approves the will of God, and the law of sin and death which pulls the other way. The Christian, in fact, lives in two worlds simultaneously, and so long as this is so he lives in a state of tension.”[24]

Even at the height of the kingdom’s (postmillennial) advance in the world we suffer temptation due to “the worry of the world and the deceitfulness of riches” (Matt 13:22). We will always struggle against the “sin which so easily entangles us” (Heb 12:1), “the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life” (1 John 2:16). Due to our suffering the temptation to sin within, each Christian must follow after Paul, declaring: “I buffet my body and make it my slave” (1 Cor 9:27; cp. Rom 8:13; Col 3:5).

6. Christ is an example of suffering for us. We discover further evidence of the broad nature of suffering in Christ, our model of suffering. His suffering was not limited to external oppression by rebellious man. Rather, his entire state of humiliation was by definition a state of suffering in which he endured mundane, creaturely pains and sorrows. “Since then the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same” (Heb 2:14); he existed in the “likeness of men” (Phil 2:7), in the “likeness of sinful flesh” (Rom 8:3). Because of his incarnation he was “tempted in what he suffered” (Heb 2:18), even being “tempted in all things as we are” (Heb 4:15). He wearied (John 4:6), thirsted (John 19:28), hungered (Matt 21:18), and sorrowed (John 11:35)—apart from persecution.

Our union with Christ in his suffering involves all of these mundane things, not just matters of external assault and trial. And these forms of suffering are compatible with the postmillennial hope.

7. Suffering is contrasted with eternal glory. Even the very height of earthly, post-millennial glory pales in comparison to the “weight of glory” that is ours, and that stirs our deepest longings as sons of God (of. Phil 1:23). As recipients of the mysteries of the kingdom of God, Christians experience “the heightened form which our desire for this future [resurrection] state assumes. For it is not mere desire to obtain a new body, but specifically to obtain it as soon as possible” (cf. 2 Cor 5:1–10).[25] What is more, we who know God’s saving mercies deeply desire “the state of immediate vision of and perfect communion with God and Christ” which “the future life alone can bring” with its “perfected sonship.”26 Anything short of perfected sonship is a form of suffering “not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us” (Rom 8:18).[27]

Indeed, our very state of mortality is suffering when compared to eternity, for the body is “sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body” (1 Cor 15:42–44). As Christians “we know that if the earthly tent which is our house is torn down, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For indeed in this house we groan, longing to be clothed with our dwelling from heaven. While we are in this tent, we groan, being burdened, because we do not want to be unclothed, but to be clothed, in order that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life” (2 Cor 5:1–2, 4). We are motivated by the fact that Christ “will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory” (Phil 3:21).

Conclusion. Thus, the postmillennialist agrees that we are to “suffer with Christ” until he returns, for we grieve over the sufferings of our forefathers, endure the pains and limitations consequent upon our fallen experience, bemoan our own indwelling sin as well as the sin of the unconverted, and earnestly long for the eternal glory we will share in the presence of God. Strimple even recognizes that the suffering of Rom 8 involves “sin and all of its consequences,” “all the corrupting consequences of human sin,” not just persecution (61, 106). Earthly suffering involves times of prosperity as well as times of adversity. Even at the height of the kingdom’s earthly development we will always need to struggle in order to “seek first His kingdom and His righteousness” (Matt 6:33), always resisting the temptation to arrogantly declare: “my power and the strength of my hand made me this wealth” (Deut 8:17).

III. The Church’s Ongoing Victory Through Her Suffering

I will now reflect briefly on White’s expansions on and enhancements of the amillennial suffering argument. The reader should be aware that by now I have dealt with much of the core concern in White’s suffering theology, his “hermeneutic of persecution” (176). Nevertheless, his enhancements deserve additional contemplation.

Before I begin I must quickly dispatch an erroneous charge he brings against the postmillennialist. I would not agree that postmillennialists “basically dismiss … as irrelevant” the “church’s perseverance in persecution for understanding her victory” (168), for: (1) How could any evangelical deem the necessity of “perseverance in persecution” as irrelevant? Much of the church’s history has been spent under the grueling fire of persecution. This cannot possibly be dismissed as an irrelevancy This charge is a sample of an all too frequent tendency to argumentative overstatement. (2) Postmillennialists affirm that any time the church is persecuted she must “endure to the end” (Matt 24:13) for the “the testing of [our] faith produces endurance” (Jas 1:3). We believe that the church must endure persecution when it comes, as an important aspect of “her victory” as per White (168). But we do not believe that experiencing persecution in all times is a necessary condition of her victory, or else she cannot be victorious now in America nor will she be victorious in heaven. (3) Our apparent dismissal of the suffering motif is due to the point of conflict in the eschatological debate. Postmillennialists necessarily highlight this distinctive difference between our view and the other evangelical eschatological options: our expectation that external persecution must gradually fade away.[28] Hence, our placing “at the center of recent interaction” the church’s “future cultural victory” (162). We no more dismiss suffering by not emphasizing it in our writings than Paul dismisses the resurrection of the unbeliever by never mentioning it in his writings.[29] Likewise Beale’s emphasis on Christ’s death surely does not effectively “dismiss” his interest in the resurrection (172, 173).

But now I will consider White’s two specific enhancements to the suffering argument: irony in redemption and perseverance as victory.

1. Redemptive Irony

White reminds us of the startling means by which God effects his will and blesses his people: by the twin principles of redemptive and retributive irony (170). For instance, Gen 3:15 serves as a “biblical paradigm” which establishes for us that “the eschatologically significant moral principles by which [God’s] enemies would defeat him would end up being the very means by which he defeats them; in addition, the actual results effected by God are the opposite or a greater degree of the results intended by his enemies” (170). In the eschatological debate, Gen 3:15 becomes a “crucial consideration” for demonstrating redemptive irony, i.e., ultimate victory through apparent defeat. In addition, Christ’s New Testament suffering confirms this ironic pattern of victory: “When it comes to our conception of the victory of the church, we see that it follows the ironic principles of Christ’s victory” (175). Ultimately we must recognize that “God is seeing to it that the means by which Satan’s anti-kingdom intends to defeat Christ’s kingdom-church end up being the very means by which the latter defeats the former” (176).

The postmillennialist would respond to White’s observations as follows:

a. Ironic victory is biblical. Postmillennialists recognize the redemptive irony principle: Satan’s rebellion against God finally backfires. White has presented a clear, concise, and helpful summary of the principle which I as a postmillennialist appreciate. I agree with his argument—until he draws wrong conclusions.

b. Ironic victory is postmillennial. In addition to White’s samples of redemptive irony, the postmillennialist urges an additional irony: the small, persecuted church of the first century shall one day emerge as the universal, dominant church of the last century. We must not “despise the day of small things” (Zech 4:10). In fact, Matthew organizes the revelation of the kingdom in a surprising and ironic context. In Matt 12:28 Christ proclaimed the presence of the kingdom (the kingdom is present); in 13:53–58 Matthew records Christ’s rejection (the kingdom appears to fail). Yet between these two kingdom data, the kingdom parables explain the irony of the kingdom’s method: it grows from a small seed to a great plant (13:31–32); it acts like a little yeast leavening the whole (13:33).

The Jewish Messianic fervor expected a conquering Messiah to overthrow the pagan world (e.g., John 6:15; Luke 24:2130 ); the Messiah instead was slain by the pagan world with a view to his transforming it (Luke 19:10; John 3:16–17; 12:31–32). Thus, Christ’s victory in the first century was “now and not yet,” an unfolding, developmental reality rather than a full-blown imposition; since then he is “waiting from that time onward until His enemies be made a footstool for His feet” (Heb 10:13) though (ironically) they are already subjugated (Eph 1:19–22; Col 2:15; 1 Pet 3:22). Though Christ is already the conqueror, “we do not yet see all things subjected to him” (Heb 2:8). Whereas Satan employs the sword against the church in history, the sword of the Spirit will win the victory—also in history.

c. Ironic victory is historical Each of the irony samples in the “biblical paradigm” from Gen 3:14–19 provided by White is historical—except the one that marks the distinction between the postmillennial and amillennial camps (170). Note that the serpent sought to be like the most high, but was brought low—in history. The craftiest creature became the accursed creature—in history. The woman desired to rule her husband, but was ruled by him—in history. Man from the dust wanted to be like God, but was brought back to the dust—in history. The serpent sought the woman as his ally, but she became the mother of the righteous conqueror—in history. The serpent subdued man, but the man’s son, Son of Man, subdued the serpent—in history.

The one place this irony-parallelism fails is seen in White’s words: “The serpent makes all the woman’s seed into children of the devil; but by the grace of redemptive judgment, God determines to make a division among the woman’s fallen seed, promising to convert a remnant into children of God” (170–71). It appears that the serpent sought the destruction of the human race—and won! God only saves out a “remnant.” This startling failure is actually predicted in the application of White’s form of the irony argument: “the actual results effected by God are the opposite or a greater degree of the results intended by the serpent” (171). Thus, we observe, Satan destroys the great mass of mankind, and God saves “the opposite”: a small remnant. Surely this is not the irony God intends.

In addition, White argues that the culture-impacting victory of God promised in the protoevangelium will not come about in this temporal realm, but awaits the consummational new earth: “the earth will yet be ruled and filled by a righteous immortal seed of man to the glory of God” (171).31 Over against this interpretation the postmillennialist asserts that God does not give up on history.

d. Ironic victory is admitted. But ironically(!) all of this redemptive irony argumentation is admitted by White as irrelevant to resolving his debate with the postmillennialist. “This study makes clear that the church’s present victorious reign is not merely in principle. We can and must talk about the church’s victory in history, whether she ever emerges as the organon of world culture or not” (175, emphasis mine). So then, White’s own analysis of the victory principle—which involves perseverance-may be maintained “whether… or not” the postmillennial scheme is true. And after all, the postmillennialist asks why should we not expect Christian dominion since we possess “the eschatological, Pentecostal presence and power of the Holy Spirit in the church” (165; citing Gaffin)?

2. Victorious Perseverance

Fleshing out the implications of the amillennial “hermeneutic of persecution,” White argues in the final analysis: “through these principles of redemptive irony, then, it becomes clear that and how Christ’s church can be said to be perpetually victorious in history: following the example of Christ, she perseveres in faithfulness despite persecution” (176). He agrees with Beale in urging that “John’s Apocalypse reveals the nature of the church’s present reign. Like Jesus’ initial kingship, the church’s kingship consists now in conquering by maintaining her faithful witness” through trials, overcoming evil powers, subduing sin in the church, and ruling “over death and Satan by identification with Jesus” so that the “church’s endurance, then, is part of the process of conquering” (175). Therefore, faithfully enduring in the world is the exercise of our present victory in Christ.

In response I would note:

a. Endurance is obvious in the trials of oppression. The postmillennialist whole-heartedly concurs with White that “a fully biblical inaugurated eschatology must recognize that perseverance in faith despite persecution/s victory for the church in history” (168). Those Christians who faithfully endured the persecutions of the first (and later) centuries were indeed victorious. For instance, Paul urged the Philippians to understand the inscrutable plan of God, for to them it was “granted [ἐξαρίσθη, “graciously given as a favor”] for Christ’s sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake” (Phil 1:29). Paul taught this so that they would “in no way [be] alarmed by your [real, historical, contemporary] opponents” (v. 28) while they experienced “the same conflict” they saw in Paul (v. 30). Paul was quite aware “of his readers’ present, very real, situation.”32 Truly may we assert that “just as Christ ruled in a veiled way through suffering, so do Christians” (174). But, as I will show, this is not the only way in which we exercise victory.

b. Endurance is historical in the Book of Revelation. White establishes much of his argument (three full pages) on an analysis of Revelation, “the NT book in which the vocabulary and images of victory are the most prominent” (172). And his presentation is almost totally based on G. K. Beale’s commentary This is unfortunate in that it brings the whole thorny question of Revelation’s proper interpretation into the debate.

I would argue that we must understand Revelation as an occasional epistle, a letter to historical churches already “in tribulation” with John (Rev 1:9). He is alerting them to the very important truth that Christian victory is not one-dimensional, that Christian victory can and often does—and in their case will—require victory through enduring fearsome persecution. Revelation is not a moving picture of all of Christian history, but a snapshot of its beginning; it does not prophesy a state of perpetual persecution, but ministers in a circumstance of particular tribulation (hence, Rev 1:1, 3; 22:6, 10).

The early beleaguered, confused, and tempted Christians had to understand that though the kingdom of Almighty God was indeed present (e.g., Rev 1:9) and Christ was already “the ruler of the kings of the earth” (Rev 1:5), the kingdom nevertheless required time for growth and expansion (Matt 13:30–33; Mark 4:26–29), while Jesus was “waiting” for his enemies to be subdued in time and on earth (Heb 10:13). An important point of the Lord’s Parable of the Soils was to warn that trials will come to kingdom citizens, possibly leading to their discouragement and apostasy (Matt 13:19–22). Revelation is steeling first-century Christians for their very real trials, encouraging them to endurance as a form of earthly victory which leads to heavenly glory.

c. Endurance is constant in the experiences of life. As noted above (I. 5) we suffer many trials other than external persecution. Thus, perseverance is a constant obligation for the Christian in all of life’s vicissitudes. Just as it is true that “a fully biblical inaugurated eschatology must recognize that perseverance in faith despite persecution is victory for the church in history” (162), so is it equally true that “a fully biblical inaugurated eschatology must recognize that perseverance in faith” despite the temptations of mundane life is victory for the church. Persecution is not the only arena for victory… The church must “persevere in faith and good works” (175) always and in every circumstance. Certainly her victorious perseverance is more obvious in the crucible of oppression, but it is not the more remarkable, for defeat lurks in every corner of life.

White himself notes our struggle for victory even through the yawning visage of “temptations to compromise, and complacency” in addition to the scowling “face of persecution” (174). He summarizes Beale’s observations noting that even Revelation speaks of overcomers outside the context of persecution, as when the church is “subduing sin in her members’ lives” (175). Perhaps White is indicating an admission of broader victory than persecution when he speaks of persecutional suffering as involving “the church’s endurance” as “part [not the whole] of the process of conquering” (175).

Such an understanding of victory-through-suffering-apart-from-persecution leaves the door open for postmillennialism, when the fires of persecution (cf. above II. 1, 2) are extinguished and the choking smoke of oppression is dissipated. In fact, do we not enjoy victory through “successful preaching of the gospel to the nations,” as Strimple argues (see White, 167)?

d. Endurance is overstated in the discussion of eschatology. As glorious and necessary a factor of victory as is perseverance through persecution, the troubling fact is: amillennialists are prone to overstate their case in the context of the eschatological debate. White approvingly cites Beale: “the exercise of rule in this kingdom begins and continues only as one faithfully endures tribulation” (174). “Only”? Do we not have victory when safely beyond the raging fires of persecution? Are any American church communities living victoriously, though free from the lash of the persecutor?

Alternatively, was it not a “defeat” (ῆττημα) rather than a “victory” for the Corinthians when they went to court against each other (1 Cor 6:7)? Was it not a shameful failure for them to fall into sin, irrespective of the crush of oppression (1 Cor 15:34)? Were not the Hebrews failing not only under persecutional trials but also in other more mundane struggles: failing to grow in their knowledge of Scripture (5:11), defiling the marriage bed (13:4–5), entertaining heresy (13:9) indeed “every encumbrance” (Heb 12:1)?

IV. Conclusion

Perhaps, it is true, as White contends, that postmillennialists have not fully engaged the discussion regarding suffering and perseverance (162). But it certainly is not true that the biblical message of suffering and perseverance contradicts the postmillennial hope. Postmillennialists gladly affirm the redemptive irony of God’s victory over Satan. Postmillennialists wholeheartedly agree that the faithful church weathering the storms of persecution is victorious. Postmillennialists unashamedly confess the reality that our state prior to the resurrection is one of suffering. With Gaffin, we do humbly affirm the “theology of the cross” (216); but we also heartily rejoice in the “theology of the resurrection.”

Notes

1. G. C. Berkouwer, The Bible and the Future (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979) and Anthony A. Hoekema, The Return of Christ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972).
2. Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., “Theonomy and Eschatology: Reflections on Postmillennialism,” in Theonomy: A Reformed Critique (ed. W. R. Godfrey; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), 197–226. Robert B. Strimple, “Amillennialism,” in Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond (ed. D. L. Bock; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 81–129 (see also: 58–71). R. Fowler White, “Agony, Irony, and Victory in Inaugurated Eschatology: Reflections on the Current Amillennial-Postmillennial Debate,” WTJ62 (2000): 161-76. Reference to these three authors in the body of the article will refer only to the page number when the reference is obvious.
3. Postmillennialists do not “de-eschatologize” the present (Gaffin, “Theonomy and Eschatology,” 202) nor assume “three ages” (Strimple, “Amillennialism,” 63. See my forthcoming article (currently untitled) in The Chalcedon Symposium Series, January, 2002. I was relieved to see that R. Fowler White does not bring such charges against postmillennialists (see n. 5).
4. Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., The Greatness of the Great Commission: The Christian Enterprise in a Fallen World (Tyler, Tex.: Institute for Christian Economics, 1993), ch. 12.
5. “The church will endure persecution, apostasy, and the Antichrist” (White, “Agony,” 167). “The universal sway of the kingdom of God cannot be expected from missionary effort alone; it requires the eschatological interposition of God” (Strimple, “Amillennialism,” 65).
6. God’s people will perpetually be a “remnant” (White, “Agony,” 166, 169, 171).
7. “Prosperity and blessing for the church are reserved until Christ returns” (Gaffin as cited approvingly by White, “Agony,” 167). “Jesus nowhere predicts a glorious future on earth before the end of the world” (Strimple, “Amillennialism,” 63).
8. “The forces of evil [will] gather strength, especially toward the end” (White, “Agony,” 167). We should look for “persecution, apostasy, Antichrist… [as] essential elements in the New Testament picture of the last days” (Strimple, “Amillennialism,” 64).
9. The article does suffer from some slight imperfections which I will note below.
10. My article title (“Agony, Irony, and the Postmillennialist”) is designed as a double entendre. As a postmillennialist I frequently find myself in agony over the widespread misinterpretations of my eschatological system.
11. Dr. Gaffin and I recently engaged in a public, formal debate in Elkton, Maryland (April 26, 2001). The video of the debate is available from Christ Presbyterian Church (CPChurchOffice @aol.com). I am currently writing a response to Strimple’s critique of my postmillennial argument for the January 2002 edition of the Chalcedon Symposium Series (#3), formerly The Journal of Christian Reconstruction.
12. Cornelis P. Venema, The Promise of the Future (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2000).
13. Gaflin, “Theonomy,” 211. See my fuller response to Gaffin’s article: Gentry “Whose Victory in History?,” in Gary North, Theonomy: An Informed Response (Tyler, Tex.: Institute for Christian Economics, 1991), ch. 8. There I show that Gaffin’s argument was built on statements of Paul’s personal suffering, rather than on the prophetic outlook regarding the church.
14. Though in the original context Jesus is addressing his first-century disciples, Strimple must be applying this to us today for: (I) It would be pointless for him to limit the Lord’s statement to the first century in that he is debating me as a postmillennialist regarding the long-range outlook for the church, and (2) We today still exist in “this age,” according to Strimple’s (and my) two-age eschatological structure.
15. The postmillennialist would not limit such external dangers to a religious pogrom, for we also believe in the eventual cessation of war and the large-scale reduction of criminal behavior. But in employing the suffering argument as they do, amillennialists are referring to persecutional suffering.
16. My statement must not be construed to mean that the American condition illustrates the height of the postmillennial glow, as if our condition were all that marvelous. Nor should it suggest my blindness to the genuine suffering of Christians in many places in the world still today. I urge participants to the debate to bear in mind the postmillennial definition: Nowhere does postmillennialism claim that by the year 2002 the full gospel glory shall have been won. Until history ends, postmillennialism cannot be disproved on an analysis of world conditions. In fact, most postmillennialists would agree with Warfield that “the church of the twentieth century [is] still the primitive church,” a church in its infancy (Benjamin B. Warfield, “Are They Few That be Saved?,” in Biblical and Theological Studies [Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1952], 347).
17. H. C. G. Moule, Studies in II Timothy (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1977), 117.
18. White is familiar with the basics of my response in this direction (White, “Agony,” 168 par. 1), but does not interact with it except to express his disappointment in my lack of emphasis on the church’s persevering through persecution. Thus, his concern becomes a matter of emphasis while the essence of my remarks remains unanswered.
19. John Murray, Christian Baptism (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1972), 31 (cf. 29–33).
20. John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), 1:311.
21. Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 511.
22. See also: Rom 8:10, 11, 13, 23; 12:1; 1 Cor 6:13, 15, 16, 20; 2 Cor 4:10; Phil 1:20; 3:21; Col 2:11; and 1 Thess 5:23. Murray, Romans, 1:220.
23. Although many of these will be lessened by the advances in science and medicine. As Gary North once commented: “If anyone ever speaks longingly to you of ‘the good old days,’ just respond with two [sic] words: ‘dentistry.’”
24. F. F. Bruce, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans (TNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963), 151.
25. Geerhardus Vos, Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation (ed. Richard B. Gaffin; Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1980), 46.
26. Vos, Redemptive History, 55.
27. The πρόςin the ἄξια / πρός construction signifies comparison.
28. White is aware that I and other postmillennialists are engaging the debate at the point of conflict, for he cites my statement referring to: “the distinctive postmillennial view of Christianity’s progressive victory, in time and in history [sic], into all of human life and culture” (162). I actually state: “in time and on earth.”
29. Geerhardus Vos, The Pauline Eschatology (1930; repr., Phillipsburg, NJ.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1991), 216–17.
30. See the Jewish writings Pss. Sol. 17; 1QSa2:14, 20; CD 12:23 13:1; 14:19; 4QMessApoc 1:1. See also: W.J. Heard, “Revolutionary Movements,” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (ed. M. B. Green, S. McKnight, and I. H. Marshall; Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity, 1992), 689-9l.
31. Postmillennialists do not, of course, deny the final, irrevocable, and absolute dominion associated with the eternal order of the new heavens and the new earth. Rather, I would point out that on the amillennial analysis Satan wins the victory in history by destroying the human race, Christ in eternity by redeeming a small portion of it.
32. Gordon D. Fee, Paul’s Letter to the Philippians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 170.