Judgment seat, location of
The traditional view that the resurrectional judgment will be
at Sinai has been summarized by a number of writers. But the results are still
far from conclusive. Only three passages, so far as I can determine, have ever
been seriously advanced as "proof" of Sinai as the site of judgment: Deu 33:2,3;
Psa 68:17; and Hab 3:3. Significantly, all three are in the Old
Testament. Of course, we should interpret the Old by the New Testament, and by
no means should Old Testament passages be ruled out in any study. But the
resurrectional judgment, it must be admitted, is very much a New Testament
doctrine otherwise -- alluded to in the law and the prophets, but stated with
clarity in all its particulars only in the New Testament. Then is it not
a little strange that all the "evidence" for Sinai comes in the Old
Testament?
First, a look at the three traditional "proofs":
Deuteronomy 33:2,3: To Moses, Sinai was the place of
God's revelation to His people; he knew no other. The deliverance from Egypt and
the wilderness trek were the focal points of his life. Therefore, when he speaks
his final blessing upon the people, it is certainly fitting that "the Lord came
from Sinai... with ten thousands of saints (certainly angels and
not saints in this context! cp Psa 68:17)... and (with) a fiery law." This same
thing Yahweh had done before (Exo 19:16-19, etc)! So it would appear there are
two reasonable interpretations of Deu 33:2,3: either (a) Moses is remembering
what has already happened, or (b) the last revelation of God to Moses follows
the patterns of the previous ones: ie, God coming out of the great fiery cloud
atop Sinai.
Let us grant for a moment that, as some say, "the context
calls for this to be a future blessing" -- meaning, I take it, the
distant future (from Moses' day) of Christ's return. (I would say this is
possible, but not absolutely essential.) Then, since the words are addressed to
the twelve tribes (just as Deuteronomy 28; 29, etc), is not the last-days
fulfillment (if there is one) most likely to be a re-enactment of the Exodus and
the giving of the Law for the remnant of the nation of Israel, imprisoned again
in Egypt? To this Isaiah 11:11,15; 19:1,18-20; 63:11-19; and Micah 7:15 may well
refer.
The other two passages quoted may be approached in the same
way. Furthermore, as to Psalm 68:17: The context of the whole psalm is
altogether concerning Zion! It was almost certainly written on the
occasion of David's bringing the ark of God to Zion at last (Psalm 24 is another
with the same context). This was the culmination of an important phase in the
Divine purpose which began with Israel's deliverance from Egypt, proceeded to
the giving of the Law at Sinai, and languished for several generations while the
ark rested uneasily at a number of temporary locations. Now it was at last
coming to its foreordained permanent dwelling place. With this background we now
read Psalm 68:15-17:
* The "hill of God" is Zion (v 15), "... the hill which God
desires to dwell in... forever" (v 16). These three verses contain two
comparisons, ie:
* Zion is now (in David's eye, and -- prophetically -- in the
kingdom age) like the hills of Bashan (v 15), meaning majestic and
towering and invincible. This is another way of saying that, when God dwells in
Zion and His king (David or Christ) reigns there, Zion will be "lifted up",
first to rival and then to surpass the "mountains" (ie, kingdoms) of the
Gentiles (Isa 2:2; Psa 48:2). This "lifting up" will be physical when Christ
returns (Zec 14:4,8,10; Psa 48:2 again), but in David's day the "lifting up" was
just as real to him in the sense of Zion's spiritual exaltation to the favor of
God.
* Secondly, God is among the angels and the chariots
(cherubim) there in Zion, like He was previously in Sinai (v 17). Zion is
now (David's day, and again of course with prophetic implications) like
Sinai was -- the scene of God's glorious fiery manifestation.
With this understanding, v 17 may now be read, as it stands in
the AV, with no need for modification: "The Lord is among them (the cherubim and
angels), as (He had been) in Sinai, (but now) in the holy place
(mount Zion!)." That this is the proper interpretation is borne out by such
verses as 24 ("sanctuary" would be Zion) and 29 (temple at Jerusalem) and -- as
I have said -- the whole of the psalm. So, if Psalm 68:17 proves anything in the
matter of the location of the judgment seat, it proves that Zion and not Sinai
will be the site!
*****
Habbakuk 3:3 may be prophetic, but again the effect of
the mention of Sinai must be to draw an analogy between the mighty deeds of
Yahweh in Moses' day and the wonderful deliverance expected and prayed for by
the prophet. However, where in all the chapter is the resurrectional judgment
referred to -- or even implied? It is not. We must make a far-reaching inference
to use this passage as "proof" of the Sinai location. We must set up a dogmatic
sequence of events, a sequence which may appear plausible, but about which we
simply cannot be positive. It would be far more reasonable to interpret
Scripture with Scripture, and surmise that the Sinaitic (and Egyptian)
revelations of God in the last days will be for the purpose of saving the Jews
out of Egypt (as the historical allusions imply), not for the judgment of the
responsible out of all nations (see references in "1" above).
***
Briefly, then, these are the scriptural reasons for the
judgment seat of Christ being at Zion:
* Isaiah 25:7,8 states clearly that the glorification of the
saints will take place in Jerusalem/Zion. ("This mountain" can only be Zion: see
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?
* But this is not all: Christ speaks repeatedly of "Gehenna"
as the scene of punishment for the responsible wicked (there are many
references). 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 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!
* Other passages favor Zion as the location of judgment,
because it will be the scene of the saints' reward: Psalm 133:3 for one:
"There (Mount Zion) the Lord commanded the blessing, even life for
evermore."
* Psalm 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 (Gal 4:26; Isa
54:1,11-13; 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 "born" after judgment in the glory of immortal
bodies, again at Zion? Common sense tells us that "children" cannot be "born"
hundreds of miles away from their "mother"!
* Matthew 25:31-34: A careful reading indicates that the
separation of the "sheep" and the "goats" takes place at the same place as
Christ's "throne of glory". 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 even elsewhere on the earth (Salt Lake
City, Utah?). 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 (v 34), will be set up for a time on Mount Sinai?
* Other New Testament 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" -- v 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 Mount Zion).
***
One final point: We make a mistake if we elevate the location
of the judgment to the status of a "first principle", no matter which way we
believe. In the first place, it was never intended so to be by our "pioneer
brethren".
[It might be well to note the following comment: "Where will
(Christ) set (the judgment seat) up? Will it be in Palestine, or in Egypt, or in
the Arabian peninsula, in the solitudes of Sinai? We cannot be sure... An
uncertain detail must not be made a basis of fellowship. We must not insist upon
a man believing the judgment seat will be set up at Sinai or any particular
place so long as he believes that 'Jesus Christ will judge the living and the
dead at his appearing and his kingdom.' " -- Robert Roberts, "True Principles
and Uncertain Details", The Christadelphian 35:185.]
And in the second place, there are no Scripture passages
absolutely conclusive on the matter. We may think we know the exact
order of future events, and exactly how and where each one will be
fulfilled. But the true purpose of Bible prophecy is not to enable us to "bat
1,000" in our predictions, but to prepare us personally and as a body for
the coming of Christ. Names and numbers and places and facts have a place in the
study of prophecy, but they are only the framework. The heart of the matter is
the love we hold for the Bridegroom and his appearing. But before he will be the
Bridegroom, he must first be the Judge. It is not nearly as important where we
will stand literally when he comes, as where we will stand
spiritually in his eyes. "Depart from me" or "Come, ye blessed"? This we
all know in theory, but it bears repeating, often and forcefully.
Addendum
A scarcely-explored thread runs through the whole of the
Bible, which provides a further rationale for the basic premise of this article.
This suggestion is certainly worth an entire study by itself, but we must be
content here with the suggestion alone. There are some strong reasons for
supposing that the garden of Eden was located at present-day Jerusalem. If this
were so, then all sorts of Biblical allusions fall into place, many "loose ends"
are surprisingly harmonized, portions of Genesis and Revelation fit together
like pieces of a puzzle, and the coming judgment of the responsible -- "where it
all began" -- appears the most reasonable thing in the whole world!
