The Judgement Seat of Christ - Glenn Conjurske
The Judgement Seat of Christ
by Glenn Conjurske
Of the judgement seat of Christ Paul writes, “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that every one may receive the things done in the body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.” (II Cor. 5:10). But a good many Fundamentalists today hold that there is no “judgement seat of Christ” at all, but only a “reward seat.” This they affect to base upon the supposed meaning of the Greek “Bema seat,” where (we are told) the rewards were distributed at the Olympic games. Of course there was no mention of any evil-doing there, the whole purpose of the “Bema seat” being to reward those who had done well.
All of this is used, of course, to support the modern antinomian notions of salvation and sanctification, which everywhere exclude the Scriptural doctrines of human responsibility. Sin, it is confidently affirmed, will never be brought up at all at the “Bema seat,” for that has been put away for ever by the cross of Christ, and blotted for ever from the memory of God. We appear there only to be rewarded for the good we have done. As for “whether it be good or bad,” this (we are told) is rendered from a defective Greek text. The true text, truly translated, means only “good or worthless—-good or useless”—-but sin will surely not be brought up against us there. There will be only praise there for our good, with no censure for our evil.
But the meaning of the Greek is not the real foundation of these notions at all. The alleged meaning of the Greek is only dragged in by the tail, to lend support to doctrines already held, before the Greek was thought of. And worse, when the Greek is examined, these assertions concerning its meaning are found to be false. To that I shall turn shortly, but first this:
I believe as surely as anyone that our sins have been put away for ever by the blood of Christ, but that does not alter the fact that we shall yet be called to account for them, and suffer loss for them. To David it was explicitly said, “The Lord also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die,” but this assurance could in no way abrogate the solemn judgements which the prophet had already pronounced against him. “Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house. … I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun.” (II Sam. 12:14, 10 & 11). David’s sin was put away, and he was assured that he should not die, but for all that he must yet bear the responsibility for his sin, and suffer some very severe strokes for it. Our sins are put away, and we shall not be condemned for them, but there are more kinds of judgement than condemnation. Every man judged guilty in court does not die for it, yet there is some penalty to pay.
But I turn to the Greek. As for the ‘ , the “Bema seat” as some will have it, which administers only praise and reward, and no censure or judgement properly so called, the same word is used a dozen times in the New Testament, and usually of a judgement seat in the proper sense of the term. In John 19:13 we read, “When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha.” This “Bema seat” was no “reward seat,” but a judgement seat, from which the governor pronounced judgement upon criminals. His business there was not to praise Christ, nor to reward him, nor even to acquit him, but to condemn him. “Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified.” (Verse 16). This he did from the “Bema seat.”
Again, “When Gallio was the deputy of Achaia, the Jews made insurrection with one accord against Paul, and brought him to the judgment seat, saying, This fellow persuadeth men to worship God contrary to the law.” (Acts 18:12-13). These Jews did not bring Paul to the “Bema seat” that he might be rewarded, but condemned. “And when Paul was now about to open his mouth, Gallio said unto the Jews, If it were a matter of WRONG or WICKED LEWDNESS, O ye Jews, reason would that I should bear with you, but if it be a question of words and names, and of your law, look ye to it, for I will be no judge of such matters. And he drave them from the judgment seat.” (Verses 14-16). This makes it plain enough that wrong and wickedness were the matters considered proper to be adjudged before the “Bema seat.”
Once more, in Acts 25:6-7 we read that Festus, “sitting on the judgment seat commanded Paul to be brought. And when he was come, the Jews which came down from Jerusalem stood round about, and laid MANY AND GRIEVOUS COMPLAINTS AGAINST PAUL, which they could not prove.” These were false charges, no doubt, but they prove plainly enough what manner of things were ordinarily considered at the “Bema seat.”
These examples show us plainly enough that the modern affirmations concerning the nature of the “Bema seat” are just fictions and fables, neither more nor less. These were no “reward seats,” but judgement seats.
Well, but does not John 5:24 say, “He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but is passed from death into life”? Why, yes, it does, if you are determined to translate it that way. Yet this in itself will not establish your doctrine. You must next insist upon a particular interpretation of the word “judgement.” You must hold that it refers to the process of judging, and not to the sentence passed, or the execution of the sentence. But the usage of the word “judgement” ( v ) in the New Testament certainly does not require any such interpretation, even if we insist upon rendering it always “judgement.” Consider:
Matt. 23:33—-“How can ye escape the judgment of hell?”
Hebrews 10:27—-“fearful looking for of judgment.”
Jas. 2:13—-“He shall have judgment without mercy.”
Rev. 14:7—-“The hour of his judgment is come.”
Rev. 18:19—-“In one hour thy judgment is come.”
It is plain in these examples that “judgement” is sometimes the pronouncing of the sentence, and sometimes the execution of it. Perhaps the old translators were not wholly incompetent, therefore, when they rendered it “shall not come into condemnation”—-or “damnation,” as all the early English Bibles had it. But they had no particular theology to maintain by their translation, such as you have. To maintain your theology you must first translate the text according to your theology, and then interpret the translation according to your theology, and then use the interpretation to support your theology. This is not wise.
And whatever else you may wish to do with II Cor. 5:10, it is perfectly plain that “we must all stand before the judgment seat of Christ,” and there receive for the things done in the body, both good and bad. And let it be understood that “every one of us shall give account of himself to God.” (Rom. 14:13). This is not merely the ungodly, but “every one of us.” Can anyone be so infatuated as to suppose that there will be no sin brought up when we are thus required to give account of ourselves? Will this be one grand boasting session, with everyone giving account of his good deeds only? Methinks I would as much shrink from that as from giving account of my sins. The notion is also directly contrary to common sense.
But what saith the Scripture? “But I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.” (Matt. 12:36-37). Could anything be plainer than this? We shall give account of both the good and the evil, and the judgement issue accordingly in both justification and condemnation. Some, of course, will entirely exempt the godly from this “day of judgment,” but who then are those who are “justified” by their words?
Of course I know very well that none of the godly will be condemned to hell at the judgement seat of Christ. Still they will be judged according to their works. It is not merely that their works shall be judged, while they stand by as spectators. “Every one of us shall give account of himself to God.” Peter says, “If ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man’s work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear, forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things,” etc. (I Pet. 1:17-18). He writes thus to the godly, who call upon the Father, and know that they were redeemed, for every man, including the godly, shall be thus judged. “Every one of US shall give account of himself to God.” And he says not that God will judge our works, but that he will judge according to our works. It is the persons who are judged.
Some, who are more dogmatic than thoughtful, cannot understand how this can be. They suppose that if we were to be judged according to our works, we must all be condemned to hell. This is very much insisted upon by some who contend that we shall never be judged at all. But this, I am bold to say, is the reflection of a very shallow system of theology, which is entirely ignorant of one of the most important doctrines of Scripture. It knows nothing of evangelical righteousness. It perceives nothing of gospel worthiness. “They shall walk with me in white, for they are worthy,” says the Lord. (Rev. 3:4). This is not legal worthiness, but it is real worthiness nevertheless. And David prays, “Judge me, O Lord, according to my righteousness, and according to mine integrity that is in me.” (Psalm. 7:8). And again, “I was also upright before him, and I kept myself from mine iniquity. Therefore hath the Lord recompensed me according to my righteousness, according to the cleanness of my hands in his eyesight.” (Psalm 18:23-24). This is not legal righteousness, nor imputed righteousness either, as is obvious on the face of these texts, but evangelical righteousness. It is personal and practical. The understanding of this doctrine is the key to the understanding of the book of Job, of many of the Psalms, and indeed of much of both the Old and New Testaments. But antinomians cannot penetrate this mystery. They can find no righteousness in the Bible but legal or imputed, and they must therefore wander through Scripture as a man lost in the woods, whose compass points always to his own belt buckle.
The apostle John lends his support to this doctrine also, saying, “And now, little children, abide in him, that when he shall appear we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming. If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him.” (I John 2:28-29). It is not imputed righteousness which shall give us confidence before him at his coming, but our abiding in him and doing righteousness. And what could make us ashamed before him at his coming, if no sin were to be brought up there?
If some will extricate themselves from this difficulty by divorcing the judgement seat of Christ from the coming of Christ, the Scriptures will not bear them out. “Stablish your hearts, for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh. Grudge not one against another, brethren, lest ye be condemned. Behold, the judge standeth before the door.” (James 5:8-9). It is the judge who is coming, “the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom.” (II Tim. 4:1). “Behold I come quickly, and my reward is with me.” (Rev. 22:12). The coming of Christ and the judgement seat cannot be separated, and “reward,” it should be pointed out, may designate a recompense for evil as well as for good. It does so without question in II Pet. 2:13, where we read of some who “shall utterly perish in their own corruption, and receive the reward of unrighteousness.”
But we must yet consider the phrase “good or bad.” The Greek texts of the modern critical editors reject V in favor of ‘ , with little enough reason. Of the old uncials, ‘ is the reading of a and C alone, standing against p46BD, and almost all the later mss., uncial and cursive. A and I are defective. I may perhaps be pardoned for suspecting that the real reason the critical editors adopt ‘ here is that it sets aside the reading of the Textus Receptus and the Byzantine tradition, and for my further suspicions that those editors would unhesitatingly accept the testimony of p46BD against aC, if the former were also against the common text. Even Hort takes aC over BD—-here.
But suppose our own notions of textual criticism are all a dream. Suppose it is quite proper to take the testimony aC against B and the rest of the world, and we must have ‘ after all. This will not lend one tittle of support to the antinomian notions which men endeavor to found upon it. If we read V , this word is commonly used for evil all over the New Testament. As for ‘ , excluding II Cor. 5:10, it is used but four times in the New Testament. Those four are these:
John 3:20—-“Every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.”
John 5:29—-“They that have done evil unto the resurrection of damnation.”
Tit. 2:8—-“having no evil thing to say of you.”
James 3:16—-“For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work.”
Now in the light of these plain scriptures, it is the merest tomfoolery to contend that ‘ does not designate moral evil, or evil in the proper sense of the term.
Let us then hear the conclusion of the whole matter. The old and common views of the judgement seat of Christ, which have prevailed among the godly the world over and world without end, are founded upon sound and unimpeachable interpretation of Scripture. The antinomian notions with which some men seek to overturn these views are based upon nothing more solid than the will to have it so. Those notions empty the Scriptures of their plain and indisputable meaning.
Glenn Conjurske