es-ka-tol'-o-ji
A) Scope of Article
B) Dr. Charles' Work
C) Individual Religion in Israel
I. FUNDAMENTAL IDEAS
1. Idea of God
2. Idea of Man
Body, Soul and Spirit
3. Sin and Death
II. CONCEPTIONS OF THE FUTURE LIFE -- SHEOL
Had Israel No Belief in a Future Life?
1. Reserve on This Subject: Hopes and Promises Largely
Temporal
2. A Future State not Therefore Denied
Belief Non-Mythological
3. Survival of Soul, or Conscious Part
4. The Hebrew Sheol
III. THE RELIGIOUS HOPE -- LIFE AND RESURRECTION
a) Nature and Grace -- Moral Distinctions
b) Religious Hope of Immortality
1. Sheol, Like Death, Connected with Sin
2. Religious Root of Hope of Immortality
Not Necessarily Late
3. Hope of Resurrection
(1) Not a Late or Foreign Doctrine
(2) The Psalms
(3) The Book of Job
(4) The Prophets
(5) Daniel -- Resurrection of Wicked
IV. THE IDEA OF JUDGMENT -- THE DAY OF YAHWEH
Judgment a Present Reality
1. Day of Yahweh
(1) Relation to Israel
(2) To the Nations
2. Judgment beyond Death
(1) Incompleteness of Moral Administration
(2) Prosperity of Wicked
(3) Suffering of Righteous with Wicked
3. Retribution beyond Death
V. LATER JEWISH CONCEPTIONS -- APOCRYPHAL, APOCALYPTIC,
RABBINICAL
1. Sources
(1) Apocrypha
(2) Apocalyptic Literature
(3) Rabbinical Writings
2. Description of Views
(1) Less Definite Conceptions
(2) Ideas of Sheol
(3) The Fallen Angels
(4) Resurrection
(5) Judgment
The Messiah
(6) The Messianic Age and the Gentiles
(7) Rabbinical Ideas
Eschatology of the Old Testament (with Apocryphal and
Apocalyptic Writings).
By "eschatology," or doctrine of the last things,
is meant the ideas entertained at any period on the future life, the end of the
world (resurrection, judgment; in the New Testament, the Greek [Parousia]), and
the eternal destinies of mankind. In this article it is attempted to exhibit
the beliefs on these matters contained in the Old Testament, with those in the
Jewish apocryphal and apocalyptic writings that fill up the interval between
the Old Testament and the New Testament.
The subject here treated has been dealt with by many
writers (see "Literature" below); by none more learnedly or ably than
by Dr. R. H. Charles in his work on Hebrew, Jewish and Christian eschatology (A
Critical History of the Doctrine of a Future Life in Israel, in Judaism, and in
Christianity). The present writer is, however, unable to follow Dr. Charles in
many of his very radical critical positions, which affect so seriously the view
taken of the literary evidence, and of the development of Israel's religion; is
unable, therefore, to follow him in his interpretation of the religion itself.
The subject, accordingly, is discussed in these pages from a different point of
view from his.
One special point in which the writer is unable to follow
Dr. Charles in his treatment, which may be noticed at the outset, is in his
idea -- now so generally favored -- that till near the time of the Exile
religion was not individual -- that Yahweh was thought of as concerned with the
well-being of the people as a whole, and not with that of its individual
members. "The individual was not the religious unit, but the family or
tribe" (op. cit., 58). How anyone can entertain this idea in face of the
plain indications of the Old Testament itself to the contrary is to the present
writer a mystery. There is, indeed, throughout the Old Testament, a solidarity
of the individual with his family and tribe, but not at any period to the
exclusion of a personal relation to Yahweh, or of individual moral and
religious responsibility. The pictures of piety in the Book of Genesis are
nearly all individual, and the narratives containing them are, even on the
critical view, older than the 9th century. Adam, Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Joseph,
are all of them, to the writers of the history, individuals; Moses, Joshua,
Caleb, are individuals; the deeds of individuals are counted to them for
righteousness; the sins of others slay them. If there had been ten righteous
persons in Sodom, it would have been spared (Gen 18:32). It was as an
individual that David sinned; as an individual he repented and was forgiven.
Kings are judged or condemned according to their individual character. It is
necessary to lay stress on this at the beginning; otherwise the whole series of
the Old Testament conceptions is distorted.
The eschatology of the Old Testament, as Dr. Charles also
recognizes, is dependent on, and molded by, certain fundamental ideas in regard
to God, man, the soul and the state after death, in which lies the peculiarity
of Israel's religion. Only, these ideas are differently apprehended here from
what they are in this writer's learned work.
In the view of Dr. Charles, Yahweh (Yahweh), who under Moses
became the God of the Hebrew tribes, was, till the time of the prophets, simply
a national God, bound up with the land and with this single people; therefore,
"possessing neither interest nor jurisdiction in the life of the
individual beyond the grave. .... Hence, since early Yahwism possessed no
eschatology of its own, the individual Israelite was left to his hereditary
heathen beliefs. These beliefs we found were elements of Ancestor Worship"
(op. cit., 52; compare 35). The view taken here, on the contrary, is, that
there is no period known to the Old Testament in which Yahweh -- whether the
name was older than Moses or not need not be discussed -- was not recognized as
the God of the whole earth, the Creator of the world and man, and Judge of all,
nations. He is, in both Gen 1 and 2, the Creator of the first pair from whom
the whole race springs; He judged the whole world in the Flood; He chose
Abraham to be a blessing to the families of the earth (Gen 12:3); His universal
rule is acknowledged (Gen 18:25); in infinite grace, displaying His power over
Egypt, He chose Israel to be a people to Himself (Ex 19:3-6). The ground for
denying jurisdiction over the world of the dead thus falls. The word of Jesus
to the Sadducees is applicable here: "Have ye not read .... I am the God
of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of
the dead, but of the living" (Mt 22:31, 32). The Old Testament instances
of resurrection in answer to prayer point in the same direction (1Ki 17:21ff;
2Ki 4:34ff; compare Ps 16:10; Ps 49:15, etc.; see further, below).
According to Dr. Charles, the Old Testament has two
contradictory representations of the constitution of man, and of the effects of
death. The older or pre-prophetic view distinguishes between soul and body in
man (pp. 37ff, 45ff), and regards the soul as surviving death (this is not
easily reconcilable with the other proposition (p. 37) that the "soul or
nephesh is identical with the blood"), and as retaining a certain self-consciousness,
and the power of speech and movement in Sheol (pp. 39 ff). This view is in many
respects identical with that of ancestor worship, which is held to be the
primitive belief in Israel (p. 41). The other and later view, which is thought
to follow logically from the account in Gen 2:7, supposes the soul to perish at
death (pp. 41ff). We read there that "Yahweh God formed man of the dust of
the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a
living soul." The "breath of life" (Hebrew [nishmath chayyim])
is identified with the "spirit of life" (Hebrew [ruach chayyim]) of
Gen 6:17, and is taken to mean that the soul has no independent existence, but
is "really a function of the material body when quickened by the
(impersonal) spirit" (p. 42). "According to this view the
annihilation of the soul ensues inevitably at death, that is, when the spirit
is withdrawn" (p. 43). This view is held to be the parent of Sadduceeism,
and is actually affirmed to be the view of Paul (pp. 43-44, 409) -- the apostle
who repudiated Sadduceeism in this very article (Acts 23:6-9).
The above view of man's nature is here rejected, and the
consistency of the Old Testament doctrine affirmed. The Biblical view has
nothing to do with ancestor worship (compare the writer's Orr, The Problem of
the Old Testament, 135-36). In Gen 1:26, 27 man is created in God's image, and
in the more anthropomorphic narrative of Gen 2:7, he becomes "a living
soul" through a unique act of Divine inbreathing. The soul (nephesh) in
man originates in a Divine inspiration (compare Job 32:8; Job 33:4; Isa 42:5),
and is at once the animating principle of the body (the blood being its
vehicle, Lev 17:11), with its appetites and desires, and the seat of the self-conscious
personality, and source of rational and spiritual activities. It is these
higher activities of the soul which, in the Old Testament, are specially called
"spirit" (Hebrew [ruach]). Dr. Charles expresses this correctly in
what he says of the supposed earlier view ("the Hebrew [ruach] had become
the seat of the highest spiritual functions in man," p. 46; see more fully
the writer's God's Image in Man, 47ff). There is no ground for deducing
"annihilation" from Gen 2:7. Everywhere in Gen man is regarded as
formed for living fellowship with God, and capable of knowing, worshipping and
serving Him.
See SOUL; SPIRIT.
It follows from the above account that man is regarded in
the Old Testament as a compound being, a union of body and soul (embracing
spirit), both being elements in his one personality. His destiny was not to
death, but to life -- not life, however, in separation of the soul from the
body (disembodied existence), but continued embodied life, with, perhaps, as
its sequel, change and translation to higher existence (thus Enoch, Elijah; the
saints at the Greek [Parousia]). This is the true original idea of immortality
for man (seeIMMORTALITY). Death, accordingly, is not, as it appears in Dr.
Charles, a natural event, but an abnormal event -- a mutilation, separation of
two sides of man's being never intended to be separated -- due, as the
Scripture represents it, to the entrance of sin (Gen 2:17; Gen 3:19, 22; Rom
5:12; 1Cor 15:21, 22). It is objected that nothing further is said in the Old
Testament of a "Fall," and a subjection of man to death as the result
of sin. In truth, however, the whole picture of mankind in the Old Testament,
as in the New Testament, is that of a world turned aside from God, and under His
displeasure, and death and all natural evils are ever to be considered in
relation to that fact (compare Dillmann, Alttest. Theol., 368,376ff; God's
Image in Man, 198ff, 249ff). This alone explains the light in which death is
regarded by holy men; their longing for deliverance from it (see below); the
hope of resurrection; the place which resurrection -- "the redemption of
our body" (Rom 8:23) -- after the pattern of Christ's resurrection (Phil
3:21), has in the Christian conception of immortality.
Had Israel No Belief in a Future Life?:
It is usual to find it contended that the Israelites, in
contrast with other peoples, had not the conception of a future life till near the
time of the Exile; that then, through the teaching of the prophets and the
discipline of experience, ideas of individual immortality and of judgment to
come first arose. There is, however, a good deal of ambiguity of language, if
not confusion of thought, in such statements. It is true there is development
in the teaching on a future life; true also that in the Old Testament
"life" and "immortality" are words of pregnant meaning, to
which bare survival of the soul, and gloomy existence in Sheol, do not apply.
But in the ordinary sense of the expression "future life," it is
certain that the Israelites were no more without that notion than any of their
neighbors, or than most of the peoples and races of the world to whom the
belief is credited.
Israel, certainly, had not a developed mythology of the
future life such as was found in Egypt. There, life in the other world almost
over-shadowed the life that now is; in contrast with this, perhaps because of
it, Israel was trained to a severer reserve in regard to the future, and the
hopes and promises to the nation -- the rewards of righteousness and penalties
of transgression -- were chiefly temporal. The sense of individual
responsibility, as was shown at the commencement, there certainly was -- an
individual relation to God. But the feeling of corporate existence -- the sense
of connection between the individual and his descendants -- was strong, and the
hopes held out to the faithful had respect rather to multiplication of seed, to
outward prosperity, and to a happy state of existence (never without piety as
its basis) on earth, than to a life beyond death. The reason of this and the
qualifications needing to be made to the statement will afterward appear; but
that the broad facts are as stated every reader of the Old Testament will
perceive for himself. Abraham is promised that his seed shall be multiplied as
the stars of heaven, and that the land of Canaan shall be given them to dwell
in (Gen 12:1-3; 15 Gen 15); Israel is encouraged by abundant promises of
temporal blessing (Dt 11:8ff; Dt 28:1-14), and warned by the most terrible
temporal curses (Dt 28:15ff); David has pledged to him the sure succession of
his house as the reward of obedience (2Sam 7:11ff). So in the Book of Job, the
patriarch's fidelity is rewarded with return of his prosperity (chapter 42).
Temporal promises abound in the Prophets (Hos 2:14ff; 1 Hos 14; Isa 1:19, 26; 3
Isa 35, etc.); the Book of Prov likewise is full of such promises (Prov 3:13ff,
etc.).
All this, however, in no way implies that the Israelites
had no conceptions of, or beliefs in, a state of being beyond death, or
believed the death of the body to be the extinction of existence. This was very
far from being the case. A hope of a future life it would be wrong to call it;
for there was nothing to suggest hope, joy or life in the good sense, in the
ideas they entertained of death or the hereafter. In this they resembled most
peoples whose ideas are still primitive, but to whom it is not customary to
deny belief in a future state. They stand as yet, though with differences to be
afterward pointed out, on the general level of Semitic peoples in their
conceptions of what the future state was. This is also the view taken by Dr.
Charles. He recognizes that early Israelite thought attributed a
"comparatively large measure of life, movement, knowledge and likewise
power (?) to the departed in Sheol" (op. cit., 41). A people that does
this is hardly destitute of all notions of a future state. This question of
Sheol now demands more careful consideration. Here again our differences from
Dr. Charles will reveal themselves.
It would, indeed, have been amazing had the Israelites, who
dwelt so long in Egypt, where everything reminded of a future life, been wholly
destitute of ideas on that subject. What is clear is that, as already observed,
they did not adopt any of the Egyptian notions into their religion. The
simplicity of their belief in the God of their fathers kept them then and ever
after from the importation of mythological elements into their faith. The
Egyptian Amenti may be said, indeed, to answer broadly to the Hebrew Sheol; but
there is nothing in Israelite thought to correspond to Osiris and his
assessors, the trial in the hall of judgment, and the adventures and perils of
the soul thereafter. What, then, was the Hebrew idea of Sheol, and how did it
stand related to beliefs elsewhere?
That the soul, or some conscious part of man for which the
name may be allowed to stand, does not perish at death, but passes into another
state of existence, commonly conceived of as shadowy and inert, is a belief
found, not only among the lower, so-called nature-peoples, but in all ancient
religions, even the most highly developed. The Egyptian belief in Amenti, or
abode of the dead, ruled over by Osiris, is alluded to above; the Babylonian Arallu
(some find the word "Sualu" = Hebrew [she'ol]), the land of death,
from which there is no return; the Greek Hades, gloomy abode of the shades of
the departed, are outstanding witnesses to this conception (the various ideas
may be seen, among other works, in Salmond, Christian Doctrine of Immortality,
I (ideas of lower races, Indian, Egyptian Babylonian, Persian and Greek
beliefs); in Sayce, Hibbert Lectures, Religion of Ancient Babylonians, and
Gifford Lectures, Religions of Ancient Egypt and Babylonia; Dr. Charles,
Eschatology, chapter iii, on Greek conceptions). The Hebrew conception of
Sheol, the gathering-place of the dead, is not in essentials dissimilar.
"The resemblance," says Dr. Salmond, "between the Hebrew Sheol,
the Homeric Hades, and Babylonian Arallu is unmistakable" (op. cit., 3rd
edition, 173). As to its origin, Dr. Charles would derive the belief from
ancestor worship. He supposes that "in all probability Sheol was
originally conceived as a combination of the graves of the clan or nation, and
as thus its final abode" (op. cit., 33). It is far from proved, however,
that ancestor worship had the role he assigns to it in early religion; and, in
any case, the explanation inverts cause and effect. The survival of the soul or
shade is already assumed before there can be worship of ancestors. Far simpler
is the explanation that man is conscious from the first of a thinking, active
principle within him which disappears when death ensues, and he naturally
thinks of this as surviving somewhere else, if only in a ghost-like and
weakened condition (compare Max Muller, Anthropological Religion,
195,281,337-38). Whatever the explanation, it is the case that, by a sure
instinct, peoples of low and high culture alike all but universally think of
the conscious part of their dead as surviving. On natural grounds, the Hebrews
did the same. Only, in the Scriptural point of view, this form of survival is
too poor to be dignified with the high name of "immortality."
It is not necessary to do more than sketch the main
features of the Hebrew Hebrew [sheol] (seeSHEOL). The word, the etymology of
which is doubtful (the commonest derivations are from roots meaning "to
ask" or "to be hollow," Hebrew [sha'al]), is frequently, but
erroneously, translated in the Revised Version (British and American)
"grave" or "hell." It denotes really, as already said, the
place or abode of the dead, and is conceived of as situated in the depths of
the earth (Ps 63:9; Ps 86:13; Ezek 26:20; Ezek 31:14; Ezek 32:18, 24; compare
Nu 16:30; Dt 32:22). The dead are there gathered in companies; hence, the
frequently recurring expression, "gathered unto his people" (Gen
25:8; Gen 35:29; Gen 49:33; Nu 20:24, etc.), the phrase denoting, as the
context shows, something quite distinct from burial. Jacob, e.g. was
"gathered unto his people"; afterward his body was embalmed, and,
much later, buried (Gen 50:2ff). Poetical descriptions of Sheol are not
intended to be taken with literalness; hence, it is a mistake, with Dr. Charles,
to press such details as "bars" and "gates" (Job 17:16; Job
38:17; Ps 9:14; Isa 38:10, etc. ). In the general conception, Sheol is a place
of darkness (Job 10:21, 22; Ps 143:3), of silence (Ps 94:17; Ps 115:17), of
forgetfulness (Ps 88:12; Eccl 9:5, 6, 10). It is without remembrance or praise
of God (Ps 6:5), or knowledge of what transpires on earth (Job 14:21). Even
this language is not to be pressed too literally. Part of it is the expression
of a depressed or despairing (compare Isa 38:10ff) or temporarily skeptical
(thus in Ecclesiastes; compare Eccl 12:7, 13, 14) mood; all of it is relative,
emphasizing the contrast with the brightness, joy and activity of the earthly
life (compare Job 10:22, "where the light is as midnight" --
comparative). Elsewhere it is recognized that consciousness remains; in Isa
14:9ff the shades (Hebrew [repha'im]) of once mighty kings are stirred up to
meet the descending king of Babylon (compare Ezek 32:21). If Sheol is sometimes
described as "destruction" (Job 26:6 margin; Job 28:22; Prov 15:11
margin) and "the pit" (Ps 30:9; Ps 55:23), at other times, in
contrast with the weariness and trouble of life, it is figured and longed for
as a place of "rest" and "sleep" (Job 3:17ff; Job 14:12,
13). Always, however, as with other peoples, existence in Sheol is represented
as feeble, inert, shadowy, devoid of living interests and aims, a true state of
the dead (on Egyptian Babylonian and Greek analogies, compare Salmond, op.
cit., 54-55, 73-74,99ff, 173-74). The idea of Dr. Charles, already commented
on, that Sheol is outside the jurisdiction of Yahweh, is contradicted by many
passages (Dt 32:22; Job 26:6; Prov 15:11; Ps 139:8; Am 9:2, etc.; compare
above).
Such is Sheol, regarded from the standpoint of nature; a
somewhat different aspect is presented when it is looked at from the point of
view of grace. As yet no trace is discernible between righteous and wicked in
Sheol; the element of retribution seems absent. Reward and punishment are in
this world; not in the state beyond. Yet one must beware of drawing too
sweeping conclusions even here. The state, indeed, of weakened consciousness
and slumbrous inaction of Sheol does not admit of much distinction, and the
thought of exchanging the joys of life for drear existence in that gloomy
underworld may well have appalled the stoutest hearts, and provoked sore and
bitter complainings. Even the Christian can bewail a life brought to a sudden
and untimely close. But even on natural grounds it is hardly credible that the
pious Israelite thought of the state of the godly gathered in peace to their
people as quite the same as those who perished under the ban of God's anger,
and went down to Sheol bearing their iniquity. There is a pregnancy not to be
overlooked in such expressions as, "The wicked shall be turned back unto
Sheol" (Ps 9:17), a "lowest Sheol" unto which God's anger burns
(Dt 32:22), "uttermost parts of the pit" (Isa 14:15; Ezek 32:23) to
which the proud and haughty in this life are consigned. Dr. Charles goes so far
as to find a "penal character of Sheol" in Psalms 49 and Psalms 73
(op. cit., 74). Consolation breathes in such utterances as, "Mark the
perfect man, and behold the upright; for there is a happy end to the man of
peace" (Ps 37:37), or (with reference to the being taken from the evil to
come), "He entereth into peace; they rest in their beds, each one that
walketh in his uprightness" (Isa 57:2; compare verse 21: "There is no
peace, saith my God, to the wicked"). Even Balaam's fervent wish,
"Let me die the death of the righteous, and let my last end be like
his" (Nu 23:10), seems weakened when interpreted only of the desire for a
green and blessed old age. It is possible to read too much into Old Testament
expressions; the tendency at the present time would seem to be to read a great
deal too little (P. Fairbairn, Typology of Scripture, I, 173 ff, 422ff, may
profitably be consulted).
To get at the true source and nature of the hope of
immortality in the Old Testament, however, it is necessary to go much farther
than the idea of any happier condition in Sheol. This dismal region is never
there connected with ideas of "life" or "immortality" in
any form. Writers who suppose that the hopes which find utterance in passages
of Psalms and Prophets have any connection with existence in Sheol are on an
altogether wrong track. It is not the expectation of a happier condition in
Sheol, but the hope of deliverance from Sheol, and of restored life and
fellowship with God, which occupies the mind. How much this implies deserves
careful consideration.
It has already been seen that, in the Old Testament, Sheol,
like death, is not the natural fate of man. A connection with sin and judgment
is implied in it. Whatever Sheol might be to the popular, unthinking mind, to
the reflecting spirit, that really grasped the fundamental ideas of the
religion of Yahweh, it was a state wholly contrary to man's true destiny. It
was, as seen, man's dignity in distinction from the animal, that he was not
created under the law of death. Disembodied existence, which is of necessity
enfeebled, partial, imperfect existence, was no part of the Divine plan for
man. His immortality was to be in the body, not out of it. Separation of soul
and body, an after-existence of the soul in Sheol, belong to the doom of sin.
Dr. Salmond fully recognizes this in his discussion of the subject. "The penal
sense of death colors all that the Old Testament says of man's end. It is in
its thoughts where it is not in its words" (op. cit., 159; see the whole
passage; compare also Oehler, Theology of the Old Testament, I, 242ff, English
translation; A. B. Davidson, Theology of the Old Testament, 432ff, 439ff). The
true type of immortality is therefore to be seen in cases like those of Enoch
(Gen 5:24; compare Heb 11:5) and Elijah (2Ki 2:11); of a bare "immortality
of the soul," Scripture has nothing to say.
It is on all hands conceded that, so far as the hope of
immortality, in any full or real sense, is found in the Old Testament, it is
connected with religious faith and hope. It has not a natural, but a religious,
root. It springs from the believer's trust and confidence in the living God;
from his conviction that God -- his God -- who has bound him to Himself in the
bonds of an unchanging covenant, whose everlasting arms are underneath him (Dt
33:27; compare Ps 90:1), will not desert him even in Sheol -- will be with him
there, and will give him victory over its terrors (compare A. B. Davidson,
Commentary on Job, 293-95; Salmond, op. cit., 175).
Life is not bare existence; it consists in God's favor and
fellowship (Ps 16:11; Ps 30:5; Ps 63:3). The relevant passages in Psalms and
Prophets will be considered after. Only, it is contended by the newer school,
this hope of immortality belongs to a late stage of Israel's religion -- to a
period when, through the development of the monotheistic idea, the growth of
the sense of individuality, the acute feeling of the contradictions of life,
this great "venture" of faith first became possible. One asks,
however, Was it so? Was this hope so entirely a matter of "intuitous ventures,
and forecasts of devout souls in moments of deepest experience or keenest
conflict," as this way of considering the matter represents?
Not Necessarily Late.
That the hope of immortality could only exist for strong
faith is self-evident. But did strong faith come into existence only in the
days of the prophets or the Exile? Exception has already been taken to the
assumption that monotheism was a late growth, and that individual faith in God
was not found in early times. It is not to be granted without demur that, as
now commonly alleged, the Psalms and the Book of Job, which express this hope,
are post-exilian products. If, however, faith in a covenant-keeping God is of
earlier date -- if it is present in patriarchal and Mosaic days -- the question
is not, Why should it not give rise to similar hopes? but rather, How should it
be prevented from doing so? If a patriarch like Abraham truly walked with God,
and received His promises, could he, any more than later saints, be wholly
distrustful of God's power to keep and deliver him in and from Sheol? It is
hard to credit it. It is replied, there is no evidence of such hope. Certainly
these ancient saints did not write psalms or speak with the tongues of
prophets. But is there nothing in their quiet and trustful walk, in their
tranquil deaths, in their sense of uncompleted promises, in their pervading
confidence in God in all the vicissitudes of life, to suggest that they, too,
were able to commit themselves into the hands of God in death, and to trust Him
to see that it was, or would ultimately be, well with them in the future? Thus
at least Jesus understood it (Mt 22:32); thus, New Testament writers believed
(Heb 11:13, 14). Faith might falter, but in principle, this hope must have been
bound up with faith from the beginning.
This raises now the crucial question, What shape did this
hope of immortality assume? It was not, as already seen, an immortality enjoyed
in Sheol; it could only then be a hope connected with deliverance from the
power of Sheol -- in essence, whether precisely formulated or not, a hope of
resurrection. It is, we believe, because this has been overlooked, that writers
on the subject have gone so often astray in their discussions on immortality in
the Old Testament. They have thought of a blessedness in the future life of the
soul (thus Charles, op. cit., 76-77); whereas the redemption the Bible speaks
of invariably embraces the whole personality of man, body and soul together.
Jesus, it may be remembered, thus interprets the words, "I am the God of
Abraham," etc. (Mt 22:32), as a pledge not simply of continued existence,
but of resurrection. This accords with what has been seen of the connection of
death with sin and its abnormality in the case of man. The immortality man
would have enjoyed, had he not sinned, would have been an immortality of his
whole person. It will be seen immediately that this is borne out by all the
passages in which the hope of immortality is expressed in the Old Testament.
These never contemplate a mere immortality of the soul, but always imply
resurrection.
If the above is correct, it follows that it is a mistake to
place the belief in resurrection so late as is often done, still more to derive
it from Zoroastrianism (thus, Cheyne, Origin of Psalter, lecture viii) or other
foreign sources. It was a genuine corollary from the fundamental Israelite
beliefs about God, man, the soul, sin, death and redemption. Professor Gunkel
emphasizes "the immeasurable significance" of this doctrine, and
speaks of it as "one of the greatest things found anywhere in the history
of religion," but thinks "it cannot be derived from within Judaism
itself, but must take its origin from a ruling belief in the Orient of the
later time" (Zum religionsgeschichtlichen Verstandniss des New Testament,
32-33; for criticism of Gunkel's positions see the writer's Resurrection of
Jesus, 255ff). To make good his theory, however, he has to discount all the
evidences for the belief furnished by the earlier Old Testament writings, and
this, it is believed, cannot be done successfully. It was before noted that
cases of resurrection appear in the historical books (1Ki 17:21ff; 2Ki 4:34ff).
It is not impossible that the reverent care of the patriarchs for their dead
was, as with the Egyptians, inspired by some hope of this kind (Gen 23; Gen
50:5, 25; Ex 13:19; compare Heb 11:22). In any case an impartial survey of the
evidence proves that the thought of resurrection colors all the later
expressions of the hope of immortality (see IMMORTALITY; compare also the
writer's appendix on the subject in Christian View of God, 2Ooff).
The passages in the Psalms in which faith rises to the hope
of immortality are principally Ps 16:8-11; Ps 17:15; Ps 49:14, 15; Ps 73:24.
There are a few others, but these are the chief, and so far as they are allowed
to express a hope of immortality at all, they do so in a form which implies
resurrection. Dr. Cheyne, believing them to be influenced by Zoroastrianism,
formerly granted this (Origin of Psalter, lecture viii); now he reads the
passages differently. There is no good reason for putting these psalms in
post-exilian times, and, taken in their most natural sense, their testimony
seems explicit. Ps 16:8-11 (cited in Acts 2:24-31 as a prophecy of the
resurrection of Christ) reads "My flesh also shall dwell in safety (or
confidently, margin). For thou wilt not leave my soul to Sheol; neither wilt
thou suffer thy holy one to see corruption (or the pit, margin). Thou wilt show
me the path of life," etc. In Ps 17:15, the Psalmist, after describing the
apparent prosperity of the wicked, says, "As for me, I shall behold thy
face in rightousness; I shall be satisfied, when I awake, with beholding thy
form" (King James Version, the English Revised Version, "with thy
likeness"). Cheyne (op. cit., 406) refers this to the resurrection
(compare Delitzsch, Perowne, etc.). Yet more explicit is Ps 49:14, 15, "They
(the wicked) are appointed as a flock for Sheol .... and the upright shall have
dominion over them in the morning. .... But God will redeem my soul from the
power (hand, margin) of Sheol; for he will receive me." The last clause,
literally,. "He will take me," has, as Perowne, Delitzsch, Cheyne
(formerly), even Duhm, allow, allusion to cases like those of Enoch and Elijah.
It cannot, however, contemplate actual bodily translation; it must therefore
refer to resurrection. Similar in strain is Ps 73:24, "Thou wilt guide me
with thy counsel, and afterward receive me to glory." Dr. Charles grants
that, in Psalms 49 and 73, "God takes the righteous to Himself" in
heaven (pp. 76-77), but fails to connect this with the doctrine of resurrection
which he finds appearing about the same time (p. 78).
Before looking at the prophets, a glance should be taken at
the Book of Job, which, irrespective of date (it is quite unwarrantably made
post-exilian), reflects patriarchal conditions. Ch 14 raises the question,
"If a man die, shall he live again?" (Job 14:14), and it is to be
remarked that the form in which it does it, is the possibility of bodily
revival. The appearances hostile to man's living again are enumerated (Job
14:7-12), then faith, reasserting itself, flings itself on God to accomplish
the apparently impossible: "Oh that thou wouldest hide me in Sheol, that
thou wouldest keep me secret, until thy wrath be past, that thou wouldest
appoint me a set time and remember me. .... Thou wouldest call and I would answer
thee: thou wouldest have a desire to the work of thy hands" (Job 14:13-15;
margin reads "Thou shalt call," etc.). Dr. A. B. Davidson says,
"To his mind this involves a complete return to life again of the whole
man" (Cambridge Commentary on Job, in the place cited.). With this must be
taken the splendid outburst in Job 19:25-27, "I know that my Redeemer
liveth," etc., which, whatever doubts may attach to the precise rendering
of certain clauses, undoubtedly expresses a hope not inferior in strength to
that in the verse just quoted.
The presence of the idea of resurrection in the Prophets is
not doubted, but the passages are put down to exilic or preexilic times, and
are explained of "spiritual" or "national," not of
individual, resurrection (compare Charles, op. cit., 128-29). It seems plain,
however, that, before the figure of resurrection could be applied to the
nation, the idea of resurrection must have been there; and it is by no means
clear that in certain of the passages the resurrection of individuals is not
included. Cheyne granted this regarding the passages in Isa (Isa 25:6-8; Isa
26:19): "This prospect concerns not merely the church-nation, but all of
its believing members, and indeed all, whether Jews or not, who submit to the
true king, Yahweh" (op. cit., 402). There is no call for putting the
remarkable passages in Hos -- "After two days will he revive us: on the
third day he will raise us up, and we shall live before him" (Isa 6:2);
"I will ransom them from the power of Sheol: I will redeem them from
death: O death, where are thy plagues? O Sheol, where is thy destruction?"
(Isa 13:14) -- later than the time of that prophet. In them the idea of
resurrection is already fully present; as truly as in the picture in Ezek 37:1-10
of the valley of dry bones. The climax is, however, reached in Isa 25:6-8; Isa
26:19, above referred to, from which the individual element cannot be excluded
(compare Salmond, op. cit., 211-12: "The theme of this great passage, Ezek
26:19, therefore, is a personal, not a corporate resurrection").
Finally, in the Old Testament we have the striking
statement in Dan 12:2, "And many of them that sleep in the dust .... shall
awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.
And they that are wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament,"
etc. The peculiarity of this passage is, that in it, for the first time, is
announced a resurrection of the wicked as well as of the righteous (compare in
the New Testament Jn 5:28, 29; Acts 24:15; Rev 20:12ff). The word
"many" is not to be understood in contrast with "all,"
though probably only Israel is in view. The event is connected with a
"time of trouble" (Dan 12:1) following upon the overthrow of
Antiochus, here representative of Antichrist. The really difficult problem is,
How did this conception of the resurrection of the wicked come about? The
resurrection of the righteous, it has been seen, is a corollary from the
covenant-faithfulness of Yahweh. But this does not apply to the wicked. Whence
then does the idea come? It is given as a revelation, but even revelation
connects itself with existing ideas and experiences. The resurrection of the
wicked, certainly, does not arise, like that of the righteous, from the
consciousness of an indissoluble union with God, but it may well arise from the
opposite conviction of the judgment of God. As the sense of individuality grew
strong -- and it is granted that the teaching of the prophets did much to strengthen
that feeling -- and the certainty of moral retribution developed, it was
inevitable that this should react on the conception of the future, in making it
as certain that the wicked should be punished, as that the good should be
rewarded, in the world to come. Naturally too, as the counterpart of the other
belief, this shaped itself into the form of a resurrection to judgment. We are
thus brought, as a last step, to consider the idea of judgment and its effects
as found in the prophetic teaching.
It was seen that, under Mosaism, the promises and
threatenings of God were mainly confined to the present life, and that the
sense of distinctions in Sheol, though not absent, was vague and wavering.
Through temporal dispensations men were trained to faith in the reality of
moral retribution. Under the prophets, while the judgments of God on nations
and individuals were still primarily viewed as pertaining to this life, there
gradually shaped itself a further idea -- that of an approaching consummation
of history, or Day of Yahweh, when God's enemies would be completely
overthrown, His righteousness fully vindicated and His kingdom established in
triumph throughout the earth. The developments of this idea may now briefly be
exhibited. In this relation, it need only be stated that the writer does not
follow the extraordinary mangling of the prophetic texts by certain critics,
accepted, though with some misgiving, by Dr. Charles.
The "Day of Yahweh," in the prophetic writings,
is conceived of, sometimes more generally, as denoting any great manifestation
of God's power in judgment or salvation (e.g. the locusts in Joel 2), sometimes
more eschatologically, of the final crisis in the history of God's kingdom,
involving the overthrow of all opposition, and the complete triumph of
righteousness (e.g. Isa 2:2-5; Joel 3; Am 9:11ff; Zec 14, etc.). The two things
are not unconnected; the one is the prelude, or anticipatory stage, of the
other. That feature of prophetic vision sometimes spoken of as the absence of
perspective is very conspicuous in the fact that chronology is largely
disregarded, and the "Day of Yahweh" is seen looming up as the
immediate background of every great crisis in which the nation may for the time
be involved (Assyrian invasions; Babylonian captivity; Maccabean persecution).
The one thing ever certain to the prophet's mind is that the "Day" is
surely coming -- it is the one great, dread, yet for God's people joyful, event
of the future -- but the steps by which the goal is to be reached are only
gradually revealed in the actual march of God's providence.
The "Day" is in its primary aspect a day of
judgment (Isa 2:12); not, however, to be thought of as a day of vengeance only
on the adversaries of Israel (Am 5:18ff). Israel itself would be the first to
experience the strokes of the Divine chastisement: "You only have I known
of all the families of the earth: therefore I will visit upon you all your
iniquities" (Am 3:2). God's judgments on Israel, while retributive, were
also purifying and sifting; a "remnant" would remain, who would be
the seed of a holier community (Isa 6:13; Am 9:9; Zeph 3:13, 10, etc.). The
Book of Hos beautifully exhibits this aspect of the Divine dealings.
Of wider scope is the relation of the "Day" to
the Gentileworld. The nations are used as the instruments of God's judgments on
Israel (Assyrians, Chaldeans, Persians), but they, too, would in turn be judged
by Yahweh (compare the prophecies against the nations in Isaiah, Jeremiah,
Ezekiel, Nahum, Habakkuk, etc.). The end would be, although this does not fully
appear in every prophet, that a remnant of the heathen also would turn to
Yahweh, and be rescued from the judgment (Zec 14:16). More generally, an
extension of the kingdom of God would take place till the earth was filled with
God's glory (e.g. Isa 2:2-5, with Mic 4:1-5; Isa 42:4; 6 Isa 60; Isa 66:3-6;
Jer 12:14-16; Jer 16:19-21; Ezek 16:53, 55, 61, God will turn the captivity of
Sodom and her daughters; Am 9:11; Hab 2:14; compare Ps 22:27-31; Ps 65:2, 5; Ps
86:9; 87 Ps 87). These events, in prophetic speech, belong to "the latter
days" (Isa 2:2; Jer 48:47; Ezek 38:16; Hos 3:5; Mic 4:1). In Daniel's
great prophecy of the four kingdoms, these are represented as broken in pieces
by the kingdom of heaven, symbolized by a stone cut out of the mountain without
hands (Dan 2:44, 45; compare Dan 7:27). The kingdom is given by the Ancient of
Days to one "like unto a son of man" (Dan 7:13). Haggai and
Zechariah, the post-exilian prophets, share in these glowing hopes (Hag 2:6, 7;
Zec 2:10; Zec 8:20-23; Zec 14:16). In Malachi is found one of the noblest of
all the prophetic utterances: "From the rising of the sun even unto the
going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles," etc.
(Mal 1:11); and prophecy closes with the announcement of Him, Yahweh's
messenger, by whom this "great and terrible day of Yahweh" is to be
brought in (Mal 4).
The purview, in what is said of the "Day of
Yahweh," is thus seen to be confined to earth, though the references to
resurrection, and the passages in the close of Isa (Isa 65:17; Isa 66:22) about
"new heavens and a new earth" imply a further vista. The hope of
immortality -- of resurrection life -- in the case of the righteous has already
been considered. But what of judgment after death in the case of the wicked? Only
dim premonitions of retribution, it was seen, are found in the earlier doctrine
of Sheol. There are frequent references to "judgment" in the Psalms,
sometimes on the world (e.g. Psa 96:13; Psa 98:9; compare Psa 50), sometimes on
individuals (e.g. Psa 1:5), but it is doubtful if any of them look beyond
earth. Yet many things combined to force this problem on the attention.
There was the sharpening of the sense of individual
responsibility in the prophetic age (Jer 31:29, 30; Ezek 18:2ff), and the
obvious fact of the incompleteness of the Divine moral administration in the
present life, as respects the individual. The working of moral laws could be
discerned, but this fell far short of exact individual retribution. Life was
full of moral anomalies and perplexities (compareJOB, BOOK OF).
There was the special difficulty that the wicked did not
always seem to meet with the punishment due to their misdeeds in time. On the
contrary they often seemed to flourish, to have success in their schemes, to
triumph over the godly, who were afflicted and oppressed. This was the enigma
that so painfully exercised the minds of the psalmists (Pss 10; 1 Pss 17; 3 Pss
37; 4 Pss 49; 7 Pss 73, etc.). The solution they found was that the prosperity
of the wicked did not endure. It came to a sudden end (Ps 37:35, 36; Ps
73:18-20), while the righteous had a sure compensation in the future (Ps 17:15;
Ps 49:15; Ps 73:24, etc.). It was not, however, always the case that the wicked
were thus visibly cut off. Besides, a sudden end hardly seemed an adequate
punishment for a long career of triumphant iniquity, and, if the righteous were
recompensed hereafter, the thought lay near that the wicked might be, and
should be, also.
There was the kindred fact that, in the calamities that
overtook the wicked, the righteous were often the involuntary sharers. The
wicked did not suffer by themselves; the godly were involved in the storm of
judgment (war, captivity, plagues) that broke upon them. Here was something
else calling for redress at the hands of a God of righteousness.
From these causes the thought almost necessarily presented
itself of the extension of retribution for the wicked into the state beyond
death. Hence, as before seen, Sheol did come in the later age to assume
something of a penal character for the unrighteous. There was a wrath of God
that burned to the lowest Sheol (Dt 32:22; compare Charles, op. cit., 74). But
this abode of the shades was not, for the evil any more than for the good, a
fitting sphere for moral recompense. If, for the complete reward of the
righteous, a resurrection-state was necessary, did not the same hold true for the
wicked? It is questioned whether the very definite announcements of an
individual judgment in Eccl 11:9; Eccl 12:14 refer to the state beyond death --
it is probable that they do (compare Salmond, op. cit., 216-17). The first
clear intimation of a resurrection of the wicked, however, is found, as already
said, in Dan 12:2, which likewise implies judgment. Perhaps a hint of the same
idea is given in Isa 66:24: "They shall go forth (the prophet is speaking
of the times of the new heavens and the new earth, verse 22), and look upon the
dead bodies of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall
not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring
unto all flesh." Dr. Charles connects this with the idea of Gehenna as "a
place of punishment for rebellious and apostate Jews," which he thinks
also to be implied in Isa 50:11 (op. cit., 158). It is the same word
"abhorrence" (Hebrew [dera'on]), found in the above passage, which is
rendered in Dan 12:2 "contempt," and the punishment "is
conceived of as eternal" (pp. 158-59).
It is hardly possible to carry the subject farther within
the limits of the Old Testament. Further developments belong to the later
Judaism.
The sources of our knowledge of the eschatological
conceptions among the Jews in the immediately pre-Christian period are:
The books of the Old Testament Apocrypha (seeAPOCRYPHA),
taken over, with the exception of 2Esdras, from the Septuagint. 2Esdras, better
known as 4 Esdras, is more properly classed with the apocalyptic writings. The
original work consists only of chapters 3 through 14, with a passage in chapter
7 not found in the ordinary version. The book is post-Christian (circa 80-96
AD).
(See article under that head, II, i, 1; II, ii.) The
remains of this litereature consist of the Sibylline Oracles (oldest parts,
Book III, from 2nd century BC), the Book Enoch (see below), the Psalms of
Solomon (70-40 BC), with the Apocrypha Baruch (50-100 AD), the Book of
Jubilees, and Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs (see below), the Assumption of
Moses (early 1st century AD), and the Ascension of Isaiah (before 50 AD). A
good deal turns on the dating of some of these books. Several (Apocrypha
Baruch, Assumption of Moses, Ascension of Isaiah, with 4 Esdras) are
post-Christian. The Book of Jubilees and Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs
have also usually been regarded as such, but Dr. Charles argues for dates going
back to the close of the 2nd century BC for both. Late Jewish and Christian
additions are recognized in the latter. Formerly Dr. Charles dated Jubilees
"before 10 AD." The chief dispute relates to (the
"Similitudes") of the Book of Enoch chapters 37 through 70. These
important sections are held by some (Dr. Stanton, etc.) to be post-Christian
(end of 1st century AD) -- a view to which we incline; Dr. Charles and others
place them in the 1st century BC. Most of the remaining portions of the book
are assigned to dates in the 2nd century BC. To the above should be added the
notices of Jewish opinions in Josephus
For rabbinical ideas, we are chiefly dependent on the
Talmudic writings and the Targums -- sources whose late character makes their
witness often doubtful (see TALMUD;TARGUM).
It is only possible to summarize very briefly the varying
and frequently conflicting conceptions on eschatological subjects to be gleaned
from this extensive literature. The representations are often wildly
imaginative, and, so far as they are not genuine developments from Old
Testament ideas, have value only as they may be supposed to throw light on the
teachings of the New Testament. With one or two exceptions, little is to be
gathered from the apocryphal books, and it will be best to treat the subject
under headings.
In the apocryphal Ecclesiasticus (Wisdom of the Son of
Sirach) we remain still on the old ground of Sheol as a place in which there is
no remembrance, thanksgiving or retribution (Sirach 17:27, 28; Sirach 41:3, 1,
etc.; a somewhat different note is heard in Sirach 21:10). It is the same in
Baruch (Baruch 2:17) and Tobit (Tobit 3:6). In 1Macc we have simply the Old
Testament phrases, "gathered to his fathers" (1Macc 2:69),
"gathered to his people" (1Macc 14:30). In the Book of Wisdom, the
influence of Greek ideas is seen in a doctrine of the immortality of the soul
only (Wis. 2:23; Wis. 3:1-4; Wis. 4:13, 14; Wis. 15:3; not a resurrection),
possibly of pre-existence (Wis. 8:20). The wicked suffer punishment in Sheol
(Wis. 3:1-10; Wis. 5:1-14, etc.).
Generally, however, in the apocalyptic books, a marked
change is seen in the ideas of Sheol. It is still the place of the dead, but is
regarded more as a state intermediate between death and the resurrection for
such as shall be raised; in which righteous and wicked are separated; in which
the wicked suffer punishment. The Book of Enoch distinguishes four abodes for
the departed -- two for the righteous, and two for the wicked (Enoch 21:1-13).
One class of the wicked (those already punished in this life) remain there
forever, while the others are raised, and pass to the torment of Gehenna (Enoch
17:2). The righteous are in Paradise -- "the garden of life" (Enoch
61:12), "the garden of righteousness" (Enoch 67:3). This character of
Sheol as a place of punishment (intermediate or final) is met with frequently
(Book of Jubilees 7:29; 22:22; 2Macc 6:23; Psalter of Solomon 14:6; 15:11;
16:2, etc.). In certain places, Dr. Charles says, "Sheol has become an
abode of fire, and therefore synonymous so far with Gehenna. .... In several
passages in the Similitudes, and throughout Enoch 91-104, Sheol and Gehenna are
practically identical" (op. cit., 237). Similar ideas are found in the
Slavonic version of Enoch (ibid., 261ff).
Much prominence in the Book of Enoch is given to the fallen
angels (those who sinned with women, Gen 6:2. They are consigned in the
judgment to ever-burning fire (En 21:1-6; 90:20-25).
Ideas of the resurrection vary, In Enoch 22, the righteous
and one class of the wicked are raised; elsewhere all the righteous are raised
and none of the wicked (En 61:5; 90:33; Psalter of Solomon 3:16); sometimes
there is to be a resurrection of all, just and unjust (En 51:1,2). 2Macc dwells
much on the resurrection, which seems to embrace all Israel (2Macc 3:16; 2Macc
13:9; 2Macc 7:9, 14, 23, etc.). For the Gentiles there is no resurrection
(2Macc 7:14, 36). In Enoch 90:38, the bodies of the righteous are described as
"transformed" in the resurrection (compare in the
"Similitudes," Enoch 39:7; 51:4; 62:15). The doctrine of the
resurrection (universal) is taught in the Apocrypha Baruch 30:2-5; 5 Baruch 50;
5 Baruch 51, and in 4Esdras 7:32-37. In Josephus the Pharisees are said to have
believed in the resurrection of the righteous only (Ant., XVIII, i, 3). This
does not coincide with Paul's statement in Acts 24:15.
The reality of a final judgment, supervening upon the
intermediate judgment in Sheol, is strongly affirmed in most of the apocalyptic
books. The Book of Enoch speaks much of this final judgment. It describes it as
"the great day," "the righteous judgment," "the great
day of judgment" "the last judgment," "the judgment of all
eternity" (Enoch 10:6,12; 16:1; 19:1; 22:4,11; 25:4; 90:26,27, etc.).
Wicked angels and men are judged, and sentenced to Gehenna -- a doom without
end.
An interesting point is the relation of the Messiah to this
judgment. With the exception of 4 Esd, the apocryphal books are silent on the
Messiah. In the apocalyptic books the Messiah does appear, but not always in
the same light. In the Sibylline Oracles (3), Psalms of Solomon (17; 18),
Apocrypha Baruch (Baruch 39; 4 Baruch 40) and in 4Esdras (4Esdras 13:32ff) the
appearance of Messiah is associated with the overthrow and judgment of the
ungodly worldly powers; in the older portions of Enoch (Enoch 90:16-25) God
Himself executes this judgment, and holds the great assize -- the Messiah does
not appear till after. In the section of Enoch, chapters 37 through 70, on the
other hand, the Messiah appears definitely as the judge of the world, and
titles resembling those in the New Testament, "the Righteous One"
(Enoch 38:2; 53:6), "the Elect One" (Enoch 40:5; 45:3,4, etc.), above
all, "the Son of Man" (Enoch 46:2-4; 48:2, etc.), are given Him. It
is these passages which suggest Christian influence, especially as the
conception is not found elsewhere in pre-Christian Apocalypse, and the Book of
Jubilees, which refers otherwise to Enoch, makes no mention of these passages.
Yet another idea appears in later Apocalypse, that, namely, of a limited reign
of Messiah, after which take place the resurrection and judgment. 4Esdras has
the extraordinary notion that, after a reign of 400 years, the Messiah dies
(4Esdras 7:28,29). God in this case is the judge.
The Messianic age, when conceived of as following the
judgment (the older view), is unlimited in duration, has Jerusalem for its
center, and includes in the scope of its blessing the converted Gentiles
(Sibylline Oracles 3:698-726; Enoch 90:30,37; compare Enoch 48:5; 53:1; Psalms
of Solomon 17:32-35). The righteous dead of Israel are raised to participate in
the kingdom. Already in Enoch 90:28,29 is found the idea that the new Jerusalem
is not the earthly city, but a city that comes down from heaven, where, as in 4
Esdras, the Messianic reign is limited, the blessed life after resurrection is
transferred to heaven.
Little is to be added from the rabbinical conceptions,
which, besides being difficult to ascertain precisely, are exceedingly confused
and contradictory. Most of the ideas above mentioned appear in rabbinical
teaching. With the destruction of the hostile world-powers is connected in
later rabbinism the appearance of "Armilus" -- an Antichrist. The
reign of Messiah is generally viewed as limited in duration -- 400 years (as in
4 Esdras), and 1,000 years being mentioned (compare Schurer, History of Jewish
People in the Time of Jesus Christ, Div. II, Vol. II, 179, English
translation). At its close takes place a renovation of the world, resurrection
(for Israelites only, certain classes being excluded), judgment, and eternal
heavenly happiness for the righteous. The punishments of the wicked appear mostly
to be regarded as eternal, but the view is also met with of a limited duration
of punishment (see authorities in Schurer, op. cit., 183; Edersheim, Jesus the
Messiah, appendix. XIX, and other works noted in "Literature" below).
R. H. Charles, D.D., A Crit. History of the Doctrine of a
Future Life (1899); apocalyptic works translated and edited by same writer
(Book of Enoch, Apocrypha Baruch, Book of Jubilees, Testament of the 12
Patriarchs, etc.; V. H. Stanton, The Jewish and the Christian Messiah (1886);
S. D. F. Salmond, Christian Doct of Immortality (4th edition, 1901); A.
Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, edition 1906 (especially
appendix. XIX); E. Schurer, History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus
Christ (Div. II, Vol. II, English translation). Old Testament Theologies:
Oehler, A. B. Davidson, etc.; articles in Dictionaries: Hastings, Encyclopedia
Biblica, etc. For fuller lists, see Charles.
Definition Written By: James Orr