Before leaving Jewish apocalyptic, two points must be more particularly noted as bearing on questions that will emerge later. The first relates to the personality of the Judge. In most writings it is God Himself who is represented as occupying the throne (Dn 7»- 1", En. i. 3-9, xc. 20, 2 Es 6« 7^^). Sometimes, however, the Messiah or Son of Man appears as conducting the J udgment in God's name (En. li. 1. 2, Ixix. 27 ; Apoc. Bar. Ixxii. 2). There was no fixed doctrine on the subject ; the one matter of importance was that the Judgment was a Divine Judgment. The second point relates to
the fate of the wicked. Here again we find no uniform view, except that their fate involves final and irretrievable ruin. Many passages assume that only the righteous will be raised from the dead. For the sinner death will be the end [Ps.- Sol. iii. 13-16, Apoc. Bar. xxx.). Sometimes, how- ever, Sheol, into which the dead descend, is itself transformed into a place of punishment, so that to be left there does not mean annihilation (Eth. En. xcviii., xcix., civ.). We have also passages in which Sheol is the abode of the lost only until the Day of Judgment, when they are thrust into Gehenna or hell, to suffer eternal torment, with devils for their companions (Eti. liii. 3-5, liv. 1. 2).
This belief in a resurrection of the dead and a universal judgment forms a landmark in the history of Hebrew religion. We see in it the victory of individualism. It is no longer the nation but the individual that is the religious unit. The worth of the individual is recognized, and he is set solitary before God. How is the rise of the apocalyptic conception of things to be explained ? Partly, no doubt, by the calamitous situation of the Jewish people under Persian and Greek rule. A fulfilment of the prophetic promise through the means that the prophets had in view — inner reform, political revolution, a victorious leader — no longer seemed within the range of possibility. God had ceased to speak to the people through the living voice of prophecy, and a feeling was abroad that He had forsaken the earth. Tliis explanation is, however, only partial. The pessimism and dualism of the apocalyptic world-view, its demonologj- and angelology, its conception of a death-struggle be- tween the kingdom of Satan and the kingdom of God, its conception of a resurrection from the dead and a Final Judgment, can be accounted for only on the hypothesis of Persian influence.
2. In the teaching of Jesus. — So far as its outward form is concerned, Jesus' conception of judgment and punishmcHt is wholly on apocalyptic lines. The Judgment will come at the end of' the world ; it will be a judgment of individuals ; and it will be universal (Mt 22'^ 1527), -phe sentence pronounced will be final : nowhere do we find a hint of future probation. With respect to the person of the Judge, Jesus follows the tradition that assigns the office to the Son of Man. ' For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his F'ather with his angels ; and then shall he render unto every man according to his deeds' (Mt 16'-^ 13^^ 25*^). No particular significance is, however, attached to this fact : the emphasis falls, not on the personality of the Judge, but on the judgment He conducts. What is Jesus' teaching with regard to the doom of the lost? Uniformly He follows the tradition that regards them as consigned to Gehenna or hell (Mt 5'^-^^ lO-^ 18»). And, as in apocalyptic, Gehenna appears as a fiery furnace in which the wicked sufler unending torment (Mt 5'-", Lk 16'^, Mt 25^''). Jesus is no theologian, but something incomparably greater. In the main He appropriates the conceptions of His time, modify- ing or rejecting them only when they conflict with some vital religious or ethical interest. What is original in His teaching is not the theological con- ceptions but the new content with which they are charged. If His conception of the Judgment and of punishment is in formal respects that of Jewish apocalyptic, the spirit of which it is the vehicle is all His own. New is the moral earnestness with which He brings each individual soul face to face with the righteous Judge. ' And be not afraid of them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul : but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell' (Mt 10'^»). New also is the moral purity with which the con- ception of judgment is carried out. Everything
JUDG]ME:NT, DAMJS^ATIOi^
JUDGMENT, DAMNATIOi^ 663
national and sectarian falls away. Of a mechanical balancing of good and bad actions we hear nothing. The one test is character, and character in its deepest principle — the love in whicli lies the root of all morality and all religion. ' I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat : 1 was thirsty, and ye gave me drink. . . . Inasmuch as ye did it unto one of these my brethren, even these least, ye did it unto me ' (Mt 25^^*^-). And what is true of Jesus' teach- ing about judgment is true also of His teaching about punishment. The element of originality is to be found not in the formal conceptions but in the spirit they enshrine. In tlie descriptions of hell in Jewish apocalyptic embittered national and ecclesiastical feeling is at least as much in evidence as moral hatred of iniquity. Far otherwise is it when we turn to Jesus. What comes to expression in His almost fierce words regarding the fate of the wicked is His burning indignation against all high- handed sin, particularly against hypocrisy and heartlessness. His deep sense of the intinite and eternal difference between right and wrong, His immovable conviction that the first means ever- lasting life to a man and the second everlasting death. ' And if thy hand or thy foot causeth thee to stumble, cut it oiY and cast it from thee : it is good for thee to enter into life maimed or halt, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into the eternal fire' (Mt 18^).