When Are the "Last Days"?

Among those of a certain eschatological bent, the 'last days" of the New testament have been identified repeatedly with events current at that time. Most recently, the covid crisis and the war in Ukraine are cited as evidence that we are now in the last days, and that the rapture will occur any day. 

The problem is that none of those declarations ever give/gave proper consideration to how the phrase is used in the New Testament. "The last days" is treated as if it is disconnected from the rest of Scripture, with no meaning to those who used it, or as if it could be meaningful to its audience, even if it would occur two-thousand years (so far) in their future. 

Consider Hebrews 2:1-2: "Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but, in these last days, He has spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed the heir of all things, through whom also He created the world." To the author of the epistle, the last days were "these last days," not "those last days," as assumed by the dispensationalist. He considered the phrase to describe the time in which he wrote, not some far future time. He reinforces this intent by relating the last days to the coming of Jesus, i. e., His first coming, not the second. 

The Apostle Peter said something similar in I Peter 1:19-20: "But with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot. He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for your sake." Peter is referring to two events that were past tense at the time he wrote, the plan for the Son from before the foundation of the world and His manifestation. When did that happen? At his incarnation, which is why Peter uses the past tense of the verb. To him, the last times were past (or continuing), not two-thousand years in the future. 

The Apostle John, the only writer to mention an antichrist, mentions antichrists in I John 2:18: "Children, it is the las hour, and, as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore, we know that it is the last hour." This one verse gives us two key pieces of information. First is that he refers to a belief among Christians of a coming antichrist. He corrects them in two ways, one that the word is plural, not singular, and the second that some of the antichrists had already come. Therefore, he concluded, the time in which he wrote was the last hour. His statements preclude a future Antichrist or last day, yet dispensationalists pass right over it. 

In Hebrews 9:26, that writer again describes the end of the ages: "For then He would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But, as it is, He has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself." Again, He identifies the last days not just with the coming of Jesus, as in the verse at the top, but specifically with His working of redemption. Again, that necessarily happened two-thousand years ago, past tense even when Hebrews was written, not in his or our future. To the same effect is Peter in I Peter 1:20: "He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but was made manifest in the last times for your sake." 

Together, these references are infallible evidence that a future "last day" is unbiblical, the invention of men, not just apart from scriptural support, but in contradiction to the biblical testimony. 

The Five Solas: God's Perpetual War Against Rome

In the Reformation, the Reformers developed a systematic formulation that delineated the distinction of the biblical Christian faith from the corrupted version held by Rome. These doctrines have come to be known as the Five Solas, from their Latin forms.

Sola gratia, by grace alone. The Bible says that justification is by the condescending mercy of God. It cannot be due to any will or worthiness in the sinner because there is none. 

Sola fide, by faith alone. For those whom God has mercifully chosen to save, that justification is applied to them by means of faith. That is, faith is not meritorious, but is rather an instrument for applying justification. 

Solus Christus, on the basis of Christ alone. Everything necessary to justify God's people was achieved by the atoning work of Jesus, i. e., His perfect life, atoning death, and victorious resurrection. No additional intent, ritual, or action of men is necessary or possible, because Jesus did all that was necessary. 

Soli deo gloria, for the glory of God alone. God's purpose in justifying His people was not for our sakes, though we are certainly the beneficiaries. He did it to display the glories of His mercy and to glorify His Son with a church. 

Sola scriptura, in Scripture alone. Everything necessary to know about our sin, God's judgment, the redemption purchased by Christ, and the life of sanctification is and can be found in the Bible alone, using the ordinary means of reason, illuminated by the Holy Spirit. No human tradition added to Scripture or in its place can ever bind the conscience of the man of God. 

Even after the five centuries which have passed since the start of the Reformation, these truths have not changed. Nor has Rome ever repented of her errors here opposed. When professed Protestants practice fellowship and cooperation with the Catholic Church, it is not because she has given up her errors, but because the Protestants have accepted them.

What Works Are Excluded from Justification?

I have had discussions with both Mormons and Catholics about Romans 3:28: "For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from the works of the law." The topic was the doctrine of both groups that a person is justified by a mixture of faith and works, instead of by faith alone. They denied that a person is justified by faith alone, claiming that Paul rejects the works of the Mosaic code, such as circumcision, as contributing to justification. That is, they restrict the meaning of "law" just to the rules and ceremonies given to Israel through Moses. 

What neither will mention is Paul's other uses of "law," especially in Galatians. In Galatians 4:21-26, 28-31, he makes a case: "Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman. But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise. Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, she corresponds to the present Jerusalem for she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother... Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. But, just as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now. But what does the Scripture say? 'Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman.' So, brothers, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman." 

Paul makes a very clear distinction here. Is it between works of the Mosaic law and other works? Clearly not. Anyone with a modicum of biblical knowledge knows that Abraham lived four-hundred years before  Moses. Rather, he uses "law" to describe the works of the flesh, such as those of Moses, using the label of the part to represent the whole (a synecdoche), in distinction from the promise, which he uses to label grace alone through faith alone. 

Honorable and Dishonorable Use According to the Mind of the Potter

"That the creatures have at times deviated from their first rules and settlement is no derogation from the doctrine of God's sovereignty, but rather an illustration of it, as showing that the creatures are still in His hand, as clay in the potter's. Hence we find their innate propensities to be sometimes suspended; at other times, overacted; and at times again quite contrary to the law of nature. And this [is] not casually nor by the force of created powers, nor yet for any private or self-concern, but to serve some special and superior end which their Lord had to be done" --Puritan Elisha Coles, "A Practical Discourse of God's Sovereignty" 

He doesn't quote it, but Coles alludes to a reference from Paul: "You will say to me then, 'Why does He still find fault? For who can resist His will?' But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, 'Why have you made me like this?' Has the potter no right over the clay, to make of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?" (Romans 9:19-21). 

If a potter splits his lump of clay, and uses one part to make a decanter for the finest wine, and the other part for a chamber pot, is that not his power to do? Can the chamber pot pipe up that it, too, wishes to hold fine wine? Of course not! Paul uses such an obvious example to make plain that the objection to God's sovereignty is equally irrational. 

While Coles widens Paul's text to apply to all created creatures, I want to focus, as Paul did, on God's sovereignty over mankind. It is all one to Paul, whether we are speaking of the lesser animals or to man; sentience is not grounds for autonomy. The sentient creation is still under the legitimate rule of his Creator. 

In theology, this is the contrasting doctrines of election, God's choice unto salvation and glorification, and reprobation, God's choice unto wickedness and judgment. Paul applies this dichotomy to an example which the Jewish Christians would have known well, the Pharaoh in Moses's account of the exodus from Egypt: "For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, 'For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show My power in you and that My name might be proclaimed in all the earth'" (Romans 9:17, citing Exodus 9:16). 

Paul's point in both his potter analogy and in the account of Pharaoh is to show that election and reprobation are not punishments or rewards for men, i. e., not something to be claimed by an autonomous creature. Rather, they are determined by His primary purpose, which is to glorify Himself. Granted, that is a concept that the unbeliever and many professing believers find abominable. Which is exactly the point of Paul's choice of words: "Who are you, O man, to answer back to God?" (Romans 9:20).

The implied answer is that, "You are no one." 

The Perfect and Proper Sovereignty of God Over His Creatures

"The heavens and the earth and all the hosts of them, as yet having no being, it was [according to] His pleasure whether He would make them or not. And, if He would, what being He would give them, to what end, and how that end should be accomplished. And that all these were ascertained by the decree is evident, for 'known unto God were all His works (which He would do in [the process of] time from the beginning of the world' (Acts 15:18)." --Puritan Elisha Coles, "A Practical Discourse of God's Sovereignty" 

In the quote above, we see the historic protestant view of the sovereignty of God. He created all things according to His plan of what to create, what the purpose and place of each would be, and how that purpose would be achieved. This is especially contrasted with the modern theology of Open Theism, which asserts that God cannot determine or even predict the contingent actions of animate creatures. But it also conflicts with the Arminian view, which claims that God has the power of sovereignty, but has withheld His determination in favor of free agency. 

Coles gave an excellent citation for his view, and against the various forms of autonomy: "Known to God from eternity are all His works" (Acts 15:18 NKJV). God had planned all that He would do in and with His creation before He created any of it. "Remember this and stand firm, recall it to mind, you transgressors, remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God and there is none like Me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, 'My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all My purpose'" (Isaiah 46:8-10). 

Both Coles and the Bible describe a God who is very different from the deity of the Arminians.

God's Preservation of His People: The Perseverance of the Saints in Troublous Times

"Though I walk in the midst of trouble, You preserve my life; You stretched out Your hand against the wrath of my enemies, and Your right hand delivers me. The Lord will fulfill His purpose for me; Your steadfast love, O Lord, endures for ever. Do not forsake the work of Your hands." --Psalm 138:7-8 

As I write this, America is just past another wave of Covid-19 and the Russian invasion of Ukraine has just begun its third week. Unemployment is low, but inflation has jumped, especially in the prices of food and gasoline. We are in uncertain times. People are fearful, and many professing Christians have begun another round of talk about the Rapture and Mark of the Beast. 

Under such circumstances, unease is rational. Trusting in God does not mean that Christians don't have normal emotions. However, bad theology merely fans the flames of that unease, adding irrational fears to the rational unease. 

Good theology, on the other hand, brings comfort, and minimizes our fears. In particular, the knowledge that God, our God, reconciled to us through the blood of Jesus, always keeps us in His care: "We know that, for those who love God, all things work together for good, for those who are called according to His purpose. For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, in order that He might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom He predestined, He also called; and those whom He called, He also justified; and those whom He justified, He also glorified" (Romans 8:28-30). This is hard for our egocentric hearts to accept, but the purpose of God is not about us; it is for the glory of His Son that He causes all things to work for good for those who belong to His Son. 

Beyond that, however, it is the purpose of the Son to care for His people without failure and without ceasing: "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand" (John 10:27-29). Because of His love to His sheep, Jesus guarantees to us that He cannot fail to preserve His sheep for eternity, and He calls on the love of the Father for Him to guarantee what He desires for us.

The Law of God Versus Lawless Theology

Many people claim that the moral law of the Old Testament was given for Israel alone, not for the Gentiles. They base their claim on the fact that only Israel received the written law from Moses. 

That claim is wrong. 

In a familiar passage, Genesis chapters 18 and 19, we have the account of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Even people with no biblical education know the basics of the story. Why were they destroyed? God says of them, "Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very grave" (Genesis 18:20). This account is of an event more than four centuries before God gave Moses the Law on Mount Sinai. So, if there was no moral law before Sinai, by what standard did the people of Sodom and Gomorrah sin, and sin so gravely that they would be erased from the face of the earth? 

The antinomian has no answer. His assertion is based on the logical fallacy of a false equivalency, the equating of the Law per se with the recording of the Law. The antinomian is correct in his claim that there was no written record of God's Law, because that privilege was reserved for the nation of Israel: "What advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God" (Romans 3:1-2). While all men have the law of God recorded in our consciences (Romans 2:15), the Jews have had the additional blessing of the Law in written form. Thus they were doubly blessed, doubly accountable, and - ultimately - doubly punished (Isaiah 40:2). 

The problem for the antinomian is that, without God's law (I John 3:4), there is no objective standard of right and wrong, and, therefore, no standard by which to proclaim that a person is a sinner. Yet, even the antinomian claims that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). He tries to have it both ways, sinfulness without law.

I suggest that is why the American church has become so impotent in the face of a depraved and self-destructing culture. She has repudiated the one thing given by God to construct a godly society, his Law. The cry of today's average evangelical is, "Any law except God's Law!," and that is what we have received, a godless society, just like they wanted.

Infant Baptism, the Covenant, and the Reformed View

"Upon You have I leaned from before my birth; You are He who took me from my mother's womb. My praise is continually of You"(Psalm 71:6). 

When discussing the baptism of infants with Baptists, they often tell me that a little baby can't know anything about God. We should, they claim, wait until a person grows to an age of accountability or moral awareness. It is phrased in different ways. 

Yet, look at the words above from Scripture. Is that not to be our authority? We are not to look to pop psychology or secular educational assumptions. 

Unlike other psalms, Psalm 71 includes no superscription with its authorship. I think it sounds like David. Whether or not it is, is obviously the words of a covenant child, i. e., one born to a believing home. He professes even a preborn experience of the promise of God: "All your children shall be taught of the Lord, and great shall be the peace of your children" (Isaiah 54:13). Note that He doesn't say all children; rather, He says your children. Why the distinction? Because God claims the children of believers as His own (Ezekiel 16:20). Not that He promises that they are or will ever be regenerate, but that He distinguishes them covenantally from the children of pagans. We see it in His discrimination between the sons of Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael. While Ishmael is the heir of the promise, He also blesses Ishmael because of his covenantal status (Genesis 17:18-21). Both sons are members of the visible church, while only Isaac is a member of the invisible church, a proviso that Baptists consistently fail to consider. 

That is why the Reformed baptize the children of our members. God has claimed them as His own, a great privilege! Therefore, they have a right to His covenant sign, baptism. I am not attempting here to explain the Catholic or Lutheran views of baptism; that is for them to do. But the Reformed do not assume the regeneration of our infants, contrary to the oft-repeated strawman argument of Baptists. We just give them the status that God has declared of them. 

The Bible and The Watchtower Doctrine of "Soul Sleep"

According to the doctrine of the Watchtower, the human spirit disintegrates at death, and is then recreated at the final judgment. This doctrine is called informally "soul sleep," or more formally "conditional immortality."

In support of their doctrine, Jehovah's Witnesses cite Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10: "The living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing, and they have no more reward, for the memory of them is forgotten... for there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol, to which you are going." They claim that these verses describe the dead as unknowing and without memory. Is that what they say? Hardly. "Sheol" is the grave, something which Witnesses repeat tediously in other circumstances. What is in the grave? A corpse. Solomon here is dealing with the bodies of the dead, which, of course, have no activity, whether mental, physical, or spiritual. Then the Watchtower commits a logical fallacy called "false equivalency." Even though Solomon is dealing with dead bodies, the Watchtower claims that his statements apply to the spirits of the dead. They offer no exegesis for that transfer; rather, the Society merely expects its membership to swallow the assertion without thought. 

In contrast to the Watchtower's doctrine, we have the words of Jesus in response to the Sadducees, those we might call the Watchtower of His time. He said to them, "Have you not read what was said to you by God: 'I am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob'? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living" (Matthew 22:32, quoting from Exodus 3:6). Did Jesus mean that the bodies of the patriarchs were walking around among His audience. Of course not! Their bodies lay mouldering in their graves. Yet He says that they are alive, present tense, and that God is the God of such. Jesus had no concept of soul sleep or disintegration.