Legal Courtroom Scene & Deathblow To Past A.D. 70 Judgment [Rom 8:33-34]

Legal Courtroom Scene & Deathblow To Past A.D. 70 Judgment [Rom 8:33-34]
                                                       by Joel Sexton

[Rom 8:33-34]

Who will bring a charge against God’s elect? God is the one who justifies;  who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us. [Rom 8:33-34]

The passage under consideration is very destructive to Full Preterism, as was Mike Tyson was to the heavyweight division. This is mainly for two reasons. First. [Rom 8:33-34] is a highly eschatological context in Romans. And second, the courtroom language in the Greek has this as the future judgment brought into the here and now, into the justified sinner's life. In other words, if the judgment has taken place in the past in A.D. 70, then there can be no justification for sinners at this present moment. This is a FUTURE verdict of "not guilty" and "righteous" for the sake of the merits of Christ being brought into the here and now. There is no justification without this FUTURE judgment verdict! This text is even more damaging than [Rom 3:19-36; 5:9-10] which would be a parallel passage on the doctrine of justification

Our first point is the context. It must be remembered that eschatology is just coming into the forefront in chapter 8 of Romans. This is significant as Paul places the passage under consideration smack dab in the middle of it all.

In [Rom 8:10-11] Paul speaks of the resurrection of the Romans, "mortal bodies" by the same Spirit that raised Christ. Next, in vs 17, he speaks of them as "heirs" In [Rom 8:18-24] he talks of the "not yet" of adoption, glorification, recreation & resurrection. [Rom 8:29-30] Paul speaks of what the Reformed would call the "Golden chain of redemption" or as I prefer an "ordo solutis. In vs. 29 he mentions being "conformed to the image of His Son" as the goal of all salvation, which is glorification and resurrection. In vs 30, he mentions those who would be "glorified." Then we have our passage vss. 33-34. And finally in vs 38 after speaking of persecutions, tribulation etc. will not keep the elect from the love of God. Also in vs 38, he states, "nor things to come." Then, of course, we get into [Rom 9-11[ which of course is eschatological.

So very clearly and distinctly we see our present passage is an eschatological one, with our second point laying the hammer down.

At this juncture, we will hit on our second reason for why this text is a savage against Full Preterist by examining it grammatically. We will quote the Greek scholar's and lexicon to first establish the courtroom language behind the greek which is also apparent in the English translation

A.T. Robertson states,

Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? (τις εγκαλεσε κατα εκλεκτωνθεου?). Future active indicative of εγκαλεω, old verb, to come forward as accuser (forensic term) in a case in court, to impeach, as in Ac 19:40; 23:29; 26: 2, the only N.T. examples. Satan is the great Accuser of the brethren.accordingto his plan for justification ( 3:21-31). The Accuser must face the Judge with his charges. ]Rom 8:34]

Shall condemn (κατακρινων). Can be either present active participle (condemns) or the future (shall condemn). It is a bold accuser who can face God with false charges or with true ones for that matter for we have an "Advocate" at God's Court (1Jo 2:1 ), "who is at the right hand of God" (ος εστιν εν δεξια του θεου) "who also maketh intercession for us" (οςκα εντυγχανε υπερ ημων) [15]

Robinson in his greek English lexicon states; to call in, i. e. to demand; in N. T. to call in question, i.e. to accuse, arraign, bring a charge against, foil, [16]

Gerald R. Cragg in his commentary on Romans,

In this passage we have 1) the "accuser'' or the one bringing "a charge" against "God's elect." We also have 2) the accused party, "the elect" believer,  3)the Judge, God who is the "one who justifies." 4) And finally, we have a lawyer present. Our High Priest making intercession with the blood of His atonement. We have a similar passage in 1 Jn 2:1-2.

Condemn means to establish or prove guilt, not merely affirm it. [16]

My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous;  and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world. [1 Jn 2:1-2]

N.T. Wright from his massive commentary on Romans concerning our present text;

"Whatever we think about that, with vv33-34 we are back to the lawcourt, as in the middle of chapter 3. In 2:1-16 the whole family faced the judgment of God: in 3:19-20 the whole world was on the dock, with no defense to offer against massive changes. Now we look around for possible accusers and find none. Any that may appear have to face that fact that God, the judge, is the justifier, in other words,  that the verdict has already  been pronounced by the judge whose righteousness has been fully displayed, And that verdict -  that those  in the Messian, marked, out by faith, are already seen as " righteous''' even ahead of the final vindication- is precisely what the law court dimension of ''justification'' is all about. We should note at this point Paul is once again speaking of the final day of judgment, as in 2:1-16 and 8:1. As he looks ahead to the future moment, he puts his confidence in the past event of justification and hence the present  standing of God's people that results from it, knowing that God "those that God justified, God also glorified" The logic of justification comes full circle [17]

Robert Mounce, in his standard work on Romans, states the following,

The Greek word for charge "egkaleō" {to bring a charge) is a legal technical term for bringing a charge against someone in the court of law (BAGD, 215). Used here in the future tense it points to the final judgment. [18]

Greek scholar and apologist Dr. James R. White has written this generation's most important work on the doctrine of justification in, "The God Who Justifies." Dr. White also beside the above also shows the power of the Greek text in [Rom 8:33-34]

The phrase  "bring a charge" (ἐγκαλέω0) is a legal term. It is used in numerous ancient texts in this very context. At this point, Paul put this conversation squarely in the court of law. To bring a charge against God's elect is to engage in formal legal proceedings. Paul's question is rhetorical, meant to indicate the impossibility of the proposed action [19]

Notes
[1] A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures, pg 1200
[2] George Bell, London, 186 Flet Street, 1851, Dr. Robinson's Greek Lexicon To New Testament Lexicon, pg. 116
[3] Gerald R. Cragg, Romans, pg 529, The Interpreter's Bible Commentary, Vol. IX, Abingdon Press, New York, 1954
[4]  The New Interpreter's Bible Commentary, Copyright 2015, Abingdon Press. vol ix, Romans, N.T. Wright, pgs. 520-521
[5] The New American Commentary, Vol. 27, Romans, Robert H. Mounce, 1995, B & H Publishing Group, pg. 190
[6] The God Who Justifies, The Doctrine Of Justification, Dr. James R, White, pg 249, Bethany House, Minneapolis, Minnesota, Copyright 2001