Returning to the Biblical Bema

[asterisktom]

Surely you (a full preterist) jest.

HankD

I never jest about things like this.

Which would surprise you more: For me to say that I see clearly the basis for Preterism in the Bible (which I certainly do) - or to say that I don't?

 

[HankD]

Returning to the Biblical Bema​

Part Two​

Each one of these "Bema" passages from Acts involve a civil magistrate making a judicial decision, some involving matters of life or death. There are no rewards spoken of here. No Olympic games or any such thing.

- Romans 14:10. "But why do your judge you brother? or why do you show contempt for your brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ."

At first glance this might be used to hold up the modern notion of Christians only being present at the Bema - only you read on to verse 11, and read the cross-references of Isaiah 45:23 and Phil. 2:9- 11. Clearly this is an event which involves ALL of creation,

"that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the father."

Every knee bows at this Bema. Everyone will have this experience at the end of our lives, Christians as well as every unsaved person. The fact that Romans 14:15 connects the Bema with Phil. 2:9- 11 makes this absolutely certain. Who do we believe then, the inspired Apostle Paul or these modern writers and their imagined scenario of athletic awards? Shouldn't the biblical evidence be given first consideration?

"For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to what he has done, whether it be good or bad." (2nd Cor. 5:10.)

Once again, this will be a universal experience for everyone who exists or has existed, saved and unsaved. Don't take my word for it. Read the verse in context and you will see, if you are willing to let the Word explain itself, that the passage speaks of Christians as well as unsaved.

3. THE BEMA IS THE GREAT WHITE THRONE.
Part of the method of faulty expositors of the Word of God is to assign non-cooperating puzzle pieces to another part of the puzzle. This is what is done with the Great White Throne Judgment.

Does it make sense to you that something as awesome as this would only be mentioned once in scripture? No. In fact it is mentioned several times in scripture. Many of these other occurrences were covered earlier in this article. We should allow the Bible to use different terms for the same concept.
For instance, in Revelation there is no mention of "justification", "sanctification", etc. Yet we do read of the ones whose "robes are washed in the blood of the lamb", of the "overcomers" and of those who "follow the Lamb wherever He goes". It is the same with the Bema (Judgment Seat of Christ) and the Great White Throne. The latter is a spiritual, symbolic description in a spiritual, symbolic book.

4. EVERYONE GETS REWARDS AT THE BEMA, BUT....
Jesus had promisedthe 1st century Christians and unsaved alike (Rev. 22:12) "I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to everyone according to his work." Everyone will get rewards. But look at the wider context (verses 11- 15. The unsaved do indeed get their reward - judgment and eternal doom!). Consider these verses:

"And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time." (2nd Peter 2:13)

"Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core." (Jude 11)

"Reward her even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double according to her works: in the cup which she has filled fill to her double." (Rev. 18:6)

5. RETHINKING THE BEMA
It is certainly hard to unlearn something we have been taught. The idea of being rewarded for our righteous acts (works, actually) goes contrary to the Gospel itself.

If it is not right that any flesh glories before God, how is it possible that we should be rewarded over against other Christians for accomplishments that we have no right to claim credit for? Or do we not believe that it is Christ who works in us both to will and to do of His good pleasure? (Phil. 2) And why would He reward us for something that was really His doing?

How can we expect rewards for our obedience, seeing that even if we obey perfectly in everything we are still only unprofitable servants? (Luke 17:10)

No, the modern notion of the Bema award-judgment is a concept that is foreign to Scripture.

It is foreign to the Biblical use of the word.
And it is foreign to what we know of God and the Gospel of His grace.

Luke 6:23 Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy: for, behold, your reward is great in heaven: for in the like manner did their fathers unto the prophets.​

Luke 6:35 But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.​

1 Corinthians 3:14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.​

Hebrews 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.​

2 John 1:8 Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward.​

Comments?​

HankD

 

[HankD]

I never jest about things like this.

Which would surprise you more: For me to say that I see clearly the basis for Preterism in the Bible (which I certainly do) - or to say that I don't?

Hi Tom,

Your Full Preterist view is evident even in an avalanche of criticism including my own. You have stood your ground.

I was centering from your perception of how the vast majority of people react to the "newness" of your view of eschatolgy having been completed in AD70.

I stand corrected.

Thanks
HankD

 

[John of Japan]

Two points I would like to address here.

The first is that, no, my point is not "all wrapped up in the NT usage of the word". That is a part of it. But I also used cross-reference. Cross-referencing, especially when both passages are from the same author, as is the case here, can be very helpful.

You still have not answered my linguistic points, and they were my main objections to your ideas.

So I'll continue in that vein first. The hapax legomena of the NT (words that only occur once in the original) are what makes it impossible for your method of NT semantics (the study of meaning) to be successful. If we are not allowed to examine usages outside of the NT for a NT word, then those words that occur only once, or sometimes several times, cannot be translated. 1 Peter 3:3 is just one of many (Peter did this a lot, as does Luke). It would be impossible to translate emploke ("plait") there if we did not use extra-Biblical sources.

I compared Paul with Paul - and then referred back to Isaiah, going to the very verse that Paul cited. This is what I wrote, underlining added:

----------------From the OP----------------------​

"Romans 14:10. "But why do your judge you brother? or why do you show contempt for your brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ."

At first glance this might be used to hold up the modern notion of Christians only being present at the Bema - only you read on to verse 11, and read the cross-references of Isaiah 45:23 and Phil. 2:9- 11. Clearly this is an event which involves ALL of creation,

"that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the father."

Every knee bows at this Bema. Everyone will have this experience at the end of our lives, Christians as well as every unsaved person. The fact that Romans 14:15 connects the Bema with Phil. 2:9- 11 makes this absolutely certain."

------------------End of Quote---------------------​

My second point is, well, the same as my first point. The above comments should show, answering your challenge, that Paul's Bema is not an awards ceremony - at least not in the sense meant by most today.

I didn't intend to deal with your exegetical errors, but no one else is, so here goes.

First of all, the reference in Isaiah is not time specific. It is a prophecy, but we do not know when the fulfillment will be. Having said that, you are correct that Paul is quoting Isaiah in both passages. What you missed is the context of Isaiah, because in v. 25 he said "In the LORD shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory." Isaiah was arguing from the general ("every knee shall bow") to the specific (Israel will be saved), and Paul is doing the same.

Paul is not exegeting Isaiah, just quoting him as a warning to Christians that hey, we'll all have to bow before God someday, so get right with your Christian brothers now. He makes it very plain in the passages you mentioned, especially Romans 14, that he is speaking specifically to believers, using the Isaiah passage as a warning (without exegeting it). For you to say that then Paul is speaking of a general judgment is taking the passage clean out of context. The context (both the immediate context and the fact that Rom. is written to believers) is very clear that Paul is warning believers and speaking of a judgment of believers. So that makes your claim of absolute, positive correctness sound pretty strange to me.

What makes you theologically wrong is that you would have us believe that Christians will be judged for sin, if we carry your view out to its logical conclusion. This is wrong, dead wrong. Christ cleanses us from "all unrighteousness" (1 John 1:9), and we will never be condemned (Rom. 8:1). So theologicaly there must be a separate judgment for believers without punishment for failure or sin.

The idea that we believers will be judged at the Great White Throne Judgment is wrong on so many levels. Any simple exegesis proves that. The ones judged there are dead. We are alive. No one there receives anything but "the lake of fire, which is the second death." We receive eternal joy with Christ.

However Christ does indeed come with rewards. His reward is with Him, as it says in Revelation. But the rewards are only two, when it comes down to it: eternal life for the believing redeemed, retribution for the unrepentant. This, too, is taught in that last chapter of Revelation.

As for us receiving no rewards but Heaven, this shows that you haven't completely studied the subject. There are a number of crown rewards in the NT that your view doesn't begin to cover. In fact,the very idea that eternal life is a reward is theological nonsense. A reward is for something we have done. Heaven is the gift of God. Case closed. Absolutely closed. You are completely wrong here.

 

[asterisktom]

You still have not answered my linguistic points, and they were my main objections to your ideas.

What do you expect from a non-linguist?

Moreover I get the impression that you have not really understood what I wrote about linguist vs. biblicist. When I pressed the issue about the importance of being a biblicist you wrote of all the years of training you had as proof. Those years of training, just as my years at BJ and elsewhere, do not make either of us Biblicists.

Being a Biblicist is one who is willing to look, among other things, even at his own Bible training in the light of ongoing, prayerful study of the Bible. It is being willing to change as the evidence becomes clearer - whatever the cost to reputation.

So I'll continue in that vein first. The hapax legomena of the NT (words that only occur once in the original) are what makes it impossible for your method of NT semantics (the study of meaning) to be successful. If we are not allowed to examine usages outside of the NT for a NT word, then those words that occur only once, or sometimes several times, cannot be translated. 1 Peter 3:3 is just one of many (Peter did this a lot, as does Luke). It would be impossible to translate emploke ("plait") there if we did not use extra-Biblical sources.

I am not discounting the importance of extra-biblical information - in their place. But words like emploke or spermologos are not as important as Bema, so the fact that they are hapax legomena is not that big a deal.

I didn't intend to deal with your exegetical errors, but no one else is, so here goes.
...
(BTW, my snipping is due to time constraints. If you feel I am passing up a really important point feel free to restate it.)
...

Paul is not exegeting Isaiah, just quoting him as a warning to Christians that hey, we'll all have to bow before God someday, so get right with your Christian brothers now. He makes it very plain in the passages you mentioned, especially Romans 14, that he is speaking specifically to believers, using the Isaiah passage as a warning (without exegeting it). For you to say that then Paul is speaking of a general judgment is taking the passage clean out of context. The context (both the immediate context and the fact that Rom. is written to believers) is very clear that Paul is warning believers and speaking of a judgment of believers. So that makes your claim of absolute, positive correctness sound pretty strange to me.

It may seem strange to you because that is not how you were taught. And, if you were ever exposed to it, it was probably presented in a scoffing manner, so that you did not approach it objectively.

What makes you theologically wrong is that you would have us believe that Christians will be judged for sin, if we carry your view out to its logical conclusion. This is wrong, dead wrong. Christ cleanses us from "all unrighteousness" (1 John 1:9), and we will never be condemned (Rom. 8:1). So theologicaly there must be a separate judgment for believers without punishment for failure or sin.

"Theologically" = "according to my system".
There can be no judgment without a judge.
A judge does not just dole out rewards, but punishment as well.
God, in several passages, written to Christians, is called "Judge".

One thing you seem to overlook is that, though the Epistles are written to Christians they are also written with the realization that there will always be non-Christians mixed in with Christian gatherings. This is why we have passages like this.

...

As for us receiving no rewards but Heaven, this shows that you haven't completely studied the subject. There are a number of crown rewards in the NT that your view doesn't begin to cover.

What do you know what I have studied or not studied? I did a separate article on the crown rewards. It is somewhere on the Net. I will dig it up and post it here if I find it. That was an eye-opener also.

In fact,the very idea that eternal life is a reward is theological nonsense. A reward is for something we have done. Heaven is the gift of God. Case closed. Absolutely closed. You are completely wrong here.

Aw, come on, John. Quit beating around the bush. How do you really feel?:smilewinkgrin:

 

[John of Japan]

What do you expect from a non-linguist?

Moreover I get the impression that you have not really understood what I wrote about linguist vs. biblicist. When I pressed the issue about the importance of being a biblicist you wrote of all the years of training you had as proof. Those years of training, just as my years at BJ and elsewhere, do not make either of us Biblicists.

Being a Biblicist is one who is willing to look, among other things, even at his own Bible training in the light of ongoing, prayerful study of the Bible. It is being willing to change as the evidence becomes clearer - whatever the cost to reputation.

I wouldn't study the Bible so much if I did not love it and want to follow it. I made a promise to the Lord many years ago that would always let the Bible change me when I was wrong. I've always kept that promise.

You've shown me nothing to change my mind about the Judgment Seat of Christ. You ignore most of the thrust of the passages to make the Judgement Seat of Christ for non-believers when it is specifically about believers, and the Great White Throne about rewards when it is specifically about punishment. That's not being a Biblicist!

I am not discounting the importance of extra-biblical information - in their place. But words like emploke or spermologos are not as important as Bema, so the fact that they are hapax legomena is not that big a deal.

Then you admit your theory of NT Greek semantics is wrong, right?

It may seem strange to you because that is not how you were taught. And, if you were ever exposed to it, it was probably presented in a scoffing manner, so that you did not approach it objectively.

You have no idea how I was taught by my father and grandfather, preachers both but dispensationalists neither.

"Theologically" = "according to my system".

What system? You don't know me.

There can be no judgment without a judge.
A judge does not just dole out rewards, but punishment as well.
God, in several passages, written to Christians, is called "Judge".

So the judge of cooking and beauty and Olympic contests dole out punishment?

One thing you seem to overlook is that, though the Epistles are written to Christians they are also written with the realization that there will always be non-Christians mixed in with Christian gatherings. This is why we have passages like this.

Very weak argument. You're grasping at straws. This is only an assumption. Prove it.

What do you know what I have studied or not studied? I did a separate article on the crown rewards. It is somewhere on the Net. I will dig it up and post it here if I find it. That was an eye-opener also.

You must have forgotten it in this thread.

Aw, come on, John. Quit beating around the bush. How do you really feel?:smilewinkgrin:

Just copying your silly assertions of infallibility in exegesis. Your words were "absolutely certain." :saint: