My only hope is that you see the time frame references the New Testament is speaking about, and realize that much of what we consider “end of history events” are actually “end-time events” that have already occured in the past. I also hope that when you see a phrase like “last days” in Hebrews, that you will understand where we are in redemptive history. We are not waiting on the last days, we are living in them.

Gordian Knot Eschatology
As we begin this study on the end times, I would like to address you from the junkyard of eschatological insanity that we find ourselves in today. To my left lies a cardboard cutout of the late Harold Camping, a stack of books titled “88 Reasons Why The Rapture Will Occur In 1988”, and a few posters of various blood moons, pale horses, and tracks about being left behind. To my right, an ever-growing pile of Antichrist candidates and mark of the beast hopefuls heaped on top of one another and most are now well rusted.
All around us is the odious stench of eschatological failure. From end times views assuming future failure, to failed past and present predictions, to wild speculations about Gog, Magog, and Vladamir Putin. Is it any wonder that the church is confused, frustrated, and lacking the joy and hope that a Biblical view will bring?
In this series on the end times, my hope is to bring the joy, clarity, and hope back into eschatology. And to do that, we need to flush everything we have heard about the end times, clean down the eschatological toilet, and wave goodbye as it goes back to where it belongs. I say this so strongly because the Bible was never meant to be a Gordian knot to confuse, frustrate, and paralyze you. It was always meant to be a clear revelation to encourage, strengthen you, and give you a living hope as you face the days ahead. When we return to what the Bible says and examine it in Biblical ways, I believe eschatology can be one of the most encouraging topics you will ever study.
So, in the weeks ahead, I want us to look at what the Bible says about the end times, and today I want to focus on the consideration of time. When do the end times begin? Are they getting ready to happen in the 21st century? Are they still long into the future? Or did they begin sometime in the past? Let us look at a few passages in Scripture to gain a Biblical perspective.
End Time Incarnation
By far, one of the clearest passages in all of Scripture, that teaches us when the end times will begin, is Hebrews 1:1-2, which says:

God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.- Hebrews 1:1-2

The author of Hebrews is appealing to two very different sets of times in the history of redemption. There is the old covenant era of temples, feasts, priests, and sacrifices, where God once spoke to His people through the fathers and the prophets. This era is known as the Old Testament. But, now we are told a new era of human history has dawned (in fact it is the final era of human history), that began when Christ came as the incarnate Son of God.
What Hebrews is saying, is that when Jesus came He not only secured salvation for His people, but He also fulfilled all of the Old Covenant expectations, types, shadows, and norms, in Himself. For instance, He is our true King (Hebrews 1:8), that serves as true priest (Hebrews 2:17), making Himself to be our true and perfect sacrifice (Hebrews 7:27), offering Himself in God’s true heavenly temple (Hebrews 9:11), to secure a perfect unvarnished redemption. The point this book is making is that when Jesus uttered “It is finished”, He perfectly drew all of the Old Covenant types and shadows to a glorious end, fulfilling every jot and tittle of the Law, leaving no temple stone unturned, so that He could become the cornerstone of a new end time era. In Him, the old has been finished, and the new has come.
The importance of this cannot be understated. Jesus Christ put an end to the old era of redemption and began a new redemptive era called “these last days” at His coming nearly 2000 years ago. That is why the author of Hebrews says that God has spoken to us during the ends of time because he assumes we would understand that these end times began in Jesus’ first glorious coming! And since that much is true, it is clear to say that you and I have been living in the end times our entire lives. It is also clear to say that the Church has existed entirely during the period called the “last days”. That fact has been true for two successive millennia and will continue until the Royal Son returns a final time!
Unlike what many have wrongly said, the Church is not an asterisk period, the Gentile Church was not plan B, and we are sandwiched awkwardly between the Old Testament and a future millennial kingdom. The Church was, is, and will continue to be God’s plan A, for these last days. We are His end-time bride on His end-time mission until the final sands in God’s end-time glass have fallen.
Whatever thoughts we may have about this topic, at a minimum needed to be ground by the firm exegetical understanding that the “last days” have already come and that we are currently living in them. To that end we continue we a few more proofs.
End Time Dissolution
As mentioned above, one of the reasons we can be so confident that the end times have already begun is that Jesus so carefully and methodically brought an end to all the old-timey stuff. He brought a new priesthood, new temple, new mountain, new sacrifice, a new bride, and is bringing about a new covenant city. In the weeks ahead we will examine some of these things in greater detail, but for now, how about a summary? And how about we begin with the old and new bride?
In the Old Testament, there is very specific wedding language that must be understood before we will have any hope of understanding the eschataological bride that is given to Christ in the New Testament. Take for example, Israel. In the Old Testament, Israel was called to be God’s faithful and covenantal bride (Ezekiel 16:8-18). She is the one He lovingly drew out of the land of Egypt, clothed in His love, and brought to a mountain marriage ceremony at Sinai (Jeremiah 31:32; Ezekiel 16:59-60).
If this were not clear enough, God explicitly calls Himself the husband of Israel in Isaiah 54:5 and identifies their relationship as a marriage betrothal in Jeremiah 2:2. It was these people that God set His affections upon (Deuteronomy 7:6-9) and it was this nation who provoked His holy husbanding jealousy (Exodus 20:5; Ezekiel 16:38). It is to this matrimonial status that God appeals to Israel to repent (Jeremiah 3:14), when she burned in belligerent and raunchy affections, playing the whore with the other pagan nations and pagan gods (Ezekial 16:27-48).
Instead of purity and fidelity to her covenant Husband Lord, she acted shamefully in debauched spiritual adulteries (Hosea 2:3-7) until she provoked the righteous fury of her God. For a time, God graciously pursued His faithless bride, beckoning her to leave her lurid pleasures behind and to be reconciled to Him (Hosea 2:7; Joel 1:8). But, alas, it was to no avail and they exhausted His mercy.
In the end, God’s first bride became so polluted in her perversions, that God, Himself, issued those ten faithless tribes a formal certificate of divorce (Hosea 2:2; Isaiah 50:1) and wrote them out of the annals of history through a devastating Assyrian invasion. Along with that, God also warned the southern nation of Judah, that if she continued to play the harlot, like Israel, her fate would be the same as her twin harlot sister (Jeremiah 3:6-10). That imagery is the operative backdrop that is in play, as soon as we turn the page over and into the New Testament.
When we arrive in Matthew we must remember two important truths. 1) God is still married to Judah (although barely). And 2) God is not a polygamist.
That second point is especially poignant because when we see God taking for Himself a new bride (The Church), we ought to remember that the only way this could be possible, is if Judah is also issued a formal divorce from God. And while we will explore this topic more fully in the weeks ahead, that is one of the major themes of the book of Revelation, how the whore of Babylon, who I take to be the unrepentant, paganized, and Rome-loving Judah, will be put away (Revelation 17:1-18) so that God can claim for Himself a new and spotless, blood-bought, bride (Revelation 21:2).
Without getting into the weeds, we can rightly assume that if God marries the Church, then He must put away the harlot Judah. We know that this divorce from God must be executed in lawful ways because He is righteous and is never the unfaithful party in His marriage. Knowing that the New Testament records how the Jews piled their adulteries up to the heavens, even making Israel blush in shame. It was Judah who got in bed with Rome and turned their back on God. It was Judah who became so blinded in her defilements that she killed God’s one and only Son. And it was feckless Judah, that God brought down the full fury of His righteous, just, and divorcing wrath.
We can know that we are living in the end times, not just because the author of Hebrews has said so, but also because God has put away His old unfaithful brides (both Israel and Judah) and has taken for His Son, a new end time wife (The Church). A bride that was blood-bought on a better mountain called Calvary, married to Him in His resurrection from the dead and is waiting for the final consummation when He returns and calls her into His arms forever. That is the mystery of the Gospel (Ephesians 5:32) and a sure clue that we, the church, His bride, is already living in the end times.
Again, we will revisit this theme when we get to the book of Revelation, but for now, let us proceed along.
End Time Demolition
Along with putting away His old wives, part of Jesus’ work to usher in the new end time Kingdom was to put away the old faithless city of Jerusalem. As you are aware, Jerusalem was the old covenant city of God where He would meet with His people. It was in that city He promised to dwell within the temple, live within their midst, to be their God, and for them to be His unique chosen people. It was in this city that the epicenter of Old Covenant religion and eschatological hope collided, with every song, every feast, and every sacrifice. Yet, in the end, this city was put away just as decisively as the faithless prostitute of old.
In some of the final moments of Jesus’ life, the city of Jerusalem collectively turned against the Son of God, and sided with Caesar as their one and only king (John 19:15). Since God alone was supposed to be King of Israel, the irony, idolatry, and infidelity were palpable. Is it any wonder that Jesus pronounced covenantal curses on this city, for all of her longstanding rebellion against God, in Matthew 23:34-36? The text says:

34 “Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city, 35 so that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous bloodshed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36 Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation. – Matthew 23:34-36

Jesus is making a straightforward claim here. Jerusalem was entirely at fault as the covenant breaker! She had systematically cut down God’s prophets of old, killing them every time God sent them. It was this Babylonesque, city of sin, that would also slaughter the disciples of Christ in cold-blooded murder, after turning on God’s beloved Son, like a rabid dog, slaying Him and crucifying Him.
Read More
Related Posts:

The Scriptures teach both by precept and example that God’s ministers–those who serve in God’s sanctuary, must be “jealous with his jealousy” (Numbers 25:12), that is, our zeal for God’s holiness must supersede our natural love for our family and friends and neighbors. The truth of God, the right worship of God, is more precious to us, such that we will not compromise or buckle even in the face of natural affection, even under the influence of pity and empathy. The relevant application for us, as Fr. Robinson noted, is that the empathetic sex is ill-suited to the ministerial office, and thus women’s ordination is indeed a watershed issue.

A number of years ago, I kicked up a hornet’s nest by highlighting how empathy, as understood and practiced in the modern world, is dangerous, destructive, and sinful. Since then, every so often, another battle in the Empathy Wars breaks out (usually on social media), and we all learn something. In most of these dustups, there is an underlying dynamic that manifests again and again, and now seemed as good a time as any to identify it. Providentially, the recent controversy involving Fr. Calvin Robinson and the Mere Anglicanism conference provides the perfect opportunity to do so. The dynamic I have in mind is the intersection of feminism in the church, theological drift, and the sin of empathy.
My basic contention is that running beneath the ideological conflicts surrounding all things “woke” (race, sexuality, abuse, and LGBTQ+) is a common emotional dynamic involving untethered empathy–that is, a concern for the hurting and vulnerable that is unmoored from truth, goodness, and reality. In the modern context, empathy is frequently, as one author put it, “a disguise for anxiety” and “a power tool in the hands of the sensitive.” It is the means by which various aggrieved groups have been able to steer communities into catering to greater and greater folly and injustice. And a key ingredient in making this steering effective is feminism.
Controversy in Carolina
Which brings me to Fr. Robinson. Others have described the controversy in greater detail (see here, here, and here), but the simplified version is that Fr. Robinson was asked to speak on Critical Theory: Antithetical to the Gospel. Rather than simply focusing on Critical Race Theory or Queer Theory, Fr. Robinson went to the root of the matter and identified Marxism, Liberalism, and Feminism as the origin of the rest. In particular, he identified feminism as the gateway drug to Critical Theory in the church, calling women’s ordination a “Trojan Horse” and a “cancer.” In doing so, Fr. Robinson was simply following in the footsteps of another Anglican intellectual, C.S. Lewis, who in his famous essay, “Priestesses in the Church?”, notes that ordaining priestesses seems to entail a number of other modifications to Christian theology, including addressing “Our Mother in Heaven,” and the notion that Incarnation might just as well have taken a female form.1 As Lewis notes, “Goddesses have, of course, been worshiped: many religions have had priestesses. But they are religions quite different in character from Christianity.” You can read Fr. Robinson’s full remarks at his substack. He ably describes the ideological dimension of the slippery slope from feminism to other forms of Critical Theory (his account of Marx, Luther, and Liberalism is less compelling)
More than that, he briefly described the social dynamics in play and connected it particularly to empathy.
Generally speaking, men tend to be more theologically rigid, whereas women tend to be more theologically flexible. That is because men do not have the emotional intelligence of women. We are more black and white, meaning we tend to be logic-based when it comes to problem solving. Women tend to be more inclusive. They are more empathetic and tend to be more emotion-based when solving problems. You can see how that might be a problem when a group is claiming to be an oppressed minority, and the thing preventing them from attending Church is the cruel doctrines and the regressive scriptures we follow. Which empath wouldn’t want to compromise in order to make a so-called oppressed minority feel included?
To expand on Robinson’s point, he is correct that, in general, women are more empathetic than men. And, in itself, this is a God-given blessing. Empathy–that is, vicariously experiencing the emotions of another–can be a wonderful thing in its place. It fosters connection and bonding. It’s why women frequently act as the glue that holds communities together. Abigail Dodds describes some of the benefits of this God-given feature.
Research shows that women in particular are more empathetic than men when seeing other people in pain. I think this reflects a wonderful design feature that God has given women that benefits not only any children we might have, but our entire communities.
A woman who is sensitive to the feelings of others, especially their pain, will be a sort of first responder. She is able to move toward the hurting. She can sound the alarm that someone is in need. And very practically for mothers, she can sense her infant’s need for food and sleep and attention. She can detect a downcast glance from her teenage daughter or son. She can tell if her husband is carrying some frustration from his workday. Doesn’t this make sense with God’s design for a woman? The one he called helper (Genesis 2:18)? What a gift God has given to women.
Crucially, however, what is a blessing in one place is a curse in another. The same impulse that leads a woman to move toward the hurting with comfort and welcome becomes a major liability when it comes to guarding the doctrine and worship of the church. There are times–usually involving grave error or gross sin–when God forbids empathy and pity. When someone–even a close family member–entices Israel to commit idolatry and abandon the Lord, “You shall not yield to him, or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him” (Deuteronomy 13:6-10). So also in the case of first-degree murder, or of bearing false witness in court (Deuteronomy 7:16, 19:13, and 19:21). In such cases, God is adamant that “your eye shall not pity them.”
This principle is highly relevant for the leadership and governance of the church (whether we’re talking Anglican priests, Presbyterian elders, or Baptist pastors). Whatever other functions ministers may perform (administration, service, care for the sick), the sine qua non of the ministerial office is teaching and guarding the doctrine and worship of the church. In such moments, empathy and pity are a liability, not an asset.
To use a biblical example, when Moses comes down the mountain in Exodus 32 and witnesses the gross idolatry of the Israelites, he says, “Who is on the Lord’s side? Come to me.” And the sons of Levi gathered to him. He then tells them to pick up their swords and to go to and fro through the camp, killing their brothers, companions, and neighbors. Their eye was not to pity those who had committed such evil. God’s response to their obedience was to ordain them to the priesthood.
Similarly, in Numbers 25, when the Israelites are confronted with the very first Pride parade, when the Israelite man struts through the camp with his idolatrous Midianite bride, Moses and the elders of Israel weep at the tent of meeting. Phinehas, however, takes action, following the man and woman into their tent and driving his spear through both of them (presumably while in coitus). And God’s response is to say, “That man will make a great priest.”
In other words, the Scriptures teach both by precept and example that God’s ministers–those who serve in God’s sanctuary, must be “jealous with his jealousy” (Numbers 25:12), that is, our zeal for God’s holiness must supersede our natural love for our family and friends and neighbors. The truth of God, the right worship of God, is more precious to us, such that we will not compromise or buckle even in the face of natural affection, even under the influence of pity and empathy. The relevant application for us, as Fr. Robinson noted, is that the empathetic sex is ill-suited to the ministerial office, and thus women’s ordination is indeed a watershed issue.
Read More
Related Posts:

It is my desire to, “put away all filthiness and rampant wickedness and receive with meekness the implanted word” even in the face of darkness and evil. As a result of that, I have made a promise to myself—and now to my readers—not to lash out in anger, even when I feel justified in doing so. This has meant sitting on some subjects that I feel strongly about and not speaking out on them, even when I see others doing so.

Know this, my beloved brothers: let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger; for the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God. Therefore put away all filthiness and rampant wickedness and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls.
James 1:19-21
I wanted to write a short article today about the wisdom of silence.
There’s an awful lot of awful news, which has left the world with fresh scars in recent days, and the responses have been varied. Some of those responses are heartfelt, and yet unwise, some are evil, some are good. I’ve seen pastoral tweets and helpful counsel, some standing in support, others in opposition. These responses beget further responses, and the cycle goes on.
In just a few weeks, another tragedy will strike—though likely not on this scale—and we’ll see a similar explosion.
Then there’ll be another.
And another.
So much of what I see causes me immense grief, as I’m sure it does for many of you reading, and some of what I see brings out anger in me. I wish I was slower to anger in these things, but I’m not. I need to be sanctified further, just as we all do.
Read More
Related Posts: