Book Review and Essay on The Role of Works at the Final Judgment, edited by Alan P. Stanley.

Four Views On the Role of Works at the Final Judgment. Edited by Alan P. Stanley. Counterpoints: Bible and Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2013. Paperback ISBN: 0310490332.

Contains contributions by Robert N. Wilkin, Thomas R. Schreiner, James D. G. Dunn, Michael P. Barber, and Alan P. Stanley.

Here, in this well-conceived 275-page book (page numbers are from the Kindle edition which roughly approximates the print version), four prominent scholars advance different views on the role of works in the final judgment. Each of these positions is flawed, not because they are not well researched or persuasively argued, but because they are all based on a fundamentally incorrect eschatological construct that effectively pushes virtually all divine judgment into some vague apocalyptic future. A proper reading of scripture suggests that divine judgment, just as with salvation, the forgiveness of sins, sanctification, the sacraments, and pretty much everything else in Christian doctrine, plays out mostly in this life while we are here on earth in our physical, God-given bodies. Perhaps the earliest known Christian sermon outside the New Testament says it best: Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers, Greek Texts and English Translations, edited and translated by Holmes, Michael W., Baker Academic (3^rd ed) 2007, 2 Clement 9, 148,150 (translated by the author):

“And let none of you say that this flesh is not judged and does not rise again. Think about this: In what state were you saved? In what state did you recover your sight, if it was not while you were in the flesh? We must, therefore, guard the flesh as a temple of God. For just as you were called in the flesh, so you will come in the flesh. If Christ, the Lord who saved us, became flesh (even though he was originally spirit) and in that state called us, so also we will receive our reward in this flesh.”

Let us proceed then. First, we need to define the issue precisely from scripture. Here is a sampling of verses on judgment according to works.

God “will repay each person according to what they have done.” Romans 2:6 (NIV)

And remember that the heavenly Father to whom you pray has no favorites. He will judge or reward you according to what you do. So you must live in reverent fear of him during your time here as ‘temporary residents’. 1 Peter 1:17 (NLT)

Surely you repay all people according to what they have done. Psalm 62:12 (NLT)

Don’t excuse yourself by saying, “Look, we didn’t know.” For God understands all hearts, and he sees you. He who guards your soul knows you knew. He will repay all people as their actions deserve. Proverbs 24:12 (NLT)

Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for their wrongs, and there is no favoritism. Col. 3:25 (NIV)

But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who suppress the truth by their wickedness. Romans 1:18 (NLT)

For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done. Matt. 16:27 (NIV)

For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes. Deut. 19:17 (NIV)

Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free. For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes. Eph. 6:7-9 (NIV)

For God does not show favoritism. All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. Romans 2:12 (NIV)

These verses seem crystal clear on their face. Everyone is judged by God according to their behavior, both good and bad, both meritorious and execrable. God plays no favorites in this judgment venue. Rich or poor, mighty or weak, ignorant or learned, and even whether you are a believer or not, there is no favoritism in this judgment venue according to the plain language of these texts. God’s judgment of works is impartial. Compare 1 Peter 1:17 (And remember that the heavenly Father to whom you pray has no favorites), and this from an apostle who knew all too well about forgiveness of sins. In other words, Peter makes no special provision for those believers whose sins God has forgiven through Christ. They still face an impartial works judgment for their earthly behavior.

In contrast, here is a sampling of verses on salvation by faith.

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast. Eph. 2:8-9 (NIV)

For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. Romans 3:28 (NIV)

Therefore no one will be justified in His sight by works of the law. For the law merely brings awareness of sin. Romans 3:20 (NIV)

Through Him everyone who believes is justified from everything you could not be justified from by the law of Moses. Acts 13:39 (NIV)

He then brought them out and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.” Acts 16:30-31 (NIV)

He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. Mark 16:16 (NIV)

If you openly declare that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. Romans 10:9 (NLT)

And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him. For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. John 3: 14-16 (NIV)

Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God. John 1:12-13 (NIV)

Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. John 20:30-31 (NIV)

These verses are also abundantly clear on their face. We are saved by faith, and faith alone, and not by our own merits. Indeed, how could our so-called righteous acts possibly save us when those acts themselves are necessarily tainted by sin? Compare Isaiah 64:6 (NIV): “All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away;” Romans 3:10 (NLT), “As the Scriptures say, ‘No one is righteous— not even one’; John 1:8 (NIV), “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us;” and Psalm 14:1 (NIV), “There is no one who does good.”

These various passages cited above, all focusing on either works or faith, seem on the surface to be at tension with one another as pointed out by one respected author: Ortlund, Dane C., JUSTIFIED BY FAITH, JUDGED ACCORDING TO WORKS: ANOTHER LOOK AT A PAULINE PARADOX, JETS 52/2 (June 2009) 323–39, 323: “Nigel Watson articulates in blunt terms the perennial friction between the twin Pauline themes of justification by faith and judgment according to works: ‘either justification is emptied of its meaning or judgment by works is rendered harmless.’ The challenge is how to fully and impartially affirm both Pauline teachings.”

This is indeed a challenge, and let us see how each of these four scholars attempted to tackle that challenge.

In contrast to his three colleagues, Robert N. Wilkin makes a bold effort to reconcile the two doctrines. He asserts on page 29 that “Christians will be judged according to their works at what he calls the Rewards Judgment, but not at the final judgment.” He elaborates that there are three separate judgment venues (page 122):

“What we find is that the New Testament refers to at least three different kinds of judgment, namely, judgments of sin in this life, the Great White Throne Judgment, and the Judgment Seat of Christ. Each kind of judgment has its own set of conditions. For instance, God can judge the believer’s sin in this life anytime and anywhere, chastening us for our disobedience (1 Cor. 11:30–32; Heb. 12:7). By contrast, the Judgment Seat of Christ will be for believers, regarding their rewards in the life to come and not regarding their eternal destiny, which was decided the moment they believed in Jesus for everlasting life (John 5:24). Finally, unbelievers will be judged at the Great White Throne judgment.”

Thus, according to Dr. Wilkin, there are only two of what he calls “eschatological judgments” (page 52), one before the Judgment Seat of Christ for believers and the other before the Great White Throne for non-believers.  

“At the Great White Throne Judgment (Rev 20:11–15) people are temporarily released (paroled!) from hell (Hades) and the issue of their permanent eternal abode becomes a legal matter in the presence of their Judge (Jesus Christ: John 5:22). They are first judged according to their works to see if these works justify their permanent release from eternal judgment (Rev 20:13). As we know, there will be no justification based on works (Rom 3:20). Next, search is made in the Book of Life to see if they qualify for release because they have eternal life. They do not and are therefore placed in an eternal abode (the Lake of Fire) in separation from their Judge forever.” 

He goes on to assert (page 53) that while “the outcome of this judgment is a foregone conclusion…Every unsaved person will have his or her day in court.” He rejects (page 53) the notion that perseverance in one’s faith or good works is necessary for salvation, and argues that nothing more is required for salvation (page 54) than “to simply believe.” In other words (page 178), according to Dr. Wilkin, “once saved, always saved.” He argues that Biblical passages that seem to say otherwise for the most part assume that “salvation” is not a reference to eternal life but rather to deliverance from temporal calamities such as physical death or the Great Tribulation. Matt. 24:15-28.

There is much to be admired in Professor Wilkin’s view of judgment. I, too, (see below) believe that there are separate judgment venues for believers and non-believers, although I disagree with his views on the timing and the nature of these judgments, which are discussed in detail below. Even assuming that heavenly rewards and crowns may encompass more than salvation (a hotly debated point also discussed below) thus requiring a separate evaluation, the main difficulty with Dr. Wilkin’s approach is that there is a clear lack of impartiality of works judgment between believers, who only risk losing some rewards in heavens for their bad conduct but will still be saved for eternity, and non-believers who could be tossed into the lake of fire with the devil and his angels for these self-same transgressions. In other words, favoritism is built into Dr. Wilkin’s notion of works judgment. An example will illustrate this point.

The repentant thief on the cross (Luke 23:39-43), for his mere plea to Jesus to remember him when he comes into his kingdom, is rewarded with immediate salvation, while the other thief presumably dies in his sins, even though the earthly behavior of these two brigands has no doubt been equally execrable. And what about the stiff-necked Pharisee who has performed many acts of charity (even if out of vanity rather than love), far more anyway than our repentant thief, but who has rejected Christ and his free offer of salvation. Under Dr. Wilkin’s view he, in contrast to the repentant thief, presumably will be sent to the Great White Throne judgment from which he will proceed directly to Hell.

While the ultimate outcome for all three of these sinners is no doubt justified, the Biblical injunction that God (that is, in this case Christ) plays no favorites with respect to an evaluation of one’s earthly deeds is obviously not met under Dr. Wilkin’s approach. Indeed, there is scant mention in the entire book of the need for impartiality of judgment (that is, God’s impartiality in works judgment) as among sinners, both believers and non-believers, for their earthly deeds, both good and bad. Only in citing 1 Peter 1:17 (And remember that the heavenly Father to whom you pray has no favorites), and an offhand reference by Dr. Dunn (page 165), is this notion of God’s impartiality even referred to, and even then, only as part of a long citation of Biblical passages addressing other issues.

This, I believe, is a glaring omission from an otherwise meticulously researched presentation by all four contributors. If they felt that the lack of favoritism with reference to works judgment only applied between and among believers, a dubious proposition at best, they should have said so. Nonetheless, I would heartily recommend that you buy the book (the kindle version currently only $12.49, and the paperback only $13.99), not only for its substance, but especially for laypeople as a primer in the ways scholars go about interpreting scripture. Whether this knowledge will enhance your confidence in their exegesis, I will leave for the reader to decide.

Professor Thomas Schreiner takes a very different view of judgment, both substantively and procedurally. He rejects Wilkin’s notion of multiple judgment venues (page 60) and asserts that there is one judgment at the end of the age for all, believers and non-believers alike: “The most natural way to understand the sheep and goat judgment in Matthew 25:31–46 and the great white throne judgment in Revelation 20:11–15 is as the judgment of all people.” He further contends that saving faith (page 58) is “never alone” and must be accompanied by works to confirm the believer’s justification, even if such works themselves are imperfect and unmeritorious (page 238). He claims that such confirming works are necessarily “energized by the Spirit” (page 101), and that only “doers of the Law” will escape condemnation (page 95).

While he concedes that justification cannot be gained by works alone (page 89), he believes that good works are the “necessary fruit” of one’s faith (page 117). He suggests (page 186) that the perceived tension between faith and works may not be so much a contradiction, but rather “a mystery,” noting that (page 185) “the relationship between divine sovereignty and human responsibility is ultimately mysterious.”

The bottom line for Dr. Schreiner is that those who have received the grace of God must live in a new way (page 103). Interestingly, even though believers under his approach will not find out for certain whether or not their “good works” are sufficient for salvation until the day of final judgment, Dr. Schreiner nonetheless asserts (page 109) that the “verdict of the final day is announced in advance for those who trust in Jesus.” He contends that the believer’s initial belief, which he argues “guarantees final glorification,” is enough to provide such assurance.   

Dr. Schreiner further argues that believers as a general rule require stern warnings by pastors and other religious leaders about their earthly conduct to ensure that they remain in God’s grace (page 182):

“Jesus warns his disciples in the strongest possible terms not to be deceived. But notice in [Mark]13:22 that Jesus says that it is not possible for the elect to be led astray! They will not embrace a false christ. Such a state of affairs is impossible for the elect, and yet he warns them not be led astray. Mark doesn’t draw the conclusion that the elect don’t need warnings since it is impossible for them to believe in false christs. I would suggest that he believed that the warnings were a means by which the promise is secured for the elect. The warnings and the promises are complementary, not contradictory, in the lives of those God has chosen. But what about those who fall away? Isn’t it true that some do turn away from the Lord? So doesn’t that show apostasy is possible? Certainly some fall away, but notice that the New Testament, when it considers retrospectively those who fall away, says that they were never truly Christians.”

Professor Schreiner sums up his views this way (pages 117-118): “Works are necessary for justification, but they are not the basis of justification or salvation since God requires perfection and all human beings sin. Hence, works constitute the necessary evidence or fruit of one’s new life in Christ. We can even say that salvation and justification are through faith alone, but such faith is living and vital and always produces works.”

As with Dr. Wilkin’s views, Professor Schreiner’s arguments fall short on the need for the impartiality of works judgment. Indeed, under his approach believers may be rewarded with eternal life even when their deeds following conversion are “imperfect” (page 238), whereas non-believers are automatically sent to the lake of fire for those very same acts. By compressing all judgment, both works judgment and judgment as to one’s eternal destiny, into one venue, Dr. Schreiner not only allows for favoritism among the groups and individuals being judged, but he also overlooks the multiple judgment venues afforded by scripture. This last point is discussed in detail below.

Moreover, Professor Schreiner’s heavy reliance on “good works” as a necessary component to salvation contradicts the plain language of many Biblical passages, the common sense wisdom of believers seeking to live out their lives in accordance with scripture, and the fundamental “simplicity” of the Gospel message. Compare 2 Cor. 11:3, which the translators of the King James version correctly described as “the simplicity that is in Christ,” which in Greek reads τῆς ἁπλότητος τῆς εἰς τὸν Χριστόν. Indeed, how are believers, or any one of us for that matter, to know for certain that our so-called good works, which are nothing more than “filthy rags” (Isaiah 64:6), are sufficient in kind and number to guarantee the believer eternal life? Are we to live in a constant state of worry and fear about our eternal destiny? Dr. Schreiner would seem to say yes, but do not be concerned, he would argue, because it will all work out in the end so long as you persevere in good works. That would hardly seem to provide the assurance of salvation of which the Apostle Paul so often writes. See, for instance, 2 Cor. 5:6-8 (NIV): “Therefore we are always confident and know that as long as we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord. For we live by faith, not by sight. We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord.”    

The late Dr. James Dunn likewise asserts (page 131) that there can be no salvation apart from good works” and “obedience” persevered in until the end of one’s life. He argues that scripture envisages only one judgment for all (page 68), which is before the Great White Throne at the end of the age (pages 66-67). He maintains (page 160) that “converts should demonstrate their faith by the quality of lives they lived,” and that this lived transformation must necessarily precede salvation. He contends that the New Testament is not an intricately devised theological system, and that we should therefore not expect that the various writers, such as Paul and James for instance, will be consistent with each other, or indeed even with themselves. Thus, Dr. Dunn can conclude that any effort to put faith and works together coherently or logically represents a misreading of the texts. He concedes that an intellectually coherent resolution of the perceived tension between faith and works may thus not be possible, but that it is more important that we as believers respond to the need for both as the situation requires, (pages 170-171 and page 165):

“Whether we can or cannot successfully knit together the two emphases in Paul’s and the others’ [that is, principally James and John] teaching into a single coherent catechism, we surely should not fall into the trap of playing one off against the other, the naively satisfying device that blends one into the other in a way that diminishes the force of one or other, the ignoring of the one in order to give the other the emphasis that we think it deserves. Is it so serious that we cannot fit the two neatly into a single coherent proposition? Is it not more important that we should hear both and respond to both as our situations and (dis)obedience of faith require?”

Perhaps we need to settle for a rhetorical solution. In other words, when Paul saw that his converts needed reassurance, he made one emphasis; and when he saw that they needed to be exhorted and warned, he made another emphasis. That at least would be more faithful to Paul than trying to fit his whole teaching into a shoebox, which in the end is too small for the wholeness of his theology.

Again, as with the others, Professor Dunn ignores the need for impartiality in the judgment of one’s deeds as between all people, believers and non-believers alike. As with Professor Schreiner, his views also conflict with the plain language of numerous passages suggesting the simple faith is enough for salvation. Here is another case to illustrate this point, the deathbed conversion, which is very much like the conversion of the thief on the cross discussed above.

Scripture tells us in no uncertain terms that “[e]veryone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved” (Romans 10:13, NIV). But apparently this is not the case, according to Professors Schreiner and Dunn, when they do so when the possibility of performing good works is no longer available to them. Experience suggests that these are not isolated or rare cases. Many have come to faith over the centuries only when facing either death or the most dire of circumstances. Take, for example, our repentant thief. What good works could he perform while dangling in agony from the cross, other than perhaps rebuking his fellow thief for maligning Jesus? Luke 23:40-41. Is that sufficient to demonstrate that he is living a “changed life” according to Professor Dunn? The question remains unanswered since the good Professor does not bring it up, and understandably so.  

Finally, Dr. Michael Barber offers a Roman Catholic perspective on judgment. He argues (pages 71-72) that under Catholic doctrine “no good work prior to the reception of God’s grace can save a person (Eph. 2:8). However, once united to Christ by grace, the believer is empowered to do good works (2:9–10). The good works accomplished by believers are recognized as the work of Christ. Just as saving faith is the ‘work of God’ (John 6:29), the good works accomplished by the believer are really and truly likewise the work of God in the believer; they are Christ’s work (cf. Gal. 2:20; Phil. 2:12–13; Eph. 3:20).” He further contends (page 77) that while there can be no assurance of salvation for the believer, there is the certainty of the “assurance of the hope of salvation” and that (page 78) “the promise of salvation is linked to the sacraments.” He maintains (page 78) that “[t]here is no need to psychoanalyze oneself to determine whether one has truly authentic faith. Christ is the object of faith, not the knowledge of one’s own salvation.”

Interestingly, he contends that “[b]ecause I am weak and fickle, I may turn away from God and reject his salvation—and he will respect my choice to do so. Nonetheless, if I remain in him, I know he will not disappoint me and will continue to remain in me (John 15:1–10).” Unlike Professor Schreiner, he asserts that the believer’s works, when empowered by God’s grace, can in themselves be meritorious and not the “filthy rags” of which Isaiah (64:6) writes. Dr. Dunn summarizes his views with this observation (pages 191-192 and 223):

“One is first saved by grace alone. Yet God’s grace is given to believers to empower them to do good works that far exceed what they would otherwise be capable of on the basis of human effort alone. Thus…Paul gives glory ‘to him who by the power at work within us is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think’ (Eph. 3:20). The works the believer performs in union with Christ are therefore capable of doing far more than all we ask or think—they even have salvific value! That is why Paul can tell the Philippians that they must ‘work out their own salvation.’ I think this solution to the problem of Paul’s seemingly conflicting statements on the role of works fully preserves both dimensions of his teaching. Dunn is right that we must not impose readings on Paul that neatly solve apparent conflicts by muting one aspect of his message in favor of another. The Catholic view does not do that. Rather, it fully reflects his rich understanding of grace, namely, that it is both a free gift that brings about our salvation (Rom. 11:6; Eph. 2:8–9) and that it is empowerment to become ‘God’s fellow workers’ (1 Cor. 3:9; cf. 2 Cor. 6:1).”   

Good works are not simply the fruit of salvation; they are part and parcel of it. Without them we are not fully ‘like Christ’.”

Dr. Barber concludes (page 225) that “[s]alvation is a moment and a process of maturing in sonship. Initially we are saved by grace and not by anything we do. However, God’s grace in the believer allows him or her to do the impossible: perform works meritorious of salvation. And it is by these works that the believer is truly saved—he or she is fully conformed to the image of the Son of God.” While Professor Barber, unlike his Protestant colleagues, does not explicitly bring up the nature of the final judgment venue, it seems implied by his overall discussion that he accepts the final apocalyptic judgment of all people on the “last day” (page 226): “According to Catholic teaching, then, salvation is, ultimately, ‘pure grace.’ At the final judgment, good works play a role in our salvation, but only because they are the result of God’s work within us.”

Professor Barber’s proposed solution to the apparent conflict between works and faith, as with the others, falls short on the need for impartiality in works judgment, that is, the clear message of scripture that God is impartial in evaluating the earthly behavior of all people. Indeed, he barely mentions non-believers. As far as the “salvific value” of good works, he offers no practical way to distinguish between good works that save and good works that fall empty. 

There we have it, four views on works vs faith, none of which satisfactorily resolves the apparent tension. At the conclusion of the book, Dr. Stanley summarizes the four viewpoints in this way (pages 255-256):

“As we look back on what has been written, we might think of the role of works at the final judgment like a jigsaw puzzle box filled with pieces. The only difference is that there is no picture on the front of the box to show how all the pieces are to come together. However, by and large, the four contributors have all been given the same box with the same number of pieces—the Bible, particularly the New Testament—to work with. Not surprisingly each one has put together the pieces differently. Interestingly though, the approach in putting the pieces together has been relatively similar. That is, it has been impossible for each contributor to examine the role of works at the final judgment without first looking at the role of works prior to the final judgment. In other words, the pieces to this puzzle are not limited to those passages that speak of judgment in the life hereafter. For the Christian, and indeed for every human being, what happens then is intractably related to the lives we are living now. Invariably this has meant that each contributor has written at some length on the relationship between works, grace, faith, and salvation.”

Another review of this same book, this one published on The Two Cities blog some years back, provides some theological context to these four divergent views.

Each one of these views is supported by numerous biblical texts, each of which are marshalled by different authors to support different conclusions. Such is the case with any debate over doctrine that is biblically based. The brevity of each essay makes thorough, detailed exegesis impossible, but it is still possible to get a grasp of each author’s particular approach. It seems that the source of disagreement is actually located the key presuppositions of each position.

For Wilkins, Dispensationalist eschatology and John’s gospel, set the course. Schreiner works under that assumption that the scriptures alone provide the answer, and that a coherent answer can be found therein. Dunn approaches each book of the NT as distinct, and makes little effort to harmonise various passages because they resist systemization. Barber begins his article by quoting the Catechism of Catholic Church, and is clearly constrained by those magisterial conclusions. What they each share, however, is a pastoral concern that the scriptures be accurately and faithfully interpreted, and that they are the source of true Christian doctrine. For this reason, even while debate is inevitable it is possible to engage with each other charitably and with the actual possibility of constructive dialogue. On this point, the interactions between Schreiner and Barber are particularly helpful in clarifying where Protestants and Catholics, broadly speaking, can stand on common ground but also where significant disagreement prevails. (emphasis added.)

 Significant disagreement, indeed! In the article cited above, Ortlund, JUSTIFIED BY FAITH, JUDGED ACCORDING TO WORKS 324, the author outlined fourteen ways that scholars have “sought to square Paul’s teaching on justification by faith with that of judgment according to works,” all without reaching, according to the author, a fully satisfactory conclusion (page 323):

“The tension is neither new nor limited to the rarified air of esoteric academia. This essay, moreover, does not proceed under the illusion that the light of consensus can be seen at the end of the scholarly tunnel. Still less does it attempt an exhaustive analysis of this ‘jungle full of traps and temptations.’ It does attempt, however, to create a taxonomy of ways in which scholars reconcile justification by faith and judgment according to works in Paul before suggesting a way forward in light of a few neglected factors in the discussion. In this way we hope to spur on a discussion which ‘has still a long way to run’.”

There is a way forward, however, and not such a long way at that, indeed a rather simple and direct way in fact. It is an example of what the translators of the King James version of 2 Cor. 11:3 correctly described as “the simplicity that is in Christ,” which in Greek reads τῆς ἁπλότητος τῆς εἰς τὸν Χριστόν. This path would not only reconcile the apparent tension between faith and works, but eliminate it in the first instance. In other words, under this approach there is no tension between judgment according to works and salvation by faith. The two doctrines accompany each other hand-in-hand in perfect harmony.

To achieve this, however, a different perspective is needed. Rather than attempting to resolve the issue by a deep exploration of Pauline theology and how it might be intertextually related to the theology of James and John, as our four contributors have unsuccessfully sought to do, this approach instead focuses on the procedure and venues of judgment laid out in scripture. Compare A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Second Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians, The International Critical Commentary, Plummer, Alfred, Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark (1956), x1ii: “It may be said of his [Paul’s] theology generally, that there is no system in it….This is specially true of what is commonly spoken of as his ‘Eschatology.’…’Paul did not write de novissimis….One must be prepared for a surging hither and thither of great thoughts, feelings, and exultations….”

It is the opinion of this writer, currently shared by few (but one hopes that this unfortunate circumstance will soon change for the better), that divine judgment is not a one-size-fits-all proposition at the Last Day, but that there are different judgment venues (a fact with which Professor Wilkin in contrast to the others agrees), and furthermore that most of these venues play out while we are here on this earth in our physical bodies. Compare N.T. Wright, Surprised by Hope, where the author correctly observes (page 154) that Paul’s “point is that we must all appear before the judgment seat of the Messiah’ (2 Corinthians 5:10), and for that we shall need bodies.” That is correct, and here on earth we have those bodies ready and waiting. We need not postpone judgment until we don our spiritual or heavenly bodies.

We start this journey first by examining a challenging scriptural text, the problematic nature of which, both grammatically and conceptually, most commentators have unfortunately glossed over. It is 2 Cor. 5:10, specifically the subordinate clause. The full text (NIV) reads as follows: “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each of us may receive what is due us for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.” This reading is well-established in the vast majority of translations, with just a few minor variations. The subordinate clause in the Greek reads as follows, UBS Greek text (UBS5): ἵνα κομίσηται ἕκαστος τὰ διὰ τοῦ σώματος πρὸς ἃ ἔπραξεν.

As this article demonstrates (you can find this full exegetical article here), the majority rendering of this passage is profoundly incorrect both grammatically and conceptually. I apologize in advance for the length of the article. However, to challenge a position that has so long been generally accepted, and that has been allowed to fester in the consciousness of scholar and layperson alike, an exhaustive and sometimes highly technical analysis is necessary to fully rebut the many embedded misconceptions. Even then, additional objections have been, and may still be, raised, many of which have been addressed in the accompanying comments and notes to the article. For a more general, and far less lengthy, discussion of this complex passage, see the introduction to the article (here), and the brief postscript (here), along with the various reader comments, which raise a number of interesting issues as well. 

One of the benefits to publishing on a blog rather than in a formal journal is that a blog offers the possibility of direct dialogue between writer and reader. Thus, if you have any objections or qualms about anything in this note, or in any of the articles or notes referenced here, please leave a comment. I promise, Lord Willing, that I will quickly respond.    

Back to the main point. The correct rendering of the subordinate clause in 2 Cor. 5:10, that is, the one advanced in the above-cited exegetical article, has been more-or-less adopted in a small number of translations, all of which have largely been ignored by scholars. One such reading employs quite vivid language to make its point (with the language updated for inclusion purposes): “For, we all are destined to stand before The Judgment Seat of the Messiah, that each [one of us] will be paid in [his or her] body anything that was done by [them], if of good, and if of evil.” Another translation adopts a less picturesque though similar approach to the subordinate clause, again altered to reflect current practices: “every one may receive in [their] body, according to what [they have] done.” Several other translations are less clear on this point of bodily judgment, but seem to be heading in that direction: “that each one may receive the things in the body according to what he has done;” “so that each one may receive the proper things of the body, according to [their] behavior;“ and finally, “that each might receive the things for the body, for what [they] did.”

As an incentive to learn which translations these examples are taken from, you will need to dip into the full exegetical article at least through the opening pages. This writer would translate the passage in this way: “each person will receive recompense in and through the body for what they have done.”

The upshot of this revised approach, regardless of the particular wording, is that believers (for this purpose the general view that 2 Cor. 5:10 is limited to Christ-followers is adopted; see the full exegetical article for appropriate citations) appear before Christ’s Judgment Seat during their lives here on earth rather than before some distant, vague, apocalyptic tribunal. What is the initial result of this judgment? Of course, we all know what it is. “The person who sins is the one who will die.” Ezek. 18:4. See also the more well-known passage on this rather sobering point, Romans 6:23 (NIV): “For the wages of sin is death.”

Thus, physical death represents (See Soma in Biblical Theology, with emphasis on Pauline Anthropology, Gundry, Robert H., Cambridge University Press (1976) 50) “the lingering effect of sin even in the believer.” This outcome is not limited to believers. Non-believers likewise pay the price for their sin by the death of their physical bodies under the separate judgment venue set out in what is commonly referred to as the Judgment of the Nations in Matthew 25:31-46. For a discussion of this judgment venue as applied not only to non-believers but believers as well, see the book review and essay published on this blog at the following link.

Thus, both believers and non-believers are initially judged impartially and without favoritism for their earthly behavior. Unlike the judgment approaches advanced by the four Professors, God’s impartiality in works judgment is maintained, and thus there is no reason for Satan to complain (Job 1:6) that his followers are being unfairly treated or otherwise discriminated against. Both thieves died on their crosses at either side of Christ, the one who repented and the one who did not. Luke 23:39-43.

That, however, is not the end of the story. Under this revised approach to the process of divine judgment, as opposed to the conventional view, believers have now undergone their final judgment once they pass through the portal of 2 Cor. 5:10. In other words, the process of evaluation of one’s behavior is over. There is no need for further judgment, either with respect to one’s works or one’s final destiny. Believers are saved by faith and faith alone and have already given a full “account” of themselves to Christ. Romans 14:12. What else is there to do, since their eternal salvation is not at issue? Those who have appeared before Christ’s Judgment Seat have thus passed from death into eternal life, John 5:24 (NIV): “Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life.” A discussion of what some classify as a separate judgment for so-called “crowns and rewards” is addressed toward the end of this essay below.

The reconciliation of faith with works may have been an insurmountable challenge under the traditional reading of 2 Cor. 5:10, but no more. Both believers and non-believers face divine judgment for their earthly behavior without favoritism. Believers upon the death of their bodies as the lingering effect of sin (Gundry, 50), just as with the repentant thief, enter immediately into eternal life, while non-believers by rejecting the gift of salvation face the Great White Throne. Thus, both groups effectively choose their ultimate judgment venue. Christ-followers appear before Christ’s Judgment Seat in this life, not to determine whether they are saved, but rather principally to evaluate their behavior and prepare them for eternity, while non-believers undergo an evaluation before the Great White Throne to determine their ultimate destiny.         

It is the opinion of this writer that bodily resurrection for believers, that is, the donning of our “heavenly bodies,” occurs immediately upon death rather than after some indeterminate intermediate state. There are admittedly divergent views on this point. For a full discussion, see the article published on this blog here.

Nonetheless, it is clear that believers, having undergone a full evaluation of their earthly behavior, are saved by faith, and by faith alone, through Christ’s redeeming work on their behalf. But that is not all that occurred before Christ’s Judgment Seat. Rather a correct reading of 2 Cor. 5:10 also signifies that judgment for believers represents the daily interaction between Christ and his followers, whether they are conscious of it or not, whereby Jesus enriches our lives in the present while preparing us for eternity. This evaluative process has as its goal the purification of the heart, soul, and mind of each Christ-follower in a deeply personal interaction conducted by Christ throughout our lives. Simply put, the Judgment Seat of Christ, before which we stand daily, is not about condemnation or even principally about punishment, but rather it is meant to instruct and guide us. This is what Professor Patrick Schreiner in his new book on the Transfiguration calls purgation and illumination. To explore this more fully, see the article published on this blog here.

This is the point that the latter three of our contributors missed. So-called good works have nothing to do with salvation or one’s eternal destiny, but rather with one’s purification, transformation, and growth as a Christian. This is why Paul and the other New Testament writers so ardently admonished their readers to persevere in good works. It is part of the process of purgation and illumination mentioned above; in other words, the believer’s sanctification.   

We now turn to the non-believer who, as with the believer, has likewise suffered the just result of his or her sinful behavior, that is, the death of their physical bodies. For the concomitant notion of the “flesh” as the repository of sin, see Romans 7:18-25 (οἶδα γὰρ ὅτι οὐκ οἰκεῖ ἐν ἐμοί, τοῦτ’ ἔστιν ἐν τῇ σαρκί μου, ἀγαθόν, Romans 7:18, ESV: “For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh.).

These unfortunates must now face the final judgment before the Great White Throne aschillingly set out in Rev. 20:11-15. It is generally thought that this judgment, which by definition will determine their eternal destiny, has been imposed on them. That is not true. It is the judgment venue that they have effectively chosen for themselves, not by their sinful conduct, for we know that no earthly behavior, no matter how wicked, can deprive us of the possibility of redemption, forgiveness, and salvation, but rather by finally and fully rejecting Christ and any need for a savior, and instead relying for their justification on their own merits. Compare once again Isaiah 64:6: “All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away.” In other words, these lost souls have consciously chosen not to appear before Christ’s Judgment Seat and thus do not enjoy the spiritual fruits, including eternal salvation, that a relationship with Christ automatically brings. Nevertheless, God in his mercy has provided a suitable and fair forum for each of them to make their case. It is not the venue that I would choose, but this is their free choice.

While the four scholars above seem to agree that these unfortunate folks are inevitably destined for hell because of their lack of faith, and the fact that good works alone can never result in one’s salvation, perhaps there is still a chance of salvation for some even before the Great White Throne. Our Lord may not be so hard-hearted in this matter as we are. See, e.g., Matt. 10:42 (NIV) for what Jesus may have said on this topic: “And if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones who is my disciple, truly I tell you, that person will certainly not lose their reward.” There is no indication that the persons providing the cup of cold water are themselves believers, and what is their reward for this small act of charity to a Christ-follower, a reward that Christ tells us they cannot lose? Could it be salvation?

Now finally, the promised discussion with respect to what Dr. Wilkin calls a “rewards judgment.” Christ has guided and instructed believers in this life just as he did with his disciples. We have been duly prepared for eternity. “[T]he LORD disciplines those he loves.” Proverbs 3:12. There is nothing left to do upon the believer’s death, except perhaps to see if one’s work on behalf of the gospel endures or not. 1 Corinthians 3:11-16. Dr. Craig Blomberg, Degrees of Reward in the Kingdom of Heaven, JETS 35/2 (June 1992) 159-172, 160, has argued that there should be no differentiation among believers regarding eternal rewards: “I do not believe there is a single NT text, when correctly interpreted, supports the notion that believers will be distinguished one from another for all eternity on the basis of their works as Christians.” Dr. Blomberg then proceeds to lay out a persuasive case, citing among other things the parable of the laborers in the vineyard, (Matt. 20-1-16).

I would tend to agree with his analysis. It seems to me that the crowns and rewards Paul refers to are shared by all saved and resurrected souls in the simple yet indescribable joy of being with Christ for eternity. Note that Professor Wilkin would strongly disagree with this view, since it would shatter his thesis of the reconciliation of faith with works. Here, however, I would point to Christ’s own words as recorded in Luke 17:10 (NIV): “So you also, when you have done everything you were told to do, should say, ‘We are unworthy servants; we have only done our duty’.” 

Nonetheless, if there is, as Professor Wilkin argues, some separate divine evaluation prior to the receipt of such heavenly rewards, it is a limited testing focusing on one’s service to the Gospel, to the extent there is any, and does not involve a comprehensive evaluation of the believer in relation to the totality of his or her earthly conduct in thought, word, and deed. In other words, what we commonly understand by the notion of divine judgment has already been accomplished for Christ-followers before the Judgment Seat of Christ pursuant to a proper understanding of the timing and venue of judgment under 2 Cor. 5:10.

One more point I will make by quoting a passage from the earlier review of this book published on this blog mentioned above: “One shortcoming of the book is that it is obviously modelled on a ‘Eurocentric’ understanding of Christianity. It would have been quite informative to bring a voice or two from other traditions into the conversation. How is this particular issue dealt with in the Orthodox tradition or other congregations located outside the scope of western traditions?”

Here, I will end with Peter’s observation about Jesus when our Lord was undergoing his earthly trial before sinners immediately preceding his crucifixion, 1 Peter 2:23 (NIV): “he entrusted himself to him who judges justly.”