Are Christ's judgements sure to come to pass, or did he mean something else?

shnarkle

Well-known member
When Christ points out that he didn't come to condemn, but that those who reject his message will be judged by his words, does he mean that his judgement will stand the test of time, or is he using a figure of speech which actually emphasizes that he will personally be returning to judge?

If he's using a figure of speech, then which figure of speech is he using. There are a couple hundred to choose from. Which one is he using?

"He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. And I know that his commandment is life everlasting"

We must certainly know that all of God's commandments are life everlasting, no? If not, which one's?
 

Dizerner

Well-known member
I think Christ was pointing out that his earthly mission was to offer mercy before the final judgment. He did not "come" to the earth, that is, his incarnation was not for judgment, but for mercy.

We must certainly know that all of God's commandments are life everlasting, no? If not, which one's?

By the law is the knowledge of sin, the law's only purpose is to condemn us and show us we don't measure up. The only command is to believe instead of achieve now.

For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law.
But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. (Gal 3:21-22 NKJ)
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
I think Christ was pointing out that his earthly mission was to offer mercy before the final judgment. He did not "come" to the earth, that is, his incarnation was not for judgment, but for mercy.
Right, but then that's still right in line with his judgements coming to pass, no?
By the law is the knowledge of sin, the law's only purpose is to condemn us and show us we don't measure up. The only command is to believe instead of achieve now.
Instead of achieve? What does that mean? Why would they be mutually exclusive?
For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law.
And yet he also points out that: "For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them." And the man who loves Christ keeps his commandments by faith.
But the Scripture has confined all under sin,
Yes, but Paul distinguishes between the law of sin and the commandments. They are not the same.
that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. (Gal 3:21-22 NKJ)
 

Dizerner

Well-known member
Instead of achieve? What does that mean? Why would they be mutually exclusive?

Because fundamental righteousness is absolute perfection, so either we achieve perfection or God has to do it on our behalf. Nobody can achieve that so before a perfectly holy God, nothing is ever enough.

The obedience and good works we do, are God working in us a gift because we receive a once-for-all perfected work on our behalf, so they cannot be meriting or achieving anything virtuous in and of themselves, that would be the sin of self-righteousness and pride.

This is Paul's major theme.

I pray your hearts eyes be opened friend!
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
Because fundamental righteousness is absolute perfection, so either we achieve perfection or God has to do it on our behalf. Nobody can achieve that so before a perfectly holy God, nothing is ever enough.

The obedience and good works we do, are God working in us a gift because we receive a once-for-all perfected work on our behalf, so they cannot be meriting or achieving anything virtuous in and of themselves, that would be the sin of self-righteousness and pride.
Got it. So it was never about achieving at all then, right? The law doesn't just point out that we can't achieve it, it points out what God's standard is; at least a baseline.
 

Dizerner

Well-known member
Got it. So it was never about achieving at all then, right? The law doesn't just point out that we can't achieve it, it points out what God's standard is; at least a baseline.

That's my take.

The problem with trying to perform to be good enough, is it never turns out quite good enough.
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
That's my take.

The problem with trying to perform to be good enough, is it never turns out quite good enough.
To try is to fail. This is Paul's point on why the old testament had to be superseded by the new. Under the Old Testament, God tells Moses to bring the children of Israel before him so that he may prove them. They decline God's invitation, and suggest that Moses relate to them what God wants, and they will obey.

Under the New Covenant, the law is placed within the heart of the new creation which eliminates any and all external mediators. The law is then kept perfectly. This is the explicit purpose of the New Covenant.
 
Top