Part 31
2. OBJECTIONS TO POSTMILLENNIALISM. There are some very serious objections to the Postmillennial theory.
a. The fundamental idea of the doctrine, that the whole world will gradually be won for Christ, that the life of all nations will in course of time be transformed by the gospel, that righteousness and peace will reign supreme, and that the blessings of the Spirit will be poured out in richer abundance than before, so that the Church will experience a season of unexampled prosperity just before the coming of the Lord, — is not in harmony with the picture of the end of the ages found in Scripture. The Bible teaches indeed that the gospel will spread throughout the world and will exercise a beneficent influence, but does not lead us to expect the conversion of the world, either in this or in a coming age. It stresses the fact that the time immediately preceding the end will be a time of great apostasy, of tribulation and persecution, a time when the faith of many will wax cold, and when they who are loyal to Christ will be subjected to bitter sufferings, and will in some cases even seal their confession with their blood, Matt. 24:6-14,21,22; Luke 18:8; 21:25-28; II Thess. 2:3-12; II Tim. 3:1-6; Rev. 13. Postmillennialists, of course, cannot very well ignore entirely
what is said about the apostasy and the tribulation that will mark the end of history, but they minimize it and represent it as predicting an apostasy and a tribulation on a small scale, which will not affect the main course of the religious life. Their expectation of a glorious condition of the Church in the end, is based on passages which contain a figurative description, either of the gospel dispensation as a whole, or of the perfect bliss of the external Kingdom of Jesus Christ.
b. The related idea, that the present age will not end in a great cataclysmic change, but will pass almost imperceptibly into the coming age, is equally un-Scriptural. The Bible teaches us very explicitly that a catastrophe, a special intervention of God, will bring the rule of Satan on earth to an end, and will usher in the Kingdom that cannot be shaken, Matt. 24:29-31, 35-44; Heb. 12:26, 27; II Pet. 3:10-13. There will be a crisis, a change so great that it can be called "the regeneration," Matt. 19:28. No more than believers are progressively sanctified in this life until they are practically ready to pass, without much more change, into heaven, will the world gradually be purified and thus made ready to enter upon the next stage. Just as believers must still undergo a great change at death, so must the world suffer a tremendous change when the end comes. There will be a new heaven and a new earth. Rev. 21:1.
c. The modern idea that natural evolution and the efforts of man in the field of education, of social reform, and of legislation, will gradually bring in the perfect reign of the Christian spirit, conflicts with everything that the Word of God teaches on this point. It is not the work of man, but the work of God to bring in the glorious Kingdom of God. This Kingdom cannot be established by natural but only by supernatural means. It is the reign of God, established and acknowledged in the hearts of His people, and this reign can never be made effective by purely natural means. Civilization without regeneration, without a supernatural change of the heart, will never bring in a millennium, an effective and glorious rule of Jesus Christ. It would seem that the experiences of the last quarter of a century should have forced this truth upon the modern man. The highly
vaunted development of man has not yet brought us in sight of the millennium.
QUESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY: What is the historic origin of Premillennialism? Was it actually the prevailing view in the second and third centuries? What was Augustine's view of the Kingdom of God and the millennium? Are the Kingdom of God and the Church distinct or identical in Scripture? Is the one natural and national, and the other spiritual and universal? Do Luke 14:14 and 20:35 teach a partial resurrection? Will any part of Israel constitute a part of the bride of Christ? Will the bride be complete when Christ returns? Are the Postmillennialists necessarily evolutionists? Is the optimism of the Postmillennialists, that the world is gradually getting better, justified by experience? Does the Bible predict continuous progress for the Kingdom of God right up to the end of the world? Is it necessary to assume a cataclysmic change at the end?
LITERATURE: Bavinck, Geref. Dogm, IV, pp. 717-769; Kuyper, Dict. Dogm., De Consummatione Saeculi, pp. 237-279; Vos, Geref. Dogm. V. Eschatologie, pp. 36-40; id., The Pauline Eschatology, pp. 226260; Hodge, Syst. Theol. III, pp. 861-868; Warfield, The Millennium and the Apocalypse in Biblical Studies, pp. 643-664; Dahle, Life After Death, pp. 354-418; D. Brown, The Second Advent; Ch. Brown, The Hope of His Coming; Hoekstra, Het Chiliasme; Rutgers, Premillennialism in America; Merrill, Second Coming of Christ; Eckman, When Christ Comes Again; Heagle, That Blessed Hope; Case, The Millennial Hope; Rall, Modern Premillennialism and the Christian Hope; Fairbairn, The Prophetic Prospect of the Jews (by Pieters); Berkhof, Premillennialisme; Riley, The Evolution of the Kingdom; Bultema, Maranatha; Berkhoff, De Wederkomst van Christus; Brookes, Maranatha; Haldeman, The Coming of the Lord; Snowden, The Second Coming of the Lord; Blackstone; Jesus is Coming; Milligan, Is the Kingdom Age at Hand? Peters, The Theocratic Kingdom; West, The Thousand Years in Both Testaments; Silver, The Lord's Return; Bullinger, How to Enjoy the Bible; Waldegrave, New Testament Millenarianism; Feinberg,
Premillennialism and Amillennialism; Gæbelein, The Hope of the Ages; Hendriksen, More Than Conquerors; Dijk, Het Rijk der Duizend Jaren; Aalders, Het Herstel van Israel Volgens het Oude Testament; Mauro, The Gospel of the Kingdom, and The Hope of Israel; Frost; The Second Coming of Christ; Reese, The Approaching Advent of Christ; Wyngaarden, The Future of the Kingdom.
III. The Resurrection of the Dead
The discussion of the second advent of Christ naturally leads on to a consideration of its concomitants. Foremost among these is the resurrection of the dead or, as it is sometimes called, "the resurrection of the flesh."
A. THE DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION IN HISTORY.
In the days of Jesus there was a difference of opinion among the Jews respecting the resurrection. While the Pharisees believed in it, the Sadducees did not, Matt. 22:23; Acts 23:8. When Paul spoke of it at Athens, he met with mockery, Acts 17:32. Some of the Corinthians denied it, I Cor. 15, and Hymenæus and Phyletus, regarding it as something purely spiritual, asserted that it was already a matter of history, II Tim. 2:18. Celsus, one of the earliest opponents of Christianity, made especially this doctrine the butt of ridicule; and the Gnostics, who regarded matter as inherently evil, naturally rejected it. Origen defended the doctrine over against the Gnostics and Celsus, but yet did not believe that the very body which was deposited in the grave would be raised up. He described the body of the resurrection as a new, refined, and spiritualized body. While some of the early Christian Fathers shared his view, the majority of them stressed the identity of the present body and the body of the resurrection. The Church already in the Apostolic Confession expressed its belief in the resurrection of the flesh (sarkos). Augustine was at first inclined to agree with Origen, but later on adopted the prevalent view, though he did not deem it necessary to believe that the present differences of size and stature would continue in the life to come. Jerome insisted strongly on the identity of the present and the future body. The East, represented by such
men as the two Gregories, Chrysostom, and John of Damascus, manifested a tendency to adopt a more spiritual view of the resurrection than the West. Those who believed in a coming millennium spoke of a double resurrection, that of the righteous at the beginning, and that of the wicked at the end of the millennial reign. During the Middle Ages the Scholastics speculated a great deal about the body of the resurrection, but their speculations are mostly fanciful and of little value. Thomas Aquinas especially seemed to have special information about the nature of the resurrection body, and about the order and manner of the resurrection. The theologians of the period of the Reformation were generally agreed that the body of the resurrection would be identical with the present body. All the great Confessions of the Church represent the general resurrection as simultaneous with the second coming of Christ, the final judgment and the end of the world. They do not separate any of these events, such as the resurrection of the righteous and that of the wicked, and the coming of Christ and the end of the world, by a period of a thousand years. The Premillenarians, on the other hand, insist on such a separation. Under the influence of Rationalism and with the advance of the physical sciences some of the difficulties with which the doctrine of the resurrection is burdened were accentuated, and as a result modern religious liberalism denies the resurrection of the flesh, and explains the Scriptural representations of it as a figurative representation of the idea that the full human personality will continue to exist after death.
B. SCRIPTURAL PROOF FOR THE
RESURRECTION.
1. IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. It is sometimes said that the Old Testament knowns of no resurrection of the dead, or knows of it only in its latest books. The opinion is rather common that Israel borrowed its belief in the resurrection from the Persians. Says Mackintosh: "Strong evidence exists for the hypothesis that the idea
of the resurrection entered the Hebrew mind from Persia."[Immortality and the Future, p. 34.] Brown speaks in a somewhat similar vein: "The doctrine of individual resurrection first appears in Israel after the exile, and may have been due to Persian influence."[Christian Theology in Outline, pp. 251 f.] Salmond also mentions this view, but claims that it is not sufficiently warranted. Says he: "The Old Testament doctrine of God is of itself enough to explain the entire history of the Old Testament conception of a future life."[The Christian Doctrine of Immortality, pp. 221 f.] De Bondt comes to the conclusion that there is not a single people among those with whom Israel came in contact, which had a doctrine of the resurrection that might have served as a pattern for the representation of it that was current among Israel; and that the faith in the resurrection which finds expression in the Old Testament does not find its basis in the religions of the Gentiles, but in the revelation of Israel's God.[Wat Leert het Oude Testament Aangaande het Leven na dit Leven, pp. 263 f.] It is true that we find no clear statements respecting the resurrection of the dead before the time of the prophets, though Jesus found that it was already implied in Ex. 3:6; cf. Matt. 22:29-32, and the writer of Hebrews intimates that even the patriarchs looked forward to the resurrection of the dead, Heb. 11:10,13-16,19. Certainly evidences are not wanting that there was a belief in the resurrection long before the exile. It is implied in the passages that speak of a deliverance from sheol, Ps. 49:15; 73:24,25; Prov. 23:14. It finds expression in the famous statement of Job, 19:25-27. Moreover, it is very clearly taught in Isa. 26:19 (a late passage, according to the critics), and in Dan. 12:2, and is probably implied also in Ezek. 37: 1-14.
2. IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. As might be expected, the New Testament has more to say on the resurrection of the dead than the Old, because it brings the climax of God's revelation on this point in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Over against the denial of the Sadducees, Jesus argues the resurrection of the dead from the Old Testament, Matt. 22:23-33, and parallels, cf. Ex. 3:6. Moreover, He teaches that great truth very clearly in John 5:25-29; 6:39,40,44,54;
11:24,25; 14:3; 17:24. The classical passage of the New Testament for the doctrine of the resurrection is I Cor. 15. Other important passages are: I Thess. 4:13-16; II Cor. 5:1-10; Rev. 20:4-6 (of dubious interpretation), and 20:13.
C. THE NATURE OF THE
RESURRECTION.
1. IT IS A WORK OF THE TRIUNE GOD. The resurrection is a work of the triune God. In some cases we are simply told that God raises the dead, no person being specified, Matt. 22:29; II Cor. 1:9. More particularly, however, the work of the resurrection is ascribed to the Son, John 5:21,25,28,29; 6:38-40, 44,54; I Thess. 4:16. Indirectly, it is also designated as a work of the Holy Spirit, Rom. 8:11.
2. IT IS A PHYSICAL OR BODILY RESURRECTION. There were some in the days of Paul who regarded the resurrection as spiritual, II Tim. 2:18. And there are many in the present day who believe only in a spiritual resurrection. But the Bible is very explicit in teaching the resurrection of the body. Christ is called the "firstfruits" of the resurrection, I Cor. 15:20,23, and "the firstborn of the dead," Col. 1:18; Rev. 1:5. This implies that the resurrection of the people of God will be like that of their heavenly Lord. His resurrection was a bodily resurrection, and theirs will be of the same kind. Moreover, the redemption wrought by Christ is also said to include the body, Rom. 8:23; I Cor. 6:13-20. In Rom. 8:11 we are told explicitly that God through His Spirit will raise up our mortal bodies. And it is clearly the body that is prominently before the mind of the apostle in I Cor. 15, cf. especially the verses 35-49. According to Scripture there will be a resurrection of the body, that is, not an entirely new creation, but a body that will be in a fundamental sense identical with the present body. God will not create a new body for every man, but will raise up the very body that was deposited in the earth. This cannot only be inferred from the term "resurrection," but is clearly stated in Rom. 8:11, I Cor. 15:53, and is further implied in the figure of the
seed sown in the earth, which the apostle employs in I Cor. 15:36-38. Moreover, Christ, the firstfruits of the resurrection, conclusively proved the identity of His body to His disciples. At the same time Scripture makes it perfectly evident that the body will be greatly changed. Christ's body was not yet fully glorified during the period of transition between the resurrection and the ascension; yet it had already undergone a remarkable change. Paul refers to the change that will take place, when he says that in sowing a seed we do not sow the body that shall be; we do not intend to pick the same seed out of the ground. Yet we do expect to reap something that is in a fundamental sense identical with the seed deposited in the earth. While there is a certain identity between the seed sown and the seeds that develop out of it, yet there is also a remarkable difference. We shall be changed, says the apostle, "for this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality." The body "is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: it is sown in dishonor; it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body." Change is not inconsistent with the retention of identity. We are told that even now every particle in our bodies changes every seven years, but through it all the body retains its identity. There will be a certain physical connection between the old body and the new, but the nature of this connection is not revealed. Some theologians speak of a remaining germ from which the new body develops; others say that the organizing principle of the body remains. Origen had something of that kind in mind; so did Kuyper and Milligan. If we bear all this in mind, the old objection against the doctrine of the resurrection, namely, that it is impossible that a body could be raised up, consisting of the same particles that constituted it at death, since these particles pass into other forms of existence and perhaps into hundreds of other bodies, loses its force completely.
3. IT IS A RESURRECTION OF BOTH THE RIGHTEOUS AND THE WICKED. According to Josephus the Pharisees denied the resurrection of the wicked.[Ant. XVIII. 1,3; Wars II. 8.14.] The doctrine of annihilationism and that of conditional immortality, both of which, at least in some of their forms, deny the resurrection of the
ungodly and teach their annihilation, embraced by many theologians, has also found favor in such sects as Adventism and Millennial Dawnism. They believe in the total extinction of the wicked. The assertion is sometimes made that Scripture does not teach the resurrection of the wicked, but this is clearly erroneous, Dan. 12:2; John 5:28,29; Acts 24:15; Rev. 20:13-15. At the same time it must be admitted that their resurrection does not stand out prominently in Scripture. The soteriological aspect of the resurrection is clearly in the foreground, and this pertains to the righteous only. They, in distinction from the wicked, are the ones that profit by the resurrection.
4. IT IS A RESURRECTION OF UNEQUAL IMPORT FOR THE JUST AND THE UNJUST. Breckenridge quotes I Cor. 15:22 to prove that the resurrection of both saints and sinners was purchased by Christ. But it can hardly be denied that the second "all" in that passage is general only in the sense of "all who are in Christ." The resurrection is represented there as resulting from a vital union with Christ. But, surely, only believers stand in such a living relation to Him. The resurrection of the wicked cannot be regarded as a blessing merited by the mediatorial work of Christ, though it is connected with this indirectly. It is a necessary result of postponing the execution of the sentence of death on man, which made the work of redemption possible. The postponement resulted in the comparative separation of temporal and eternal death, and in the existence of an intermediate state. Under these circumstances it becomes necessary to raise the wicked from the dead, in order that death in its widest extent and in all its weight might be imposed on them. Their resurrection is not an act of redemption, but of sovereign justice, on the part of God. The resurrection of the just and the unjust have this in common, that in both bodies and souls are reunited. But in the case of the former this results in perfect life, while in the case of the latter it issues in the extreme penalty of death, John 5:28,29.
D. THE TIME OF THE RESURRECTION.
1. THE PREMILLENNIAL VIEW RESPECTING THE TIME OF THE RESURRECTION. It is the common opinion among Premillenarians that the resurrection of the saints will be separated by a thousand years from that of the wicked. They almost seem to regard it as an axiomatic truth that these two classes cannot possibly arise at the same time. And not only that, but the type of Premillennialism which is now dominant, with its theory of a twofold second coming of Christ, feels the need of positing a third resurrection. All the saints of former dispensations and of the present dispensation are raised up at the parousia or the coming of the Lord. Those still alive at that time are changed in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye. But in the seven years that follow the parousia many other saints die, especially in the great tribulation. These must also be raised up, and their resurrection will occur at the revelation of the day of the Lord. seven years after the parousia. But even at this point Premillenarians cannot very well stop. Since the resurrection at the end of the world is reserved for the wicked, there must be another resurrection of the saints who die during the millennium, which precedes that of the wicked, for the two cannot be raised up at the same time.
2. SCRIPTURAL INDICATIONS AS TO THE TIME OF THE RESURRECTION. According to Scripture the resurrection of the dead coincides with the parousia, with the revelation or the day of the Lord, and with the end of the world, and will immediately precede the general and final judgment. It certainly does not favor the premillennial distinctions with respect to this doctrine. In several places it represents the resurrection of the righteous and that of the wicked as contemporaneous, Dan. 12:2; John 5:28,29; Acts 24:15; Rev. 20:13-15. All of these passages speak of the resurrection as a single event and do not contain the slightest indication that the resurrection of the righteous and that of the wicked will be separated by a period of a thousand years. But this is not all that can be said in favor of the idea that the two coincide. In John 5:21-29 Jesus combines the thought of the resurrection, including the resurrection of the righteous, with the thought of the judgment, including the judgment of the wicked. Moreover, II Thess. 1:7-10 clearly represents
the parousia (vs. 10), the revelation (vs. 7), and the judgment of the wicked (vs. 8,9) as coinciding. If that is not the case, language would seem to have lost its meaning. Furthermore, the resurrection of believers is directly connected with the second coming of the Lord in I Cor. 15:23; Phil. 3:20,21; and I Thess. 4:16, but it is also represented as occurring at the end of the world, John 6:39,40,44,54 or at the last day. That means that believers are raised up at the last day, and that the last day is also the day of the coming of the Lord. Their resurrection does not precede the end by a period of a thousand years. Happily, there are several Premillenarians who do not accept the theory of a threefold resurrection, but who nevertheless cling to the doctrine of a double resurrection.
3. CONSIDERATION OF THE ARGUMENTS FOR A DOUBLE RESURRECTION.
a. Great emphasis is placed on the fact that Scripture, while speaking in general of the resurrection ton nekron, that is, "of the dead," repeatedly refers to the resurrection of believers as a resurrection ek nekron, that is, "out of the dead." Premillenarians render this expression, "from among the dead," so that it would imply that many dead still remain in the grave. Lightfoot also asserts that this expression refers to the resurrection of believers, but Kennedy says, "There is absolutely no evidence for this definite assertion." This is also the conclusion to which Dr. Vos comes after a careful study of the relevant passages. In general it may be said that the assumption that the expression he anastasis ek nekron should be rendered "the resurrection from among the dead," is entirely gratuitous. The standard lexicons know nothing of such a rendering; and CremerKoegel interprets the expression to mean "from the state of the dead," and this would seem to be the most natural interpretation. It should be noted that Paul uses the terms interchangeably in I Cor. 15. Though speaking of the resurrection of believers only, he evidently does not seek to stress the fact that this is of a specific character, for he uses the more general term repeatedly, I Cor.
15:12,13,21,42.[Cf. also Waldegrave, New Testament Millenarianism, pp. 575 f.]
b. Premillenarians also appeal to certain specific expressions, such as "a better resurrection," Heb. 11:35, "the resurrection of life," John 5:29, "the resurrection of the just," Luke 14:14, and "the resurrection of the dead in Christ," I Thess. 4:16, — all of which refer to the resurrection of believers only. These expressions seem to set that resurrection off as something apart. But these passages merely prove that the Bible distinguishes the resurrection of the righteous from that of the wicked and afford no proof whatsoever that there will be two resurrections, separated from each other by a period of a thousand years. The resurrection of the people of God differs from that of unbelievers in its moving principle, in its essential nature, and in its final issue, and can therefore very well be represented as something distinctive and to be desired far above the resurrection of the wicked. The former does, and the latter does not, deliver men from the power of death. In spite of their resurrection unbelievers remain in the state of death.
c. One of the principal proof passages of the Premillenarians for a double resurrection is found in I Cor. 15:22-24: "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; then they that are Christ's, at His coming. Then cometh the end, when He shall deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father." In this passage they find three stages of the resurrection indicated, namely, (1) the resurrection of Christ; (2) the resurrection of believers; and (3) the end (as they interpret it) of the resurrection, that is, the resurrection of the wicked. Silver puts it rather picturesquely: "In the resurrection Christ and many saints who rise in and around Jerusalem appear as the first band. More than 1900 years afterwards 'they that are Christ's, at His coming' appear as the second band. 'Then,' but not immediately, 'cometh the end' (verse 24), the last great body like a band of forlorn creatures ending the procession."[The Lord's Return, p. 230.] It will be noted that the idea "not immediately" is carried into the text. The argument
is that because epeita (then) in verse 23 refers to a time at least 1900 years later, the word eita (then) in verse 24 refers to a time 1000 years later. But this is a mere assumption without any proof. The words epeita and eita do indeed mean the same thing, but neither one of them necessarily implies the idea of a long intervening period. Notice the use of epeita in Luke 16:7 and Jas. 4:14, and that of eita in Mark 8:25; John 13:5; 19:27; 20:27. Both words can be used for that which will immediately occur and for that which will occur only after some time, so that it is a pure assumption that the resurrection of believers will be separated by a long period of time from the end. Another gratuitous assumption is that "the end" means "the end of the resurrection." According to the analogy of Scripture it points to the end of the world, the consummation, the time when Christ will deliver up the kingdom to the Father and will have put all enemies under His feet. This is the view adopted by such commentators as Alford, Godet, Hodge, Bachmann, Findley, Robertson and Plummer, and Edwards.[For a further discussion of this whole point cf. Salmond, Christian Doctrine of Immortality, pp. 414 f.; Milligan, The Resurrection of the Dead, pp. 64 ff.; Vos, Pauline Eschatology, pp. 241 ff.]
d. Another passage to which the Premillenarians appeal is I Thess. 4:16, "For the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first." From this they infer that those who did not die in Christ will be raised up at a later date. But it is perfectly clear that this is not the antithesis which the apostle has in mind. The statement following is not, "Then the dead who are not in Christ shall arise," but, "Then we that are alive, that are left, shall together with them be caught up in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord." This is frankly admitted by Biederwolf.[Millennium Bible, p. 472.] Both in this passage and in the preceding one Paul is speaking of the resurrection of believers only; that of the wicked is not in his purview at all.
e. The most important passage to which the Premillenarians refer is Rev. 20:4-6:... "and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. The rest of the dead lived not until the thousand years should be finished. This is the first resurrection." Here the verses 5 and 6 make mention of a first resurrection, and this, it is said, implies that there will be a second. But the supposition that the writer is here speaking of a bodily resurrection is extremely dubious. The scene in the verses 4-6 is evidently laid, not on earth, but in heaven. And the terms employed are not suggestive of a bodily resurrection. The seer does not speak of persons or bodies that were raised up, but of souls which "lived" and "reigned." And he calls their living and reigning with Christ "the first resurrection." Dr. Vos suggests that the words, "This (emphatic) is the first resurrection," may even be "a pointed disavowal of a more realistic (chiliastic) interpretation of the same phrase."[ISBE, Art. Esch. of the N. T.] In all probability the expression refers to the entrance of the souls of the saints upon the glorious state of life with Christ at death. The absence of the idea of a double resurrection may well make us hesitate to affirm its presence in this obscure passage of a book so full of symbolism as the Revelation of John. Wherever the Bible mentions the resurrection of the righteous and the wicked together, as in Dan. 12:2; John 5:28.29; Acts 24:15, it does not contain the slightest hint that the two are to be separated by a thousand years. On the other hand it does teach that the resurrection will take place at the last day, and will at once be followed by the last judgment, Matt. 25:31,32; John 5:27-29; 6:39,40,44,54; 11:24; Rev. 20:11-15.
QUESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY: Does the Apostolic Confession speak of the resurrection of the body, or of the resurrection of the flesh? How do you account for the change from the one to the other? Do not all Premillenarians have to posit another resurrection of the righteous in addition to those that occur at the parousia and at the revelation? How do Premillenarians construe even Dan. 12:2 into an argument for a double resurrection? How do they find an argument for it in Phil. 3:11? What is the principal argument of modern liberals against the doctrine of a physical
resurrection? What does Paul mean, when he speaks of the resurrection body as a soma pneumatikon, I Cor. 15:44?
LITERATURE: Bavinck, Geref. Dogm. IV, pp. 755-758, 770-777; Kuyper, Dict. Dogm., De Consummatione Saeculi, pp. 262-279; Vos, Geref. Dogm. V. Eschatologie, pp. 14-22; ibid. The Pauline Eschatology, pp. 136-225; Hodge, Syst. Theol. III, pp. 837-844; Dabney, Syst. and Polem. Theol., pp. 829-841; Shedd. Dogm. Theol. pp. 641-658; Valentine, Chr. Theol. II, pp. 414-420; Dahle, Life After Death, pp. 358-368, 398-418; Hovey, Eschatology, pp. 23-78; Mackintosh, Immortality and the Future, pp. 164-179; Snowden, The Coming of the Lord, pp. 172-191; Salmond, The Chr. Doct. of Immortality, pp. 262-272, 437-459; Kennedy, St. Paul's Conceptions of the Last Things, pp. 222-281; Kliefoth, Eschatologie, pp. 248-275; Brown, The Chr. Hope, pp. 89-108; Milligan. The Resurrection of the Dead, pp. 61-77.
IV. The Final Judgment
Another one of the important concomitants of the return of Christ is the last judgment, which will be of & general nature. The Lord is coming again for the very purpose of judging the living and consigning each individual to his eternal destiny.
A. THE DOCTRINE OF THE LAST
JUDGMENT IN HISTORY.
The doctrine of a final general judgment was from the very earliest times of the Christian era connected with that of the resurrection of the dead. The general opinion was that the dead would be raised up, in order to be judged according to the deeds done in the body. As a solemn warning the certainty of this judgment was stressed. This doctrine is already contained in the Apostolic Confession: "From thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead." The prevailing idea was that this judgment would be accompanied with the destruction of the world. On the whole the early Church Fathers did not speculate much about the nature of the final judgment, though Tertullian forms an exception. Augustine sought to interpret some of the figurative statements of Scripture respecting the judgment. In the Middle Ages the Scholastics discussed the matter in greater detail. They, too, believed that the resurrection of the dead would be followed immediately by the general judgment, and that this would mark the end of time for man. It will be general in the sense that all rational creatures will appear in it, and that it will bring a general revelation of each one's deeds, both good and evil. Christ will be the Judge, while others will be associated with Him in the judgment; not, however, as judges in the strict sense of the word. Immediately after the judgment there will be a universal conflagration. We leave out of consideration some of the other
particulars here. The Reformers shared this view in general, but added little or nothing to the prevailing view. The same view is found in all the Protestant Confessions, which explicitly affirm that there will be a day of judgment at the end of the world, but do not enter into details. It has been the official view of the Churches up to the present time. This does not mean that no other views found expression. Kant inferred from the categorical imperative the existence of a supreme Judge who would right all wrongs in some future life. Schelling in his famous dictum, "The history of the world is the judgment of the world," evidently regarded the judgment merely as a present immanent process. Some were not inclined to grant the moral constitution of the universe, did not believe that history was moving on to some moral termination, and thus denied the future judgment. This idea was given a philosophical construction by Von Hartmann. In modern liberal theology, with its emphasis on the fact that God is immanent in all the processes of history, there is a strong tendency to regard the judgment primarily, if not exclusively, as a present immanent process. Says Beckwith: "In his (God's) dealing with men there is no holding in abeyance, no suspension of any attribute of his being. The judgment is, therefore, no more truly future than it is present. So far as God is the author of it, it is as constant and perpetual as his action in human life. To postpone the judgment to a future public hour is to misconceive of justice, as if it were dormant or suspended, wholly bound up with outward conditions. On the contrary the sphere of justice must be sought not first without but within, in the inner life, in the world of consciousness."[Realities of Christian Theology, pp. 362 f.] Dispensationalists believe whole-heartedly in the future judgment, but speak of judgments in the plural. According to them there will be one judgment at the parousia, another at the revelation of Christ, and still another at the end of the world.
B. THE NATURE OF THE FINAL
JUDGMENT.
The final judgment of which the Bible speaks may not be regarded as a spiritual, invisible and endless process, which is identical with God's providence in history. This is not equivalent to a denial of the fact that there is a providential judgment of God in the vicissitudes of individuals and nations, though it may not always be recognized as such. The Bible clearly teaches us that God even in the present life visits evil with punishment and rewards the good with blessings, and these punishments and rewards are in some cases positive, but in other instances appear as the natural providential results of the evil committed or of the good done, Deut. 9:5; Ps. 9:16; 37:28; 59:13; Prov. 11:5; 14:11; Isa. 32:16,17; Lam. 5:7. The human conscience also testifies to this fact. But it is also manifest from Scripture that the judgments of God in the present are not final. The evil sometimes continues without due punishment, and the good is not always rewarded with the promised blessings in this life. The wicked in the days of Malachi were emboldened to cry out, "Where is the God of judgment?" Mal. 2:17. The complaint was heard in those days: "It is vain to serve God; and what profit is it that we have kept His charge, and that we have walked mournfully before Jehovah of Hosts? And now we call the proud happy; yea, they that work wickedness are built up; yea, they tempt God and escape," Mal. 3:14,15. Job and his friends were wrestling with the problem of the sufferings of the righteous, and so was Asaph in the 73rd Psalm. The Bible teaches us to look forward to a final judgment as the decisive answer of God to all such questions, as the solution of all such problems, and as the removal of all the apparent discrepancies of the present, Matt. 25:3146; John 5:27-29; Acts 25:24; Rom. 2:5-11; Heb. 9:27; 10:27; II Pet. 3:7; Rev. 20:11-15. These passages do not refer to a process, but to a very definite event at the end of time. It is represented as accompanied by other historical events, such as the coming of Jesus Christ, the resurrection of the dead, and the renewal of heaven and earth.
C. ERRONEOUS VIEWS RESPECTING
THE JUDGMENT.
1. THE JUDGMENT PURELY METAPHORICAL. According to Schleiermacher and many other German scholars the Biblical descriptions of the last judgment are to be understood as symbolical indications of the fact that the world and the Church will finally be separated. This explanation serves to evaporate the whole idea of a forensic judgment for the public determination of the final state of man. It is an explanation which surely does not do justice to the strong statements of Scripture respecting the future judgment as a formal, public, and final declaration.
2. THE JUDGMENT EXCLUSIVELY IMMANENT. Schelling's dictum that "the history of the world is the judgment of the world" undoubtedly contains an element of truth. There are, as was pointed out in the preceding, manifestations of the retributive justice of God in the history of nations and individuals. The rewards or punishments may be of a positive character, or may be the natural result of the good or evil done. But when many liberal scholars claim that the divine judgment is wholly immanent and is determined entirely by the moral order of the world, they certainly fail to do justice to the representations of Scripture. Their view of the judgment as "self-acting" makes God an otiose God, who merely looks on and approves of the distribution of rewards and punishments. It completely destroys the idea of the judgment as an outward and visible event, which will occur at some definite time in the future. Moreover, it cannot satisfy the longings of the human heart for perfect justice. Historical judgments are always only partial and sometimes impress men as a travesty on justice. There always has been and still is occasion for the perplexity of Job and Asaph.
3. THE JUDGMENT NOT A SINGLE EVENT. Present day Premillenarians speak of three different future judgments. They distinguish: (a) A judgment of the risen and living saints at the parousia or the coming of the Lord, which serves the purpose of vindicating the saints publicly, rewarding each one according to his works, and assigning to them their respective places in the coming millennial kingdom. (b) A judgment at the revelation of Christ (the
day of the Lord), immediately after the great tribulation, in which, according to the prevailing view, the Gentile nations are judged as nations, according to the attitude they have assumed to the evangelizing remnant of Israel (the least of the brethren of the Lord). The entrance of these nations into the kingdom depends on the outcome. This is the judgment mentioned in Matt. 25:31-46. It is separated from the earlier judgment by a period of seven years. (c) A judgment of the wicked dead before the great white throne, described in Rev. 20:11-15. The dead are judged according to their works, and these determine the degree of punishment which they will receive. This judgment will be more than a thousand years later than the preceding one. It should be noted, however, that the Bible always speaks of the future judgment as a single event. It teaches us to look forward, not to days, but to the day of judgment, John 5:28,29; Acts 17:31; II Pet. 3:7, also called "that day," Matt. 7:22; II Tim. 4:8, and "the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God," Rom. 2:5. Premillenarians feel the force of this argument, for they reply that it may be a day of a thousand years. Moreover, there are passages of Scripture from which it is abundantly evident that the righteous and the wicked appear in judgment together for a final separation, Matt. 7:22,23; 25:31-46 Rom. 2:5-7; Rev. 11:18; 20:11-15. Furthermore, it should be noted that the judgment of the wicked is represented as a concomitant of the parousia and also of the revelation, II Thess. 1:7-10; II Pet. 3:4-7. And, finally, it should be borne in mind that God does not judge the nations as nations where eternal issues are at stake, but only individuals; and that a final separation of the righteous and the wicked cannot possibly be made until the end of the world. It is hard to see how anyone can give a tolerable and self-consistent interpretation of Matt. 25:31-46, except on the supposition that the judgment referred to is the universal judgment of all men, and that they are judged, not as nations, but as individuals. Even Meyer and Alford who are themselves Premillenarians consider this to be the only tenable exposition.
4. THE FINAL JUDGMENT UNNECESSARY. Some regard the final judgment as entirely unnecessary, because each man's destiny is determined at the time of his death. If a man fell asleep in Jesus, he is saved; and if he died in his sins, he is lost. Since the matter is settled, no further judicial inquiry is necessary, and therefore such a final judgment is quite superfluous. But the certainty of the future judgment does not depend on our conception of its necessity. God clearly teaches us in His Word that there will be a final judgment, and that settles the matter for all those who recognize the Bible as the final standard of faith. Moreover, the underlying assumption on which this argument proceeds, namely, that the final judgment is for the purpose of ascertaining what should be the future state of man, is entirely erroneous. It will serve the purpose rather of displaying before all rational creatures the declarative glory of God in a formal, forensic act, which magnifies on the one hand His holiness and righteousness, and on the other hand, His grace and mercy. Moreover, it should be borne in mind that the judgment at the last day will differ from that at the death of each individual in more than one respect. It will not be secret, but public; it will not pertain to the soul only, but also to the body; it will not have reference to a single individual, but to all men.
D. THE JUDGE AND HIS ASSISTANTS.
Naturally, the final judgment, like all God's opera ad extra, is a work of the triune God, but Scripture ascribes it particularly to Christ. Christ in His mediatorial capacity will be the future Judge, Matt. 25:31,32; John 5:27; Acts 10:42; 17:31; Phil. 2:10; II Tim. 4:1. Such passages as Matt. 28:18; John 5:27; Phil. 2:9,10, make it abundantly evident that the honor of judging the living and the dead was conferred on Christ as Mediator in reward for His atoning work and as a part of His exaltation. This may be regarded as one of the crowning honors of His kingship. In His capacity as Judge, too, Christ is saving His people to the uttermost: He completes their redemption, justifies them publicly, and removes the last
consequences of sin. From such passages as Matt. 13:41,42; 24:31; 25:31, it may be inferred that the angels will assist Him in this great work. Evidently, the saints will in some sense sit and judge with Christ, Ps. 149:5-9; I Cor. 6:2,3; Rev. 20:4. It is hard to say just what this will involve. It has been interpreted to mean that the saints will condemn the world by their faith, just as the Ninevites would have condemned the unbelieving cities of Jesus' day; or that they will merely concur in the judgment of Christ. But the argument of Paul in I Cor. 6:2,3 would seem to require something more than this, for neither of the two suggested interpretations would prove that the Corinthians were capable of judging the matters that arose in the Church. Though the saints cannot be expected to know all those who appear in judgment and to apportion the penalties, yet they will have some real active share in the judgment of Christ, though it is impossible to say just what this will be.
E. THE PARTIES THAT WILL BE
JUDGED.
Scripture contains clear indications of at least two parties that will be judged. It is quite evident that the fallen angels will stand before the tribunal of God, Matt. 8:29; I Cor. 6:3; II Pet. 2:4; Jude 6. Satan and his demons will meet their final doom in the day of judgment. It is also perfectly clear that every individual of the human race will have to appear before the judgment seat, Eccl. 12:14; Ps. 50:4-6; Matt. 12:36,37; 25:32; Rom. 14:10; II Cor. 5:10; Rev. 20:12. These passages certainly leave no room for the view of the Pelagians and of those who follow in their wake, that the final judgment will be limited to those who have enjoyed the privileges of the gospel. Neither do they favor the idea of those sectarians who hold that the righteous will not be called into judgment. When Jesus says in John 5:24, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word and believeth Him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and cometh not into judgment, but hath passed out of death into life," he clearly means in view of
the context, that the believer cometh not into condemnatory judgment. But it is sometimes objected that the sins of believers, which are pardoned, certainly will not be published at that time; but Scripture leads us to expect that they will be, though they will, of course, be revealed as pardoned sins. Men will be judged for "every idle word," Matt. 12:36, and for "every secret thing," Rom. 2:16; I Cor. 4:5, and there is no indication whatsoever that this will be limited to the wicked. Moreover, it is perfectly evident from such passages as Matt. 13:30,40-43,49; 25:14-23,34-40,46, that the righteous will appear before the judgment seat of Christ. It is more difficult to determine, whether the good angels will be subject to the final judgment in any sense of the word. Dr. Bavinck is inclined to infer from I Cor. 6:3 that they will be; but this passage does not prove the point. It might do this, if the word aggelous were preceded by the article, which is not the case. We simply read, "Know ye not that we shall judge angels?" Because of the uncertainty connected with this matter, it is better to be silent. The more so, since the angels are clearly represented only as ministers of Christ in connection with the work of judgment, Matt. 13:30,41; 25:31; II Thess. 1:7,8.
F. THE TIME OF THE JUDGMENT.
Though the time of the future judgment cannot be determined absolutely, it can be fixed relatively, that is, relative to other eschatological events. It will clearly be at the end of the present world, for it will be a judgment passed on the whole life of every man, Matt. 13:40-43; II Pet. 3:7. Moreover, it will be a concomitant of the coming (parousia) of Jesus Christ, Matt. 25:19-46; II Thess. 1:7-10; II Pet. 3:9,10, and will follow immediately after the resurrection of the dead, Dan. 12:2; John 5:28,29; Rev. 20:12,13. The question whether it will immediately precede, be coincident with, or immediately follow, the renewal of heaven and earth, cannot be settled conclusively on the basis of Scripture. Rev. 20:11 would seem to indicate that the transformation of the universe will take place when the judgment begins; II Pet. 3:7, that the two will synchronize;
and Rev. 21:1, that the renewal of heaven and earth will follow the judgment. We can only speak of them in a general way as concomitants. It is equally impossible to determine the exact duration of the judgment. Scripture speaks of "the day of judgment," Matt. 11:22; 12:36, "that day," Matt. 7:22; II Thess. 1:10; II Tim. 1:12, and "the day of wrath," Rom. 2:5; Rev. 11:8. We need not infer from these and similar passages that it will be a day of exactly twenty-four hours, since the word "day" is also used in a more indefinite sense in Scripture. On the other hand, however, the interpretation of some of the Premillenarians, that it is a designation of the whole millennial period, cannot be regarded as a plausible one. When the word "day" is used to denote a period, it is a period which is, as a whole, characterized by some special characteristic, usually indicated by the genitive that follows the word. Thus "the day of trouble" is the period that is characterized throughout by trouble, and "the day of salvation" is the period which is in its entirety noted for its outstanding display of God's favour or grace. And it certainly cannot be said that the millennial period of the Premillenarians, while beginning and ending with a judgment, is throughout a period of judgment. It is rather a period of joy, of righteousness and of peace. The outstanding characteristic of it is certainly not that of judgment.
G. THE STANDARD OF JUDGMENT.
The standard by which saints and sinners are judged will evidently be the revealed will of God. This is not the same for all. Some have been privileged above others, and this naturally adds to their responsibility, Matt. 11:21-24: Rom. 2:12-16. This does not mean that there will be different conditions of salvation for different classes of people. For all those who appear in judgment entrance into, or exclusion from, heaven, will depend on the question, whether they are clothed with the righteousness of Jesus Christ. But there will be different degrees, both of the bliss of heaven and of the punishment of hell. And these degrees will be determined by what is done in the flesh, Matt. 11:22,24; Luke 12:47,48; 20:47; Dan. 12:3; II Cor. 9-6.
The Gentiles will be judged by the law of nature, inscribed in their hearts, the Israelites of the old dispensation by the Old Testament revelation and by that only, and those who have enjoyed, besides the light of nature and the revelation of the Old Testament, the light of the gospel, will be judged according to the greater light which they have received. God will give to every man his due.
H. THE DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE
JUDGMENT.
Here we should distinguish:
1. THE COGNITIO CAUSAE. God will take cognizance of the state of affairs, of the whole past life of man, including even the thoughts and secret intents of the heart. This is symbolically represented in Scripture as the opening of the books, Dan. 7:10; Rev. 20:12. The pious of the days of Malachi spoke of a book of remembrance written before God, Mal. 3:16. It is a figurative description which is added to complete the idea of the judgment. A judge usually has the book of the law and the record of those who appear before him. In all probability the figure in this case simply refers to the omniscience of God. Some speak of the book of God's Word as the statute book, and of the book of remembrance as the book of predestination, God's private record. But it is very doubtful whether we should particularize in that fashion.
2. THE SENTENTIAE PROMULGATIO. There will be promulgation of the sentence. The day of judgment is the day of wrath, and of the revelation of the righteous judgment of God, Rom. 2:5. All must be revealed before the tribunal of the supreme Judge, II Cor. 5:10. The sense of justice demands this. The sentence pronounced upon each person will not be secret, will not be known to that person only, but will be publicly proclaimed, so that at least those in any way concerned will know. Thus the righteousness and grace of God will shine out in all their splendor.
3. THE SENTENTIAE EXECUTIO. The sentence of the righteous will convey everlasting blessedness, and that of the wicked everlasting misery. The Judge will divide mankind into two parts, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, Matt. 25:32 ff. In view of what will be said of their final state in the following chapter, nothing more need be added here.
V. The Final State
The last judgment determines, and therefore naturally leads on to, the final state of those who appear before the judgment seat. Their final state is either one of everlasting misery or one of eternal blessedness.
A. THE FINAL STATE OF THE WICKED.
There are especially three points that call for consideration here:
1. THE PLACE TO WHICH THE WICKED ARE CONSIGNED. In present day theology there is an evident tendency in some circles to rule out the idea of eternal punishment. The Annihilationists, which are still represented in such sects as Adventism and Millennial Dawnism, and the advocates of conditional immortality, deny the continued existence of the wicked, and thereby render a place of eternal punishment unnecessary. In modern liberal theology the word "hell" is generally regarded as a figurative designation of a purely subjective condition, in which men may find themselves even while on earth, and which may become permanent in the future. But these interpretations certainly do not do justice to the data of Scripture. There can be no reasonable doubt as to the fact that the Bible teaches the continued existence of the wicked, Matt. 24:5; 25:30,46; Luke 16:19-31. Moreover, in connection with the subject of "hell" the Bible certainly uses local terms right along. It calls the place of torment gehenna, a name derived from the Hebrew ge (land, or valley) and hinnom or beney hinnom, that is, Hinnom or sons of Hinnom. This name was originally applied to a valley southwest of Jerusalem. It was the place where wicked idolators sacrificed their children to Moloch by causing them to pass through the fire. Hence it was considered impure and was called in later days "the valley of tophet (spittle), as an utterly despised region. Fires were constantly
burning there to consume the offal of Jerusalem. As a result it became a symbol of the place of eternal torment. Matt. 18:9 speaks of ten geennan tou puros, the gehenna of fire, and this strong expression is used synonymously with to pur to aionion, the eternal fire, in the previous verse. The Bible also speaks of a "furnace of fire," Matt. 13:42, and of a "lake of fire," Rev. 20:14,15, which forms a contrast with the "sea of glass like unto crystal," Rev. 4:6. The terms "prison," I Pet. 3:19, "abyss," Luke 8:31, and "tartarus," II Pet. 2:4 are also used. From the fact that the preceding terms are all local designations, we may infer that hell is a place. Moreover, local expressions are generally used in connection with it. Scripture speaks of those who are excluded from heaven as being "outside," and as being "cast into hell." The description in Luke 16:19-31 is certainly altogether local.
2. THE STATE IN WHICH THEY WILL CONTINUE THEIR EXISTENCE. It is impossible to determine precisely what will constitute the eternal punishment of the wicked, and it behooves us to speak very cautiously on the subject. Positively, it may be said to consist in (a) a total absence of the favor of God; (b) an endless disturbance of life as a result of the complete domination of sin; (c) positive pains and sufferings in body and soul; and (d) such subjective punishments as pangs of conscience, anguish, despair, weeping, and gnashing of teeth, Matt. 8:12; 13:50; Mark 9:43,44,47,48; Luke 16:23,28; Rev. 14:10; 21:8. Evidently, there will be degrees in the punishment of the wicked. This follows from such passages as Matt. 11:22,24; Luke 12:47,48; 20:17. Their punishment will be commensurate with their sinning against the light which they had received. But it will, nevertheless, be eternal punishment for all of them. This is plainly stated in Scripture, Matt. 18:8; II Thess. 1:9; Rev. 14:11; 20:10. Some deny that there will be a literal fire, because this could not affect spirits like Satan and his demons. But how do we know this? Our body certainly works on our soul in some mysterious way. There will be some positive punishment corresponding to our bodies. It is undoubtedly true, however, that a great deal of the
language concerning heaven and hell must be understood figuratively.
3. THE DURATION OF THEIR PUNISHMENT. The question of the eternity of the future punishment deserves more special consideration, however, because it is frequently denied. It is said that the words used in Scripture for "everlasting" and "eternal" may simply denote an "age" or a "dispensation," or any other long period of time. Now it cannot be doubted that they are so used in some passages, but this does not prove that they always have that limited meaning. It is not the literal meaning of these terms. Whenever they are so used, they are used figuratively, and in such cases their figurative use is generally quite evident from the connection. Moreover, there are positive reasons for thinking that these words do not have that limited meaning in the passages to which we referred. (a) In Matt. 25:46 the same word describes the duration of both, the bliss of the saints and the penalty of the wicked. If the latter is not, properly speaking, unending, neither is the former; and yet many of those who doubt eternal punishment, do not doubt everlasting bliss. (b) Other expressions are used which cannot be set aside by the consideration mentioned in the preceding. The fire of hell is called an "unquenchable fire," Mark 9:43; and it is said of the wicked that "their worm dieth not," Mark 9:48. Moreover, the gulf that will separate saints and sinners in the future is said to be fixed and impassable, Luke 16:26.
B. THE FINAL STATE OF THE
RIGHTEOUS.
1. THE NEW CREATION. The final state of believers will be preceded by the passing of the present world and the appearance of a new creation. Matt. 19:28 speaks of "the regeneration," and Acts 3:21, of "the restoration of all things." In Heb. 12:27 we read: "And this word, Yet once more signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken (heaven and earth), as of things that are made, that those
things which are not shaken (the kingdom of God) may remain." Peter says: "But according to His promise, we look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness," II Pet. 3:13, cf. vs. 12; and John saw this new creation in a vision, Rev. 21:1. It is only after the new creation has been established, that the new Jerusalem descends out of heaven from God, that the tabernacle of God is pitched among men, and that the righteous enter upon their eternal joy. The question is often raised, whether this will be an entirely new creation, or a renewal of the present creation. Lutheran theologians strongly favor the former position with an appeal to II Pet. 3:7-13; Rev. 20:11; and 21:1; while Reformed theologians prefer the latter idea, and find support for it in Ps. 102:26,27; (Heb. 1:10-12); and Heb. 12:26-28.
2. THE ETERNAL ABODE OF THE RIGHTEOUS. Many conceive of heaven also as a subjective condition, which men may enjoy in the present and which in the way of righteousness will naturally become permanent in the future. But here, too, it must be said that Scripture clearly presents heaven as a place. Christ ascended to heaven, which can only mean that He went from one place to another. It is described as the house of our Father with many mansions, John 14:1, and this description would hardly fit a condition. Moreover, believers are said to be within, while unbelievers are without, Matt. 22:12,13; 25:10-12. Scripture gives us reasons to believe that the righteous will not only inherit heaven, but the entire new creation, Matt. 5:5; Rev. 21:1-3.
3. THE NATURE OF THEIR REWARD. The reward of the righteous is described as eternal life, that is, not merely an endless life, but life in all its fulness, without any of the imperfections and disturbances of the present, Matt. 25:46; Rom. 2:7. The fulness of this life is enjoyed in communion with God, which is really the essence of eternal life, Rev. 21:3. They will see God in Jesus Christ face to face, will find full satisfaction in Him, will rejoice in Him, and will glorify Him. We should not think of the joys of heaven, however, as exclusively spiritual. There will be something corresponding to the
body. There will be recognition and social intercourse on an elevated plane. It is also evident from Scripture that there will be degrees in the bliss of heaven, Dan. 12:3; II Cor. 9:6. Our good works will be the measure of our gracious reward, though they do not merit it. Notwithstanding this, however, the joy of each individual will be perfect and full.
QUESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY: Why does the moral sense of mankind demand a future judgment? To what historical precursors of the final judgment does Scripture refer? Where will the final judgment take place? What encouragement is there for believers in the fact that Christ will be the Judge? Does not the expression that he who believes on the Son "shall not come into condemnation," John 5:24, prove that believers will not be judged? What works will come into consideration in the final judgment according to Scripture? If all believers inherit eternal life, in what sense is their reward determined by their works? Does the judgment serve the purpose of acquainting God better with men? What purpose does it serve? Will men be finally lost only for the sin of consciously rejecting Christ?
LITERATURE: Bavinck, Geref. Dogm. IV, pp. 777-815; Kuyper, Dict. Dogm., De Consummatione Saeculi, pp. 280-327; Vos, Geref. Dogm., Eschatologie pp. 32-50; Hodge. Syst. Theol. III, pp. 844880; Shedd, Dogm. Theol. II, pp. 659-754; ibid., Doctrine of Endless Punishment; Dabney, Syst. and Polem. Theol., pp. 842-862; Litton, Introd. to Dogm. Theol., pp. 581-595; Beckwith, Realities of Chr. Theol., pp. 361-382; Drummond, Studies in Chr. Doct., pp. 505-514; Macintosh, Theol. as an Empirical Science, pp. 205-215; Dahle, Life After Death, pp. 418-455; Mackintosh, Immortality and the Future, pp. 180-194; 229-244; King, Future Retribution; Hovey, Biblical Eschatology, pp. 145-175; Von Huegel, Eternal Life; Alger, History of the Doctrine of a Future Life, pp. 394-449, 508-549, 567-724; Schilder. Wat is de Hemel; Vos, The Pauline Eschatology, pp. 261316; Kliefoth, Eschatologie, pp. 275-351.
Bibliography
DOGMATICS IN GENERAL
REFORMED
Barth, Dogmatik, Prolegomena, Muenchen, 1927 (officially Reformed); id., The Doctrine of the Word of God, New York, 1936.
Bavinck, Gereformeerde Dogmatiek, Kampen, 1906-1911.
Breckenridge, The Knowledge of God, Objectively and Subjectively Considered, New York 1857-1859.
Brunner, Our Faith, New York, 1936.
Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Eerdmans, 1949.
Dabney, Systematic and Polemic Theology, St. Louis, 1878.
Dick, Lectures on Theology, Cincinnati, 1853.
Gerhardt, Institutes of the Christian Religion, New York, 1891-1894.
Heppe, Dogmatik der evangelisch-reformirten Kirche, Elberveld, 1861.
Hodge, Charles, Systematic Theology, New York, 1892.
Hodge, Archibald A., Outlines of Theology, New York, 1878.
Honig, Gereformeerde Dogmatiek, Kampen, 1938.
Kuyper, Dictaten Dogmatiek, Kampen, 1910.
Marck, Godgeleerdheid, Rotterdam, 1741.
Mastricht, Beschouwende en Practicale Godgeleerdheit, Rotterdam, 1749.
McPherson, Christian Dogmatics, Edinburgh, 1898.
Orr, Side-Lights on Christian Doctrine, London, 1909.
Perkens, Werken, 1659.
Pictet, Christian Theology, Philadelphia, (no date given)
Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, New York, 1891-1894.
Smith, H. B., System of Christian Theology, New York, 1885. p> <p>Synopsis Purioris Theologiae. Leiden, 1881.
Ten Hoor, Gereformeerde Dogmatiek, Holland, Mich.
Thornwell, Collected Writings, Richmond, Va., 1871-1873.
Turretin, Institutio Theologiae, Elenchticae, Edinburgh, 1847.
Vos, Gereformeerde Dogmatiek (mimeographed).
Witsius, Over de Verbonden, Amsterdam, 1716.
NON-REFORMED
Beckwith, Realities of Christian Theology, New York, 1906.
Boyce, Abstract of Systematic Theology. Philadelphia, 1899.
Brown, Christian Theology in Outline, New York, 1906.
Gavin, Orthodox Greek Thought, Milwaukee, 1898.
Clarke, An Outline of Christian Theology, 1898.
Curtis, The Christian Faith, New York, 1905.
Dorner, System of Christian Doctrine, Edinburgh, 1897.
Drummond, Studies in Christian Doctrine, London, 1908.
Foster, Christianity in its Modern Expression, New York, 1921.
Gibbons, Faith of Our Fathers. New York, 1917.
Haering, The Christian Faith, London, 1915.
Kaftan, Dogmatik, Tuebingen, 1920.
Litton, Introduction to Dogmatic Theology, London, 1912.
Macintosh, Theology as an Empirical Science, New York, 1919.
Martensen, Christian Dogmatics, Edinburgh, 1860
Micklem, What is the Faith, Nashville, Tenn.
Miley, Systematic Theology, New York, 1893.
Mortimer, Catholic Faith and Practice, London, 1923.
Mueller, Christian Dogmatics, St. Louis, 1934.
Nitzsch, System of Christian Doctrine, Edinburgh, 1849.
Pieper, Christliche Dogmatik, St. Louis, 1924.
Pohle-Preuss, Dogmatic Theology, St. Louis, 12 volumes from 1925 on.
Pope, Compendium of Christian Theology, London, 1879.
Rauschenbusch, A Theology for the Social Gospel, New York, 1919.
Raymond, Systematic Theology, Cincinnati, 1877.
Schleiermacher, Christlicher Glaube (Glaubenslehre), 1821, 1822.
Schmid, Doctrinal Theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, Philadelphia, 1889
Sheldon, System of Christian Doctrine, Cincinnati, 1903.
Strong, A. H., Systematic Theology, Philadelphia, 1912.
Strong, T. B., A Manual of Theology, London, 1903.
Thomasius, Christi Person und Work, Erlangen, 1886-1888.
Valentine, Christian Theology, Philadelphia, 1906.
Watson, Theological Institutes, London, 1829.
Wilmers, Handbook of the Christian Religion, New York, 1921.
THE SEPARATE LOCI
THEOLOGY
Adeney, The Christian Conception of God, New York.
Baillie, Our Knowledge of God, New York, 1939.
Bartlett, The Triune God, New York, 1937.
Bates, The Harmony of the Divine Attributes, Philadelphia.
Beckwith, The Idea of God, New York, 1922.
Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination, Grand Rapids, 1932.
Brightman, The Problem of God, New York, 1930.
Candlish, The Fatherhood of God, Edinburgh, 1866.
Charnock, The Existence and Attributes of God, New York, 1859.
Clarke, The Christian Doctrine of God, New York, 1923.
Cole, Calvin's Calvinism, Manchester, 1927.
Comrie en Holtius, Examen Van Het Ontwerp Van Tolerantie, Amsterdam, 1753
Crawford, The Fatherhood of God. Edinburgh, 1866.
Dijk, Om't Feuwig Welbehagen, Amsterdam, 1924; id., De Voorzienigheid Gods, Amsterdam, 1927.
Farmer, Experience of God, New York, 1929.
Fleming, Evolution or Creation. London.
Flint, Theism, New York, 1895; id., Antitheistic Theories, Edinburgh, 1906.
Girardeau, Calvinism and Evangelical Arminianism, Columbia, 1890.
Harris, God the Creator and Lord of All, New York, 1896.
Heim, God Transcendent, New York, 1936.
Hendry, God the Creator, Nashville, 1938.
Illingworth, Divine Immanence, New York, 1898; id., The Doctrine of the Trinity, London, 1907.
Kerr, A God-Centered Faith, New York, 1935.
Kuyper, A., Sr., De Engelen Gods, Amsterdam.
Kuyper, A., Jr., Van de Kennisse Gods, Amsterdam, 1907.
Mathews, The Growth of the Idea of God, New York, 1931.
More, The Dogma of Evolution, Princeton, 1925.
Morton, The Bankruptcy of Evolution, New York.
Mozley, Lectures on Miracles, London, 1886.
Newton, My Idea of God (A Symposium), Boston, 1927.
O'Toole, The Case Against Evolution, New York, 1926.
Otto, The Idea of the Holy, London, 1928.
Pink, The Sovereignty of God, Swengel, Pa., 1918.
Polman, De Praedestinatileer van Augustinus, Thomas van Aquino en Calvijn, Franeker, 1936.
Pringl-Pattison, The Idea of God, London, 1917.
Rimmer, The Theory of Evolution and the Facts of Science, Grand Rapids, 1935.
Robinson, The God of the Liberal Christian, New York, 1926.
Scheibe, Calvins Praedestinationslehre, Halle, 1897.
Shute, The Fatherhood of God, Cincinnati, 1904.
Snowden, The Personality of God, New York, 1920; id., The Discovery of God, New York, 1932.
Steenstra, The Being of God as Unity and Trinity, New York, 1891.
Thomas, The Biblical Idea of God, New York, 1924.
Thomson, W. D., The Christian Miracles and the Conclusions of Science, Edinburgh.
Thomson, W. R., The Christian Idea of God, London.
Tolley, The Idea of God in the Philosophy of Saint Augustine, New York, 1930.
Warfield, Biblical Doctrines, New York, 1929; id., Calvin and Calvinism, New York, 1931; ibid., Studies in Theology, 1932.
Youtz, The Enlarging Conception of God, New York. 1924.
Zanchius, The Doctrine of Absolute Predestination.
ANTHROPOLOGY
Aalders, Het Verbond Gods, Kampen, 1939.
Ball, A Treatise on the Covenant of Grace, London, 1645.
Boston, The Covenant of Works, Works, Aberdeen, 1848-1852; id., The Covenant of Grace, Works, Aberdeen, 1848-1852.
Brunner, Man in Revolt, New York, 1939.
Candlish, The Biblical Doctrine of Sin, Edinburgh, 1893.
Cook, The Origin of Sin, New York, 1899.
Edwards, Freedom of the Will, Works, New York; id., Doctrine of Original Sin Defended, Works, New York.
Fleming, The Origin of Mankind, London, 1935.
Gib, Sacred Contemplations (Covenant of Grace).
Girardeau, The Will in its Theological Relations, New York, 1891.
Gracey, Sin and the Unfolding Salvation, London, 1894.
Heard, The Tri-Partite Nature of Man, Edinburgh, 1875.
Hendriksen, The Covenant of Grace, Grand Rapids, 1932.
Honig, Creatianisme and Traducianisme, Kampen, 1906.
Kuyper, A., Jr., De Vastigheid des Verbonds, Amsterdam, 1908; id., De Band des Verbonds, Amsterdam, 1907; id., Het Beeld Gods, Amsterdam, 1929.
Kuyper, H. H., Hamabdil (Covenant of Grace), Amsterdam, 1907.
Laidlaw, The Bible Doctrine of Man, Edinburgh, 1905.
Mackintosh, Christianity and Sin, New York, 1914.
Moxon, The Doctrine of Sin, New York, 1922.
Mueller, The Christian Doctrine of Sin, Edinburgh, 1905.
Niebuhr, Reinhold, The Nature and Destiny of Man, Scribner, 1941.
Olevianus, Het Wezen en de Middelen des Genade-Verbonds, Groningen, 1739.
Orchard, Modern Theories of Sin, 1909.
Orr, God's Image in Man, New York, 1906.
Owen, The Covenant of Grace, Philadelphia, 1862.
Roberts, God's Covenants with Man, London, 1657.
Robinson, The Christian Doctrine of Man, Edinburgh, 1920.
Strong, Discourses on the Covenant, London, 1678.
Talma, De Anthropologie van Calvijn, Utrecht, 1882.
Tennant, The Origin and Propagation of Sin, Cambridge, 1906; id., The Concept of Sin, New York and Cambridge, 1912.
Tulloch, The Christian Doctrine of Sin, New York, 1876.
Van den Bergh, Calvijn over het Genadeverbond, 's Gravenhage, 1879.
Vos, De Verbondsleer in de Gereformeerde Theologie, Grand Rapids, 1887.
Weidner, The Doctrine of Man, Chicago, 1912.
Wiggers, Augustinism and Pelagianism, Andover, 1840.
CHRISTOLOGY
Berkhof, Christ in the Light of Eschatology, Princeton Review, Jan. 1927; id., Vicarious Atonement Through Christ, Grand Rapids, 1936.
Bruce, The Kingdom of God, New York, 1893; id., The Humiliation of Christ, New York, 1901.
Brunner, Der Mitler, (Eng. tr. The Mediator).
Bushnell, Vicarious Sacrifice, New York, 1866.
Candlish, The Kingdom of God, Edinburgh, 1884.
Cave, The Doctrine of the Work of Christ, Nashville, 1937.
Cooke, The Incarnation and Recent Criticism, New York, 1907.
Crawford, The Atonement, Edinburgh, 1871.
Dale, The Atonement, London, 1877.
De Jong, De Leer der Verzoening in de Amerikaansche Theologie, Grand Rapids, 1913.
Denney, The Christian Doctrine of Reconciliation, New York, 1918.
Emmen, De Christologie van Calvijn, Amsterdam, 1935.
Enelow, A Jewish View of Jesus, New York, 1920.
Franks, A History of the Doctrine of the Work of Christ, New York.
Godet, and others, The Atonement in Modern Religious Thought (A Symposium), New York, 1902.
Hodge, The Atonement, Philadelphia, 1867.
Honig, De Persoon des Middelaars in de Nieuwere Duitsche Theologie, Kampen, 1910.
Hughes, The Kingdom of Heaven, New York, 1922.