Reading: Temple by W.

Shaw Caldecott
II. EZEKIEL'S PROPHETIC SKETCH

I. Introductory.

1. Relation to History of Temple:

Wellhausen has said that Ezekiel 40-48 "are the most important in his book, and have been,
not incorrectly, called the key to the Old Testament" (Prolegomena, English translation, 167).
He means that Ezekiel's legislation represents the first draft, or sketch, of a priestly code, and
that subsequently, on its basis, men of the priestly school formulated the Priestly Code as we
have it. Without accepting this view, dealt with elsewhere, it is to be admitted that Ezekiel's
sketch of a restored temple in chapters 40-43 has important bearings on the history of the
Temple, alike in the fact that it presupposes and sheds back light upon the structure and
arrangements of the first Temple (Solomon's), and that in important respects it forecasts the
plans of the second (Zerubbabel's) and of Herod's temples.

2. The Conception Unique and Ideal:

While, however, there is this historical relation, it is to be observed that Ezekiel's temple-sketch
is unique, presenting features not found in any of the actually built temples. The temple is, in
truth, an ideal construction never intended to be literally realized by returned exiles, or any
other body of people. Visionary in origin, the ideas embodied, and not the actual construction,
are the main things to the prophet's mind. It gives Ezekiel's conception of what a perfectly
restored temple and the service of Yahweh would be under conditions which could scarcely be
thought of as ever likely literally to arise. A literal construction, one may say, was impossible.
The site of the temple is not the old Zion, but "a very high mountain" (Ezekiel 40:2), occupying
indeed the place of Zion, but entirely altered in elevation, configuration and general character.
The temple is part of a scheme of transformed land, partitioned in parallel tracts among the
restored 12 tribes (Ezekiel 47:13-48:7, 23-29), with a large area in the center, likewise
stretching across the whole country, hallowed to Yahweh and His service (Ezekiel 48:8-22).
Supernatural features, as that of the flowing stream from the temple in Ezekiel 47, abound. It is
unreasonable to suppose that the prophet looked for such changes--some of them quite
obviously symbolical--as actually impending.

3. Its Symmetrical Measurements:

The visionary character of the temple has the effect of securing that its measurements are
perfectly symmetrical. The cubit used is defined as "a cubit and a handbreadth" (Ezekiel 40:5),
the contrast being with one or more smaller cubits (see CUBIT). In the diversity of opinion as to
the precise length of the cubit, it may be assumed here that it was the same sacred cubit
employed in the tabernacle and first Temple, and may be treated, as before, as approximately
equivalent to 18 inches.

II. Plan of the Temple.

Despite obscurities and corruption in the text of Ezekiel, the main outlines of the ideal temple
can be made out without much difficulty (for details the commentaries must be consulted; A. B.
Davidson's "Ezekiel" in the Cambridge Bible series may be recommended; compare also Keil;
a very lucid description is given in Skinner's "Book of Ezk," in the Expositor's Bible, 406-13; for
a different view, see Caldecott, The Second Temple in Jerusalem).

1. The Outer Court:

The temple was enclosed in two courts--an outer and an inner--quite different, however, in
character and arrangement from those of the first Temple. The outer court, as shown by the
separate measurements (compare Keil on Ezekiel 40:27), was a large square of 500 cubits
(750 ft.), bounded by a wall 6 cubits (9 ft.) thick and 6 cubits high (Ezekiel 40:5). The wall was
pierced in the middle of its north, east and south sides by massive gateways, extending into
the court to a distance of 50 cubits (75 ft.), with a width of 25 cubits (37 1/2 ft.). On either side
of the passage in these gateways were three guardrooms, each 6 cubits square (Ezekiel
40:7 margin), and each gateway terminated in "porch," 8 cubits (12 ft.) long (Ezekiel 40:9), and
apparently (thus, the Septuagint,Ezekiel 40:14; the Hebrew text seems corrupt), 20 cubits
across. The ascent to the gateways was by seven steps (Ezekiel 40:6; compare 40:22,26),
showing that the level of the court was to this extent higher than the ground outside. Round the
court, on the three sides named--its edge in line with the ends of the gateways--was a
"pavement," on which were built, against the wall, chambers, 30 in number (Ezekiel 40:17,18).
At the four corners were enclosures (40 cubits by 30) where the sacrifices were cooked
(compare Ezekiel 46:21-24)--a fact which suggests that the cells were mainly for purposes of
feasting. (The "arches" ('elammim) of Ezekiel 40:16,21, etc. (the Revised Version margin
"colonnade"), if distinguished from the "porch" ('ulam)--A. B. Davidson and others identify
them--are still parts of the gateway--Ezekiel 40:21, etc.).

2. The Inner Court:

The inner court was a square of 100 cubits (150 ft.), situated exactly in the center of the larger
court (Ezekiel 40:47). It, too, was surrounded by a wall, and had gateways, with guardrooms,
etc., similar to those of the outer court, saving that the gateways projected outward (50 cubits),
not inward. The gates of outer and inner courts were opposite to each other on the North, East,
and South, a hundred cubits apart (Ezekiel 40:19,23,27; the whole space, therefore, from wall
to wall was 50 and 100 and 50 = 200 cubits). The ascent to the gates in this case was by eight
steps (Ezekiel 40:37), indicating another rise in level for the inner court. There were two
chambers at the sides of the north and south gates respectively, one for Levites, the other for
priests (Ezekiel 40:44-46; compare the margin); at the gates also (perhaps only at the north
gate) were stone tables for slaughtering (Ezekiel 40:39-43). In the center of this inner court was
the great altar of burnt offering (Ezekiel 43:14-17)--a structure 18 cubits (27 ft.) square at the
base, and rising in four stages (1, 2, 4, and 4 cubits high respectively, Ezekiel 43:14,15), till it
formed a square of 12 cubits (18 ft.) at the top or hearth, with four horns at the corners (Ezekiel
43:15,16). Steps led up to it on the East (Ezekiel 43:17).

See ALTAR OF BURNT OFFERING.

3. The Temple Building and Adjuncts:

The inner court was extended westward by a second square of 100 cubits, within which, on a
platform elevated another 6 cubits (9 ft.), stood the temple proper and its connected buildings
(Ezekiel 41:8). This platform or basement is shown by the measurements to be 60 cubits broad
(North and and South) and 105 cubits long (East and West)--5 cubits projecting into the
eastern square. The ascent to the temple-porch was by 10 steps (Ezekiel 40:49; Septuagint,
the Revised Version margin). The temple itself was a building consisting, like Solomon's, of
three parts--a porch at the entrance, 20 cubits (30 ft.) broad by 12 cubits (18 ft.) deep (so most,
following the Septuagint, as required by the other measurements); the holy place or hekhal, 40
cubits (60 ft.) long by 20 cubits (30 ft.) broad; and the most holy place, 20 cubits by 20 (Ezekiel
40:48,49; 41:1-4); the measurements are internal. At the sides of the porch stood two pillars
(Ezekiel 40:49), corresponding to the Jachin and Boaz of the older Temple. The holy and the
most holy places were separated by a partition 2 cubits in thickness (Ezekiel 41:3; so most
interpret). The most holy place was empty; of the furniture of the holy place mention is made
only of an altar of wood (Ezekiel 41:22; see ALTAR, sec. A, III, 7; B, III, 3). Walls and doors
were ornamented with cherubim and palm trees (Ezekiel 41:18,25). The wall of the temple
building was 6 cubits (9 ft.) in thickness (Ezekiel 41:5), and on the north, south, and west sides,
as in Solomon's Temple, there were side-chambers in three stories, 30 in number (Ezekiel
41:6; in each story?), with an outer wall 5 cubits (7 1/2 ft.) in thickness (Ezekiel 41:9). These
chambers were, on the basement, 4 cubits broad; in the 2nd and 3rd stories, owing, as in the
older Temple, to rebatements in the wall, perhaps 5 and 6 cubits broad respectively (Ezekiel
41:6,7; in Solomon's Temple the side-chambers were 5, 6, and 7 cubits,1 Kings 6:6). These
dimensions give a total external breadth to the house of 50 cubits (with a length of 100 cubits),
leaving 5 cubits on either side and in the front as a passage round the edge of the platform on
which the building stood (described as "that which was left") (Ezekiel 41:9,11). The western
end, as far as the outer wall, was occupied, the whole breadth of the inner court, by a large
building (Ezekiel 41:12); all but a passage of 20 cubits (30 ft.) between it and the temple,
belonging to what is termed "the separate place" (gizrah,Ezekiel 41:12,13, etc.). The temple-
platform being only 60 cubits broad, there remained a space of 20 cubits (30 ft.) on the north
and south sides, running the entire length of the platform; this, continued round the back,
formed the gizrah, or "separate place" just named. Beyond the gizrah for 50 cubits (75 ft.) were
other chambers, apparently in two rows, the inner 100 cubits, the outer 50 cubits, long, with a
walk of 10 cubits between (Ezekiel 42:1-14; the passage, however, is obscure; some, as Keil,
place the "walk" outside the chambers). These chambers were assigned to the priests for the
eating of "the most holy things" (Ezekiel 42:13).

See GALLERY.

Such, in general, was the sanctuary of the prophet's vision, the outer and inner courts of which,
and, crowning all, the temple itself, rising in successive terraces, presented to his inner eye an
imposing spectacle which, in labored description, he seeks to enable his readers likewise to
visualize.

III. THE TEMPLE OF ZERUBBABEL

I. Introductory.

1. The Decree of Cyrus:

Forty-eight years after Nebuchadnezzar's destruction of the first Temple, the Babylonian
empire came to an end (538 BC), and Persia became dominant under Cyrus. In the year
following, Cyrus made a decree sanctioning the return of the Jews, and ordering the rebuilding
of the Temple at Jerusalem (2 Chronicles 36:23; Ezra 1:1-4). He not only caused the sacred
vessels of the old Temple to be restored, but levied a tax upon his western provinces to
provide materials for the building, besides what was offered willingly (Ezra 1:6-11;6:3). The
relatively small number of exiles who chose to return for this work (40,000) were led by
Sheshbazzar, "the prince of Judah" (Ezra 1:11), whom some identify with Zerubbabel, likewise
named "governor of Judah" (Haggai 1:1). With these, if they were distinct was associated
Joshua the high priest (in Ezra and Nehemiah called "Jeshua").

2. Founding of the Temple:

The first work of Joshua and Zerubbabel was the building of the altar on its old site in the 7th
month of the return (Ezra 3:3). Masons and carpenters were engaged for the building of the
house, and the Phoenicians were requisitioned for cedar wood from Lebanon (Ezra 3:7). In the
2nd year the foundations of the temple were laid with dignified ceremonial, amid rejoicing, and
the weeping of the older men, who remembered the former house (Ezra 3:8-13).

3. Opposition and Completion of the Work:

The work soon met with opposition from the mixed population of Samaria, whose offer to join it
had been refused; hostile representations, which proved successful, were made to the Persian
king; from which causes the building was suspended about 15 years, till the 2nd year of Darius
Hystaspis (520 BC; Ezr 4). On the other hand, the prophets Haggai and Zechariah stimulated
the flagging zeal of the builders, and, new permission being obtained, the work was resumed,
and proceeded so rapidly that in 516 BC the temple was completed, and was dedicated with
joy (Ezra 5;6).

II. The Temple Structure.

1. The House:

Few details are available regarding this temple of Zerubbabel. It stood on the ancient site, and
may have been influenced in parts of its plan by the descriptions of the temple in Ezekiel. The
inferiority to the first Temple, alluded to in Ezra 3:12 and Haggai 2:3, plainly cannot refer to its
size, for its dimensions as specified in the decree of Cyrus, namely, 60 cubits in height, and 60
cubits in breadth (Ezra 6:3; there is no warrant for confining the 60 cubits of height to the porch
only; compare Josephus, Ant, XI, i), exceed considerably those of the Temple of Solomon
(side-chambers are no doubt included in the breadth). The greater glory of the former Temple
can only refer to adornment, and to the presence in it of objects wanting in the second. The
Mishna declares that the second temple lacked five things present in the first--the ark, the
sacred fire, the shekhinah, the Holy Spirit, and the Urim and Thummim (Yoma', xxi.2).

2. Its Divisions and Furniture:

The temple was divided, like its predecessor, into a holy and a most holy place, doubtless in
similar proportions. In 1 Macc 1:22 mention is made of the "veil" between the two places. The
most holy place, as just said, was empty, save for a stone on which the high priest, on the
great Day of Atonement, placed his censer (Yoma' v.2). The holy place had its old furniture, but
on the simpler scale of the tabernacle--a golden altar of incense, a single table of shewbread,
one 7-branched candlestick. These were taken away by Antiochus Epiphanes (1 Macc
1:21,22). At the cleansing of the sanctuary after its profanation by this prince, they were
renewed by Judas Maccabeus (1 Macc 4:41). Judas pulled down also the old desecrated altar,
and built a new one (1 Macc 4:44).

3. Its Courts, Altar, etc.:

The second temple had two courts--an outer and an inner (1 Macc 4:38,48; 9:54; Josephus,
Ant, XIV, xvi, 2)--planned apparently on the model of those in Ezekiel. A.R.S. Kennedy infers
from the measurements in the Haram that "the area of the great court of the second temple,
before it was enlarged by Herod on the South and East, followed that of Ezekiel's outer court--
that is, it measured 500 cubits each way with the sacred rock precisely in the center"
(Expository Times, XX, 182). The altar on this old Sakhra site--the first thing of all to be "set on
its base" (Ezra 3:3)--is shown by 1 Macc 4:47 and a passage quoted by Josephus from
Hecataeus (Apion, I, xxii) to have been built of unhewn stones. Hecataeus gives its dimensions
as a square of 20 cubits and 10 cubits in height. There seems to have been free access to this
inner court till the time of Alexander Janneus (104-78 BC), who, pelted by the crowd as he
sacrificed, fenced off the part of the court in front of the altar, so that no layman could come
farther (Josephus, Ant, XIII, xiii, 5). The courts were colonnaded (Ant., XI, iv, 7; XIV, xvi, 2),
and, with the house, had numerous chambers (compare Nehemiah 12:44;13:4, etc.).

A brief contemporary description of this Temple and its worship is given in Aristeas, 83-104.
This writer's interest, however, was absorbed chiefly by the devices for carrying away the
sacrificial blood and by the technique of the officiating priests.
4. Later Fortunes:

The vicissitudes of this temple in its later history are vividly recorded in 1 Maccabees and in
Josephus. In Ecclesiasticus 50 is given a glimpse of a certain Simon, son of Onias, who
repaired the temple, and a striking picture is furnished of the magnificence of the worship in his
time. The desecration and pillaging of the sanctuary by Antiochus, and its cleansing and
restoration under Judas are alluded to above (see HASMONEANS; MACCABAEUS). At length
Judea became an integral part of the Roman empire. In 66 BC Pompey, having taken the
temple-hill, entered the most holy place, but kept his hands off the temple-treasures (Ant., XIV,
iv, 4). Some years later Crassus carried away everything of value he could find (Ant., XIV, vii,
1). The people revolted, but Rome remained victorious. This brings us to the time of Herod,
who was nominated king of Judea by Rome in 39 BC, but did not attain actual power until two
years later.

IV. THE TEMPLE OF HEROD

I. Introductory.

1. Initiation of the Work:

Herod became king de facto by the capture of Jerusalem in 37 BC. Some years later he built
the fortress Antonia to the North of the temple (before 31 BC). Midway in his reign, assigning a
religious motive for his purpose, he formed the project of rebuilding the temple itself on a
grander scale (Josephus gives conflicting dates; in Ant, XV, xi, 1, he says "in his 18th year"; in
BJ, I, xxi, 1, he names his 15th year; the latter date, as Schurer suggests (GJV4, I 369), may
refer to the extensive preparations). To allay the distrust of his subjects, he undertook that the
materials for the new building should be collected before the old was taken down; he likewise
trained 1,000 priests to be masons and carpenters for work upon the sanctuary; 10,000 skilled
workmen altogether were employed upon the task. The building was commenced in 20-19 BC.
The naos, or temple proper, was finished in a year and a half, but it took 8 years to complete
the courts and cloisters. The total erection occupied a much longer time (compare John 2:20,
"Forty and six years," etc.); indeed the work was not entirely completed till 64 AD-6 years
before its destruction by the Romans.

2. Its Grandeur:

Built of white marble, covered with heavy plates of gold in front and rising high above its
marble-cloistered courts--themselves a succession of terraces--the temple, compared by
Josephus to a snow-covered mountain (BJ, V, v, 6), was a conspicuous and dazzling object
from every side. The general structure is succinctly described by G. A. Smith:

"Herod's temple consisted of a house divided like its predecessor into the Holy of Holies, and
the Holy Place; a porch; an immediate fore-court with an altar of burnt offering; a Court of
Israel; in front of this a Court of Women; and round the whole of the preceding, a Court of the
Gentiles" (Jerusalem, II, 502). On the "four courts," compare Josephus, Apion, II, viii.

3. Authorities:

The original authorities on Herod's temple are chiefly the descriptions in Josephus (Ant., XV, xi,
3, 5; BJ, V, v, etc.), and the tractate Middoth in the Mishna. The data in these authorities,
however, do not always agree. The most helpful modern descriptions, with plans, will be found,
with differences in details, in Keil, Biblical Archaeology, I, 187; in Fergusson, Temples of the
Jews; in the articles "Temple" in HDB (T. Witton Davies) and Encyclopedia Biblica (G. H. Box);
in the important series of papers by A. R. S. Kennedy in The Expository Times (vol XX), "Some
Problems of Herod's Temple" (compare his article "Temple" in one-vol DB); in Sanday's Sacred
Sites of the Gospels (Waterhouse); latterly in G. A. Smith, Jerusalem, II, 499.

4. Measurements:

Differences of opinion continue as to the sacred cubit. A. R. S. Kennedy thinks the cubit can be
definitely fixed at 17,6 inches. (Expostory Times, XX, 24); G. A. Smith reckons it at 20,67
inches. (Jerusalem, II, 504); T. Witton Davies estimates it at about 18 in. (HDB, IV, 713), etc.
W. S. Caldecott takes the cubit of Josephus and the Middoth to be 1 1/5 ft. It will suffice in this
sketch to treat the cubit, as before, as approximately equivalent to 18 inches.

II. The Temple and Its Courts.

1. Temple Area--Court of Gentiles:

Josephus states that the area of Herod's temple was double that of its predecessor (BJ, I, xxi,
1). The Mishna (Mid., ii.2) gives the area as 500 cubits (roughly 750 ft.); Josephus (Ant., XV, xi,
3) gives it as a stadium (about 600 Greek ft.); but neither measure is quite exact. It is generally
agreed that on its east, west and south sides Herod's area corresponded pretty nearly with the
limits of the present Haram area (see JERUSALEM), but that it did not extend as far North as
the latter (Kennedy states the difference at about 26 as compared with 35 acres, and makes
the whole perimeter to be about 1,420 yards, ut supra, 66). The shape was an irregular oblong,
broader at the North than at the South. The whole was surrounded by a strong wall, with
several gates, the number and position of some of which are still matters of dispute. Josephus
mentions four gates on the West (Ant., XV, xi, 5), the principal of which, named in Mid., i.3, "the
gate of Kiponos," was connected by a bridge across the Tyropoeon with the city (where now is
Wilson's Arch). The same authority speaks of two gates on the South. These are identified with
the "Huldah" (mole) gates of the Mishna--the present Double and Triple Gates--which, opening
low down in the wall, slope up in tunnel fashion into the interior of the court. The Mishna puts a
gate also on the north and one on the east side. The latter may be represented by the modern
Golden Gate--a Byzantine structure, now built up. This great court--known later as the "Court
of the Gentiles," because open to everyone--was adorned with splendid porticos or cloisters.
The colonnade on the south side--known as the Royal Porch--was specially magnificent. It
consisted of four rows of monolithic marble columns--162 in all--with Corinthian capitals,
forming three aisles, of which the middle was broader and double the height of the other two.
The roofing was of carved cedar. The north, west, and east sides had only double colonnades.
That on the east side was the "Solomon's Porch" of the New Testament (John 10:23; Acts
3:11;5:19). There were also chambers for officials, and perhaps a place of meeting for the
Sanhedrin (beth din) (Josephus places this elsewhere). In the wide spaces of this court took
place the buying and selling described in the Gospels (Matthew 21:12and parallel's; John
2:13).

2. Inner Sanctuary Inclosure:

(1) Wall, "Chel," "Coregh," Gates.

In the upper or northerly part of this large area, on a much higher level, bounded likewise by a
wall, was a second or inner enclosure--the "sanctuary" in the stricter sense (Josephus, BJ, V,
v, 2)--comprising the court of the women, the court of Israeland the priests' court, with the
temple itself (Josephus, Ant, XV, xi, 5). The surrounding wall, according to Josephus (BJ, V, v,
2), was 40 cubits high on the outside, and 25 on the inside--a difference of 15 cubits; its
thickness was 5 cubits. Since, however, the inner courts were considerably higher than the
court of the women, the difference in height may have been some cubits less in the latter than
in the former (compare the different measurements in Kennedy, ut supra, 182), a fact which
may explain the difficulty felt as to the number of the steps in the ascent (see below). Round
the wall without, at least on three sides (some except the West), at a height of 12 (Mid.) or 14
(Jos) steps, was an embankment or terrace, known as the chel (fortification), 10 cubits broad
(Mid. says 6 cubits high), and enclosing the whole was a low balustrade or stone parapet
(Josephus says 3 cubits high) called the coregh, to which were attached at intervals tablets
with notices in Greek and Latin, prohibiting entry to foreigners on pain of death (see
PARTITION, THE MIDDLE WALL OF). From within the coregh ascent was made to the level of
the chel by the steps aforesaid, and five steps more led up to the gates (the reckoning is
probably to the lower level of the women's court). Nine gates, with two-storied gatehouses "like
towers" (Josephus, BJ, V, v, 3), are mentioned, four on the North, four on the South, and one
on the East--the last probably to be identified, though this is still disputed (Waterhouse, etc.),
with the "Gate of Nicanor" (Mid.), or "Corinthian Gate" (Jos), which is undoubtedly "the
Beautiful Gate" of Acts 3:2,10 (see for identification, Kennedy, ut supra, 270). This principal
gate received its names from being the gift of a wealthy Alexandrian Jew, Nicanor, and from its
being made of Corinthian brass. It was of great size--50 cubits high and 40 cubits wide--and
was richly adorned, its brass glittering like gold (Mid., ii.3). See BEAUTIFUL GATE. The other
gates were covered with gold and silver (Josephus, BJ, V, v, 3).

(2) Court of the Women.

The eastern gate, approached from the outside by 12 steps (Mid., ii.3; Maimonides), admitted
into the court of the women, so called because it was accessible to women as well as to men.
Above its single colonnades were galleries reserved for the use of women. Its dimensions are
given in the Mishna as 135 cubits square (Mid., ii.5), but this need not be precise. At its four
corners were large roofless rooms for storage and other purposes. Near the pillars of the
colonnades were 13 trumpet-shaped boxes for receiving the money-offerings of the people
(compare the incident of the widow's mite, Mark 12:41; Luke 21:1); for which reason, and
because this court seems to have been the place of deposit of the temple-treasures generally,
it bore the name "treasury" (gazophulakion, John 8:20).

See TREASURY.

(3) Inner Courts:

Court of Israel; Court of the Priests:

From the women's court, the ascent was made by 15 semicircular steps (Mid., ii.5; on these
steps the Levites chanted, and beneath them their instruments were kept) to the inner court,
comprising, at different levels, the court of Israel and the court of the priests. Here, again, at
the entrance, was a lofty, richly ornamented gate, which some, as said, prefer to regard as the
Gate of Nicanor or Beautiful Gate. Probably, however, the view above taken, which places this
gate at the outer entrance, is correct. The Mishna gives the total dimensions of the inner court
as 187 cubits long (East to West) and 135 cubits wide (Mid., ii.6; v.1). Originally the court was
one, but disturbances in the time of Alexander Janneus (104-78 BC) led, as formerly told, to
the greater part being railed off for the exclusive use of the priests (Josephus, Ant, XIII, xiii, 5).
In the Mishna the name "court of the priests" is used in a restricted sense to denote the space--
11 cubits--between the altar and "the court of Israel" (see the detailed measurements in Mid.,
v.1). The latter--"the court of Israel"--2 1/2 cubits lower than "the court of the priests," and
separated from it by a pointed fence, was likewise a narrow strip of only 11 cubits (Mid., ii.6;
v.1). Josephus, with more probability, carries the 11 cubits of the "court of Israel" round the
whole of the temple-court (BJ, V, vi). Waterhouse (Sacred Sites, 112) thinks 11 cubits too small
for a court of male Israelites, and supposes a much larger enclosure, but without warrant in the
authorities (compare Kennedy, ut supra, 183; G. A. Smith, Jerusalem, II, 508).
(4) The Altar, etc.

In the priests' court the principal object was the great altar of burnt offering, situated on the old
site--the Sakhra--immediately in front of the porch of the temple (at 22 cubits distance--the
space "between the temple and the altar" of Matthew 23:35). The altar, according to the
Mishna (Mid., iii.1), was 32 cubits square, and, like Ezekiel's, rose in stages, each diminishing
by a cubit:

one of 1 cubit in height, three of 5 cubits, which, with deduction of another cubit for the priests
to walk on, left a square of 24 cubits at the top. It had four horns. Josephus, on the other hand,
gives 50 cubits for the length and breadth, and 15 cubits for the height of the altar (BJ, V, v, 6)-
-his reckoning perhaps including a platform (a cubit high?) from which the height is taken (see
ALTAR). The altar was built of unhewn stones, and had on the South a sloping ascent of like
material, 32 cubits in length and 16 in width. Between temple and altar, toward the South,
stood the "laver" for the priests. In the court, on the north side, were rings, hooks, and tables,
for the slaughtering, flaying and suspending of the sacrificial victims.

3. The Temple Building:

(1) House and Porch.

Yet another flight of 12 steps, occupying most of the space between the temple-porch and the
altar, led up to the platform (6 cubits high) on which stood the temple itself. This magnificent
structure, built, as said before, of blocks of white marble, richly ornamented with gold on front
and sides, exceeded in dimensions and splendor all previous temples. The numbers in the
Mishna and in Josephus are in parts discrepant, but the general proportions can readily be
made out. The building with its platform rose to the height of 100 cubits (150 ft.; the 120 cubits
in Josephus, Ant, XV, xi, 3, is a mistake), and was 60 cubits (90 ft.) wide. It was fronted by a
porch of like height, but with wings extending 20 cubits (30 ft.) on each side of the temple,
making the total breadth of the vestibule 100 cubits (150 ft.) also. The depth of the porch was
10 or 11 cubits; probably at the wings 20 cubits (Jos). The entrance, without doors, was 70
cubits high and 25 cubits wide (Mid. makes 40 cubits high and 20 wide). Above it Herod placed
a golden eagle, which the Jews afterward pulled down (Ant., XVII, vi, 3). The porch was
adorned with gold.

(2) "Hekhal" and "Debhir".

Internally, the temple was divided, as before, into a holy place (hekhal) and a most holy
(debhir)--the former measuring, as in Solomon's Temple, 40 cubits (60 ft.) in length, and 20
cubits (30 ft.) in breadth; the height, however, was double that of the older Temple--60 cubits
(90 ft.; thus Keil, etc., following Josephus, BJ, V, v, 5). Mid., iv.6, makes the height only 40
cubits; A. R. S. Kennedy and G. A. Smith make the debhir a cube--20 cubits in height only. In
the space that remained above the holy places, upper rooms (40 cubits) were erected. The
holy place was separated from the holiest by a partition one cubit in thickness, before which
hung an embroidered curtain or "veil"--that which was rent at the death of Jesus (Matthew
27:51 and parallel's; Mid., iv.7, makes two veils, with a space of a cubit between them). The
Holy of Holies was empty; only a stone stood, as in the temple of Zerubbabel, on which the
high priest placed his censer on the Day of Atonement (Mishna, Yoma', v.2). In the holy place
were the altar of incense, the table of shewbread (North), and the seven-branched golden
candlestick (South). Representations of the two latter are seen in the carvings on the Arch of
Titus (see SHEWBREAD, TABLE OF; CANDLESTICK, THE GOLDEN). The spacious
entrance to the holy place had folding doors, before which hung a richly variegated Babylonian
curtain. Above the entrance was a golden vine with clusters as large as a man (Josephus, Ant,
XV, xi, 3; BJ, V, v, 4).
(3) The Side-Chambers.

The walls of the temple appear to have been 5 cubits thick, and against these, on the North,
West, and South, were built, as in Solomon's Temple, side-chambers in three stories, 60 cubits
in height, and 10 cubits in width (the figures, however, are uncertain), which, with the outer
walls, made the entire breadth of the house 60 or 70 cubits. Mid., iv.3, gives the number of the
chambers as 38 in all. The roof, which Keil speaks of as "sloping" (Bib. Archaeology, I, 199),
had gilded spikes to keep off the birds. A balustrade surrounded it 3 cubits high. Windows are
not mentioned, but there would doubtless be openings for light into the holy place from above
the sidechambers.

III. New Testament Associations of Herod's Temple.

1. Earlier Incidents:

Herod's temple figures so prominently in New Testament history that it is not necessary to do
more than refer to some of the events of which it was the scene. It was here, before the
incense altar, that the aged Zacharias had the vision which assured him that he should not die
childless (Luke 1:11). Here, in the women's court, or treasury, on the presentation by Mary, the
infant Jesus was greeted by Simeon and Anna (Luke 2:27). In His 12th year the boy Jesus
amazed the temple rabbis by His understanding and answers (Luke 2:46).

2. Jesus in the Temple:

The chronological sequence of the Fourth Gospel depends very much upon the visits of Jesus
to the temple at the great festivals (see JESUS CHRIST). At the first of these occurred the
cleansing of the temple-court--the court of the Gentiles--from the dealers that profaned it (John
2:13), an incident repeated at the close of the ministry (Matthew 21:12 and parallel's). When
the Jews, on the first occasion, demanded a sign, Jesus spoke of the temple of His body as
being destroyed and raised up in three days (John 2:19), eliciting their retort, "Forty and six
years was this temple in building," etc. (John 2:20). This may date the occurrence about 27
AD. At the second cleansing He not only drove out the buyers and sellers, but would not allow
anyone to carry anything through this part of the temple (Mark 11:15-17). In Joh His zeal
flamed out because it was His Father's house; in Mk, because it was a house of prayer for all
nations (compare Isaiah 56:7). With this non-exclusiveness agrees the word of Jesus to the
woman of Samaria:

"The hour cometh, when neither in this mountain (in Samaria), nor in Jerusalem, shall ye
worship the Father" (John 4:21). During the two years following His first visit, Jesus repeatedly,
at festival times, walked in the temple-courts, and taught and disputed with the Jews. We find
Him in John 5 at "a feast" (Passover or Purim?); in John 7; 8, at "the feast of tabernacles,"
where the temple-police were sent to apprehend Him (7:32,45), and where He taught "in the
treasury" (8:20); in John 10:22, at "the feast of the dedication" in winter, walking in "Solomon's
Porch." His teaching on these occasions often started from some familiar temple scene--the
libations of water carried by the priests to be poured upon the altar (John 7:37), the proselytes
(Greeks even) in the great portico (John 12:20), etc. Of course Jesus, not being of the priestly
order, never entered the sanctuary; His teaching took place in the several courts open to
laymen, generally in the "treasury" (see John 8:20).

3. The Passion-Week:

The first days of the closing week of the life of Jesus--the week commencing with the
Triumphal Entry--were spent largely in the temple. Here He spoke many parables (Mt 21; 22
and parallel's); here He delivered His tremendous arraignment of the Pharisees (Mt 23 and
parallel's); here, as He "sat down over against the treasury," He beheld the people casting in
their gifts, and praised the poor widow who cast in her two mites above all who cast in of their
abundance (Mark 12:41 and parallel's). It was on the evening of His last day in the temple that
His disciples drew His attention to "the goodly stones and offerings" (gifts for adornment) of the
building (Luke 21:5 and parallel's) and heard from His lips the astonishing announcement that
the days were coming--even in that generation--in which there should not be left one stone
upon another (Luke 21:6 and parallel's). The prediction was fulfilled to the letter in the
destruction of the temple by the Romans in 70 AD.

4. Apostolic Church:

Seven weeks after the crucifixion the Pentecost of Acts 2 was observed. The only place that
fulfils the topographical conditions of the great gatherings is Solomon's Porch. The healing of
the lame man (Acts 3:1) took place at the "door .... called Beautiful" of the temple, and the
multitude after the healing ran together into "Solomon's Porch" or portico (Acts 3:11). Where
also were the words of Luke 24:53, they "were continually in the temple, blessing God," and
after Pentecost (Acts 2:46), "day by day, continuing stedfastly .... in the temple," etc., so likely
to be fulfilled? For long the apostles continued the methods of their Master in daily teaching in
the temple (Acts 4:1). Many years later, when Paul visited Jerusalem for the last time, he was
put in danger of his life from the myriads of Jewish converts "all zealous for the law" (Acts
21:20), who accused him of profaning the temple by bringing Greeks into its precincts, i.e.
within the coregh (Acts 21:28-30). But Christianity had now begun to look farther afield than the
temple. Stephen, and after him Saul, who became Paul, preached that "the Most High dwelleth
not in houses made with hands" (Acts 7:48; 17:24), though Paul himself attended the temple
for ceremonial and other purposes (Acts 21:26).

5. The Temple in Christian Thought:

From the time that the temple ceased to exist, the Talmud took its place in Jewish estimation;
but it is in Christianity rather than in Judaism that the temple has a perpetual existence. The
New Testament writers make no distinction between one temple and another. It is the idea
rather than the building which is perpetuated in Christian teaching. The interweaving of temple
associations with Christian thought and life runs through the whole New Testament. Jesus
Himself supplied the germ for this development in the word He spoke concerning the temple of
His body (John 2:19,21). Paul, notwithstanding all he had suffered from Jews and Jewish
Christians, remained saturated with Jewish ideas and modes of thought. In one of his earliest
Epistles he recognizes the "Jerus that is above" as "the mother of us all" (Galatians 4:26 the
King James Version). In another, the "man of sin" is sitting "in the temple of God"
(2 Thessalonians 2:4). The collective church (1 Corinthians 3:16,17), but also the individual
believer (1 Corinthians 6:19), is a temple. One notable passage shows how deep was the
impression made upon Paul's mind by the incident connected with Trophimus the Ephesian
(Acts 21:29). That "middle wall of partition" which so nearly proved fatal to him then was no
longer to be looked for in the Christian church (Ephesians 2:14), which was "a holy temple" in
the Lord (Ephesians 2:21). It is naturally in the Epistle to the Hebrews that we have the fullest
exposition of ideas connected with the temple, although here the form of allusion is to the
tabernacle rather than the temple (see TABERNACLE; compare Westcott on Hebrews, 233).
The sanctuary and all it included were but representations of heavenly things. Finally, in
Revelation, the vision is that of the heavenly temple itself (11:19). But the church--professing
Christendom?--is a temple measured by God's command (11:1,2). The climax is reached in
21:22-23:

"I saw no temple therein (i.e. in the holy city): for the Lord God the Almighty, and the Lamb, are
the temple thereof .... and the lamp thereof is the Lamb." Special ordinances are altogether
superseded.
LITERATURE.

In general on the temples see Keil, Biblical Archaeology, I, in which the older literature is
mentioned; Fergusson, Temples of the Jews; Comms. on K, Chronicles, Ezr, Neh, and Ezk;
articles in the dicts. and encs (DB, HDB, EB); G. A. Smith, Jerusalem and similar works. On
Solomon's Temple, compare Benzinger, Heb. Archaologie. On Ezekiel's temple, see Skinner's
"Book of Ezekiel" in Expositor's Bible. On Zerubbabel's temple, compare W. Shaw Caldecott,
The Second Temple in Jerusalem. The original authorities on Herod's temple are chiefly
Josephus, Ant, XV, xi, and BJ, V, v; and the Mishna, Middoth, ii (this section of the Middoth,
from Barclay's Talmud, may be seen in App. I of Fergusson's work above named). The
German literature is very fully given in Schurer, HJP, I, 1, 438 (GJV4, I, 392 f). See also the
articles of A. R. S. Kennedy in Expository Times, XX, referred to above, and P. Waterhouse, in
Sanday, Sacred Sites of the Gospels, 106. On symbolism, compare Westcott, Hebrews, 233.
See also articles in this Encyclopedia on parts, furniture, and utensils of the temple, under their
several headings.

Reading: Zerubbabel by R. Dick Wilson

ZERUBBABEL

ze-rub'-a-bel (zerubbabhel, probably a transliteration of the Babylonian name Zeru-Babili,

"seed of Babylon"; Zorobabel):

1. Name:

Is commonly called the son of Shealtiel (Ezra 3:2,8; 5:2; Nehemiah 12:1; Haggai
1:1,12,14; Matthew 1:12; Luke 3:27); but in 1 Chronicles 3:19 he is called the son of Pedaiah,
the brother apparently of Shealtiel (Salathiel) and the son or grandson of Jeconiah. It is
probable that Shealtiel had no children and adopted Zerubbabel; or that Zerubbabel was his
levirate son; or that, Shealtiel being childless, Zerubbabel succeeded to the rights of sonship
as being the next of kin.

2. Family:

Whatever may have been his blood relationship to Jeconiah, the Scriptures teach that
Zerubbabel was his legal successor, of the 3rd or 4th generation. According to1 Chronicles
3:19, he had one daughter, Shelomith, and seven sons, Meshullam, Hananiah, Hashubah,
Ohel, Berechiah, Hasadiah and Jushab-hesed. In Matthew 1:13 he is said to have been the
father of Abiud (i.e. Abi-hud). As it is the custom in Arabia today to give a man a new name
when his first son is born, so it may have been, in this case, that Meshullam was the father of
Hud, and that his name was changed to Abiud as soon as his son was named Hud. In Luke
3:27, the son of Zerubbabel is called Rhesa. This is doubtless the title of the head of the
captivity, the resh gelutha', and would be appropriate as a title of Meshullam in his capacity as
the official representative of the captive Jews. That Zerubbabel is said in the New Testament to
be the son of Shealtiel the son of Neri instead of Jeconiah may be accounted for on the
supposition that Shealtiel was the legal heir or adopted son of Jeconiah, who according
to Jeremiah 36:30 was apparently to die childless.

3. Relation to Sheshbazzar:

It has been shown in the article on Sheshbazzar that he and Zerubbabel may possibly have
been the same person and that the name may have been Shamash-ban (or bun)-zer-Babili-
usur. It seems more probable, however, that Sheshbazzar, the prince of Judah, was governor
under Cyrus and that Zerubbabel was governor under Darius. The former, according to Ezra
1:8 and 5:14-16, laid the foundations, and the latter completed the building of the temple (Ezra
2:2,68; 4:2; Haggai 1:14; Zechariah 4:9).

4. History:

All that is known certainly about Zerubbabel is found in the canonical books of Zechariah,
Haggai and Ezra-Nehemiah. According to these he and Jeshua, the high priest, led up a band
of captives from Babylon to Jerusalem and began rebuilding the temple in the second year of
Darius Hystaspis. They first constructed the altar of burnt offerings, and afterward built a
temple, usually called the Second Temple, much inferior in beauty to that of Solomon.
According to Josephus and the apocryphal Book of Ezra (1 Esdras 3,4), Zerubbabel was a
friend of Darius Hystaspis, having successfully competed before him in a contest whose object
was to determine what was the strongest thing in the world--wine, kings, women, or truth.
Zerubbabel, having demonstrated that truth was the mightiest of all, was called the king's
"cousin," and was granted by him permission to go up to Jerusalem and to build the temple.
Zerubbabel was also made a governor of Jerusalem, and performed also the duties of the
tirshatha, an official who was probably the Persian collector of taxes.

Reading: Eschatology of the Old Testament by James Orr

ESCHATOLOGY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT

es-ka-tol'-o-ji

\Contents - (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 +
\LITERATURE

\Eschatology of the Old Testament (with Apocryphal and Apocalyptic Writings).

(A) Scope of Article:

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
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.

(B) Dr. Charles' Work:

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.

(C) Individual Religion in Israel.

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 (Genesis 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.

\I. Fundamental Ideas.

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.
1. Idea of God:

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 Genesis 1 and Genesis 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 (Genesis 12:3); His universal rule is acknowledged (Genesis 18:25); in infinite grace,
displaying His power over Egypt, He chose Israel to be a people to Himself (Exodus 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" (Matthew 22:31,32). The Old Testament
instances of resurrection in answer to prayer point in the same direction (1 Kings
17:21; 2 Kings 4:34; compare Psalms 16:10; 49:15, etc.; see further, below).

2. Idea of Man:

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. 37, 45), 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). 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 Genesis 2:7, supposes the soul to perish at
death (pp. 41). 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"
(nishmath chayyim) is identified with the "spirit of life" (ruach chayyim) of Genesis 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). Body, Soul and Spirit.

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 Genesis 1:26,27 man is created in
God's image, and in the more anthropomorphic narrative of Genesis 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; 33:4; Isaiah 42:5), and is at once the animating principle
of the body (the blood being its vehicle, Leviticus 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" (ruach). Dr.
Charles expresses this correctly in what he says of the supposed earlier view ("the 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, 47). There is no ground for deducing "annihilation" from Genesis 2:7.
Everywhere in Ge man is regarded as formed for living fellowship with God, and capable of
knowing, worshipping and serving Him.

See SOUL; SPIRIT.

3. Sin and Death:

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 Parousia). This
is the true original idea of immortality for man (see IMMORTALITY). 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 (Genesis 2:17; 3:19,22; Romans 5:12; 1 Corinthians 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, 376; God's Image in Man, 198, 249). 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" (Romans
8:23)--after the pattern of Christ's resurrection (Philippians 3:21), has in the Christian
conception of immortality.

\II. Conceptions of the Future Life--Sheol.

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.

1. Reserve on This Subject:

Hopes and Promises Largely Temporal:

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
(Genesis 12:1-3; 15); Israel is encouraged by abundant promises of temporal blessing
(Deuteronomy 11:8; 28:1-14), and warned by the most terrible temporal curses (Deuteronomy
28:15); David has pledged to him the sure succession of his house as the reward of obedience
(2 Samuel 7:11). 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 (Hosea 2:14;14; Isaiah
1:19,26, etc.); the Book of Pr likewise is full of such promises (3:13, etc.).

2. A Future State not Therefore Denied:

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.

Belief Non-Mythological.

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?

3. Survival of Soul, or Conscious Part:

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" = 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."

4. The Hebrew Sheol:

It is not necessary to do more than sketch the main features of the Hebrew sheol (see
SHEOL). The word, the etymology of which is doubtful (the commonest derivations are from
roots meaning "to ask" or "to be hollow," 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 (Psalms
63:9; 86:13; Ezekiel 26:20; 31:14; 32:18,24; compare Numbers 16:30;Deuteronomy 32:22).
The dead are there gathered in companies; hence, the frequently recurring expression,
"gathered unto his people" (Genesis 25:8; 35:29; 49:33; Numbers 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 (Genesis 50:2).
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; 38:17; Psalms 9:14; Isaiah 38:10, etc. ). In the general conception, Sheol is a place of
darkness (Job 10:21,22; Psalms 143:3), of silence (Psalms 94:17;115:17), of forgetfulness
(Psalms 88:12; Ecclesiastes 9:5,6,10). It is without remembrance or praise of God (Psalms
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 Isaiah
38:10) or temporarily skeptical (thus in Ecclesiastes; compare 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 Isaiah 14:9 the shades (repha'im) of once mighty kings are
stirred up to meet the descending king of Babylon (compare Ezekiel 32:21). If Sheol is
sometimes described as "destruction" (Job 26:6 margin; Job 28:22; Proverbs 15:11 margin)
and "the pit" (Psalms 30:9; 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 3:17; 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, 99, 173-74). The idea of Dr. Charles,
already commented on, that Sheol is outside the jurisdiction of Yahweh, is contradicted by
many passages (Deuteronomy 32:22; Job 26:6; Proverbs 15:11; Psalms 139:8; Amos 9:2, etc.;
compare above).

\III. The Religious Hope--Life and Resurrection.

(a) Nature and Grace--Moral Distinctions:

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" (Psalms 9:17), a "lowest Sheol" unto which God's
anger burns (Deuteronomy 32:22), "uttermost parts of the pit" (Isaiah 14:15; Ezekiel 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 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" (Psalms 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" (Isaiah
57:2; compare Isaiah 57:21"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" (Numbers
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, 422, may profitably be consulted).

(b) Religious Hope of Immortality:

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.

1. Sheol, Like Death, Connected with Sin:

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,
242, English translation; A. B. Davidson, Theology of the Old Testament, 432, 439). The true
type of immortality is therefore to be seen in cases like those of Enoch (Genesis 5:24;
compare Hebrews 11:5) and Elijah (2 Kings 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 (Deuteronomy 33:27; compare Psalms
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).

2. Religious Root of Hope of Immortality:

Life is not bare existence; it consists in God's favor and fellowship (Psalms 16:11; 30:5; 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 (Matthew 22:32); thus, New Testament writers
believed (Hebrews 11:13,14). Faith might falter, but in principle, this hope must have been
bound up with faith from the beginning.

3. Hope of Resurrection:

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. (Matthew 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.

(1) Not a Late or Foreign Doctrine.

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, 255). 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 (1 Kings 17:21;2 Kings 4:34). 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 (Genesis 23;50:5,25; Exodus 13:19; compare Hebrews 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, 2OO).

(2) The Psalms.

The passages in the Psalms in which faith rises to the hope of immortality are
principally Psalms 16:8-11; 17:15; 49:14,15; 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. Psalms 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.
InPsalms 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 Psalms 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 Psalms 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).

(3) The Book of Job.

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?" (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 (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" (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 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.

(4) The Prophets.

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 (25:6-8; 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" (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?" (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 Ezekiel 37:1-10 of the valley of
dry bones. The climax is, however, reached in Isaiah 25:6-8; 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, 26:19, therefore, is a personal, not a corporate
resurrection").

(5) Daniel--Resurrection of Wicked.

Finally, in the Old Testament we have the striking statement in Daniel 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 John 5:28,29; Acts
24:15; Revelation 20:12). 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" (Daniel 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.

\IV. The Idea of Judgment--the Day of Yahweh.

Judgment a Present Reality:

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.

1. Day of Yahweh:

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
Joe 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.Isaiah
2:2-5; Joel 3; Amos 9:11; Zechariah 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.

(1) Relation to Israel.

The "Day" is in its primary aspect a day of judgment (Isaiah 2:12); not, however, to be thought
of as a day of vengeance only on the adversaries of Israel (Amos 5:18). 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" (Amos 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 (Isaiah
6:13; Amos 9:9; Zechariah 3:13,10, etc.). The Book of Ho beautifully exhibits this aspect of the
Divine dealings.

(2) To the Nations.

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 (Zechariah 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. Isaiah 2:2-5, with Micah 4:1-
5; Isaiah 42:4; 66:3-6; Jeremiah 12:14-16; 16:19-21; Ezekiel 16:53,55,61, God will turn the
captivity of Sodom and her daughters; Amos 9:11; Habakkuk 2:14; compare Psalms 22:27-
31; 65:2,5; 86:9). These events, in prophetic speech, belong to "the latter days" (Isaiah
2:2; Jeremiah 48:47; Ezekiel 38:16; Hosea 3:5; Micah 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 (Daniel 2:44,45; compare Daniel
7:27). The kingdom is given by the Ancient of Days to one "like unto a son of man" (Daniel
7:13). Haggai and Zechariah, the post-exilian prophets, share in these glowing hopes (Haggai
2:6,7; Zechariah 2:10; 8:20-23; 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. (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
(Malachi 4).

2. Judgment beyond Death:

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 (65:17; 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. 96:13; 98:9; compare 50), sometimes on individuals
(e.g. 1:5), but it is doubtful if any of them look beyond earth. Yet many things combined to force
this problem on the attention.

(1) Incompleteness of Moral Administration.

There was the sharpening of the sense of individual responsibility in the prophetic age
(Jeremiah 31:29,30; Ezekiel 18:2), 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 (compare \JOB, BOOK OF\).

(2) Prosperity of Wicked.

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; 17; 37; 49;
73, etc.). The solution they found was that the prosperity of the wicked did not endure. It came
to a sudden end (Psalms 37:35,36; 73:18-20), while the righteous had a sure compensation in
the future (Psalms 17:15; 49:15; 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.
(3) Suffering of Righteous with Wicked.

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.

3. Retribution beyond Death:

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 (Deuteronomy 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 Ecclesiastes 11:9;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, inDaniel 12:2,
which likewise implies judgment. Perhaps a hint of the same idea is given inIsaiah 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 Isaiah
50:11(op. cit., 158). It is the same word "abhorrence" (dera'on), found in the above passage,
which is rendered in Daniel 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.

\V. Later Jewish Conceptions--Apocryphal, Apocalyptic, Rabbinical.

1. Sources:

The sources of our knowledge of the eschatological conceptions among the Jews in the
immediately pre-Christian period are:

(1) Apocrypha.

The books of the Old Testament Apocrypha (see APOCRYPHA), taken over, with the
exception of 2 Esdras, from the Septuagint. 2 Esdras, better known as 4 Esdras, is more
properly classed with the apocalyptic writings. The original work consists only of chapters 3-14,
with a passage in chapter 7 not found in the ordinary version. The book is post-Christian (circa
80-96 AD).

(2) Apocalyptic Literature.

(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 37-70. 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

(3) Rabbinical Writings.

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).

2. Description of Views:

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.

(1) Less Definite Conceptions.

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; 41:3,1, etc.; a somewhat different note is heard in 21:10). It is the same in
Baruch (2:17) and Tobit (3:6). In 1 Macc we have simply the Old Testament phrases, "gathered
to his fathers" (2:69), "gathered to his people" (14:30). In the Book of Wisdom, the influence of
Greek ideas is seen in a doctrine of the immortality of the soul only (2:23; 3:1-4; 4:13,14; 15:3;
not a resurrection), possibly of pre- existence (8:20). The wicked suffer punishment in Sheol
(3:1-10; 5:1-14, etc.).

(2) Ideas of Sheol.

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 (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 (17:2). The righteous are in Paradise--"the garden of life" (61:12),
"the garden of righteousness" (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; 2 Macc 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., 261).

(3) The Fallen Angels.

Much prominence in the Book of Enoch is given to the fallen angels (those who sinned with
women, Genesis 6:2). They are consigned in the judgment to ever-burning fire (En 21:1-6;
90:20-25).

(4) Resurrection.

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). 2
Macc dwells much on the resurrection, which seems to embrace all Israel (3:16; 13:9;
7:9,14,23, etc.). For the Gentiles there is no resurrection (7:14,36). In Enoch 90:38, the bodies
of the righteous are described as "transformed" in the resurrection (compare in the
"Similitudes," 39:7; 51:4; 62:15). The doctrine of the resurrection (universal) is taught in the
Apocrypha Baruch 30:2-5; 50; 51, and in 4 Esdras 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.

(5) Judgment.

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" (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.

The Messiah:

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 (39; 40) and in 4 Esdras (13:32) the appearance of Messiah is
associated with the overthrow and judgment of the ungodly worldly powers; in the older
portions of 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 37-70, 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" (38:2; 53:6), "the Elect One" (40:5; 45:3,4, etc.),
above all, "the Son of Man" (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. 4 Esdras has
the extraordinary notion that, after a reign of 400 years, the Messiah dies (7:28,29). God in this
case is the judge.

(6) The Messianic Age and the Gentiles.

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 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.
(7) Rabbinical Ideas.

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).

\LITERATURE\.

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.

WHAT DOES YOUR FREE WILL

OFFERING DO?

Your offering gets us one step closer to our goal of transforming

100,000 Christians into God glorifying leaders all over the world
in the next 10 years.And yet…Amazingly, some think that’s
a ridiculous idea for such a small school.No matter…
We KNOW the struggle is possible with God’s help through your
offering.
And we have been blown away by the support and generosity.
The staggering number of offerings gives us more and more
reasons to meekly raise our hands to God in praise.
Thank you for your offering today!

YOU CAN MAIL YOUR DONATION TO:

Christian Leaders Institute
700 Washington Ave Suite 260
Grand Haven, Michigan 49417
Phone Number 616-777-0305
Office Hours are from Monday – Friday 800 (8:00 am) – 1500
(3:00 pm) USA Eastern Time
CLI is a registered 501c3 non-profit organization. All donations are
tax-deductible.

GOD’S BLESSING TO YOU!