' messenger ' [Mai 3'] or through the Me: 'Son of David' [Is U'"-]), in which He eifectually visits His people with His mercy, and breaks the arm of the unrighteous peoples, who forget God and oppress them. These heathen return to Sheol (Ps 9"); but the covenant of Jahweh with His faithful people is established for ever. The his- tory seems to show that it was possible for pious Israelites to rest in this view, merging individual hopes in hopes for the nation, until the actual disaster of the E.xile shook their faith in the per- manence of tlie collective unit of the Jewish State. From this time, however, as we see clearly from tlie writings of Jereraiali and Ezekiel (cf. esp. Ezk 18), the claims of the individual come into prominence. It was felt tliat in the righteousness of God one generation ought not to sutler for the sins of its predecessors. Each generation, even each unit of a generation, liad its own rights. Yet, in fact, it seemed as though these rights were ignored. It is with the problem raised by this conflict between the prophetic conscience and the facts, that the apocalyptic literature from Daniel onwards is concerned. The sohition obtained springs from the despair that lies on the border of hope. The mundane element in the old idea of a Prince of the house of David tends to disappear. The blessing, which could not spring from earth, was expected from heaven, and at the touch of the new power, coming thence, even the ' dust ' of the earth (i.e. esp. dead Israelites who liad kept the covenant) should awake (Is 26'*). Wliile, doubt- less, the adumbrations of the conception of im- mortality wliich we find scattered throughout the OT had their origin in the sentiment that it must be well with the righteous for ever, this positive aspect of the matter was inseparable from a nega- tive. The righteous could liardly be \'indicated unless punisliment fell on the rebels and trans- gressors. Hence even in Dn 12", which cannot be said to teacli a universal resurrection, among the ' many ' who awake from the dust of the earth there are 'some' who arise to 'shame and ever- lasting contempt.' It was inevitable that these conceptions should be universalized. If, as even the former Prophets and Psalmists in their own fashion had taught, there was to be a univrraal judgment (i.e. a vengeance of Jahweh exercised upon all rebel Gentiles and upon the transgressors
I of the covenant in Israel), and if the collective unit of the nation was practically displaced by the individual, it is clear that the idea of universal judgment must have come to have for its counter- part the idea of universal resurrection. No doubt the conception was held vaguely, and was as little efi'ective for practical consolation as it is to this day (cf. Martha's attitude, Jn 11^) — still it was there. When Jesus spoke of the 'resurrection of the dead,' or even of the Messianic 'Son of Man' as executing judgment. He was using lan- guage whose general implications were either en- tirely or (as in the case of ' Son of Man ') at least partially understood by His hearers. B. The main features of our Lord's es-
CBATOLOGICAL TEACHIXG,— Taming now to the subject of our Lord's eschatological teaching, and looking to the present condition of critical opinion, we may make a distinction, which has in most respects only a theoretical value, between the eschatological views of the early Church as re- tiected in the Gospels and those held and taught by Jesus Himself. The Gospels are as a whole too entirely dominated by the spirit of truth as it was in Jesus to make it possible, without arbitra- riness, to vindicate this distinction in detail. Yet the investigation in which we are engaged seems to reveal problems arising out of portions of even the SjTioptic Gospels, in connexion with which it may be well to remember that the Master must not be measured even by His best reporters. The distinction may seem a priori to have even more warrant in reference to the Fourth Gospel, whose representation both of the Person and the words of Jesus stands in such obvious contrast to that of the Synoptics as to justify our dealing with it in a separate section. We may do this even though in the end we may find ourselves to agree with Haupt* that the Johannine presentation of the eschatology of Jesus supplies just the kind of supplement to that of the Synoptics which a critical study of the latter led us to think neces- sary. We therefore consider at present only the eschatology of Jesus as presented in the Synoptic Gospels.
1. His conception of the Kingdom of God. — Both John the Baptist and Jesus preached, saying, 'Repent: for the Kingdom of God (in Mt. most frequently 'the Kingdom of the heavens') is at hand.' There seems no reason to doubt that in general Jesus thought of the Kingdom just as John did. Modern writers on the Gospels, like Johannes Weiss t and Titius, J warn us with considerable justice against reading our own philosophical thoughts into the simple realism of the Bible. The Kingdom of God meant the perfect rule of God over all things in earth and heaven for the benefit of His people. It was eternal, it was uni- versal in the sense of embracing people of all nations, though, of course, only those in each nation who did righteousness ; and it embraced not earth only, but also heaven, whence it should come, and to whose type, as regarded at least the char- acter of its subjects, it should be conformed. It may be postulated perhaps, further, that the King- dom was conceived by Jesus, in at least its exter- nal features, on the closest possible analogy to an earthly kingdom. In two important respects, however, it differed from the latter, (a) It was not promoted by the weapons of i\i'<]\ and blood. It was a Kingdom where rmk .v.ii tliat of the King Himself— was deteniiiniMl l.y thr measure of service. The spirit of service «as tlie spirit of