(1)
|
Isa 25:7,8: the glorification of the saints will take place at
Jerusalem/Zion. ("This mountain" can only be Zion: see Isa 24:23.) If the
righteous will be given eternal life there, what is more reasonable than to
conclude that the site of their judgment will be there also?
|
|
|
(2)
|
Also, Christ speaks repeatedly of Gehenna as the scene of
punishment for the responsible wicked (many refs). Christadelphians have always
been quick to show believers in "hell-torments" that Gehenna is a known
locality, adjacent to Jerusalem, where the bodies of criminals, animal
carcasses, and other garbage were burned. Is it fair to take Gehenna as literal
when convenient, and figurative at other times, only to suit our preconceived
notions? If Gehenna is indeed the literal place where the responsible wicked
will be destroyed after the judgment by Christ, what does this tell us about the
location of that judgment? Are we really prepared to argue that Gehenna is in
the Sinai desert?
|
|
|
|
Note also that twice in Christ's earthly ministry, the temple
area was the scene of his cleansing judgment against hypocritical professors of
the Truth. And the fig tree which he cursed was also adjacent to
Jerusalem!
|
|
|
(3)
|
Other passages favor Zion as the location of judgment, because
it will be the scene of the saints' reward: Psa 133:3 for one: "There (Mount
Zion) the Lord commanded the blessing, even life for evermore."
|
|
|
(4)
|
Psa 87:5: The Lord's people are counted as having been born in
Zion, because all their hopes and aspirations are centered upon that place. By a
similar figure, their "mother" is Jerusalem (see Gal 4:26; Isa 54:1,11-13; cp
Rev 21:2). What more beautiful than the completion of the process of "rebirth"
in Zion? If the saints are "born" at baptism to be prospective children of Zion,
then why not truly "born" after judgment in the glory of immortal bodies, again
at Zion? Common sense would suggest that "children" should not be "born"
hundreds of miles away from their "mother"!
|
|
|
(5)
|
Mat 25:31-34: A careful reading indicates that the separation
of the "sheep" and the "goats" takes place at the same place where Christ's
"throne of glory" is located. Again, Christadelphians argue eloquently against
those of other persuasions that the throne of Christ and David can only be in
Jerusalem, and not in heaven (or Rome or Salt Lake City). If that is so for
purposes of first principle arguments about the nature of the coming kingdom,
then let us not shrink from the implication of such a passage as this in regard
to the location of judgment. Are we really prepared to argue that Christ's
"throne of glory", where he will sit as a King (Mat 25:34), will be set up for a
time on Mount Sinai?
|
|
|
(6)
|
"His feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives"
(Zec 14:4) -- the same place where his feet last stood before his ascension into
heaven (Act 1:9-12). Does it stand to reason that Christ will return first to
the immediate locale of Jerusalem, and then immediately hustle off a couple of
hundred miles to the southwest, for a special judgment at Sinai?
|
|
|
(7)
|
Other NT passages seem to call for the same interpretation:
among them (a) Heb 12:18-24 (the context is certainly judgment: "Much more shall
not we escape" -- Heb 12:25); (b) Gal 4:24-28 (two covenants; Moses' covenant at
Sinai had to do with length of mortal days in the land, but Christ's covenant at
Jerusalem has to do with eternal life); and (c) Rev 5:6-10; 7:9-14; 14:1-5; and
19:1-9 (the scene of the saints' reward is invariably the royal throne of Christ
and Mt Zion).
|
