The Judgment Seat of Christ or God? A Brief Study of Romans 14:10

 

The Judgment Seat of Christ or the Judgment Seat of God?  A Brief Study of Romans 14:10

 

Although I am not a textual critic, I do have some tools at my disposal.  Without doubt the internet’s availability of online resources is a huge help.  One of the  most difficult issues for anyone who wants to study a textual critical issue in the Bible is deciphering the textual critical symbols and notes in the footnote apparatus of critical editions of the Greek New Testament.

I became interested in studying this verse after sitting in church on October 13^th, 2024 and hearing the reading of the text for a sermon given.  I have a habit of following along in my King James Version just to see of any textual variants popup during the reading of the English Standard Version, which is the preferred translation at the church I have been attending.  The verse that stood out on this Lord’s Day was Romans 14:10.  A further problem with the ESV is that the 2002 edition does not even have a footnote to indicate that the text has been changed.  I will quote it here in both translations for your reading:

“But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.” (Romans 14:10, KJV 1900)

“Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God;” (Romans 14:10, ESV)

The Greek readings are as follows:

“σὺ δὲ τί κρίνεις τὸν ἀδελφόν σου; ἢ καὶ σὺ τί ἐξουθενεῖς τὸν ἀδελφόν σου; πάντες γὰρ παραστησόμεθα τῷ βήματι τοῦ Χριστοῦ.” (Romans 14:10, Scrivener 1881)

“συ δε τι κρινεις τον αδελφον σου η και συ τι εξουθενεις τον αδελφον σου παντες γαρ παραστησομεθα τω βηματι του χριστου” (Romans 14:10, Stephens 1550) 

“συ δε τι κρινεις τον αδελφον σου η και συ τι εξουθενεις τον αδελφον σου παντες γαρ παραστησομεθα τω βηματι του χριστου” (Romans 14:10, BYZ)

 

“Σὺ δὲ τί κρίνεις τὸν ἀδελφόν σου; ἢ καὶ σὺ τί ἐξουθενεῖς τὸν ἀδελφόν σου; πάντες γὰρ παραστησόμεθα τῷ βήματι τοῦ θεοῦ,” (Romans 14:10, NA28)

The textual evidence supporting the readings in the critical editions of the Greek New Testament is not as well attested as they pretend, because the critics are using the reasoned eclecticism approach to textual criticism.  That method involves numerous presupposed principles or axioms of interpretation and reconstruction.  The chosen reading of God rather than Christ has fewer manuscripts, though the critics prefer so-called “earlier” evidences.  In fact, Sinaiticus has the Christ reading, not God.  But the critics say that Sinaiticus has an earlier reading of God which has been corrected by a later reading of Sinaiticus.  Metzger indicates that Sinaiticus was written on parchment.  Apparently, this means that the parchment was erased and written over so that the Greek word for God was replaced by the word for Christ.

It took some time for me to figure this out because the apparatus symbols can be hard to understand without researching the introductions to the various critical editions of the Greek New Testament.  For example, the United Bible Societies, 4^th edition, which I have in hardcopy, lists the evidences for their preferred reading of God first, and then the list of evidences for the reading of Christ second.  The hardcopy I have of the 26^th edition of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament lists the readings for Christ first and the readings for God second, although the preferred reading in the 26^th edition is also God, not Christ.  However, the symbols determine how the apparatus is to be interpreted. 

To save time, I will show you the textual note in the 28^th edition of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, and then explain how I concluded that the critics believe that Sinaiticus was altered by a later redactor:

 

⸀ Χριστου א² C² L P Ψ 048. 0209. 33. 81. 104. 365. 1175. 1241. 1505. 1881 [Majority Text symbol] r vg^cl sy; Polyc Mcion^T Ambst

¦ txt א* A B C* D F G 630. 1506. 1739 lat co

Beginning at the far left of the quote, you can see the ⸀ symbol.  This indicates that the Greek word immediately following is indicated in other manuscripts with variants.  Immediately after that we see the Hebrew letter for aleph with a superscript number 2:  א².  The aleph is the symbol for Codex Sinaiticus.  The subscript number 2 indicates that this is a second corrector, meaning that the critics think that the word for God was erased and replaced by the word for Christ.  Now if you look at the line underneath you will see the aleph symbol with an asterisk: א*.  The abbreviation "txt" indicates that this is the reading chosen for the main body of the eclectic Greek New Testament.  The asterisk is supposed to indicate that this is the original reading in the autographs using the principles or axioms of the science of textual criticism:

 

The original reading of a manuscript (when the reading of a manuscript has been corrected); correlative with ^c or ^1,2,3.  (Footnote from the UBS 5^th edition).

 

The other symbols in both lines are other manuscript evidences.  As you can see, the list of evidences supporting the reading of Christ is much longer, while the bottom line shows only a few manuscripts that support the critical edition of the Greek New Testament rather than the Textus Receptus or the Byzantine reading.

But why is this the case?  I’m glad you asked.  According to Metzger, this is because the older and better manuscripts support the God reading rather than the Christ reading:

 

14:10     θεοῦ {B}

At an early date (Marcion Polycarp Tertullian Origen) the reading θεοῦ, which is supported by the best witnesses (א* A B C* D G 1739 al), was supplanted by Χριστοῦ, probably because of influence from 2 Cor 5:10 (ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ βήματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ).

Metzger, Bruce Manning, United Bible Societies. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition a Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (4th Rev. Ed.). London; New York: United Bible Societies, 1994. Print.

I am using the Logos edition here.  However, I do have the 2^nd edition of the same work in hardcopy, and the quote is identical.  You will note that Metzger does not do anything other than assert that his witnesses are the best witnesses.  And even the reading of theou or θεοῦ is at best rated only with a B, meaning that only three out of the four committee members voted that God is the original word there.  It’s also interesting that Metzger admits that other passages in the New Testament support the reading of Christ.  Another problem with Metzger’s comment is that the 28^th edition of the NA Greek New Testament says that Polycarp, Marcion and Tertullian all support the reading of Christ, not God.  So Metzger deliberately equivocates by placing in parentheses the church fathers as if they support the critical reading, which they do not.  Ambrosiaster, another church father, also supports the reading of Christ.  Marcion was reported by Tertullian as reading this verse with the word Christ.  Although the church fathers are not the final authority, the fact that 2^nd and 3^rd century church fathers support the received text reading is important.

Notice that the context of 2 Corinthians 5:10 and Romans 14:10 both deal with Christians who are members of the visible church.  The great white throne judgment in Revelation 20:11-15  deals with the general judgment of the wicked to execute their just punishments.  The vast majority of Evangelicals have interpreted the judgment seat of Christ to mean that elect Christians who belong to the invisible church will be judged according to their rewards in heaven.

Even the great Princeton theologian, Charles Hodge, although studied in textual criticism, judged that the original autographs read “Christ” and not “God”:

 

Instead of χριστοῦ, at the close verse, the MSS. A. D. E. F. G. read θεοῦ, which is adopted by Mill, Lachmann, and Tischendorf. The common reading is supported by the great majority of the MSS., most of the ancient versions, and almost all the Fathers. It is therefore retained by most critical editors.

Hodge, Charles. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. New Edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Louis Kregel, 1882. Print.  [Footnote on Romans 14:10].

 

In view of the fact that the various editions of the Textus Receptus read Christ, and the fact that the Byzantine Majority Text reads the same, I judge that by God’s providence the Reformers were led to accept the received text as the original.  The reasoned eclecticism of the “science” of textual criticism cannot use reason to reconstruct the originals without using presupposed principles or axioms imposed on the process.  How do we know that the shorter and more rough reading is the original? 

As I pointed out in an earlier blog post, textual criticism is an external authority imposed on the text.  Scripture itself is self-authenticating.  This means that the plowboy and the housewife can trust what God has in His providence given us in the Textus Receptus of the Greek New Testament and the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Old Testament.  Furthermore, the King James translation, although not itself inspired, is faithful to the original languages and is therefore superior to modern translations which alter the readings of the Bible to fit with liberal presuppositions and specuations such as the one offered by Bruce Metzger above.  The King James authorized version has been the most read and most used translation of the Bible for over 400 years.  While it is sometimes helpful to laypersons to read more modern translations, they should do so with the awareness of where those translations came from and what the biases of the translators are.  I recommend the New King James Version as the best comparison Bible.

A further advantage of reading the King James Version or the perhaps the Geneva Bible, is that the proof texts in the Reformed confessions, like the 1647 Edinburgh edition of the Westminster Confession of Faith, are more in sync with what the Westminster divines were reading in their English translations.  This is also true of the 1647 editions of the Larger and Shorter Catechisms.

May the peace of God be with you all.

 

---