What Was Paul’s Last Book?

I received the following question:

If you could write about which Book is/was the last one written, that would be interesting.  You may be aware of (a man) who contends that Galatians was the last book…

We teach it was II Timothy.

Since Galatians is quite clearly written to Israel and is an Acts period book, I wonder why anyone who has knowledge of the Acts 28:28 dispensational dividing line would think that it was the last written? I think that Galatians was the first of Paul’s books written, though that is somewhat less clear than the fact that it is an Acts period book.

The last book would be II Timothy. I believe this for several reasons. In II Timothy 4:6, Paul says “the time of my departure is at hand.” The word for “departure” is the Greek apoluo, which signifies an unloosing from something. It could be literal, like unloosing a boat from a dock, but it can also signify the unloosing of one from a commission or responsibility once he has completed it. That this is what Paul means is made clear in the next sentence, where he says that “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.” The race the Lord had set before him to run at the start of his ministry was now completed. I believe that II Timothy was the last task he had to do, and once he put down his pen from writing it, his work for God was completed.

The only way I can see that one could argue that this was not the last book, therefore, is if one argued that it was the last book written in the Acts period, before Paul received his new, post-Acts ministry. To argue this, however, one would either have to be largely ignorant of the conditions that prevailed in the Acts period versus the conditions that prevail today, or else would have to be largely ignorant of the contents of II Timothy, if not both. This book clearly is not an Acts period book, so the only place for it is at the very end of Paul’s ministry. Galatians, on the other hand, belongs squarely in the Acts period.

The Unchanging God Changes

I received the following question:

Can you please explain the apparent conflict behind a God who never changes (James 1:17), and a God who not only changes His mind (Jonah 3:10 and Exodus 32:14), but also became flesh (John 1:14). Does God change?

James 1:17. Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning.

Jonah 3:10. Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God relented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it.

Exodus 32:14. So the LORD relented from the harm which He said He would do to His people.

John 1:14. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

It is absolutely true that God does not change. This is made clear in Scripture. A better example than James 1:17 is, perhaps, Numbers 23:19, where God says to Balaam and Balak, “God is not a man, that He should lie; neither the son of man, that He should repent: hath He said, and shall He not do it? or hath He spoken, and shall He not make it good?“

You did a good job of pointing out passages where God does seem to change. He changed His mind and didn’t destroy the Ninevites. He changed His mind and didn’t destroy the Israelites. And the fact that God became a man and dwelt among us seems to fly in the face of Hebrews 13:8, “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.” Yet certainly the author of Hebrews was well aware of the fact that Christ became a Man and dwelt among us. He would not have contradicted a crucial doctrine like this. What is the difference, then, and how is it that God can sometimes change?

Acts 10 Part 3

34. Then Peter opened his mouth and said: “In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality.

Peter now begins his message. He opens his mouth and begins to speak, but I do not believe that these were Peter’s words. Peter was God’s inspired apostle, and when he spoke he was both speaking on behalf of God, and was speaking with the very words of God. God had sent him on this mission to the household of Cornelius, and God would not fail to give him the words to speak when he arrived there.

Peter begins by summarizing for his hearers what he himself has just learned. He now knows the truth that God shows no partiality. He does not favor people, as we do, based on the things of this world such as nationality.

35. But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him.

Peter now declares the lesson he has learned from God, and it is one we would do well to consider. There are many in the Christian world, and even particularly among those who call themselves evangelicals or fundamentalists, who hold the idea that men who have never heard of Jesus Christ are automatically considered as unbelievers and are lost. It is unreasonable to charge a person with unbelief who has never heard the thing he was supposed to believe, yet this is done by many. Yet this is not the truth that Peter learned here.

Acts 10 Part 2

21. Then Peter went down to the men who had been sent to him from Cornelius, and said, “Yes, I am he whom you seek. For what reason have you come?”

Peter knows well how to obey, and so he goes down to the men. He identifies himself as the one they seek, and then asks them for what reason they have come? Remember, though the Spirit told Peter they had come and He had sent them, He had not told Peter why He sent them or what they would want. All He told Peter to do was to go down to them, and then to go with them. Thus, Peter asks them why it is that they have come? That three Gentile men like this would come seeking him would not have been a common experience for Peter at all. God has not informed him of what is going on here, so he is still unsure exactly why they are there.

22. And they said, “Cornelius the centurion, a just man, one who fears God and has a good reputation among all the nation of the Jews, was divinely instructed by a holy angel to summon you to his house, and to hear words from you.”

The three messengers of Cornelius identify the one who sent them. They also feel the need to throw in a few good words about Cornelius here. They too must have been aware that they were calling upon an Israelite, and that officials in the occupying army were not well-loved by such, to say the least. Thus, they bring in the fact that Cornelius fears God. The Jews hated the Romans as polytheists, and the fact that Cornelius was not one of these must have impressed them. They also bring in the fact that he is a just man. Another problem that most Jews had with their occupiers was the injustices they practiced on the people based upon the position of power they held over them. The fact that Cornelius did not do this spoke well of him. Finally, they bring in the good reputation that Cornelius has among all the nation of the Jews. This again was a most unusual thing for a Roman occupier, and said much about Cornelius in a few words.

Partaking Unworthily

I received the following question:

I have always wondered what it was the Corinthians were doing to be deserving of punishment, even unto death, when partaking of the Passover?  How could they eat and drink unworthily?  Was this unworthy eating and drinking something that was warned against in the OT as well, or is it a NT concept as Paul says they would be “guilty of the body and blood of the Lord”?    

My take on it is that since the Passover now has a new and more profound meaning for these NT believers who were Israelites, to unworthily partaking would involve either a non-believer or a believer who is not living the “Kingdom” life that was expected of him.  I understand that a life outside the will of God in the Acts period would be dealt with by God, but why is punishment attached to the partaking of the Passover if done unworthily?  

I would find it very doubtful that this would be referring to non-believers or unbelievers, since they would not be keeping the Passover outside the land. The revelation that “Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us. Therefore let us keep the feast,” (I Corinthians 5:7b-8a,) would not have been made to them. This is doubtless referring to believers who were doing something unworthy, and yet still thinking that, since they had permission, they could go ahead and keep the Passover in the way they had been given it by God’s kingdom representatives. The violent results of this showed them that this was not, in fact, the case.

Immortal Wicked?

I received the following question:

Is immortality given to the wicked?

A good question. If God pours out health on all at the start of the kingdom, does He give deathlessness to the wicked as well?

The Greek word translated immortal is athanatos. The word means without death, that is, the sin and death principle introduced into the human race by Adam. If we take this as being the definition of immortality, then certainly all in the kingdom, including the rebels at the end of it during the tribulation, will have this. But only the righteous will truly live forever, in the sense in which we usually think of the word “immortal.” So according to the common use of the word, immortality is truly “conditional” upon God granting it.

So it depends on how you take immortality. If you identify it with athanatos, then yes, all will have immortality in the kingdom, even the wicked. But if you take it as truly never dying, then that will only be granted by God to the righteous.

The Resurrection in Philippians 3:11

I received the following question:

I have a question.  Would you explain the “resurrection” found in Philippians 3:11?  It is defined as “out resurrection” by Dr. Bullinger, but I am not sure what that means. Is Paul striving to attain unto a special resurrection or is he simply focusing on being “out from among dead things in Christ in this life?” Thanks in advance for any clarity you can provide.  There are some that see this “resurrection” as a special calling with a special hope in the heavenlies.  All of this seems quite confusing in the light of our placement in God’s earthly Kingdom. 

The reason Dr. Bullinger defines this as an “out-resurrection” is that the word used here in Greek is literally the Greek word for resurrection, anastasis, with the prefix “out” in front of it, in Greek ex. So the word is exanastasis, and occurs only here.

Paul throughout this section (Philippians 3:7-15) is discussing his determination to leave old things behind and to press forward to attain to what is new. I believe that the book of Philippians was written to those in Philippi who originally believed in the Acts period who were now dealing with the postponement of the kingdom of God and the cessation of their privileges that they had previously enjoyed under it. They were having to give up the hope that the kingdom would come in their lifetime, as well as all the miraculous benefits of health and healing, not to mention Divine direction, that they were enjoying in the Acts period. Now, they had to learn to start living in the dispensation of grace, when God is silent and all the powers they formerly enjoyed had been taken away.

The Out-Resurrection

I received the following question:

An out resurrection, out from amongst the dead. When does it happen?

The whole context of Paul’s words in Philippians 3:11 reveal that he had been offered the opportunity, if he would strive after it, of leaving behind the Acts period company in which he was placed when he became a believer, and instead switching over to the dispensation of grace company that God started calling at Acts 28:28. What was automatic for anyone who was first saved during this time Paul had to strive for. In verses 13 and 14, he says, “Brethren, I do not count myself to have apprehended; but one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind and reaching forward to those things which are ahead, I press toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.” I think the New King James badly translates it here. The call is not “upward,” as of direction, but “high” as of an elevated calling. Paul was enamored with the high position that God had now thrown open to men in this new dispensation. It was his desire to leave behind everything he had gained as part of the Acts period company of believers to attain to this new and high calling. Therefore, the out-resurrection he refers to in verse 11 must be the resurrection of this new, high calling.

Afterward

I received the following question:

What do you believe that the term “afterward” is referring to in Joel 2:28 when the prophet said,
“And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:” (Joe 2:28).

What do you believe that this great event is to be after in the context? Is it after that Israel is satisfied and after they know that He is in their midst (verses 26 and 27) that He pours out His spirit upon all flesh, or is this after something else occurs?

The Hebrew word here is achar, which is related to the highly significant word acharith, which is often translated “last” in the term “last days.” However, I believe acharith has to do with the result, and the acharith days are the resultant days or the “sequel of the days,” if you will.

Joel and the Outpouring

I received the following comment:

Something to note:
In the book of Joel the Spirit outpouring (2:28-32) comes after the Great Ingathering (2:15-17). It wouldn’t be a big deal, but the first part of verse 28 says “After this”. To make things more confusing chapter three then starts talking about the great ingathering.

In reading through Joel, I don’t really think that it would be a very good source for setting up a continuous timeline. It seems to refer, in some places, to events happening in Joel’s day, but then it equates them, or passes on to, other things that will take place in the future. It seems to deal with events during the tribulation period at the end of the premillennial kingdom, events at the beginning of the millennial reign, events at the great outpouring, and events at the great ingathering. Centuries of time are crossed between verses that seem to be tied together. If you read my article on “Two Major Turning Points in the New Testament,” you know that this is nothing unusual, as I gave the example there of a single verse in Isaiah that tied together in the same sentence events in Christ’s day and events at the time of God’s wrath thousands of years later. Christ, in His teaching, split them apart again. There is no rule of sequential reference in prophetic writings, particularly in a poetic writing like Joel’s.

Luke translates “after this” as eschatais hemerais in Acts 2:17, or “in the last days,” which makes this “after this” to be referring to a particular time, not necessarily to the time following verse 27. I don’t think we can establish a definite time link between these two verses.

I don’t think we can establish one continuous timeline throughout this book. It refers to multiple events at multiple stages of the kingdom of God. Joel 3 seems to talk both about the great ingathering and the great tribulation.