Judgment Seat of Christ—In Rebuttal

Photo Credit: “Court Gavel – Judge’s Gavel – Courtroom” by weiss_paarz_photos is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0.

I have received various well-meaning criticisms and objections to the series of articles that I have posted on this blog regarding the correct translation of 2 Cor. 5:10, a passage generally referred to as the Judgment Seat of Christ. To refresh your memories, the text, with special attention to the subordinate clause, reads in Greek as follows (shared text of UBS5 and NA28): τοὺς γὰρ πάντας ἡμᾶς φανερωθῆναι δεῖ ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ βήματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἵνα κομίσηται ἕκαστος τὰ διὰ τοῦ σώματος πρὸς ἃ ἔπραξεν, εἴτε ἀγαθὸν εἴτε φαῦλον.

The translation advanced in my articles is as follows: “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each of us may receive in our bodies what is due us for what we have done, whether good or bad.” Compare this with the conventional translation, for example the NIV: “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.” 

One of my critics conceded that the Greek grammar of this passage, notably back-to-back prepositional phrases bracketed by two transitive verbs with a definite article preceding the first phrase and a relative pronoun as the object of the second preposition, both of which share a neuter plural (κομίσηταιἕκαστος τὰ διὰ τοῦ σώματος πρὸς ἃ ἔπραξεν), is “so problematic” and has never been rigorously addressed in any commentary that either he or I know of. Nonetheless, he and others have raised serious objections to my treatment of this difficult text. This is not to suggest that these criticisms represent an exhaustive list. Readers who would like to raise additional points are invited to do so in the comments section of this article below, and I will attempt to address them as quickly as I can. It strikes me, however, that some of the objections that have been raised so far are stronger than others, but all are worthy of consideration. Readers should be reminded that the ultimate outcome of this often arduous exegetical journey is to remove the fear and anxiety frequently associated with the conventional notions of judgment advanced by many theologians over the years and to replace them with the joy and hope characteristic of a believer’s close relationship with Christ, a relationship in which judgment, when properly considered scripturally, should be viewed as an uplifting and beneficial part. So, with the stakes this high, let us get to it.

Objection. The use of the verb to receive κομίζω elsewhere in the NT, except in a narrative context, does tend…to have eschatological connotations. In support, the reader cites the following passages: Matt. 25:27; Lk. 7:37; Eph. 6:8; Col. 3:25; Heb. 10:36; 11:19, 39; and 1 Pet. 1:9; 5:4.

Response. This passage, 2 Cor. 5:10, by definition, has “eschatological connotations,” however interpreted. That is the whole point of the inquiry; namely, what is the proper eschatology for the final judgment of believers? Broadly speaking, does it involve a post-death venue, or rather one that is conducted bodily prior to death? On this point see Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 409: “But in comparison with the supreme and sobering fact of his accountability to Christ, the precise time of the φανερωθῆναι would have been a matter of relative insignificance to Paul.” To be fair, Harris was referring to various points at or after one’s physical death when this judgment might occur. Nevertheless, the reading proposed here, though novel, seems perfectly consistent with Paul’s overriding concern that believers must give account to Christ for their behavior. Indeed, to classify as “eschatological” a judgment taking place the moment after death while denying that classification to a judgment occurring just prior to death seems to me nonsensical.

For a common-sense definition of “eschatological,” see Newman and Nida, A Translator’s Handbook on the Gospel of John, p. 671: “eschatological refers to the end of the world and the events connected with it. In this connection, the term ‘world’ is understood in various ways by various persons.” (Emphasis Added.) Is not the final judgment of believers by Christ following his resurrection, wherever and whenever conducted, eschatological since it is, by definition, connected with the last times? Unless otherwise noted, for full citations of authorities mentioned in this article, see the bibliography at the end of my full exegetical article at the following link:  https://www.thetwocities.com/biblical-studies/the-judgment-seat-of-christ-revisited-2-corinthians-5-10-full-exegetical-article/.

I believe what this reader was referring to was not so much eschatological connotations, but rather apocalyptic connotations. With that analytical prism in mind, most of the passages he cites, if not all, could just as easily refer to recompense for one’s behavior received (κομίσηται) either in this life or the next. For example, Colossians 3:25 (NRSV) provides: “For the wrongdoer will be paid back for whatever wrong has been done, and there is no partiality.” The Greek text reads: ὁ γὰρ ἀδικῶν κομίσεται ὃ ἠδίκησεν, καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν προσωπολημψία. Paul could just as easily be arguing that this “payback” might come in this life as in the next. Indeed, Paul was no stranger to the notion of bodily judgment. Compare, for example, 1 Cor. 11:29-34 (Partaking of the Lord’s Supper Unworthily), and Romans 1:27 (God’s Wrath against Sin). Note here the simplified format (κομίσεται ὃ ἠδίκησεν) that Paul, had he wished, could have easily employed in 2 Cor. 5:10 to indicate the believer’s recompense for earthly activity

Likewise, 1 Peter 1:9 (NRSV) provides: “for you are receiving the outcome of your faith, the salvation of your souls.” The Greek text reads: κομιζόμενοι τὸ τέλος τῆς πίστεως [ὑμῶν] σωτηρίαν ψυχῶν. Here, the use of the present participle κομιζόμενοι suggests that salvation is something that we need not wait until some apocalyptic venue to receive, but that it is something granted to us in this life through faith. See the prior verse: ὃν οὐκ ἰδόντες ἀγαπᾶτε, εἰς ὃν ἄρτι μὴ ὁρῶντες πιστεύοντες δὲ ἀγαλλιᾶσθε χαρᾷ ἀνεκλαλήτῳ καὶ δεδοξασμένῃ. The NIV translation of these two verses reads: “Though you have not seen him, you love him; and even though you do not see him now, you believe in him and are filled with an inexpressible and glorious joy, for you are receiving the end result of your faith, the salvation of your souls.” (Emphasis Added.)

The use of the middle form of κομίζω in 2 Cor. 5:10, κομίσηται, suggests that each believer will receive something back. The questions are what (either recompense in the body for one’s earthly behavior, or recompense for what one does in the body here on earth) and when will this recompense be received (in this life or the next). Thus, this reader’s objection does little more than restate the issue.

Objection. It ignores the use of βῆμα in Rom 14:10 (NRSV): “Why do you pass judgment on your brother or sister? Or you, why do you despise your brother or sister? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God.”

Response: My original article addresses this objection:

The term βήμαlikely referredto a Roman seat of judgment at which the “deeds, both good and bad, performed through the earthly body” (Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 406) would be examined. For the significance of the βήμα, see also Hodge, Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 125; Guthrie, 2 Corinthians, 288; and Windisch, Der zweite Korintherbrief, 171: “βήμα ist auch im N.T. der gewöhnliche Ausdruck für den Amststuhl des Richters oder des Statthalters.”

Nothing in this passage suggests that Paul was thinking of anything other than a “judicial appearance” (Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 406). Such an appearance need not take place in “a court of heaven” (Harris, 405) after one’s physical death. Indeed, Paul stood before Gallio’s tribunal in Corinth “some four years previously (in A.D. 52) when the proconsul dismissed the charge that Paul had contravened Roman law (Acts 18:12-17).” Harris, 406. Jesus faced Pilate’s βήμα before going to his death on the cross and completing his earthly ministry, and the martyred Stephen saw the risen Lord immediately prior to his death (Acts 7:55). All the ink spilled by commentators on this common Greek term and its cultural context and significance does little other than suggest a metaphor for Christ’s evaluation of believers occurring at some point, a judgment that under the alternative translation proposed here would take place “through the body.

Once again, Christ stood before the βῆμα of Pilate (Mat 27:19), and likewise Paul stood before the judgment seat of Gallio (Acts 18:12), both decidedly non-apocalyptic, earthly venues. The fact that in Romans 14:10 (initiating an argument which assumes that 2 Cor. 5:10 and Romans 14:10 are referring to the same tribunal conducted at the same time before the same set of examinees) Paul uses the future tense, πάντες γὰρ παραστησόμεθα τῷ βήματι τοῦ θεοῦ, should not trouble us. Whether judgment takes place after death or during this life, the complete rendering of this judgment is, by definition, a future event for each believer, and thus encompasses a future appearance.

The question here is whether it also encompasses an ongoing present appearance before this divine βῆμα. Interestingly, in contrast to the future tense of Romans 14:10, the verb Paul uses in 2 Cor. 5:10 is κομίσηται, aor. subj. mid. In discussing the aorist tense, Zerwick, A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament, p. xii, observes that “if the aorist does not express duration, neither does it preclude it as a fact but views the action, of however long duration, as telescoped to a point.” The aorist, which is quite flexible in its denotation of aspect and time (see Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, pp. 554-565), may also mark the “point of entry into action (ingressive or inceptive aor.)” Zerwick, A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament, p. xiii.

Objection. A major glitch in this interpretation, when read in the context of the whole of 2 Corinthians, is that the Corinthians might respond to Paul’s catalogs of his afflictions strewn throughout the letter by saying that his suffering is due punishment in his body for wrongs he has done.

Response. It is conceivable that the Corinthians might have responded in any number of ways to Paul’s catalogue of afflictions. For example, if they believed that divine judgment was a current reality rather than some vague expectation of future recompense, they might have taken Paul’s admonitions regarding their behavior even more seriously. The theological mainstays of Paul’s underlying concerns in the overall passage, assurance of salvation for believers (Garland, 2 Corinthians, 264) and the need for accountability for their actions (Guthrie, 2 Corinthians, 288-289), not only do not undercut this alternative reading, but are both preserved and supported by it.

Objection. 1 Corinthians 3:11-16 implies an eschatological evaluation of how one has “built on the foundation,” though shoddy building does not affect one’s ultimate salvation. Paul assumes that one’s work will be judged, though one is not saved by them.

Response. Scripture contains clear statements of God’s intent to judge each of us according to what we do as expressed, for example, in 1 Peter 1:17 (NLT): “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’.” This seems to go beyond a mere “rewards judgment” in which believers may suffer a loss of heavenly benefits or distinctions if their earthly efforts on behalf of the Gospel do not prove durable. Compare Jeka, The Eschatology of 2 Corinthians, A Biblical and Exegetical Study based on 2 Corinthians 5:1-10, (2019) 13-15, which can be found at the following link: https://www.academia.edu/39796544/The_Eschatology_of_2_Corinthians?email_work_card=view-paper.

In short, the evaluation contemplated in 2 Cor. 5:10 is a comprehensive evaluation of one’s earthly behavior and not merely one focused on the durability of one’s labors, to the extent there are any, on behalf of the Gospel. Compare also Blomberg, Craig, Degrees of Reward in the Kingdom of Heaven, JETS 35/2 (June 1992) pp. 159-172, where the author questions the scriptural viability of the whole notion of a separate apocalyptic rewards judgment.

Objection. My sense is that Paul is saying that we will have to appear before the judgement seat of Christ, at the end time, to account for what did, good or evil, while we were alive, in the body.

Response. That is a fair argument shared by many believers, lay and scholarly alike, however, I would remind readers that 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….”  Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Second Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians, p. xlii. One’s general sense of Paul’s views regarding eschatology should be corroborated in each instance by a rigorous examination of the language he used, which in the case of the subordinate clause of 2 Cor. 5:10 has surprisingly never been undertaken in the literature.

Objection.  There is an interesting variant, which is probably not the original reading, found in some manuscripts (D* F G) that simplifies the text and gives it a clearer meaning ha dia to somatos epraxen (“which he did in the body”).

Response. Indeed, this passage has two notable variants, the D*F G variant, fifth century and onward (ἃ διὰ τοῦ σώματος ἔπραξεν) mentioned above, and the earlier Papyrus 46 (τὰ ἴδια τοῦ σώματος ἃ ἔπραξεν). Both likely sought to improve what overly zealous scribes believed to be Paul’s unnecessarily cumbersome grammatical construction, that is, “an obvious attempt to improve the syntax.” Furnish, II Corinthians, p. 276. But for the possibility of scribal error, see Thrall, II Corinthians 1-7: Volume 1, p. 396. Owing to their general lack of attestation, there is little chance that any of these variants represent the original text. See, for example, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Metzger, Bruce M., United Bible Societies (Corrected Edition, 1975), p. 580, whichreported no variant readings under 2 Cor. 5:10; and Thrall, p.396: “The majority reading will be correct.” For similar conclusions, see also Plummer, p. 160, Harris, p. 369, and finally Windisch, Der zweite Korintherbrief, p. 172, who went on to admit that he was tempted to strike one of the two phrases, τὰ διὰ τοῦ σώματος or πρὸς ἃ: “man ist versucht, eine der Wendungen als Glosse zu streichen.” He finally concluded, however, that the phrase τὰ διὰ τοῦ σώματος was simply too difficult (schwierig) not to be the original: “aber τὰ διὰ τοῦ σώματος ist für eine Glosse zu originell und zu schwierig, und πρὸς ἃ ἔπραξεν wäre auch nicht gerade die nächstliegende Glosse für τὰ διὰ τοῦ σώματος.”

This reader makes a further point by observing that even if the variants are not original, the advantage of looking at them is that they often try to clarify the meaning of a difficult passage, and so we can get some hints as to the meaning of the text from them. This seems unlikely here, as the scribes were simply trying to “clean up” Paul’s grammar. However, taking this criticism at face value, let us examine its implications.

The root meaning of the preposition πρός is “near or “nearby.” Chamberlain, An Exegetical Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p. 128; and Robertson, Greek Grammar of the New Testament, p. 622. This usage would arguably identify “the things done through the body” with their actual performance as expressed by the verb ἔπραξεν. According to this view, what is stressed is one’s personal responsibility for one’s actions. Perhaps this is what the scribe in Papyrus 46 had in mind when he replaced διά with ἴδια, “one’s own,” so that the phrase would read τὰ ἴδια τοῦ σώματος, “one’s own things of the body.” In any case, nothing in the proposed alternative translation diminishes this personal ownership of one’s own behavior. Indeed, by making the body the recipient for the consequences of one’s acts, this ownership is enhanced.

Regarding the other variant text, compare Colossians 3:25, κομίσεται ὃ ἠδίκησεν (Zerwick, A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament, p. 611:”‘that which he did wrong’, the wrong he did”). Note here the simplified grammatical format that Paul, had he wished, could have easily employed in 2 Cor. 5:10 to indicate the believer’s recompense for earthly activity. Perhaps his choice of a more involved grammatical and syntactical structure suggests that he was getting at something other than what some overly zealous scribes (textual variants D* F G, fifth century and onward) apparently attributed to him when they altered the text to read ἃ διὰ τοῦ σώματος ἔπραξεν.   

Objection. This is an interesting piece. I am not yet convinced since Paul’s thinking was so steeped in apocalypticism but I will ponder it. 

Response. This reader correctly makes the distinction between eschatology and apocalypticism. As with the prior criticism based on Paul’s eschatology, however, this objection likewise effectively assumes its conclusion. Indeed, if Paul’s language in 2 Cor. 5:10 had been correctly viewed from the beginning, one might question just how steeped in apocalypticism Paul’s thinking was. There is nothing new, however, in my overall reading of this passage. Indeed, this issue of the timing and venue of divine judgment was spotted at the very dawn of Christianity in the first known sermon outside the New Testament: Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers, Greek Texts and English Translations, 2 Clement 9, pp. 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.

Objection. The intruding τὰ, prevents the prepositional phrases from modifying κομίσηται.  I don’t know of any exception to that pattern.

Response. The argument supporting an alternative translation of this passage is not that the phrase τὰ διὰ τοῦ σώματος modifies κομίσηται adverbially. Rather, the substantivized phrase διὰ τοῦ σώματος is treated as the direct object of κομίσηται. The phrase is thus likened to an accusative composite noun, which in this instance has been substantivized by the presence of the article τὰ. “The accusative case is the case of limitation or extension, delimiting the action of a verb. The accusative ‘measures an idea as to its content, scope, [or] direction’.” Köstenberger, Going Deeper with New Testament Greek, p. 64. See also Mathewson, Intermediate Greek Grammar, p. 28: “verbs in general take accusative direct objects … [s]ome grammars call it the case of limitation or extent.”

Thus, under this line of reasoning, the prepositional phrase διὰ τοῦ σώματος would measure the idea of receiving (from the verb κομίσηται) “as to its content, scope, direction.” Chamberlain, An Exegetical Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p. 37. It would do so by signifying the means through which recompense is to be received, in this case through the instrumentality of the body.  Compare Robertson, Greek Grammar of the New Testament, p. 582, where in explaining the agency role of the preposition διὰ, the author wrote: “Here, of course, the agent is conceived as coming in between the non-attainment and the attainment of the object in view.” Thus, under Robertson’s reading of agency as applied to the revised translation proposed here, it would be the body (σώματος) that would serve as the vehicle by which and through which Christ’s judgment of believers is attained.

Interestingly, if we were to ignore the article τὰ as Furnish suggested in supporting his conventional translation of this passage, p. 276, the entire clause would read: ἵνα κομίσηται ἕκαστος διὰ τοῦ σώματος πρὸς ἃ ἔπραξεν. In that event, one might well ask why διὰ τοῦ σώματοςshould not be read to modify κομίσηταιadverbially. Note that with the article removed, διὰ τοῦ σώματοςwould no longer be nominalized and would instead function as an adverbial phrase.Chamberlain, An Exegetical Grammar of the Greek New Testament, p. 56.A choice would then need to be made between κομίσηται and ἔπραξενas to which verb the phrase would principally modify.In such close matters of scriptural interpretation,word order would seem to suggest the former. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 196.Compare BDF, ¶ 472: “Closely related elements in the sentence …are usually placed together in simple speech. Poetic language and that rhetorically stylized in any way frequently pulls them apart to give greater effect to the separated elements by their isolation.”   

Objection. Futuricity of the Judgment Seat seems implied (though not in a slam-dunk way), by the use of dei + the infinitive. There are 63 such constructions in the NT where the infinitive is within 2 words of dei, and it generally seems to indicate a future event or state, rather than an ongoing, event, e.g., Matt 16:21, Matt 17:10, Mark 13:7, Luke 12:12, Acts 21:22, Col 4:4. There are exceptions, to be fair: it can represent a counterfactual that should have been happening currently (e.g., Matt 23:23). We do see something close to an “current, ongoing” event/state is when there is a present infinitive, e.g., Luke 2:49 (since Jesus was in His Father’s house even while His parents were looking, but there we have a present infinitive), Luke 13:14. (In Luke 13:16, with an Aorist infinitive, it refers to a past event, “was it not necessary for this woman to have been loosed . . .”), but also Luke 15:32 with an Aorist infinitive. Nonetheless, I believe the general expectation, without clear contextual clues, would be that it refers to a future event, especially with a hina purpose clause. This is not a “slam-dunk” argument, obviously, but something that needs to be taken into consideration.

Response. This reader’s criticism implies its obvious rejoinder; namely, that the construction of dei + the infinitive only hints at some exclusively future event and is not conclusive. For example, in a passage the reader did not cite, John 9:4, the whole import of Jesus’s message here is the need to work in the present in an ongoing way while “it is still day.” The passage reads in Greek, with the dei + the infinitive construction in bold type, as follows: ἡμᾶς δεῖ ἐργάζεσθαι τὰ ἔργα τοῦ πέμψαντός με ἕως ἡμέρα ἐστίν· ἔρχεται νὺξ ὅτε οὐδεὶς δύναται ἐργάζεσθαι. The verse reads in English, NIV: “As long as it is day, we must do the works of him who sent me. Night is coming, when no one can work.” The only difference is that the infinitive here is present whereas in 2 Cor. 5:10, it is aorist. See above regarding the flexibility of time and aspect generally associated with the use of the aorist.

For other examples of this construction (marked by bold type) denoting a present, ongoing state or event, see also Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers, Commandment 12.2, 2, p. 546: ἀπέχεσθαι οὖν δεῖ ἀπὸ τῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν τῶν πονηρῶν, ἵνα ἀποσχόμενοι ζήσητε τῷ θεῷ, translated therein, “You must keep away, therefore, from evil desires, in order that by keeping away from them you may live to God”; Acts 5:29, Πειθαρχεῖν δεῖ θεῷ μᾶλλον ἢ ἀνθρώποις, NIV, “Peter and the other apostles replied: ‘We must obey God rather than human beings!'”; and Luke 15:32, εὐφρανθῆναι δὲ καὶ χαρῆναι ἔδει, ὅτι ὁ ἀδελφός σου οὗτος νεκρὸς ἦν καὶ ἔζησεν, καὶ ἀπολωλὼς καὶ εὑρέθη, NIV, “But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.”

Note in this last example that the infinitives are both aorist. While the passage is typically translated in the past tense (we had to celebrate), the reality is that when the father spoke to his elder son, the party for his younger son was still ongoing. Thus, this passage could just as easily be translated “we have to celebrate and be glad,” or “we began to celebrate and be glad and are continuing to celebrate.” This is true even though here the form of δεῖ is the imperfect ἔδει. See A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Blass, F., Debrunner, A., and Funk, Robert W. p.169, para. 327: “Imperfect used to portray the manner of the action, i.e. A past action is represented as being in progress;” Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 544: “the translation for the inceptive imperfect ought to be ‘began dong’.”  

Finally, Mathewson, Intermediate Greek Grammar, p. 131, provides us with a clear example of a form of δεῖ being used with an aorist participle that clearly refers to an ongoing action in the present that continues into the future, Matt.23:23, ταῦτα [δὲ] ἔδει ποιῆσαι κἀκεῖνα μὴ ἀφιέναι, translated therein: “It is necessary to do these things without also neglecting the others.” Matthewson here observes: “Jesus is clearly not referring to an event in the past.” See Matthewson, p. 117, on the temporal element in the Greek verb system generally: “Even for those who still want to see some temporal element in the Greek verb system, it remains advisable to look at the broader context to determine the time of an action. Any given aspect can be used in past, present, future, and timeless contexts.” The context of the alternative reading of the subordinate clause in 2 Cor. 5:10 clearly refers to an ongoing action in the present that continues into the future.

In Mathewson, p. 2, the authors advocate for a “minimalist approach” to grammatical analysis, using case forms as an example: “This grammar will follow a ‘minimalist’ approach to the cases. That is, it focuses on the basic, more common, or exegetically significant usages of the case rather than multiplying numerous categories with their respective labels. This is not to suggest that there are not other valid usages or categories than those listed below. But it is important to remember that ‘these names are merely appellations to distinguish the different contextual variations of usage, and that they do not serve to explain the case itself’.” For a more traditional approach, with a deep bow to more modern methods, compare Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 1-11. In other words, references to various grammatical categories, such as tense, may not be as impactful in Biblical exegesis as many traditionalists have assumed.

Even assuming that the reader’s argument has some merit, the Judgment Seat of Christ in the alternative reading, by necessity, encompasses a future component since it is ongoing in the life of the believer. Again, see the argument above regarding the classification of κομίσηται as an ingressive or inceptive aorist.    

Objection.  In my view the relative pronoun ha pretty clearly refers back to ta as its antecedent, and they both refer to the works that we have done in our bodies. I don’t think the prepositional phrase can be adverbial in context. So I do think the verse is referring to the final judgment where we each of us must stand and give an account of what we have done in the body. Similar is Rom. 14:10-12, which says that each believer must appear before the judgment seat (bema) of God and give an account. I think Scripture teaches that there is one judgment at the end of time where every person will stand before God. Believers are justified by faith in Christ alone, but then God also changes our lives so that we do what is good. I agree with you that there is security and hope for each believer, and that we will be with Christ immediately upon our death (the intermediate state). But we must still stand before God’s judgment seat at the end of time in my view. Most Protestants have agreed on this point historically.

Response. The reader is correct in observing that one of the key questions here is whether the relative pronoun ἃ and the preceding article τὰ, and thus their respective prepositional phrases διὰ τοῦ σώματος and πρὸς ἃ, should be linked in translation or not. On the surface they would appear to be closely connected. This is because the relative pronoun and the preceding article share a neuter plural accusative, fall in close proximity to one another, and can both be translated generally as “the things,” thus forging what would appear to be an unbreakable grammatical bond between the two. Robertson, Greek Grammar of the New Testament, p. 711. However, that is not the whole story. Formal (that is, purely grammatically based) counterarguments exist.

Supporting a decoupling of the two clauses is the general rule that a relative pronoun in a prepositional phrase such as πρὸς ἃ often has no precise grammatical antecedent, although in certain instances the antecedent may be “conceptual.” Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, pp.342-343: “The RP is often used after a preposition. Frequently, such prepositional phrases have an adverbial or conjunctive force. In such instances, the RP either has no antecedent, or else its antecedent is conceptual, not grammatical.” Here, the phrase πρὸς ἃ has an adverbial force in relation to the verb ἔπραξεν, suggesting the absence of an antecedent. Köstenberger, Going Deeper with New Testament Greek, p. 71, fn 74. See also Mathewson, Intermediate Greek Grammar, p. 51: “In some instances, the relative pronoun is not connected to an antecedent, or head, in another clause.” In referring to Hebrews 5:8 (ἔμαθεν ἀφ’ ὧν ἔπαθεν, which the authors translated as: “He learned obedience from what he suffered“), Mathewson, p. 245, in concluding that the relative clause has no antecedent, reasoned that “[t]he relative ὧν is the object of the preposition ἀπὸ and the entire prepositional phrase modifies ἔμαθεν…”

I acknowledge that the purely formal arguments in favor of linking the two clauses seem to outweigh those supporting their decoupling. In most of the passages involving a preposition and a relative pronoun that are not connected to an antecedent, there is either no obvious antecedent, or the relative pronoun has only conjunctive force, and thus functions more like a “vague resumptive phrase.” Moule, An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek, p. 131. Simply because the relative clause πρὸς ἃ, by denoting reference, relates adverbially to ἔπραξεν by “delimiting the extent of that verb’s action,” Köstenberger, Going Deeper with New Testament Greek, p. 71, does not preclude the relative pronoun in that clause from fulfilling its normal role of relating back to an antecedent noun, in this case, the prepositional phrase διὰ τοῦ σώματος. Compare Mathewson, Intermediate Greek Grammar, p. 244, “the most common function of the relative clause [is that] it modifies another clause to which it is connected by its antecedent. Sometimes the modifying relative pronoun is the object of a preposition in its own clause.” Indeed, the formal grammatical connection in 2 Cor. 5:10 between the relative pronoun ἃ and the prior articular composite noun (τὰ διὰ τοῦ σώματος) seems as sturdy as one could hope for, since they share not only gender and number, but also case, and they fall very near each other in the text. That does not end the analysis, however. The conceptual component must also be considered.

Here, the conceptual relationship between the two clauses, or more accurately the lack thereof, should far outweigh any grammatical affinity. Simply put, the relative pronoun ἃ (“the things”) in the phrase πρὸς ἃ refers generally to “works” or “deeds,” or “what we did.” Rogers, The New Linguistic and Exegetical Key to the Greek New Testament, p. 402, where the authors noted that “[W]ith the prep. the phrase means ‘w. reference to what he did'”; the NASB text (“according to what he has done”); the ESV text (“for what he has done”); the NIV text (“for the things done”); and Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 407: “the things which (= what) he has done,’ or in proportion to his deeds’.” In stark contrast, the preceding article τὰ (alsoin a general sense, “the things”)refers to “deserts” or “recompense” or “what is due.” Zerwick, A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament, p. 544, the NASB text, and the ESV and NIV texts.

In other words, we have here a case of the proverbial apples and oranges asbetween the two adjacent clauses:τὰ διὰ τοῦ σώματοςand πρὸς ἃ ἔπραξεν. How then can the relative pronoun “relate back” (Köstenberger, Going Deeper with New Testament Greek, p. 398) to the article so as “to modify” or elaborate (Mathewson, Intermediate Greek Grammar, p. 244) the preceding nominalized prepositional phrase (διὰ τοῦ σώματος) when the relative pronoun and article refer to (that is, conceptualize) entirely different “things?” The relative pronoun here denoting “works” or “what each has done” cannot therefore fulfill its usual relational function with respect to the prior phrase, τὰ διὰ τοῦ σώματος (Robertson, Greek Grammar of the New Testament, p. 711). This is because to do so would distort the meaning of the text by imputing to the prior article and nominalized phrase the notion that “what is ‘received (back)’ is one’s earthly activity,” which would at best make only “obscure sense.” Thrall, II Corinthians 1-7: Volume 1, p. 395. Thrall, whose analysis up until now has generally been viewed as authoritative on this question, did not even seek to link the two phrases, but instead chose to advance an entirely different translational approach, which is discussed below.

The relative pronoun and prior article, along with their respective phrases, should thus be treated independently in translation. For another example of a conceptual disconnect between a relative pronoun and a preceding article that share a neuter plural, see Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, The Shepherd of Hermas, Vision3.9, p. 470: καὶ καθιῇ μετ’ αὐτῶν καὶ ὅσοι ἐὰν ἐργάσωνται τὰ ἐκείνων ἔργα καὶ ὑενέγκωσιν, ἃ καὶ ἐκεῖνοι ὑπήνεγκαν, translated therein: “as will all who do what they have done and endure what they have endured.” In this text, the article τὰ refers to “works” that have been done, whereas the following relative pronoun ἃ refers to “trials” that have been endured. The fact that the author has chosen to translate both as “what” does nothing to disguise the conceptual disconnect between the two. In the same way, translating both the article and relative pronoun in 2 Cor. 5:10 as “things” or “what” likewise fails to mask their clear divergence in meaning. Compare the similar use of “what” in the English Standard Version (ESV) of 2 Cor. 5:10: “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.” Compare this with Machen, New Testament Greek for Beginners, p.174, where the author described an example where a singular neuter accusative relative pronoun (ȍ) in which the antecedent is left unexpressed could properly be translated as what: “ȅχω ȍ θέλω, I have what I wish.Here the English word what is a short way of saying the thing which or that which and so is correctly translated by ȍ.”

While the result in this example from the Shepherd of Hermas of failing to recognize the conceptual mismatch between the relative pronoun and its formal antecedent is a less than optimally precise translation, the underlying meaning is still apparent from the context. That is not the case with the unusual grammatical construction in 2 Cor. 5:10, however. There, failure to recognize the conceptual disconnect turns the meaning of the dependent clause upside down by aligning the nominalized phrase διὰ τοῦ σώματος with the verb ἔπραξεν, when instead it should be treated as delimiting the preceding verb κομίσηται in its role as an accusative direct object.

As far as whether both believers and non-believers must appear alongside each other at some future apocalyptic judgment tribunal as this reader argues, that, of course, is the issue. Regarding some Intermediate State where believers lie in repose between their physical death and their final judgment, my reading of 2 Cor. 5:10 obviates any need for such an intermediate resting place. See my article on this blog at the following link: https://www.thetwocities.com/biblical-studies/the-final-judgment-should-believers-be-concerned/.

Objection. How then do we put this all together?  The nominalizing article does not help us determine how many words following it go with it.  Is it τὰ διὰ τοῦ σώματος—“the things through the body”?  But then how would the next words fit in the clause?  Is it τὰ διὰ τοῦ σώματος πρὸς ἃ–“the thing through the body toward what things”?  But we still have the verb at the end of the clause to fit in.  Most likely it is the entire clause that we have to deal with. When I see constructions like this, I often think back to my days in algebra where we had to interpret parentheses within parentheses.  If we had an expression like 17 X (3x + (2y + 5y)), we had to work from the inside out and simplify it to 17 X (3x + 7y) and then perform the main operation to get 51x + 119y.  Only in this verse we have τὰ (διὰ τοῦ σώματος πρὸς ἃ ἔπραξεν) that we have to analyze.  The parenthetical part divides into three units:  the two prepositional phrases and the verb τὰ ((διὰ τοῦ σώματος) (πρὸς ἃ) ἔπραξεν).

The remaining issue is whether the two prepositional phrases are parallel modifier of ἔπραξεν or if one is subordinate to the other.  In other words, and now putting things in more standard English word order is it “the things done through the body” and “the things with respect to what things were done”.  Actually, this debate doesn’t have to be solved to exclude the idea that Paul is talking about what one receives in the body.  But given that “the things with respect to what things were done” seems unnecessarily convoluted by itself, it is more likely that we should render it something like “each person will receive the things:  i.e., the things with respect to what things they did through the body.”  And, of course, in English, what we do through our bodies we usually speak of as having done “in” our bodies—hence, the common use in English translation of “in”.  The next phrase, “whether good or bad” now itemizes the possibilities of what those things are that we could receive—they could be good things or they could be bad things.

Response. I respectfully suggest that the syntactical operation which this reader proposes has already been done, not through a resort to an algebraic equation, but rather more directly. For example, Windisch, Der zweite Korintherbrief, p. 172, purported to solve the conundrum of this troublesome reference to the body in this way: “Eine andere Lösung wäre die Einbeziehung von τὰ διὰ τοῦ σώματος in den Relativsatz…je nachdem er gehandelt hat im Leibe.” In other words, Windisch posited an alternative rationale that would simply transport the phrase τὰ διὰ τοῦ σώματος into the following relative clause πρὸς ἃ ἔπραξεν, yielding in German, “je nachdem er gehandelt hat im Leibe.” Compare Furnish, II Corinthians, 276: “The present tr. in effect ignores the article (ta) and includes the phrase [διὰ τοῦ σώματος] in the relative clause, what each has done.”

This note has already addressed the conceptual disconnect between the two phrases which prevents such a coupling in translation. The reader’s effort to substantivize the entire passage, τὰ διὰ τοῦ σώματος πρὸς ἃ ἔπραξεν, does not change this outcome, but merely restates the same basic issue in another form. In other words, the extension of the composite noun substantivized by the article τὰ to include the phrase πρὸς ἃ ἔπραξεν does nothing to change the basic question of which verb the phrase διὰ τοῦ σώματος should be principally associated with in translation— κομίσηται or ἔπραξεν.

Regarding the reader’s final comment (The next phrase, “whether good or bad” now itemizes the possibilities of what those things are that we could receive—they could be good things or they could be bad things), it is generally believed that ἔπραξεν, not κομίσηται, is to be understood with εἴτε ἀγαθὸν εἴτε φαῦλον. See Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Second Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians, p. 160: There “is no doubt that ἔπραξεν, not κομίσηται, is to be understood with εἴτε ἀγαθὸν εἴτε φαῦλον.” 

Objection. I agree with you that the Lord is present now judging us in discipline (e.g., Hebrews 12 and the messages in Rev 2-3). I guess the question is whether texts like 2 Cor 5 and Rom 14 refer to this reality or the future judgment? I am curious, so you think Rom 14:10-12 refers to a judgment in this life and not on the final day? I am also curious how you would take Jesus’s parable of the sheep and the goats that refers to his final coming in judgment (Matt 25:31ff)? If there is no final judgment for the Christian, then who are the sheep in this parable? 

Response. The passage generally known as the Judgment of the Nations, as this reader points out, refers in the first instance to a group or corporate judgment: “All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.” Matt. 25:32, NIV. This makes clear Christ’s rule over the nations. In other words, Christ has the power to engage in world politics so as to dictate the rise and fall of nations and civilizations. See Isaiah 9:6-7 (NIV): “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders…Of the greatness of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David’s throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the LORD Almighty will accomplish this.”

However, after this general power over the nations and world politics and economy is set out, the passage then seems to merge into more of an individual judgment of each person based on their acts or deeds, both of mercy and love toward the less fortunate on the one hand, and callous hard-heartedness and indifference on the other. Matt. 24:34-46. For the idea that the judgment of believers under 2 Cor. 5:10 (ἵνα κομίσηται ἕκαστος τὰ διὰ τοῦ σώματος πρὸς ἃ ἔπραξεν) is an individual evaluation rather than part of some corporate or group judgment, compare Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 407: “ἕκαστος, ‘each person,’ indicates that τοὺς πάντας ἡμᾶς does not imply a judgment en masse. Accountability and assessment are individual,” an observation which is fully in keeping with an evaluation during each believer’s individual life, rather than at some corporate, post-death venue. See also Guthrie, 2 Corinthians, p. 289: “ἕκαστος … indicates that scrutiny will apply to each individual rather than consisting of a summary judgment on that (πάντας ἡμᾶς) group of people;” Furnish, II Corinthians, p.275: “Although we must all appear before the judicial bench of Christ, we are individually accountable;” Martin, World Biblical Commentary, p.115: “judgment is not rendered en masse, but in each case, one by one;” and Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Second Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians, p. 157, citing the phrase ἵνα κομίσηται ἕκαστος τὰ διὰ τοῦ σώματος as correcting “the false inference which might be drawn from τοὺς πάντας ἡμᾶς. We shall not be judged en masse, or in classes, but one by one, in accordance with individual merit;” again Plummer, p. 163: “He [Paul] does not speak of a great assize in which all souls will come up simultaneously for judgment. What he is concerned to insist upon is that every individual soul will be judged; none can escape;” and finally in the commentary long regarded by many as the fundamental authority on this text, Windisch, Der zweite Korintherbrief, p. 171: “jeder Einzelne wird zur Rechenschaft gezogen.”

Now that it has been established that the passage generally referred to as the Judgment of the Nations includes both corporate and individual judgments, the following verses, Matt. 25:35-46, are nonetheless perplexing. Here, on the one hand we read of various acts of charity performed for those less fortunate being rewarded with eternal life (ζωὴν αἰώνιον) in God’s kingdom “prepared for you from the foundation of the world;” and on the other hand acts of hard-hearted cruelty or indifference to those same needs meriting and duly receiving “eternal punishment” (κόλασιν αἰώνιον). Here is the problem, or at least the apparent contradiction. Do we not all, each one of us, commit both? As I sit here typing, am I not failing to help the poor and miserable not only around the world through at a minimum some small financial gift in response to the many desperate pleas for help that I receive in the mail each day, but also those in need within just miles from my home by my simple presence and encouragement? For every person I do help in some small way either financially or personally, are there not many more I turn my back to? Have you ever passed a miserable beggar on the street without dropping a few coins into his pot? Of course, you have, or at least you have engaged in some comparable form of conduct. Are we all not guilty of this systematic neglect in one way or the other?

Moreover, this reader’s literal reading of the passage would seem to imply that salvation is predicated at least to some degree on works rather than faith, which is clearly at odds with long-accepted Christian doctrine? See Eph. 2:8: “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God.” To get some sense of the confused web of ideas in which many scholars have entangled themselves over the years trying to reconcile the perceived tension between salvation by faith and judgment of works, see the book review published on this blog at the following link. It should be noted that the straightforward system of judgment set out in the full exegetical article on the proper translation of 2 Cor. 5:10 cited above eliminates any tension between works and faith. It does so by simplifying the entire judgment process through removing some of the more arcane and cumbersome notions generally advanced by academics over the years, no doubt with the best of intentions.  

How can we then resolve this apparent dilemma whereby each one of us seems to fall into both categories, the favored sheep, and the condemned goats? Perhaps the resolution lies in John’s prophecy set out in Luke 3:17 concerning Jesus (NIV): “His winnowing fork is in his hand to clear his threshing floor and to gather the wheat into his barn, but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.” Instead of the conventional view of dividing people into two different camps, the wheat and the chaff, or the sheep and the goats, perhaps we should instead read this prophecy as one in which Christ prepares his followers, each one of us, for heaven by cleansing and sanctifying us in this life, thereby separating the wheat from the chaff within our own individual hearts and souls. What appears then as a grand sweep of judgment over two divergent groups of people, symbolized by the sheep and goats, is really a laser-focused piercing of the inner being of each person. Compare Hebrews 4:12 (NIV): “For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.”

I hope that this answers the reader’s question regarding the Judgment of the Nations. As far as his objection based on Rom 14:10-12, that is addressed above.

Objection. I do have theological concerns that your view (and free grace theology in general) could lead to false assurance for professing believers who are not actually converted and to an antinomian view of grace in which grace gives believers license to sin.

Response. This final bodily judgment of believers here on earth contains no hidden traps. It is not about their salvation or eternal destiny. That has already been determined by their faith in Christ and his redeeming work on their behalf. Instead, it has to do with their sanctification, purification, and general preparation for heaven through Christ’s close interaction with them as they go about their daily lives. Judgment for the believer is thus both the outward and inner expression of a joyful, ongoing relationship with Christ, one that is unique to every individual. Rather than suggesting some license to sin, it envisions a close, daily interaction between Christ and the believer, whether the believer is conscious of it or not, that prepares the believer for eternity. The attention of the believer is thus redirected from some vague future, which we simply cannot hope to fathom now, to something far more tangible, understandable and beneficial, that is, our present relationship with Christ. See 1 Cor. 13:12 (NLT): “Now we see things imperfectly, like puzzling reflections in a mirror, but then we will see everything with perfect clarity. All that I know now is partial and incomplete, but then I will know everything completely, just as God now knows me completely.”

I am glad that the reader raised this point. The long and difficult journey of properly interpreting and translating the subordinate clause of 2 Cor. 5:10 leads us to this ultimate piece of Good News, both for scholar and layperson alike. Christ-followers need not fret or be dismayed over the Final Judgment, since it is simply part and parcel of their ongoing, constructive in the sense of building one up rather than tearing one down, and joyful relationship with Christ beginning on this earth and extending into eternity. Compare John Anthony Dunne, Eschatological Emphases in 1 Thessalonians and Galatians: Distinct Argumentative Strategies Related to External Conflict and Audience Response,” JBTS 3.2 (2018): 227–248, p. 237: where the author observed in that context that Paul was using eschatological imagery “for the purposes of consolation.” So here too, one can make that argument, since in this overall passage Paul is largely focused on the assurance of salvation for all believers. Garland, 2 Corinthians, 264.

Objection. You are right to reject the immanental/mechanistic approach of Robertson and Plummer (perhaps I am missing it, but I don’t see Thrall completely lined up with them). And your citation of Harris’s comment is spot on. He’s quite right.

Response. Some background here is necessary. In her treatise, which has come to be the leading authority on this passage, Thrall made no effort to link grammatically the definite article and relative pronoun in the phrase τὰ διὰ τοῦ σώματος πρὸς ἃ ἔπραξεν. Instead, she offered an entirely different translational approach. In fn 1443 and fn 1444, Thrall, II Corinthians 1-7: Volume 1, p. 395, Thrall defended the traditional translation by relying on an “extended” definition of κομιζω, by implying through ellipsis the addition of the participle πεπράγμενα (things done, actions, deeds) immediately after the article τὰ, and finally by inserting into the text an additional prepositional phrase, in exchange for, or in return for.

After noting that κομιζω in the middle voice means “get for oneself” or “receive,” Thrall, p. 395, wrote that “[h]ere, what is ‘received (back)’ is one’s earthly activity.” Concluding, however (p. 395), that since this only makes “obscure sense, the meaning must be extended somewhat.”  Without telling us precisely why it must be extended (that is, the conceptual basis for doing so) other than to relieve the stylistic obscurity of the text, Thrall defined the term as to “‘receive (something) in return for’ (earthly activity), ‘receive recompense’.” Thrall, p. 395, fn 1443.

While the broad definition of receiving recompense is possible, there is no precedent for including within the definition per se the precise terms and nature of the exchange. Thrall, p. 395, attempted to remedy this oversight by classifying the phrase τὰ διὰ τοῦ σώματος as “elliptical,” thereby “requiring, e.g., πεπράγμενα [things done] after τὰ.” In this way, the author sought to make clear what the plain language of the text does not; namely, that the body (σώματος) should be read solely with reference to one’s earthly activity, and not to the site of judgment. What was the recompense to be received in exchange for, according to Thrall? Recompense was to be received (κομίσεται) in exchange for or in return for (implied prepositional phrase) one’s earthly activity (πεπράγμενα [things done] after τὰ.)

In support of her argument Thrall cited two principal sources, the commentaries of Plummer and Windisch. Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, p. 157, in turn, relied on a sermon delivered by F.W. Robertson in 1852 in which he observed that “St. Paul does not say merely that he shall receive according to what he had done in the body, but that he shall receive the things done―the very selfsame things he did, they are to be his punishments.” Plummer picked up on Robertson’s notion of automatic requital for one’s deeds and expanded on it by noting, p. 152, that “the metonymy by which we are said to receive back what we have done is not a mere idiom, but ‘lies deeper in the identity of the deed and its requital’.” Plummer, p. 157, went on to endorse Robertson’s view that “St. Paul does not say merely that he shall receive according to what he had done in the body, but that he shall receive the things done―the very selfsame things he did, they are to be his punishments.” Later Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 407, corrected this mechanical view of judgment by writing that the presence of the article τὰ does not denote “simply metonymy for ‘the consequences of,’ as though the κομίσασθαι were merely the outcome of some immanental process by which the reaping of consequences followed inexorably on the sowing of actions, for in this case the reference to an appearance and examination before the βήμα would be rendered superfluous.”

The reader makes a fair point in arguing, I believe, that in citing Plummer Thrall did not necessarily endorse all of Plummer’s reasoning, namely, the identity of the deed and its requital, but only his adoption of the extended definition of κομίσεται to mean “to receive recompense.” The problem is that Thrall did not make this clear. Indeed, the only apparent reason that she rejected Plummer’s view that what believers receive back is their earthly activity was that it only made “obscure sense.” Thus, it may have seemed to her more of a stylistic rather than a substantive issue. Perhaps, Harris was later simply attempting to clarify what Thrall had written by rejecting Plummer’s mechanical notion of judgment that would have rendered Christ’s role in his own judgment seat to little more than a ministerial act. Nonetheless, the conceptual basis of Thrall’s analysis remains at best muddled, and at worst is simply a way to gloss over Plummer’s badly flawed view of judgment.

In other words, the conceptual basis for Thrall’s elliptical classification of the phrase τὰ διὰ τοῦ σώματος arguably cannot be divorced from Plummer’s and Robertson’s underlying argument equating the deed and its requital. Note here that while Thrall did not seek to connect the two phrases, τὰ διὰ τοῦ σώματος and πρὸς ἃ ἔπραξεν, grammatically, she seemed to connect them conceptually by arguing that the only reason that an elliptical insertion of the participle πεπράγμενα was necessary was to relieve the obscurity of the text. Thus, the addition of the participle πεπράγμενα arguably cannot be divorced from Plummer’s flawed equating of the deed and its requital, despite Harris’s laudable efforts to clarify Thrall’s exegesis of the passage.    

Compounding the problematic nature of his reading, Plummer, p. 160, almost as an afterthought, noted that “κομίσηται has τὰ διὰ τοῦ σώματος as its object,” without bothering to address whether this nominalized prepositional phrase as the direct object of κομίσηται exerts any delimiting force with respect to its verb. Instead, he cited it as evidence for the rather obvious proposition that there “is no doubt that ἔπραξεν, not κομίσηται, is to be understood with εἴτε ἀγαθὸν εἴτε φαῦλον.

As an aside, another reason to question the conventional translation is that Plummer, p. 159, ascribes to Paul and Paul’s view of judgment various principles grounded in Greek philosophy (notably Gorgias, 523,524) to support the proposition that people “must not be judged till after death.” The reason, according to the ancient Greeks as related to us by Plummer, is that “‘there are many who have evil souls clad in comely bodies,’ and that they must be stripped of these misleading coverings in order to be fairly judged.”

This view is largely based on the pagan notion advanced by Plato and others (and totally at odds with Christian thinking of the unity of the body and soul in each person ) that (Plummer, quoting from the underlying Greek text, p. 159): “Death, it seems to me, is nothing else than the separation of two things from one another, the soul and the body…When the soul is stripped of the body, all its natural devotion to this or that pursuit, are laid bare to view. And when the souls come to the judge, he takes that of some potentate, whose soul is full of the prints and scars of perjuries and crimes with which his conduct has marked it, and has many crooked places, because of lying and vanity, and has not straightness, because he lived without truth. This soul the judge looks at and sends away to a place where it must undergo the treatment which it requires.” Thus, many scholars and commentators, like Plummer and Thrall, knowingly or unwittingly, have apparently based their reading of 2 Cor. 5:10, at least in part, on pagan Greek views on the duality of the body and soul.

The fundamental problem with Thrall’s analysis, however, is her elliptical treatment of the phrase τὰ διὰ τοῦ σώματος in the first instance. Ellipsis or an elliptical expression generally “refers to words or phrases normally omitted in a discourse when the sense is perfectly clear without them.” Newman and Nida, A Translator’s Handbook on the Gospel of John, p. 671. Furnish in his treatise outlined in some detail why this phrase was anything but clear. In addition to the difficult syntax, Furnish, p. 305, observed that this lack of clarity extends beyond these formal considerations of grammar and syntax and goes to the very meaning of the passage: “The troublesome phrase is the one that mentions the body. In addition to the syntactical problem, one should note that it is quite unique to have bodily existence mentioned at all when the topic is the last judgment, as it is here. Thus, the phrase [τὰ διὰ τοῦ σώματος] calls attention to itself both grammatically and conceptually.” (Emphasis Added.)

In short, the purported omissions in the text which Thrall attempted to fill or remedy by implication, namely by adding a participle and an associated prepositional phrase, “cannot be supplied from the immediate context” (Nida, Style and Discourse, p. 36) because that context is fundamentally unclear, largely because of the very phrase the meaning of which Thrall was attempting to clarify, τὰ διὰ τοῦ σώματος.

Objection. For the same reason that you (and Harris) reject that mechanistic deed-requital identity approach counts against the view that this recompense is happening through/in the currently earthly body, that the βήμα is here and now. The βήμα is already itself part of the eschatological furniture (e.g., Rom 14:10, cf. 12). (Even ἔμπροσθεν carries a whiff of formality looking toward this eschatological event.) More significantly, the entire context is eschatological — this tent, clothed/unclothed, home and away, etc. It would be difficult to take φανερωθῆναι δεῖ ἔμπροσθεν as though referring to an ongoing, this-wordly process. To be sure, judgment is not on hold until that eschatological moment; we do experience it now, albeit imperfectly, and unjustly, which is to be sorted out and rectified at the βήμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ.

Response. As with the earlier reader’s comment, this reader confuses eschatological with apocalyptic. The whole issue is the nature of Christ’s final judgment of his followers, which by its very nature is eschatological. Simply because this final judgment is not part and parcel of a purely apocalyptic event does not somehow diminish it as an event critical to the end times and the final resolution of the age. Indeed, believers judged by Christ before his Judgment Seat here on earth will accompany him during his Second Coming, as Jesus himself describes this event (Matt. 24:31, NIV): “And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.” (Emphasis Added.) Compare Jude 14 (NLT): “Enoch, who lived in the seventh generation after Adam, prophesied about these people. He said, “Listen! The Lord is coming with countless thousands (ἐν ἁγίαις μυριάσιν αὐτοῦ) of his holy ones…” (Emphasis Added.)

The reader is correct in asserting that the final and complete restoration of the fallen cosmos in line with God’s original purposes will not take place until the Second Coming, but that does not preclude Christ in his mercy from clothing his followers in their full, glorious eternal bodies prior to his Coming. In other words, Christ-followers need not wait until the end of the age before they are bodily resurrected by Christ. Compare Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 380, who points out that the idea of bodily “resurrection at death” is one of the more common views regarding the timing of the resurrection of Christ-followers.

A general observation here is in order. The scholarly community in their collective zeal, no doubt well-intentioned, to hammer together various disparate passages of scripture into some reasonable eschatological construct that fully explains the “last days,” have seemingly forgotten Paul’s admonition as expressed in 2 Cor. 11:3, and here I will quote the King James Version: “But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.” (Emphasis Added.) The Greek text here reads in relevant part ἀπὸ τῆς ἁπλότητος τῆς εἰς τὸν Χριστόν. ἁπλότης is defined (Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, pp. 85-86) as “simplicity, sincerity, uprightness, frankness.”

Does it strike anyone that the unnecessarily complicated, unwieldy, cumbersome, disjointed, and frankly hard-hearted eschatological construct for believers conceived by theologians over the centuries accords in the slightest with the nature of Christ? In other words, would he impose such a convoluted judgment scenario on his followers, one that movie buffs might recall resembles Albert Brooks’ spoof on the last judgment in the movie Defending Your Life? I would suggest that the answer is clearly no.  

As far as the reader’s comment (we do experience it [judgment] now, albeit imperfectly, and unjustly, which is to be sorted out and rectified at the βήμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ), he is right that it is rectified and sorted out at Christ’s Judgment Seat, albeit (and here he misses the point) a judgment which Christ administers to his followers in this life, thus obviating any need for further judgment. Do we not trust Christ that he knows what he is doing in guiding his followers to eternity? See John 10:28 (NIV): “I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand.”

Objection. I don’t think the grammar is as torturous as your essay presents it. The neuter plural τά does a lot of work in Greek. It’s a stand in for elliptical expressions rather frequently, and I don’t find it the least surprising that “the things through the body” should mean “the things [done] in the body,” that a πεπγραγμένα or πραχθέντα is implied. This is not so much a studied rhetorical technique as it is simply colloquial use of language when something is reasonably inferable from context. In this instance, there is probably a good reason for the ellipsis, namely that he is using the verb in the disambiguating relative clause (ἔπραξεν). Of course, we would have preferred that he not give us so much credit as readers (!), but this is the difference between native users and the kind of language tourists we are when we read NT Greek.

Response. In my analysis of the passage the definite article is already doing a fair amount of work. Not only is it substantivizing the prepositional phrase διὰ τοῦ σώματος, but it is also serving as a noun in its own right. Here the article refers to “deserts” or more broadly recompense, a recompense that is received “in the body.”

For the idea that the article in Greek can function as a substantive, compare Mathewson’s treatment of 1 Cor. 2:11 (Mathewson, Intermediate Greek Grammar, p. 82 (τίς γὰρ οἶδεν ἀνθρώπων τὰ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου εἰ μὴ τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ ἀνθρώπου τὸ ἐν αὐτῷ), translated therein: “For who among persons knows the things/thoughts of a person if not the spirit of the person that [is] in him/her?” Mathewson, p. 82, concluded that the “neuter article is substantival, filling the slot of a head noun modified by a genitive. The last article functions as an ‘adjectivizer,’ which turns the prepositional phrase into an attributive modifier of τὸ πνεῦμα.” Here, under this analysis the article τὰ in 2 Cor. 5:10 would be treated as a substantive (the accusative object of κομίσηται) denoting “things/deserts.” Compare also Matthewson, p. 77, where the authors observed that in Matt. 24:17 (ὁ ἐπὶ τοῦ δώματος μὴ καταβάτω ἆραι τὰ ἐκ τῆς οἰκίας αὐτοῦ), translated therein, “The one on the roof must not go down to take things from his/her house,” the articles function as substantives while also nominalizing their respective prepositional phrases, that is, turning “them into noun equivalents.” See also Köstenberger, Going Deeper with New Testament Greek, p. 119, where with reference to Romans 3:26 (καὶ δικαιοῦντα τὸν ἐκ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ), translated therein, “and justify the one who has faith in Jesus,” the authors concluded that the “article τὸν (translated as a substantive in its own right, “the one,” also) functions as a substantivizer, turning the prepositional phrase ἐκ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ into a virtual noun.” 

As pointed out earlier, the deep theological and conceptual problems associated with this text run counter to what the reader casually refers to as the “colloquial use of language when something is reasonably inferable from context.” While Greek is a flexible language (Compare BDF, ¶ 473: “Because of the flexibility of the Greek language, vivid, impassioned speech easily gives rise to…dislocations” in normal word order), such flexibility should not be taken as a license to rework conceptually and syntactically problematic texts in order to achieve some predetermined result. The syntactic structure here of two prepositional phrases bracketed by two transitive verbs with an associated definite article and relative pronoun sharing a neuter plural is not only unusual, but appears to be unique not only in the New Testament and other early Christian literature, but also in all extant ancient Greek writings. See my full exegetical article cited above. This alone should raise one’s eschatological eyebrows.   

Objection. Finally, the middle voice κομίσηται already implies by itself and in virtue of the context, that its direct object is a matter of recompense by nature (Col 3:25; Eph 6:8; 1 Pet 1:9; 5:4).

Response. I Agree. The definite article refers to the things/deserts/recompense (τὰ) that believers receive κομίσηται in or through the body διὰ τοῦ σώματος [direct object of κομίσηται thereby delimiting that verb] according to what they did, or their earthly activity πρὸς ἃ ἔπραξεν.

Summary. As one of my readers wrote: “Tom rightly points that one’s unexamined presuppositions about what the text says tends to predetermine the reading of the Greek grammar. If one assumes the interpretation is correct, one is less likely to probe as exhaustively as Tom has done [about] the grammatical complications.” I believe this reader is correct in describing the complete lack of curiosity in the recent literature on the precise question whether the prepositional phrase διὰ τοῦ σώματος should be decoupled from ἔπραξεν and read in conjunction with κομίσηται, even though some translations, both new and old (e.g., the Aramaic Bible in Plain English, which puts this idea of judgment in the earthly body quite plainly: “that each man will be paid in his body anything that was done by him” and the older Coverdale Bible “every one may receive in his body, according to what he hath done”), would appear to have adopted this approach. Perhaps the notion that judgment for believers can only take place in some future apocalyptic venue is so engrained in church teaching that many commentators when considering this passage simply overlook the possibility of some other outcome. In any event, because so much of the literature simply assumes the correctness of the standard translation, there seems little need to articulate in detail its grammatical underpinnings. One would hope that this might soon change.