Forgiveness is at the heart of the Christian faith. Christ died to forgive our sins and to reconcile us to God. And Jesus taught that His disciples must forgive those who sin against them. He said, “if you do not forgive others their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses” (Matt 6:15). Forgiveness is not an option for believers. Jesus said, “And whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father also who is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses” (Mk 11:25). Christians must forgive because they have been forgiven (Matt 18:21-25).
But there is a difference between forgiving a person and reconciling your relationship with that person. Forgiveness is something Christ requires of you, no matter what the other person does. Forgiveness means that you sincerely, from the heart, cancel the other person’s debt against you personally. It involves repenting of any sinful anger and refusing to harbor bitterness against the person who has sinned against you. Forgiving means you promise to let go of the personal aspect of the offense and refuse to obsess over it.
To be clear, forgiving another person does not mean you release them from church discipline or criminal penalties. In some cases, faithfulness means that you have to personally forgive those who have sinned against you, even while filing charges against them for church discipline and seeking a legal penalty. If you’ve forgiven someone, then pursuing discipline and justice isn’t vindictive or vengeful. It’s done from a heart of love to Christ, love to the sinner, and love for others.
Forgiveness means that you sincerely, from the heart, cancel the other person’s debt against you personally.
While Christians must unilaterally extend forgiveness, it’s impossible to reconcile a relationship faithfully without mutual promises. Forgiveness is a unilateral promise, but reconciliation involves bilateral promises. In order for a relationship to be reconciled, not only must the offended party make the promises of forgiveness, but the offending party must repent of sin, promise to continue in repentance, and bear fruit in keeping with their professed repentance (Matt 3:8).
Within the church, reconciliation means that you are willing to accept the offending party as a brother or sister in Christ and to commune with them in the church. It also means that you are open to growing in your trust of this person over time, as they continue to walk faithfully in Christ, but it does not necessarily mean that you should receive them as a close companion, or that they should be restored to their former relationship with you. Christian reconciliation does not immediately imply that all trust is restored. It means that you receive them as a brother or sister in Christ.
So, when does forgiveness not lead to reconciliation?
1. When the sinning party clearly does not repent.
The Bible gives strong warnings against walking with impenitent sinners. God commands Christians to flee from the wicked. Psalm 1:1 says, “Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers.” 1 Corinthians 15:33 says, “Do not be deceived, bad company ruins good morals.” The Lord does not want us to be companions with bad company. The Christian response to an impenitent sinner is to avoid them, not to reconcile with them.
Many object that Christ ate and drank with sinners (Matt 9:10-13). And He certainly did, but only to call them to Himself and to urge them to repent of their sins (Matt 9:13). He did not fellowship with the wicked. In fact, the Bible is clear that He didn’t trust the crowds of sinners who listened to His teaching (Jn 2:24). Trusting people is not a biblical virtue. It is foolish to trust those who are untrustworthy. Jesus says, “Beware of men” (Matt 10:17). Thus, as Christians, we must not reconcile with those who do not repent, but persist in their sins.
Christian reconciliation does not immediately imply that all trust is restored. It means that you receive them as a brother or sister in Christ.
Christ fled from the wicked. He avoided going to Jerusalem because He knew people meant Him harm (Jn 7:8). Christ frequently ran away when the Pharisees or the crowds sought to coerce Him or do Him harm (Jn 6:15; 8:59; 10:39; Matt 12:14-15). He only gave up His life at the time and place when He agreed to do so in the terms of the covenant of redemption. He was a willing sacrifice for sinners. But prior to the cross, Jesus protected Himself and did not offer Himself up to the ungodly.
2. When the sinning party only seems to repent.
Sometimes unrepentant sinners will claim to repent, but they don’t really repent. They may weep and confess their sins, but it’s only worldly sorrow (2 Cor 7:10). They may say all the right words, and appear to be godly (2 Tim 3:5), but their behaviors never fundamentally change. They may change for a short time, but soon enough, they return to their patterns of sin. They may hide their sin, and make a display of outwardly righteous behavior, but the pattern of sin remains. They may not seek accountability, or they may manipulate the people who are supposed to be holding them accountable. But they persist in their sin, even while claiming to repent.
The Bible is clear that we are to avoid those who only claim to repent. 2 Timothy 3:5 warns of those “having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people.” Christians should not reconcile with people who pretend to repent, but whose lives are still enslaved to sin.
3. When the sin has caused great harm and offense.
It’s important to understand that some sins have such great consequences that they completely shatter the trust at a personal level, and the relationship can never be restored. For example, within a marriage, adultery can have such disastrous effects, and be such a betrayal of trust, that the spousal relationship can never be reconciled within the marriage covenant (sometimes called restoration). That’s why God says adultery is grounds for divorce, whether or not the adulterous spouse repents (Matt 6:31-32). Scripture nowhere requires spouses to reconcile within a marriage, when one spouse has biblical grounds for divorce, even if the offending spouse repents.
The Bible does require us to forgive those who have harmed us, and it requires us to reconcile as brothers and sisters in Christ, if the sinning party repents. But the Bible does not tell us to trust people, and receive them into close companionship, if they have utterly destroyed our trust. We must love them (Matt 5:44), but we are not required to trust them (Jn 2:24).
Finally, Christians need to be very careful not to demand that people reconcile. Too often, Christians are eager to see relationships restored. And while a restored relationship could be a beautiful thing, it may also be a terrible thing. Christians shouldn’t pressure other Christians to reconcile, when reconciliation is not biblically warranted.

This article was originally posted at PastorTomHicks.com and is posted here with permission. 

Follow Tom Hicks:

The eighteenth-century writer, Samuel Johnson, once quipped, “Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully.” Though, to my knowledge, I am not slated for such an end, I can testify to the sanctifying value of drawing near to death. It provides perspective and an opportunity to think simply, critically, and honestly, by reminding one of that unavoidable reality that Scripture announces unequivocally: “It is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment” (Hebrews 9:27).
On that day, when called to give an account for every idle word and the stewardship entrusted to us as those who have received the gospel of Jesus Christ, the kind of equivocation that often serves so well when we don’t want to make necessary judgments will be meaningless. As a Pastor, I have a double burden in this regard because I will “have to give an account” as one of those charged with keeping watch over the souls of the people I serve (Hebrews 13:17).
My late friend and mentor, Ernie Reisinger would occasionally exhort me when dealing with difficult, vitally important matters, to speak with “judgment day honesty.” He meant that I should evaluate the matter with the kind of seriousness that recognizes one day I will stand and give an account for what I say and do.
It is in that spirit that I have tried to evaluate the antics of many Southern Baptist leaders and pastors over the last seventeen months. An honest evaluation of several facts should convince Bible believing Southern Baptists who are interested in maintaining—or recovering—the integrity of the SBC that we are fast approaching DEFCON 1 in terms of how fast and far the convention has fallen.
The response to the Covid crisis, 2020 riots, BLM “protests,” governmental tyranny, and violation of religious liberties was in so many ways, abysmal. From Al Mohler’s “Covenant and Commitment” for Southern Seminary and Boyce College employees and students to Danny Akin’s disastrous “How to Shepherd Your Church through Racial Injustice” led by four Southeastern Baptist Seminary faculty to Kevin Ezell’s church planters’ similarly unbiblical assessment of the riots (though it seems NAMB may have removed their video from their website), Southern Baptists were served very poorly by those we employ to give leadership to key institutions and entities.
These are just a few highlights from the last seventeen months. Space does not allow me to elaborate on previous failures like the hiring of a faculty member who has endorsed the damnable Revoice conference or the elevating to seminary Provost of a self-described racist and white supremacist. Nor will I describe the cowardly smear campaign and admission of participation in sexual abuse coverup by Russell Moore (who stayed quiet for months if not years about what he calls “a culture where countless children have been torn to shreds, where women have been raped and then “broken down”) formerly of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission.
When questions were raised about these events by countless “SBC headquarters” (local churches), SBC elites dismissed or ignored their concerns altogether, scrubbed websites, and accused the pastors of those churches of being troublemakers or otherwise tried to gaslight them. It’s bad enough to be treated this way by those who are supposed to be our leaders. It’s doubly immoral to expect churches to continue to pay those leaders’ salaries as they do so.
Given the disconnect between the elites and rank-and-file Southern Baptists, I guess I shouldn’t have been surprised by the almost complete failure of leadership when Ed Litton’s dishonesty and pulpit plagiarism came to light.
To be sure, I did not vote for Ed Litton to be the SBC president in Nashville. I didn’t like the fact that he claimed that he did not allow women to preach in his church while videos of him and his wife preaching were circulating. I also didn’t like the fact that NAMB (and on at least one occasion, Southwestern Baptist Seminary) sponsored him speaking around the SBC on the campaign trail. For me, those are simple integrity issues.
On June 26, less than two weeks after Litton was elected President of the SBC on the second ballot, I was sent a video clip of Litton’s sermon on Romans 1, along with a sermon by JD Greear on Romans 1. The date on Greear’s sermon indicated that it was preached in January 2019, a year or so before Litton plagiarized it. A comparison of the two was (and still is) bad. Very bad. After watching the video that morning, I sent Ed a letter. I wrote it as a pastor to a pastor. I acknowledged that while there might be an explanation that I simply could not conceive, what he did “looks very bad.” I encouraged him to step away from the demands of ministry long enough to “seek help and encouragement from trusted counselors.”
Those were my thoughts after seeing just the initial plagiarized sermon by Litton. Since then at least half a dozen more have been documented, including one from several years ago where Ed and his wife stole from Tim Keller in one of their joint sermons. There may be many more, but we may never know since Ed removed over 140 of his sermons from the Internet once the scandal broke.
And make no mistake, it is a scandal—scandal of massive proportions. The emperor has no clothes, despite how much certain SBC elitists and those who want Ed to further a progressive agenda try to convince us that he is arrayed in the finest of fabric. Just ask any child. Or think about what answer you will give to the Lord were He to ask you about Ed’s plagiarism on the Day of Judgment.
To my knowledge, only one SBC leader spoke directly against pulpit plagiarism in the immediate aftermath of Litton’s dishonesty being made public. Jason Allen, President of Midwestern Baptist Seminary tweeted this on July 5, 2021.

Re re-preaching other’s sermons, I believe:
One *ought* not preach another’s serm (w/ rare exceptions) even w/ permission & attribution.
One *must* not preach another’s serm w/out permission & attribution.
If this appears to happen, the church’s elders should review & resolve.
— Jason Keith Allen (@jasonkeithallen) July 5, 2021

This is hardly profound but in the presence of the deafening silence of his fellow SBC elites, pastors and churches welcomed it. Al Mohler, who was in an admittedly awkward spot having come in third in the race for the SBC presidency behind Litton and Mike Stone in Nashville, did recently speak on the matter in response to a student question about it. He put it in the context of the widespread practice of pastors using “manufactured sermons.”
There simply is no doubt that this conversation we’re having right now is occasioned by the fact that the president of the Southern Baptist Convention, Dr. Ed Litton, has been involved to some degree in preaching someone else’s sermon. Beyond that we can see the whole issue of the kind of manufacture of sermons that is now widespread. I would simply have to say that that is precisely not what we are trying to teach or to hold up as an example here.
Again, true enough. But Southern Baptist churches and pastors could wish for the full-throated renunciation of this kind of dishonesty that a younger Mohler gave in 2006. Then, he called pulpit plagiarism “theft” and used unequivocal language to renounce it.
Words are our business, I cannot imagine using someone else’s as my own. It [Plagiarism] is one of the most despicable practices I can imagine… I cannot imagine sitting in the congregation knowing that this guy is simply parroting something he has read, borrowed, or stolen from someone else….He’s not [a preacher] if he is preaching somebody else’s stuff….It is never right to steal [a sermon] and it’s never right to suggest that it’s yours if it’s not….If a comedian stole another comedian’s material he would end up in court.
A simple google search reveals that this kind of plain-spoken assessment of pulpit plagiarism used to be common fare among Bible believing evangelical leaders, including Southern Baptists. Now, however, that we have a serial plagiarist as President of the SBC, our leaders have lost their voices. Or maybe it’s their spines. My guess is that it’s the latter.
So here is where we find ourselves. Southern Baptist Churches are being led by a President who is a confirmed pulpit plagiarist. As I see it, he should resign immediately and seek help from men of integrity who will deal honestly with him in caring for his soul. Ed Litton lacks integrity. He has forfeited any opportunity to lead the SBC effectively.
None of the SBC leaders have issued any kind of direct, public rebuke. None have called for him to resign, though several pastors have done so. Southern Baptists deserve better.
What should such leaders do when confronted with their failure to lead? They should repent and start doing what their constituents rightfully expect them to do. Or, if they refuse, they should resign.
What should churches do when the leaders whose salaries they pay fail to lead? They should call for their leaders to repent or resign. If such leaders are unwilling to respond to these kinds of admonitions from their congregational “headquarters,” then the churches should defund their institutions. If I pay you to guard my house and you stand by while enemies infiltrate at will, don’t expect me to keep you in my employ.
It is a matter of stewardship. I cannot keep count of the SBC churches who have contacted me out of a deep concern over the lack of integrity right now in their convention. Many of them have left or are in the process of leaving the SBC. Some are looking for an alternative—a way to stay Southern Baptist while demanding that the SBC elites quit ignoring simple facts and the expressed concerns of churches.
Here is what needs to happen—and in many places already is happening in churches of all sizes. Churches need to vote to stop sending financial support to those institutions and entities in the SBC whose leaders refuse to lead. Since each agency and institution gets a slice of the money given through the Cooperative Program (CP), this will inevitably mean working around the CP. I take no pleasure in that thought because the CP is an ingenuous mechanism for funding ministries around the world. Churches should determine which SBC entities—if any—they are willing to continue supporting financially. They can then decide to designate to those entities.
From my vantage point, the two entities that I am happy to support are the International Mission Board and the Disaster Relief work through our state convention. I don’t want our international missionaries to suffer for the leadership failures of SBC elites. And Southern Baptist Disaster Relief is second to none. If only half of the 47,000 SBC churches were to escrow or designate their financial gifts in this fashion, the elites would finally be forced to listen. If they are unwilling to confront Ed Litton over his lack of integrity as matter of principle, perhaps they will be motivated to do so as a matter of principal—especially if that principal begins to dry up because they have lost the confidence of the churches whom they serve.
Will this work? Absolutely. Have we reached the point where this course of action is advisable? Sadly, I believe we have. The facts of Ed Litton’s plagiarism are not in dispute. Neither is the God-honoring course of action open to him.
It is foolish to continue financing failed leadership. As long as Ed Litton remains president of the SBC, Southern Baptist leaders are failing. It is past time to hold them accountable.
It’s not complicated. It’s just hard.

Follow Tom Ascol:

Tweet Share

Day of judgment! Day of wonders!
Hark! the trumpet’s awful sound,
louder than a thousand thunders,
shakes the vast creation round.
How the summons will the sinner’s heart confound!

Although many modern Christians are likely unacquainted with Newton’s classic hymn, it would be difficult to overlook the presence of its subject matter in Western culture. Even as the remaining vestiges of biblical Christianity grow dimmer in our increasingly secular age, the Bible’s teaching on the last judgment nevertheless continues to engage the imagination of the West. History bears witness to this longstanding fascination with hell and judgment, and throughout the centuries attempts to portray these themes can be found on the page, canvas, staff, and more recently, the camera reel. One might think of Dante, whose epic journey to Paradiso led him first led him through that suffering city, or perhaps recall the macabre works of the great medieval and Renaissance painters like Giotto di Bondone’s Last Judgment (1306), and Hieronymus Bosch’s surreal triptych, Garden of Earthly Delights (c. 1500). Composers like Giuseppe Verdi have also tried to represent the final judgment through the medium of music, and his requiem Dies Irae (1874), with its crescendo of frantic strings and pounding drums, provides one notable example. Similarly, the silver screen has presented moviegoers with depictions of hell from the earliest days of cinema with films like L’Inferno (1911), to the current plethora of over-the-top horror flicks.
Although trying to convey the terrors of that final day, many portrayals of hell and judgment rely more upon the fancies of their authors, artists and composers than the biblical testimony on the matter. These sources—Hollywood perhaps being the primary offender—often shape our understanding over and above Scripture, and this is a regrettable fact considering the gravity of the subject. Thankfully, the Second London Confession’s thirty-second and final chapter on the last judgment brings clarity to this often-misunderstood topic. Just as the Poet had Virgil to guide him through the depths of the Inferno, it is fitting that we too have a guide to help us navigate this important doctrine, the illustrious seventeenth-century Particular Baptist, Benjamin Keach (1640–1704). As both a signatory of the Confession and a prolific writer, Keach offers valuable insight into the Confession’s teaching on the subject. More importantly, however, Keach helps to illuminate the Bible’s teaching on that great day of judgment and wonder.
The Coming Harvest
The Confession’s statement on the last judgment consists of three paragraphs which correspond broadly to three related aspects of the doctrine: the first paragraph speaks to the reality of the final judgment, the second paragraph highlights the nature of the final judgment, and the third paragraph provides several important applications derived from the doctrine. The first paragraph reads:
God hath appointed a Day wherein he will judge the world in Righteousness, by Jesus Christ; to whom all power and judgment is given of the Father; in which Day not only the Apostate Angels shall be judged; but likewise all persons that have lived upon Earth, shall appear before the Tribunal of Christ; to give an account of their thoughts, Words, and deeds, and to receive according to what they have done in the body, whether good or evil.
The Confession first affirms the certainty of that fixed day on which God will judge the world. Likewise, the day of judgment featured prominently throughout Keach’s writings. In his exposition of Luke 16:22, Keach guaranteed that one day, because of sin, “all men must die,” and all must pay the debt of death. In his Tropologia, Keach drew from Matthew 13:39 to highlight the inescapable day of judgment. Commenting on Jesus’ parable of the weeds, Keach noted that both sinners and God’s elect now share a common field: “In a field grows wheat and tares, good and evil seed; so in this world there are good and evil men, saints and sinners, which God would have grow together, like the wheat and tares, until the harvest.” At present, the seeds sown continue to ripen, but one day the field will be ready for that great spiritual harvest that will separate the godly from the ungodly:
When the harvest is ripe, it is cut down; the husbandman sends reapers into the field: so when all the elect are ripe for heaven, and wickedness is grown to full maturity, so that ungodly ones are all ripe for hell, the end of the world will come, and then God will send reapers into the field, which are the holy angels; and they will put down, and gather out of the field, all things that offend, and them that do iniquity.
Although the husbandman waits patiently, the time fast approaches when his bearing with wicked men will come to an end, and at that time God “will not till, plow, or sow the field of the world any more; no more Gospel to be preached, nor graces or gifts to be distributed, when this harvest is ended.” On that discriminating day of wonders, said Keach, all persons will appear before the Christ’s dread tribunal and he “will judge the world . . . all men, according to their works.”
Abandon All Hope. . .
Whereas the first paragraph emphasizes the universal nature of the final judgment, the second paragraph delineates mankind into two groups: God’s elect who will go into everlasting life in the presence of God, and the reprobate who will be cast into eternal torments and everlasting destruction. The second paragraph of the chapter states:
The end of God’s appointing this Day, is for the manifestation of the glory of his Mercy, in the Eternal Salvation of the Elect; and of his Justice in the Eternal damnation of the Reprobate, who are wicked and disobedient; for then shall the Righteous go into Everlasting Life, and receive that fulness of Joy, and Glory, with everlasting reward, in the presence of the Lord: but the wicked who know not the Gospel of Jesus Christ, shall be cast into Eternal torments, and punished with everlasting destruction, from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power.
Keach himself explicated upon these two groups in his sermon A Trumpet Blown in Zion. Delivered in 1693—nearly fifty years before Edwards famously stepped foot into the pulpit at Enfield—Keach’s fiery exposition of Matthew 3:12 and Jesus’ metaphor of the wheat and the chaff offered grave, forceful warnings of impending judgment for those outside of Christ. The wheat, wrote Keach, represents the elect who, like the grains which must be procured through much pain and effort, have had their spiritual convictions plowed up and their hearts sown with the grace of God. Keach continued: “Believers may be compared to wheat upon this respect, Christ takes much pains (to speak after the manner of men) with his own elect, not only by plowing, manuring, but by sowing, watering, weeding, fanning and purging them like wheat.” Just as wheat is able to endure cold and frost, and all manner of bitter weather, so too do God’s elect withstand trials and persecutions by the grace of the Spirit. The elect are those who, like pure wheat, will be placed in Christ’s garner, which, wrote Keach, “is meant heaven itself.” There, said Keach, “shall in no wise enter into it anything that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or that make a lie, but they that are written in the Lamb’s Book of Life.” These will be invited to that great banquet and enter into heaven’s eternal rest in the presence of God.
Conversely, explained Keach, the chaff in Christ’s metaphor are the hypocrites and the ungodly, especially those who, like the worthless fodder that cleaves to the wheat, infiltrate the church but will inevitably be purged by Christ’s winnowing fan. Although oftentimes giving off the appearance of being true saints, inwardly the chaff possess “no substance, having mere dry, barren and empty souls.” The chaff, Keach further explained, are “full of vain words and foolish talk,” and possess “vain, carnal, proud and empty heart[s].” Such persons, argued Keach, “are not like to ascend God’s holy hill, nor abide in his tabernacle,” and their ultimate end is in God’s unquenchable fire.
Throughout his works, Keach wrote at length on the nature of the punishment of the wicked. In his Tropologia, Keach recognized the disagreement among exegetes concerning the literal nature of fire described in Scripture in passages like Matthew 3:12 and 13:42, and at least in this particular work he was reluctant to take a side on whether “it be real fire or not.” Elsewhere, however, Keach allowed that the fire could be a literal, physical flame, albeit unlike anything known to man in this world: In a sermon on Luke 16:23 and the rich man in torment, Keach noted that hellfire prepared for the ungodly exceeds the severity of any earthly fire in that it torments both body and soul alike:
Both soul and body too shall be tormented for evermore, when the bodies of men have been tormented, their souls have been at ease, and sustained them under their outward sorrows, but in hell the soul will be tormented as well as their bodies; the soul will be tormented in one fire, while the body is tormented in another.
Moreover, unlike ordinary fire, hellfire does not radiate light: “If therefore the fire of hell be material fire, yet it will not be like our common fire, the property of which is to give light; but it will be dark fire: God can change that quality of fire, if be please, tho’ it may have all other properties.” For Keach, The darkness of hell points to one of the most harrowing aspects of the last judgment, namely, a spiritual darkness that entails a complete separation from God and his grace for all eternity.
Although Giotto’s Last Judgment, with its portrayal of lost souls being cast down into hell and suffering all manner of torments by Satan and his devils, attempted to touch upon the severity of the sinner’s fate—even Keach noted that one of the miseries of hell is that the condemned would spend eternity alongside the myriads of fallen angels—this and similar depictions obfuscate the most important aspect of God’s judgment: the outpouring of his wrath. It is not Satan and his angels nor Dante’s ironic punishments of the damned that should cause sinners to tremble at the thought of judgment, but, warned Keach, falling into the hands of the living God. While it may provide some reference point to the severity of God’s judgment, for Keach not even the pain inflicted by earthly fire can fully convey the nature of God’s wrath. Appealing to Psalm 90:11, Keach suggested that the torments of God’s wrath are “inconceivable, or beyond all understanding.” Although physical fire can inflict excruciating pain upon the body, God’s wrath “is far more intollerable than any fire into which any mortal was ever cast.” Similarly, wrote Keach, earthly fire “[is] nothing to the wrath of God, when God kindles it in the consciences of men, nor to hell fire.” Unlike physical fires that can be abated, Keach likened God’s wrath to a fire that is ceaseless and unextinguishable because, he further explained: “It is to satisfy divine justice . . . yet no satisfaction can [sinners] by suffering make, for the wrong done to the holiness and justice of God.” Consequently, as illustrated in Keach’s sobering analogy, God’s wrath will eternally feed upon the condemned “like as a hungry man eats that which satisfieth him not.” In that place, the condemned “will have a judgment without mercy, sorrow without joy, pain without cease, darkness without light,” and they will roar and howl—hating both themselves and their Creator—against God and his elect for all eternity. Thus, in that great judgment upon sinners, wrote Keach, “all hopes of being saved die when they die: their expectation perishes, and all means of grace cease: the door of mercy is shut for ever.”
Terror for the Wicked . . .
Painters have frequently touched upon Scripture’s teaching about the inevitability of death and judgment, and Peter Bruegel’s macabre work The Triumph of Death (c. 1562) provides one such example. Death, represented by the artist as an innumerable army of skeletons searching out its victims, ultimately overcomes all persons regardless of their status. One scene depicts a skeleton taunting a king with an hourglass that has run out of time, while another section of the painting reveals knights hopelessly trying to fend off the endless waves of death’s mercenaries. Men, women and children, nobles and peasants, and monks and priests all succumb to death’s ruthless and inescapable grasp. Likewise recognizing that death fast approaches for all persons, the Confession’s final paragraph draws out several important applications from the doctrine of the last judgment:
As Christ would have us to be certainly perswaded that there shall be a day of judgment, both to deter all men from sin, and for the greater consolation of the godly, in their adversity, so will he have that day unknown to men, that they may shake off all carnal security, and be always watchful, because they know not at what hour, the Lord will come; and may ever be prepared to say, Come Lord Jesus, Come quickly, Amen.
Like Bruegel, Keach’s exposition of Luke 16 also affirmed the inevitability of death and judgment. Because of sin, death comes to all, whether rich or poor: “Kings die as well as peasants; Caesar rides in triumph one day, and the next day stabbed to death. Alexander that conquered the world was conquered by death. Nay, grace itself exempts no man from death; the righteous die as well as the wicked.”
Furthermore, Keach warned that death and judgment can come at any time, and thus sinners’ time on earth is never guaranteed. Like Edwards’ spider dangling precariously over the fiery pit by a slender strand, Keach too cautioned his readers against any false sense of security:
That many persons are very near being cast into hell, even every ungodly and unbelieving sinner. O, how soon may some of you, if in your sins, feel how intolerable the torments of hell are? It is not afar off, no, there is only a small thread of life between sinners and eternal torments.
The life of man is like the wind that speedily passes away, a cloud that vanishes, and a flower that quickly fades. Thus, Keach cautioned, one ought not presume upon certainty of tomorrow: repent now while there is still time.
For Keach, both the terrible nature and fast-approaching time of God’s impending judgement ought to instill terror into the hearts of unbelievers, a sentiment he raised in a sermon on Matthew 13:47–50 and Jesus’ parable of the net. Although many of God’s elect have not yet been caught, the net, understood by Keach as the gospel, will one day be gathered back to the shore and “all means of making the good better, or the bad good, shall cease for ever.” That is, the current season of repentance is soon coming to an end, and sinners will ultimately face the reality that “the harvest is past, the summer is ended, and we are not saved.”  One day, those unrepentant will hear those dreaded words, “depart ye from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire.” Thus, the preacher pleaded:
How might this awaken sinners, and be a means to turn them from spiritual darkness to light; and from Satan, the prince of darkness, to God: Oh! that these closing, direful, and amazing lines, might turn many to righteousness, to believe, repent, and obey the Gospel, before the Lord Jesus come in flaming fire, rendering vengeance upon all that know not God nor obey the Gospel.
“Death may be nearer than you are aware of,” warned Keach, “and that is the evil day to all Christless sinners, then they go to hell; dare you defer seeking Jesus Christ, ‘boast not thyself of to-morrow, for thou knowest not what one day may bring forth.’”
. . . Consolation for the Godly
Keach, like the Confession, noted the “vast difference between the state of the godly and ungodly at death.” Although it does not provoke Christians to terror as it does for those outside of Christ, Keach argued that the impending judgment ought to prompt reflection upon one’s own estate:
Oh what a motive should this be to us all; God weighs our persons, our graces, our gifts, our duties, and all our services, in scales. Take heed you are not found too light, found wanting as be sure you will if you be found chaff, when put into the balance of the sanctuary.
Appealing to 1 Corinthians 11:32, Keach elsewhere urged Christians to “examine and try ourselves, judge ourselves, since the time will come which will try every person.”  In his Trumpet Blown in Zion, Keach likewise suggested this same introspection so that those in the church “would not be found chaff at the great day.” All sin will eventually be laid bare, thus Keach implored his hearers to find refuge only in the mercies of Christ and his free grace: “Be sure build on Christ alone, and see that that faith thou hast in him, be the faith of God’s elect, which sanctifies both heart and life, and is attended with good fruits.”
Furthermore, whereas the last judgment provides a dire warning to the ungodly, Keach highlighted the comfort and consolation that doctrine provides for Christians. First, Keach reminded Christians that God’s wrath is appeased towards them, and that “Christ’s blood has quenched this dreadful fire.” Christ, he continued, “hath born it, and allay ‘d it, nay, quite put it out, so that you shall never feel the burning or tormenting nature thereof.” Christ will not lose one grain of his spiritual wheat, thus the saints can have full confidence that their reward on that last day will be heaven itself. Thus, expressed Keach:
Let [Christians] lift up their hearts with joy! What a blessed and happy condition are they in now! But what will their state be when this life is ended? Such need not to fear death; for, as their souls go then to Christ, so when Christ comes, he will bring them with him; “they shall appear with him in glory.” What a harvest of joy.
Keach elsewhere spoke of the “thrice happy” estate of the redeemed. First, for those trusting in Christ and his righteousness alone, the law will be silent against them on that great day, “being fully answered.” Moreover, the Judge will smile upon the elect “as the favourites of heaven,” and will say to them “Well done, good and faithful servant.” Third, noted Keach, the saints will be free from their earthly troubles. The doctrine of the last judgment reassures believers that present trials and suffering will one day cease, and “though you have sorrow here, sorrow now, yet you shall be comforted, being delivered from whatsoever is evil, and possess whatsoever is truly good, and when you die you shall partake thereof.” Keach himself was no stranger to persecution—he, along with many of his fellow dissenters, faced imprisonment during the reign of Charles II— thus the doctrine likewise provides comfort for those reviled and facing martyrdom for the faith, and encourages believers to stand firm in the gospel knowing that one day they will be vindicated.
Finally, reflecting upon the doctrine of the last judgment ought to provoke the redeemed to praise God:
Let the redeemed of the Lord rejoice and magnify the God of their salvation, who hath given them good hope through grace, that they are delivered from wrath to come, by being called out of spiritual darkness into Christ’s marvellous light, and by him have escaped that dreadful doom, of being cast into utter darkness.
To borrow from an Augustinian sentiment, all people are born into the same, sinful lump. Thus, wrote Keach, recognizing one’s own deliverance from the coming judgment brings the wonders of God’s glorious grace and work of salvation into greater view:
We refer the excellency of divine grace; all men, my brethren, naturally are alike vile, sinful, and odious by sin; there is no difference; it is only that mighty work of the Spirit of God upon the souls of his elect, that makes them so glorious, amicable, and precious.
Therefore, Keach implored, “sing praises to our God, sing praises to our King, sing praises to our Judge, sing praises.”
Conclusion
Given the current confusion on the topic—and especially if recent surveys on the state of evangelicalism are accurate—readers today would be wise to consider the Confession’s and Keach’s teaching on the last judgment. As we have seen, the doctrine contains both hope for the godly and despair for the ungodly; it offers consolation to the redeemed and grave warnings for those outside of Christ. Although a difficult doctrine, it is an important one. Thankfully, both the Second London Confession and the voluminous writings of Keach offer readers the precision needed to navigate this crucial topic. Like Newton, one of Keach’s own hymns encapsulates this great scriptural teaching:

What Man is He that Liveth here,
and Death shall never see?
Or, from the hand of the dark Grave,
can, Lord, deliver’d be?
But blest are they, who die in Christ, 
Their Death to them is Gain;
Their Souls do go to Paradice;
The Wicked go to Pain.

Praised be God for Jesus Christ,
Who gives such Victory
Unto thy Saints, o’er Sin and Death;
Sing Praise continually.
The Godly ly in a sweet Sleep, 
They sleep in Jesus do;
And no more Pain, no Sorrow shall
for ever undergo.

Tweet Share