Judgment to Come

D. Gene West wrote this article which appeared in The Bible Herald on March 15, 1971. It was published by the Bible Herald Corporation in Parkersburg, West Virginia.

No student of the Bible in his right mind, would deny that God intended to bring and indeed did bring, a judgment upon the Jews because they rejected the Messiah. Furthermore, it cannot be denied that that judgment, promised by some of the Old Testament prophets and Jesus Himself, took place at the time of the destruction of the city of Jerusalem by the invading armies of Rome under the command of Titus. But does this mean that every reference to judgment in the New Testament and every promise of a coming judgement had its fulfillment in that even and that there can be no future judgment of mankind? Was the destruction of Jerusalem the last and final judgment to which men looked or can look? No!

There are references to a judgment in the New Testament which cannot refer to the destruction of Jerusalem, if the language means anything at all. One of those references is found in Acts 24:25. In this passage, we are told that Paul reasoned with Felix concerning, "righteousness, temperance and judgment to come..." The word "judgment" in this passage is krima, which according to Thayer, means, "The execution of judgment as displayed in the infliction of punishment; the last or final judgment." Further, the words "to come" here mean, "to be about to be" so says Thayer.

It is the very same expression used in Hebrews 10:1 in which the writer says, "For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things..." There are those who tell us that, "to be about to be" means "to be at hand;" i.e., in the immediate future. While it is true that the expression does sometimes have that meaning in the New Testament, it does not always do so. The context always determines the meaning of words and phrases. The law of Moses was a, "shadow of things to come" for about 1580 years, hence, "to be about to be" does not mean immediately at hand. From the day that the law was instituted until the day Christ nailed it to His cross (See Colossians 2:13-15) it was a, "shadow of good things to come." After Christ nailed it to the cross, it was not a shadow of anything! What does one have when a shadow is taken away?

Since the context does not show otherwise, we must conclude that "to come" in Acts 24:25 shows nothing more than future certainty. That Felix did not consider the judgment immediately at hand, is evidenced by his attitude. He told Paul to go away for now and his further interest in Paul was not to learn how to escape an imminent judgment but how to get money from Paul (See Acts 24:26). Is it consistent to believe that a man about to die in the destruction of Jerusalem would be more interested in money than in anything else? Besides, Felix did not live in Jerusalem but in Caesarea (Acts 23:33)! And he was not governor when it was destroyed (Acts 24:27).

If it be insisted that the "judgement to come" in this passage was the destruction of Jerusalem, may we not ask what the punishment was which was inflicted upon Felix? Remember that Felix was a Roman, one of the nation which would inflict God's judgment upon Jerusalem. Logic, reason, common sense and the scriptures themselves certainly testify that the judgment here mentioned was not the destruction of Jerusalem. This dilemma cannot be evaded by saying that Paul referred to the day to day judgement of Felix's life, because the judgement was not something that Felix had or was having, but was something that was "to come."

Again, in Acts 17:31 we are told that God,"...hath appointed a day, in which He will judge the world in righteousness by that Man whom He hath ordained; whereof He hath given assurance unto all men, in that He hath raised Him from the dead." The word judge comes from the Greek krino which means, "to be summoned to trial that one's case may be examined and judgment passed upon it; of the judgement of God, or of Jesus the Messiah, deciding between the righteousness and the unrighteousness of the inhabitants of the world; to be summoned to trial and judged."

Paul made this declaration of judgement to the Athenian Areopagites. If he were referring to the destruction of Jerusalem, what possible interest could that have been to the Athenians? Were they summoned to trial and judgement in Jerusalem? So far as can be learned from history, the destruction of Jerusalem meant absolutely nothing to the Areopagites, if indeed they were even alive when it was destroyed! But a world judgment after death would be something else again.

Let us look at this word "world" a moment. It comes from oikoumene which Thayer says means, "Habitable earth or land; the inhabitants of the earth, men." The very same word is used in Acts 17:6 in which we are told that Paul and his helpers were accused of turning, "...the world upside down..." This world which Paul turned upside down would certainly include both Jews and Gentiles because Paul had preached to both! The very same world that Paul and others, "turned upside down" was the same world that God would judge. We can ask, what possible implications could the destruction of Jerusalem have on the Gentile Athenians? It might make them thankful that they were not Jews but how would it move them to become Christians? Since the Athenians were Gentiles, in what sense did they have judgement passed upon them when Jerusalem fell?

We are told that the word "will" in Acts 17:31 is mello and refers to something that must come to pass very shortly, or something that is, "immediately at hand." The word in reality is mellei and it means to, "intend, to have in mind, to think so." The sentence could thus be read, "Because He hat appointed a day, in the which He intends to judge the world in righteousness..." It has absolutely no reference to a definite time. It means simply that God has made up His mind to judge the inhabited earth. It should also be pointed out that the inhabited earth, even in Paul's day, included far more than the Jews and Jerusalem.

One more question. Why should God give the assurance of judgement to all men by the resurrection of Christ if He intended to bring judgment upon only the Jews and Jerusalem? If there were no other passages of scripture in the Bible to do so, these two would be sufficient to prove that there is yet a future judgement.