(Mt 20=1 II Mk 1(F). The Fourth Gospel represents Jesus as expressly denying (Jn 8I' 12"), and also as affirming that He is the Judge (Jn 5—- 27- a) gi*). But such inconsistency can be resolved either by considering that Jesus at one time is thinking of His historical and at another of His eschatological duties, or by a reference to the general position of the Evangelist that the inissinn of the Christ in His historical miiii>tiv «:is lur the purpose of salvation rather tlian f.'ir i ciii.Iciiiuation (Jn 3'").
5. The subjects cif the .hulyincnt are men at large, with particular reference to those who have come in contact with the historical Jesus, includ- ing His disciples. The question as to whether those who never heard of Jesus are to be subject to this Judgment is not distinctly raised or settled in the Gospels, but the universality of the Judg- ment seems inevitable from Christ's \vamings, notably in the parable of the Tares (Mt IS"-**- 36-43. 47-60), These passages further indicate that at the Day of Judgment mankind will be gathered together before the Judgment-throne by the angels — a further utilization by Jesus of a conventional ilessianic expectation.
6. The aicards of the Judgment-day are : («) for those who have accepted Him as Christ, eternal life, including the resurrection (Mk 9^' 10" 122^, Jit 19='- =^ 23« Jn 5=» &^- «• «• ■•^). (6) For the wicked the Judgment-day fixes the destiny of misery, which is described in a variety of figures, such as the Gehenna fire (Mk 9*', j\It 5^), destruction (Mt 10^-=«, Mk 8'«-'^). Tlie terror of the day is also forecast in the various portents witli which it is to be ushered in, drawn from the figures of prophecy and apocalypse (Mt 24^- *• '"', Mk 8^').
7. There is a critical question as to whether many of these saj'ings concerning a Messianic Judgment -day may not be a reflexion of the Apostolic hope rather than the express teaching of Jesus. This is particularly true in the case of all passages quoted from Mt 25""*'. It is not possible, however, &o to explain all the teaching contained in the Gospels. Objective criticism must decide tliat many, if not a great majority, of these sayings come from Jesus Himself. The only ground upon which they can bo rejected as genuine logia is the dogmatic presupposition that Jesus was superior to, and independent of, current Messi- anism. Such a position is diflicult, however, in view of the relation of Jesus to His times, and His undoubted expectation that He would return with completed Mes.sianic dignity. It is an unsafe method of criticism which determines first what .Te-us. loulJ ..1 could not have said, and tlicn makes this (liicniiiii.itidn the critical criterion by which I.) .Icciile \\\< illation to the current of develop- ing Mrssiaiii-<m. His superiority to the apocalyptic expectation of His contemporaries is no more marked than His use of certain elements of tlieur hope for the coming of the eschatological Messianic era. Yet it is to be borne in mind constantly tliat here, as in so much of the teaching of Jesus, a new content is given by Him to current vocabularies and concepts. The standards of judgment are no longer those of tlie apnr-.-ily|ifii- writi-r-^. Ethnic prerogatives are s\\c]'l :i":i\ \ tn.i.i . .lestinv is
to be sett lei 1 net 1 y In i-: ; \ c ditini, but
by his relation tu(....l. ,\ ,. lui called
Him 'Lord,' but thu.~e mIiu ii.<l l.u.l - wM, were to enter the kingdom of heaven. Care bestowed upon a poor disciple was an assurance of the bliss of heaven. Such a change of moral values carries Jesus over into something other than a mechanical doctrine of rewards and punishments and of statu- tory merit. Instead of a balancing of good deeds and bad, it is evident from both the S.ynoptics and the Fourth Gospel that He recognized in eternal life the suvimum bonum, which is quite other than
DAY OF JUDGMENT
DAY OF JUDGMENT
423
the sensuous joys of Enoch and sonic of the Rabbis. Eternal life witli Jesus is not an artilicial rewartl, but rather the consummation of personality wliicli is determined by faith and relationship witli Gmi, and includes the resurrection of the body. The Day of Judgment, however else it may be used by Jesus, is primarily a pedagogical point of contact with morals and religion. It is an integral point of His teaching, not in the sense that it was an opportunity f'lr (Un\ to wreak vengeance upon the enemies of the Ji-ws, but in that it expressed the outcome of life, wliich is always to be lived in view of an impending eternity. The imagery with which He clothes this fundamental idea is Jewisli, and must be treated in the same method as all pro- phetic imagery. But in such treatment it is im- possible to deny that Jesus distinctly teaches that the final destiny of mankind is a matter that lies beyond death, and is conditioned by one's life before death. Any constructive use of the concept of the Day of Judgment, as it is described in the Gospels, is accordingly subject to the general considerations which must obtain in the constructive use of the entire Messianic scheme of Judaism as it appears in the NT. So far as Jesus Himself is concerned, this is one of the inevitable problems of His position as a revelation of God in terms of a historically conditioned individuality. The truth of Christi- anity in this, as in others of its phases, does not rise and fall with the linality of its expository and pedagogical concepts. Within the concept of the Day of Judgment lies the profound recognition on the part of Jesus of the fact that a man's ultimate destiny will be fixed in accordance with the im- mutable laws of God. To Ijc .saved is something more than to win the blessings of an acquittal at the Judgment-day of .lu<l,iism. It is rather to possess a quality of life due to the soul's relation with God through faith, which will eventuate in those blessed results which are pictured by the Gospels in terms of the apocalypse.