Returning to the Biblical Bema: 2 Cor. 5:10

When I joined this group I expected a certain amount of core agreement on terms. My understanding on hermeneutics - and I doubt that it has changed that much since my preaching classes in the 70s - is that it is one's method of interpreting the text. Yes, I realize that here are different methodologies of hermeneutics, depending on how one considers textual criticism (or whether there should even be TC), process theology, views on inspiration, etc. But these are all actually beside the real point.

We can interpret the text rightly or wrongly (in error). So, yes, either dispensationalism or "my viewpoint" (on the issue in view, contrary to disp.) is a wrong one. Logically, one or both have to be in error. They cannot both be in accordance with the mind of God as revealed in Scripture.

If one were to read what you wrote above one couldn't be faulted for thinking that you believe that truth is relative. Whether or not a person is consistent with one's hermeneutic is totally irrelevant to whether they are true or not. When I read an article or hear a sermon I don't give a carp what flavor their hermeneutic is. I am rather thinking along the lines of Isaiah 8:20 and Acts 17:11. I ask myself, "Is this piece I am considering according to the Word of God?"

This is the very same test to which I put this teaching on the bema as an award ceremony. It failed the test.

My apology for using the word "carp". Everyone knows that carp is a "trash fish". So I guess this would be trash-talking. [humor]

 

Wow. The more I study the more interesting it becomes. I find that I am in disagreement with both Matthews (Henry, Poole), Hendriksen, J. Stuart Russell and, well, just about everyone else I have read on this.

And those rare times when that happens it makes me very uncomfortable and not too confident in my conclusions. Yet I have to go with what I see in Scripture. Yet I would love to bounce this around for any meaningful feedback.

One of the first avenues of discovery - after just reading the passage again several times and, especially, some of the previous chapters in Matthew - was a cross-reference brought up by Matthew Henry - Ezek. 34:17. Now he just referred to that verse in isolation but I found that the entire passage seems to help in the interpretation of the Matt. passage.

My computer has been freezing up so I will send this now, rather than lose all of it. More in a little bit.

 

This passage of the judgment of the sheep and goats (Matt. 25) has been an interesting and challenging study. I think that two of the best clues as to how to interpret it are:
1. Old Testament passages alluded to. Ezekiel 34:17 seems to be a valid cross-reference.
2. Other Matthew & NT passages - especially similar parables or related phrases.

For now I just want to tackle the other Matthew passages and phrases. Consider the following:
1. The first part of this same chapter 25, as well as much of 24, has similar themes of division of righteous from evil, as well as reward given to those righteous.
2. There are also recurring phrases and concepts that suggest a comparison between passages: The King coming to His glory, with angels, giving award and retribution (Matt. 25:31; 19:28; 16:27).
3. That last passage however, Matt. 16:27, is connected with the one following it - v. 28, describing the Transfiguration in the following verses (See also the supplementing accounts of Mark and Luke).

The interesting thing about the Transfiguration is the fact that it is connected with Christ coming into His Kingdom. Christ had just promised that there were some right there with Him who would not die till they see the Son of Man coming into His kingdom. Hopefully I don't need to argue that neither an immediate fulfilment (6 days later) nor a 1000s of years postponement (as taught by some futurists) would fit the prophecy. The former would be silly, the second impugns Christ's veracity. But a very good fit, IMO, would be in AD 70, when the kingdom is taken from the Jews and given to a nation that will bring forth the fruits thereof (Matt. 21:43; 1 Pet. 2:9).

Likewise this passage of the sheep and goats seems to fit in the same place, or to be an ongoing consequence of the growth of this new kingdom, spreading worldwide, starting with Jerusalem, then outward to all nations.

Reading the passage in Ezek. 34 you see many similar themes.

 

I resisted these conclusions for a while because - Gulp! - I was drifting into Preterist territory! But we have to follow where our studies lead us.

BTW, I am once again going through Russell's Parousia. I find that I am agreeing much more than I used to - except in few areas, like in his interpretation on Luke's parable of the noblemen who went to a far country to receive a kingdom. I do agree with him that there is much of AD 70, but not all.

 

OK, thanks. I will read it when I get home from work.

 

Thank you for writing, Hank. Shortly after my last posts the other day I had a number of time-consuming emergencies that kept me from having much time at the computer. Things are starting to settle down. Hopefully tomorrow I will answer more on your post. Take care.

But, yes, I know all about the ins and outs of discussion groups. I started one in 1999 (ABC_Bible at yahoo) and we've had some real doozies.

 

I appreciate that you went to several of the pertinent verses on this topic. But I do not think that 1 Cor. 3 is pertinent to the topic of Bema, at least not directly. When I wrote my article on the Bema I tried to carefully deal first with those verses that mention the word. The article was supposed to be, among other things, a word study of all the uses of that Greek word "bema".

At first I was surprised that 1 Cor 3:10-15 did not have the word. I even thought of just adding it since the concept (I thought at the time) was clearly here. But then, upon further study, it seemed that this Cor. passage should, instead of going with the Bema verses, rather be cross-referenced to verses like 1 Peter 1:6-7:

"In this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while, if need be, you have been grieved [distressed] by various trials, that the genuineness of your faith, much more precious than the gold that perishes, though it is tested by fire, may be found to praise, honor, and glory at the revelation of Jesus Christ."

The questions for us to consider are:
1. What is this fire?
2. When is this fire?

Although I used to, I no longer see this fire as being part of God's final judgment, but rather God's ongoing judgment as the Gospel spreads worldwide. I will certainly elaborate on this, if interested. There are several passages, both OT and NT, that bear this out, IMO. Thus I also believe that this fire is now. It was forewarned in the fiery preaching of John the Baptist. It was unleashed - and is being unleashed (for want of a better word) - wherever the Gospel is clearly presented.

There is so much more that needs to be written here - and a wonderful theme, too - but I'm afraid I wasted my time on other things. This will have to do for now.

 

Much of what you write above I would agree with. But I would like to focus on some differences. "The day will reveal it". One of the hinges of this topic (to me at least) is just what is meant as that "day". I believed at one time - as I assume you do now (?) - as the end of this Gospel age. But i now believe that "the day" is actually synonymous and synchronous with the gospel age. And I was surprised to find out how many used to believe this - not all Calvinists by any means. Of course, consensus doesn't give us theological certainty, yet it did show me that it was worth looking closer into.

Likewise, the "parousia" (appearance) passages I have come to see in a different light.

 

Yes, thank you. I had noticed that. In fact I had done a study of the main words used for coming back in the 90s when I had a discussion group called ABCProphecy at yahoo groups. There were three main words, the three above as well as some forms of erchomai.

I plan to dig this study up and post it again on my Xanga. Some of my conclusions at the time, I think now, were clouded by an antipathy toward anything that disagreed with my dispensationalism at the time.