Common sense tells us that before Jesus comes, He knows the results of the PreAdvent Judgement.
Executive summary
Within Seventh-day Adventist (SDA) theology the premise is straightforward: a heavenly, investigative or “pre‑Advent” judgment examines the lives of the living and the dead before Christ’s return, and because that process precedes the Second Coming Jesus — as advocate and judge — is understood to know who is saved and who is not when He appears [1] [2]. Wider Christianity, however, does not uniformly accept a distinct pre‑Advent investigative phase, and many traditions place the final judgment at or after the Second Coming, meaning there is no single Christian consensus that Jesus “already knows” the verdict in the procedural sense the SDA doctrine describes [3].
1. The SDA claim: a pre‑Advent, investigative judgment that occurs before Christ returns
Seventh‑day Adventist teaching holds that an investigative judgment began in 1844 and continues in heaven prior to the Second Coming, a process in which “books” are opened and the lives of all people both living and dead are examined to establish who has responded to Christ’s offer of salvation [1] [4]. Denominational expositions link this idea to Daniel 7 and Revelation texts and to Christ’s priestly ministry in the heavenly sanctuary, arguing that the judgment is a distinct phase of Christ’s work that culminates before He returns to receive the faithful [2] [5].
2. If the judgment precedes the return, Jesus is both advocate and judge and therefore “knows” the verdict
SDA writers emphasize that Jesus functions simultaneously as Advocate and Judge in this heavenly assize, presenting the redeemed and vindicating God’s justice before the universe; within that framework the results are effectively known and settled prior to the visible Advent, and believers are said to be “judged and acquitted in absentia” [6] [7]. Ministry and Sabbath School treatments describe the scene as a courtroom where Jesus pleads for the saints and where the outcome vindicates God’s character and the loyalty of the faithful [8] [9].
3. Alternate Christian perspectives: no uniform pre‑Advent investigative phase
Many other Christian traditions read biblical texts differently, treating the last judgment as coincident with or following the visible return of Christ rather than as a prior, separate heavenly procedure; classical formulations therefore stop short of claiming a distinct investigative judgment that produces a known verdict before Christ’s appearance [3]. Critics of the investigative/judgment‑before‑Advent construct also trace its origins to 19th‑century Adventist history and the theological response to the 1844 “Great Disappointment,” arguing that the doctrine developed as an interpretive synthesis rather than a consensus patristic teaching [10].
4. What “knowing” the results means: theological implications and pastoral uses
Within the SDA account, “knowing” the results is not mere omniscience; it is tied to a legal‑forensic drama in which the universe observes the justice of God and the efficacy of Christ’s atoning and priestly work, producing assurance for believers that their salvation is vindicated before cosmic observers [7] [8]. Pastoral writers stress the doctrine’s pastoral aim: to comfort and motivate believers to “make their calling and election sure” while noting the judgment, from the believer’s perspective, is good news because of Christ’s advocacy [11] [2].
5. Honest limits of the reporting and remaining questions
The sources surveyed accurately summarize SDA positions and note critiques, but they do not resolve theological disputes about biblical exegesis or broader Christian consensus; where other traditions interpret “judgment” differently, the available reporting documents the disagreement without adjudicating which scriptural reading is definitively correct [1] [3]. Therefore the best summary is descriptive: if one accepts the SDA premises about timing and the investigative process, then common sense within that framework leads to the conclusion that Jesus knows the results before He comes; if one rejects those premises, the conclusion does not follow from the alternative readings documented here [5] [10].