As it will be shown below, though it is tremendously serious with eternal ramifications, the judgment seat of Christ is not a place and time when the Lord will mete out punishment for sins committed by the child of God. Rather, it is a place where rewards will be given or lost depending on how one has used his or her life for the Lord.

In 1 Thessalonians 2:19-20, the Apostle Paul drew courage and was motivated by the fact of rewards at the return of the Lord for the church which he mentions in every chapter in this epistle and becomes the primary subject of 2 Thessalonians. The Lord's return and what this means not only to the world but to us individually is a very prominent subject of the New Testament.

It is significant that among the final words of Revelation, the last book of the Bible, we find these words of the Lord:

"Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done" (Rev. 22;12).

Why are we brought before the Bema?

Is it only for rewards or their loss?

Will any punishment be meted out?

Will there be great sorrow?

What's the basis on which the Bema is conducted?

Mans every good dead is to his credit, but the credit that we receive is in proportion to the merits of his dead.

The Judgment Seat

Some Bible teachers view the judgment seat as a place of intense sorrow, a place of terror, and a place where Christ display all the believer's sins (or at least those unconfessed) before the entire resurrected and raptured church. Some go even further by stating that Christians must experience some sort of suffering for their sins at the time of this examination.

The Awards Ceremony

At the other end of the spectrum another group, which holds to the same eschatological chronology, views this event as an awards ceremony. Awards are handed out to every Christian. The result of this judgment will be that each Christian will be grateful for the reward which he receives, and he will have little or no shame.

The Account of One’s Life

Other Bible teachers espouse a mediating position. They maintain the seriousness of the examination and yet emphasize the commendation aspect of the judgment seat. They emphasize the importance and necessity of faithful living today but reject any thought of forensic punishment at the Bema. Emphasis is placed on the fact that each Christian must give an account of his life before the omniscient and holy Christ. All that was done through the energy of the flesh will be regarded as worthless for reward, while all that was done in the power of the Holy Spirit will be graciously rewarded. Those who hold this view believe that the Christian will stand glorified before Christ without his old sin nature. He will, likewise, be without guilt because he has been declared righteous. There will be no need for forensic punishment, for Christ has forever borne all of God's wrath toward the believer's sins (Hoyt, pp. 32-33).

Arguments or Reasons in Support of This View:

In Luke 14:12-14, reward is associated with the resurrection and the rapture is when the church is resurrected.

In Revelation 19:8, when the Lord returns with His bride at the end of the tribulation, she is seen already rewarded. Her reward is described as fine linen, the righteous acts of the saints--undoubtedly the result of rewards.

In 2 Timothy 4:8 and 1 Corinthians 4:5, rewards are associated with "that day" and with the Lord's coming. Again, for the church this means the event of 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18.

Alexandria.com ,<> Ken Gray à The Casting of Lots

This month I would like to explore the phrase "casting lots" found in both the Old and New Testaments. This subject came up when a friend and I were discussing Acts; he was rather shocked at the use of "lots" to pick the replacement for Judas (Acts 1:22). I too was dismayed at the use of "chance" to fill such an important position. No matter how it appears to us today, the tradition of the "lot" goes back to the days of Moses and Aaron. I will look at the instances of the "lot" throughout the Bible.

They seem to fall into two different categories: choose between objects or people for service and as an aid in justice.

The first appearance of this peculiar practice shows itself in its use of choosing between objects for service. In Leviticus 16:8, God laid-out the method of choosing the sacrificial and scapegoat for the annual atonement offering. In this practice, two male goats are to be delivered to the high priest. One is sacrificed and the other was to be released alive into the wilderness. This live goat represents the carrying away the sins of the people and is thus called the scapegoat.

The next use of the method was in Joshua 18:6. In this particular reference, the casting of lots was to determine the allotment of the lands to the tribes. It is thought by some that there were two different lot groups; one lot that stood for each of the territories and the other represented each of the tribes. First the lot for the land was drawn then the lot for the tribe.

The use of "lot casting" to choose people can be found in I Chronicles 24-26. Lots were used to determine who was to receive which temple service. There were lots drawn for musicians, gatekeepers, and miscellaneous chores. This was seemingly done to keep the participants from becoming prideful in their positions. Another example of casting lots to choose between people is found in Nehemiah. In chapter eleven, lots were drawn to see which of the people would be able to live inside the walls of Jerusalem. Unlike the situation in I Chronicles, this seems to be less of a spiritual matter and more of a method of convenience and fairness.

The other, and most peculiar, use of lots is in justice. In I Samuel 14, there is a report of a battle between Saul and his army and the Philistines. The morning before the Israelis were to attack the Philistines Saul gave a command to his people that they were not to eat before they fought the battle lest they would be killed. His son, Jonathan, did not hear the edict however and tasted some honey that was found in the forest. After the battle, Saul consulted the priest about whether he should attack the Philistines or wait. But when the Lord did not answer that whole day Saul asked for a lot to be taken in order to discover who had sinned. It was here that the lot "set aside" or picked Jonathan. Saul then turned to him and asked what he had done; Jonathan then told that he had indeed eaten some of the honey in the forest. Joshua also held a solemn lot in order to discover who it was that had angered the Lord after the battle of Jericho. After the battle of Jericho, Joshua came across Ai; they seemed small and weak, but when the Israelis were easily routed, Joshua rent his clothes and sought the Lord as to the reason why they were so easily defeated. The Lord commanded him to cast a lot against the tribes to find the person responsible. Out of all the people, the lot fell to one man; a man named Achen. He confessed to his crime and was killed for his transgression.

The use of "lots" (i.e. mere chance) may seem overwhelmingly unfair as a method of justice or even as a method of choosing a particular path. But there are two points to consider before passing judgment.

First, the Israelis did not just see them as mere "coins." The solemn lots were called Urim and the Thummim. These were instituted by God in the very beginnings of the priesthood Ex 28:30 and Le 8:8. As Ralph Gower points out, they were probably disks colored white on one side and black on the other. It seems that God will use these in a solemn lot to give an answer to a pressing question. The validity of these is innate due to their divine issuance. One can also see the belief in the lots creep up in other verses. Proverb 16:23 can give a good idea of how people viewed the lot, "The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord." Proverbs 18:18 shows that the lot was used to decide difficult decisions, in essence letting God decide. It is clear that the Israelis looked differently at the use of lots.

The second point to understand is what role the lot played in justice. It is easy to be distracted by the use of lots in justice, however, it is imperative to see HOW the lots were used. In those cases where lots were used, they did not dictate who was to be punished; lots only pointed out who was responsible for the misdeed (cf. Jonah 1). The person that the lot chose always confessed (at least in the limited cases we have) and it was the confession that brought the punishment.