Retribution

RETRIBUTION.—We shall understand by this word the operation of the Divine justice, rewarding and punishing, in this world and the next. (For human justice see art. Vengeance).

1. The doctrine in our Lord’s time.—As is well known, the primitive religious consciousness of the Jews expected earthly happiness to correspond strictly to merit and demerit. Facts made it impossible to hold such a theory, and we have the problem of the Divine justice as it is raised in the Psalms, Job, etc. The remarkable thing is that the next life is not, at least with any consistency of belief, called in to redress the balance of this (see, e.g., Kirkpatrick, Psalms, p. xciv.). Later Jewish thought, developing the doctrine of immortality, found in it the natural answer to the problem, as in the opening chapters of the Book of Wisdom. But the conception of recompense moved mainly on external lines; the rewards and punishments which did not come in this life were expected in the next, or in a Golden Age on earth. And so in our Lord’s day—

‘The religious relation between God and His people was a legal one, upheld by God as righteous Judge, in the way of service and counterservice, reward and punishment.’ Pious Jews here and there might remember that forgiveness and free grace were part of the character of Jahweh, ‘but with most Jews this mode of view was overshadowed by the legalistic conception, whereby every act of obedience was regarded as having an exact recompense, and every blessing to be obtained as requiring previous service.’ ‘Desiring to earn a Divine reward, and as great reward as possible, they sought to practise a strict legal righteousness, and, wherever possible, to exceed what the law demanded. But yet again, anxious to attain that reward on the easiest possible terms, they wished to do no more than was absolutely necessary for attaining their purpose’ (Wendt, Teaching of Jesus, i. p. 39 ff.).

The charge that religion is only an enlightened selfishness, is valid against this position and the popular conception of Christianity. The object of this article will be to show that it is not valid as against the teaching of Christ.

2. The teaching of Christ.—(1) He showed once for all that there is no invariable connexion between individual suffering and sin in this world. The Heavenly Father bestows His gifts on evil and good alike (Mat 5:45, Luk 6:35). Luk 13:1 ff. is decisive on this point. (‘Ye shall all in like manner perish’ refers to the special doom of the Jewish nation, and falls under the exception mentioned below). It is true there may be a connexion between suffering and sin, but it is undefined (Mat 9:2, Joh 5:14), and it must not be assumed in any given case (Joh 9:3). There are in the Gospels no ‘poetic justice’ parables, no limelight scenes of sensational punishments of evil-doers or dramatic vindication of virtue. There is no hint of any special doom on the Herods, Pilate, or the priests as individuals (cf. per contra Act 12:20). Judas is an exception, though Christ Himself never speaks of his punishment in this world. The treatment of nations and cities is also an exception (Jerusalem [Mat 21:43; Mat 23:35, Luk 19:41-44], Chorazin, etc. [Mat 10:15; Mat 11:20]). The life of the nation or city is long enough to show the inevitable results of moral decay. Further, all desire for personal vengeance now is forbidden (Sermon on the Mount, Luk 9:51 ff.). There is nothing of the spirit of the imprecatory Psalms or the Apocalyptic literature.* [Note: An exception is Luk 18:7, which is closely akin to Rev 6:10 and to the frequent prayers for vengeance which meet us in Enoch. But the vengeance in this passage is that of the Last Day, and is part of the final consummation, which is the real object to which the prayers of the elect are directed.]

The clearest and most decisive proof of the truth we are considering is Christ’s own death and the sufferings and persecutions promised to His followers. Suffering may be a mark of God’s love no less than of His anger (cf. Hebrews 12); the grain of wheat must die to bring forth fruit (Joh 12:24), therefore death and all that leads to it cannot be regarded as retributive. The cup of suffering which the disciple drinks is the cup of Christ, not the wine of the wrath of God.

(2) Christ teaches equally decisively the fact of retribution in the next world, and uses freely the language of reward and punishment. The doctrine of personal responsibility is indeed fundamental to Christianity, and it is necessary to refer to only a few typical passages: Parables (Mat 13:24; Mat 18:23; Mat 22:2; Mat 22:25, Luk 12:16; Luk 12:16), Rewards (Mat 19:28, Luk 14:14), Punishments (Mat 5:26; Mat 10:28; Mat 12:36, Mar 9:42; Mar 14:21, Joh 5:29).

(3) Retribution is to the character rather than to the act, and is automatic. ‘Every act rewards itself, or, in other words, integrates itself, in a two-fold manner; first, in the thing, or in real nature; and secondly, in the circumstance, or in apparent nature. Men call the circumstance the retribution. The causal retribution is in the thing, and is seen by the soul’ (Emerson, Essay on ‘Compensation’). The truth is seen most clearly in the Fourth Gospel. Life is the result of faith in Christ and of the knowledge of God (Joh 3:18; Joh 5:24; Joh 17:3). Judgment is immediate, the self-inflicted result of wilful blindness, and of the rejection of the message of life (Joh 3:19, Joh 8:24, Joh 12:48). At the same time this is no purely abstract law; behind it is the personal God, and the Son to whom judgment is committed (Joh 5:22); see Westcott, St. John, p. xlviii. So in the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, ‘the gulf’ is the character* [Note: The name ‘Lazarus’ (‘God has helped’)—the only name given in a parable—must be intended to be significant of character, no less than the names in the Pilgrim’s Progress.] which has been formed on earth and is unalterable. The spiritual condition of the two cannot be altered by a mere change of place. In the parables of the Talents and the Pounds, neglect of opportunity brings unfitness for trust; use of opportunity automatically opens the door to the reward of greater opportunity. The cutting down of the fig-tree is the inevitable doom of its barrenness (Luk 13:6; cf. Mar 11:13 and the teaching of the Baptist, Mat 3:10). The same principle is seen in the blindness men bring on themselves (Mat 6:22; Mat 13:12), and if the blind lead the blind, they must fall into the ditch (Mat 15:14). The measure we receive is in the nature of things the counterpart of that which we give to others (Mat 7:2), the judgment the counterpart of our judgment, God’s forgiveness of our forgiveness (Mat 6:14). The house must stand or fall according to the foundation on which it is built (Mat 7:24-27).

Accordingly, acts have their results rather than their rewards, and the idea of ‘the punisher’ tends to disappear.

‘It is well to remember that infliction from without, by another, so far from being an essential element in all thought of punishment, tends more and more completely to disappear, as having no longer even an accidental place, in those deeper realities of punishment which human punishments do but outwardly symbolize. The more we discern their process and character, the more profoundly do we recognize that the punishments of God are what we should call self-acting. There is nothing in them that is arbitrary, imposed, or in any strict propriety of the word, inflicted. As death is the natural consummation of mortal disease, not as an arbitrary consequence inflicted by one who resented the mortal disease, but as its own inherent and inevitable climax; so what is called the judgment of God upon sin is but the gradual necessary development, in the consistent sinner, of what sin inherently is’ (Moberly, Atonement and Personality, p. 15).

It is from this point of view alone that we can harmonize the fact of forgiveness with that of judgment or retribution. So long as we look on the latter as the inevitable result of acts considered each on its merits, there can be no room for forgiveness, or at least it appears as an arbitrary interference with law. As soon as we realize that both have to do with character, the difficulty largely disappears. Our retribution depends on character. Forgiveness affects the character, being bound up with μετάνοια, the change of character. The dying thief may have lived a life of sin; under the attraction of the grace of Christ, his whole self experiences a change, and so his future can be changed too. The woman who loves much finds the sins of her past forgiven because she has become a new creature. The unmerciful servant finds his old debt back upon him, because the conditional forgiveness of his master has not touched his character.* [Note: The significance of the truth may best be emphasized by a contrast. Buddhism, strictly interpreted, leaves no loophole for forgiveness. Its doctrine of Karma is that every act has its. strict and inevitable resultant in another existence, either by transmigration, or in heaven or hell. This effect depends on the act per se, and has nothing to do with the character. The embryo-Buddha in one of his existences destroyed a widow’s, hut in a fit of temper. Though he repented and built her a better house, and had performed innumerable other good deeds, yet for this he suffered in hell for eighty thousand years.]

(4) Christ spiritualized the conception of reward and punishment.—Reward consists not in having certain things, but in seeing God. It is the result of character and the fruition of character. Punishment is the leaving of the self to be identified with sin, and so to depart from Christ into the outer darkness which is separation from God. Again we refer to the Johannine conception of life (Joh 17:3). In the Synoptics, happiness is connected with the Kingdom, as particularly in the Beatitudes; it consists of treasure in heaven (Mat 6:20, Mar 10:21). Specially significant is Luk 10:20; the main cause of rejoicing to the disciples is not the possession of exceptional powers, but the knowledge that their names are written in heaven. All centres round the personal relation of the believer to Christ (Matthew 25, Luk 12:8). And this happiness is enjoyed even now; the believer has life (Joh 3:36 etc.). He enjoys the good things of this life, not as specific rewards for good actions, but as gifts of the love of God which he has fitted himself to use (Mat 6:33). There can indeed be no thought of a claim against God (Luk 17:7; Luk 6:35). We cannot appear as litigants before His judgment-seat.

Accordingly we may say that Christ destroyed the distinction which existed in the Jewish thought of His time, and which still exists in popular ethics, between rewards in this world and the next. If men know where to find their happiness, how to seek for their reward, they have it now, just as the retribution of the evil conscience is immediate. Only this happiness will be a personal possession of the soul; it may be accompanied by trouble and persecution in the world (Mar 10:30, Joh 16:2; Joh 16:33). The believer must not look for the twelve legions of angels to vindicate him; none the less he will know the peace of Christ, and his joy will be fulfilled even here and now. The Beatitudes and the section on the rewards of discipleship (Mar 10:29) are particularly instructive on this point.^{† [Note: It is obvious to compare Plato, Republic, x., on rewards, of the δίκαιος.]}

To sum up, Christ did not so much change the place and time of happiness as alter its conception. He transformed the idea of retribution, connecting it not with the isolated act, but with the permanent character which lies behind the act. To find His deepest teaching we must go to the Fourth Gospel and to kindred sayings in the Synoptics. Few will dispute this method, whatever be our ultimate view of the nature of the Fourth Gospel. It is, of course, perfectly true that Christ uses more popular language without scruple, as all teachers must. He appeals to the fear of punishment, and speaks of many and few stripes (Luk 12:47). He figures the blessedness of the Kingdom under the current image of a feast (Mat 22:2, Luk 14:15), and He uses freely the motive of reward (Mat 6:1-34; Mat 10:41; Mat 19:28, Luk 6:23; Luk 14:12); He even speaks as though it were the conscious motive of humility (Luk 14:7-11). We must interpret such language in the light of His profounder teaching. Even so, some have found it a fault that the thought of reward does not entirely disappear. Religion should be so completely unselfish that all thought of self should be eliminated. The connexion of virtue with the desire for happiness is one of the ultimate problems of Ethics, and cannot be fully treated here. But this we may say. The claim of extreme altruism must fail because it ignores personality (Gore, Sermon on the Mount, ch. vi.). We cannot think ourselves away. We can cease to look for our own happiness in our own shortsighted manner, at the expense of others, apart from God. We can come to identify our own ends with God’s purpose for the world, but we cannot dismiss the hope that in the realization of that purpose we shall find our own happiness, that when the Kingdom comes we shall see it and have our place in it. In one sense we learn to do good, hoping for nothing again; or else in seeking to save our life we shall lose it. And yet in the background there is always the consciousness that in losing our life for Christ’s sake, we do in the fuller sense find it. In this paradox is summed up the teaching of Christ and the NT. See also Reward.

Literature.—Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible , art. ‘Eschatology’; Wendt, Teaching of Jesus (esp. i. pp. 39 ff. and 210 ff.); B. Weiss, Bibl. Theol. of NT; Moberly, Atonement and Personality (chs. i. to iii.); Du Bose, Gospel in the Gospels; Froude, Essay on ‘Job’; Emerson, Essay on ‘Compensation’; J. Drummond, Via, Veritas, Vita (1894), 269; A. T. Ormond, Concepts of Philosophy (1906), 533; C. A. Row, Future Retribution (1887); J. A. Beet, The Last Things (1905), 1; J. M. Schulhof, The Law of Forgiveness (1901), 94.

C. W. Emmet.

ret-ri-bū´shun:

1.    New Testament Terms

2.    A Revelation of Wrath as Well as Grace

3.    Witness of Natural Theology

4.    Retribution the Natural Consequence of Sin

5.    Also the Positive Infliction of Divine Wrath

6.    Instances of Use of Orge and Thumos

7.    Instances of Use of Greek Words for “Vengeance”

8.    Words Meaning “Chastisement” Not Used of the Impenitent

9.    Judgment Implies Retribution

10.    Moral Sense Demands Vindication of God’s Righteousness

11.    Scripture Indicates Certainty of Vindication

LITERATURE

1. New Testament Terms:

The word as applied to the divine administration is not used in Scripture, but undoubtedly the idea is commonly enough expressed. The words which come nearest to it are ὀργή, orgḗ, and θυμός, thumós wrath attributed to God; ἐκδικέω, ekdikéō, ἐκδίκησις, ekdı́kēsis, ἔκδικος, ékdikos, and δίκη, dı́kē, all giving the idea of vengeance; κόλασις, kólasis, and τιμωρία, timōrı́a, “punishment”; besides krino, and its derivatives, words expressive of judgment.

2. A Revelation of Wrath as Well as Grace:

Romans 2 is full of the thought of retribution. The apostle, in Rom 2:5, Rom 2:6, comes very near to using the word itself, and gives indeed a good description of the thing: the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, “who will render to every man according to his works.” It is well in approaching the subject to remind ourselves that there is undoubtedly, as the apostle says, a Revelation of wrath. We are so accustomed to think of the gracious revelation which the gospel brings us, and to approach the subject of the doom of the impenitent under the influence of the kindly sentiments engendered thereby, and with a view of God’s gracious character as revealed in salvation, that we are apt to overlook somewhat the sterner facts of sin, and to misconceive the divine attitude toward the impenitent sinner. It is certainly well that we should let the grace of the gospel have full influence upon all our thinking, but we must beware of being too fully engrossed with one phase of the divine character. It is an infirmity of human nature that we find it difficult to let two seemingly conflicting conceptions find a place in our thought. We are apt to surrender ourselves to the sway of one or the other of them according to the pressure of the moment.

3. Witness of Natural Theology:

Putting ourselves back into the position of those who have only the light of natural theology, we find that all deductions from the perfections of God, as revealed in His works, combined with a consideration of man’s sin and want of harmony with the Holy One, lead to the conclusion announced by the apostle: “The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men” (Rom 1:18). Wrath implies punishment, punishment is decreed, punishment is denounced. The word of God but confirms the verdict which conscience forecasts. Nature teaches that punishment, retribution, must follow sin. Within the sphere of physical law this is clearly exemplified. No breach of the so-called laws of Nature is tolerated. Strictly speaking, the laws of Nature cannot be broken, but let a man fail to keep in harmony with them, and the natural consequences will be trouble, punishment, retribution. Harmony with law is blessing; collision with law is loss. Thus law in Nature “worketh wrath” to the neglecters of it. Punishment necessarily results. So we may well expect that in the higher sphere, God’s moral laws cannot be neglected or violated with impunity, and Scripture fully justifies the expectation and shows that sin must be punished. All things considered, the fact of punishment for sinners need not surprise; the fact of pardon is the surprising thing. The surprise of pardon has ceased to surprise us because we are so familiar with the thought. We know the “how” of it because of the revelation of grace. Grace, however, saves on certain conditions, and there is no such thing known in Scripture as indiscriminate, necessary, universal grace. It is only from the Bible that we know of the salvation by grace. That same revelation shows that the grace does not come to all, in the sense of saving all; though, of course, it may be considered as presented to all. Those who are not touched and saved by grace remain shut up in their sins. They are, and must be, in the nature of the case, left to the consequences of their sins, with the added guilt of rejecting the offered grace. “Except ye believe that I am he,” said Incarnate Grace, “ye shall die in your sins” (Joh 8:24).

4. Retribution the Natural Consequence of Sin:

Another conclusion we may draw from the general Scriptural representation is that the future retribution is one aspect of the natural consequence of sin, yet it is also in another aspect the positive infliction of Divine wrath. It is shown to be the natural outcome of sin in such passages as “Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap” (Gal 6:7); “He that soweth unto his own flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption” (Gal 6:8). It is not without suggestiveness that the Hebrew word ‛āwōn means both iniquity and punishment, and when Cain said “My punishment is greater than I can bear” (Gen 4:13), he really said “My iniquity is greater than I can bear”; his iniquity became his punishment. A due consideration of this thought goes a long way toward meeting many of the objections brought against the doctrine of future punishment.

5. Also the Positive Infliction of Divine Wrath:

The other statement, however, remains true and must be emphasized, that there is an actual infliction of Divine wrath. All the great statements about the divine judgment imply this, and while it is wrong not to take account of the natural working out of sin in its terrible consequences, it is equally wrong, perhaps more so, to refuse to recognize this positive divine infliction of punishment. This, indeed, is the outstanding feature of retribution as it assumes form in Scripture. Even the natural consequences of sin, rightly viewed, are part of the divine infliction, since God, in the nature of things, has conjoined sin and its consequences, and part of the positive infliction is the judicial shutting up of the sinner to the consequences of his sin. So in the case of Cain, his iniquity became his punishment, inasmuch as God sentenced him to bear the consequences of that iniquity. On the other hand, we might say that even the terribly positive outpourings of God’s wrath upon the sinner are the natural consequences of sin, since sin in its very nature calls down the divine displeasure. Indeed, these two phases of future punishment are so very closely connected that a right view of the matter compels us to keep both before us, and no full explanation of the punishment is possible when either phase is ignored.

6. Instances of the Use of Orge and Thumos:

The terms in Scripture applied to the doom of sinners all imply divine displeasure, punitive action, retribution. The two outstanding Greek words for “wrath,” orgē and thumos, are both freely applied to God. Orgē indicates settled displeasure, whereas thumos is rather the blazing out of the anger. The former is, as we should expect, more frequently applied to God, and, of course, all that is capricious and reprehensible in human wrath must be eliminated from the word as used of God. It indicates the settled opposition of His holy nature against sin. It was an affection found in the sinless Saviour Himself, for “he looked round about on them with anger” (Mar 3:5). In the Baptist’s warning “to flee from the wrath to come” (Mat 3:7; Luk 3:7), it is unquestionably the wrath of God that is meant, the manifestation of that being further described as the burning of the chaff with unquenchable fire (Mat 3:12). In Joh 3:36 it is said of the unbeliever that “the wrath of God” abideth on him. In Romans it is used at least 9 times in reference to God, first in Rom 1:18, the great passage we have already quoted about “the wrath of God revealed from heaven.” The connection is a suggestive one and is often overlooked. In the passage Paul has quite a chain of reasons; he is ready to preach the gospel at Rome for he is not ashamed of the gospel; he is not ashamed of the gospel for it is the power of God unto salvation; it is the “power of God” for therein is revealed the righteousness of God by faith; and this salvation by faith is a necessity “for the wrath of God is revealed,” etc. Thus the divine wrath on account of sin is the dark background of the gospel message. Had there been no such just wrath upon men, there had been no need for the divine salvation. The despising of God’s goodness by the impenitent means a treasuring up of “wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God” (Rom 2:3-5). God “visiteth with wrath” (Rom 3:5).

In Rom 4:15 the apostle shows that “the law worketh wrath” (i.e. brings down the divine displeasure), while in Rom 5:9 he shows that believers are saved from wrath - undoubted wrath of God. The other two instances are in Rom 9:22. Men are “by nature children of wrath” (Eph 2:3); surely not “wrathful children,” but liable to the wrath of God, and because of evil deeds cometh “the wrath of God upon the sons of disobedience” (Eph 5:6; Col 3:6). Christ “delivereth us from the wrath to come” (1Th 1:10); wrath has come upon the opposing Jews (1Th 2:16); but believers are not appointed unto wrath (1Th 5:9). With all these specific passages in view, to say nothing of the general teaching of the apostle on the question of coming judgment and punishment, it is utterly impossible to eliminate the idea of the divine displeasure against sinners, and His consequent retributive action toward them. Even Ritschl, who absolutely denies the great principle of retribution, of positive displeasure, admits that Paul teaches it; hence, the only way for him out of the difficulty is to reject Paul’s teaching as unauthoritative. Other references to the “wrath of God” are in Heb 3:11; Heb 4:3; and 6 passages in the Apocalypse - Rev 6:16 f; Rev 11:18; Rev 14:10; Rev 16:19; Rev 19:15. Two of these refer to the “wrath of the Lamb,” one of the most terrible phrases in the whole of the New Testament. Thumos is only used in the Apocalypse concerning God (Rev 14:10-19; Rev 15:1-7; 16:1-19; Rev 19:15). In each case it refers to the manifestation, the blazing forth of the wrath; in the last two passages it is used in combination with orgē, and is rendered “fierceness,” the fierceness of His wrath.

7. Instances of Use of Greek Words for “Vengeance”:

Ekdikeō, which means to avenge, is twice used of God (Rev 6:10; Rev 19:2); and ekdikēsis, “vengeance,” 6 times Luk 18:7 ff; Rom 12:19; 2Th 1:8; Heb 10:30). In the first two instances it is used by Jesus concerning the divine action; ekdikos, “avenger,” occurs once in application to God (1Th 4:6); dikē, “judgment” or “vengeance” is twice used of God (2Th 1:9; Jud 1:7). The use of these terms shows that the punishment inflicted on sinful men is strictly punishment of the vindicatory sort, the vindication of outraged justice, the infliction of deserved penalty. Very significant is the passage in 2Th 1:6, “It is a righteous thing with God to recompense affliction to them that afflict you.” There is no question of bettering the offender.

8. Words Meaning “Chastisement” Not Used of the Impenitent:

It is very remarkable that the terms in Greek which would carry the meaning of punishment for the good of the offender are never used in the New Testament of the infliction which comes upon the impenitent; these are paideı́a and paideúō, and they are frequently used of the “chastisement” of believers, but not of the impenitent. It is often claimed that the word kolasis used in Mat 25:46 carries the meaning of chastisement for the improvement of the offender, but although Aristotle, in comparing it with timōria, may seem to suggest that it is meant for the improvement of the offender (what he really says is that it is toú páschontos héneka, “on account of the one suffering it,” “has the punished one in view,” whereas timōria is toú poioúntos, “on account of the one inflicting” “that he may be satisfied”), the usage even in classical Greek is predominantly against making the supposed distinction. Both words are used interchangeably by the leading classical authors, including Aristotle himself, and kolasis is continually employed where no thought of betterment can be in question, while all admit that in Hellenistic Greek the distinction is not maintained, and in any case timōria is also used of the punishment of the sinner (Heb 10:29).

9. Judgment Implies Retribution:

All the representations of the coming day of judgment tell of the fact of retribution, and Christ Himself distinctly asserts it. Apart from His great eschatological discourses, concerning which criticism still hesitates and stammers, we have the solemn close of the Sermon on the Mount, and the pregnant statement of Mat 16:27, “The Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then shall he render unto every man according to his deeds,” and all the apostolic teaching upon the solemn theme is but the unfolding of the same great thought.

10. Moral Sense Demands Vindication of God’s Righteousness:

The conception of God as a perfect moral governor demands that His righteousness shall be fully vindicated. Looking at the course of history as it unfolds itself before us, we cannot fail to be struck with the anomalies which are presented. Righteousness does not always triumph, goodness is often put to shame, wickedness appears to be profitable, and wicked men often prosper while good men are under a cloud. Sometimes signal divine interpositions proclaim that God is indeed on the side of righteousness, but too often it seems as if He were unmindful, and men are tempted to ask the old question, “How doth God know? And is there knowledge in the Most High?” (Psa 73:11), while the righteous say in their distress, “Yahweh, how long shall the wicked, how long shall the wicked triumph?” (Psa 94:3). The moral sense cries out for some divine vindication, and the Scriptures, in harmony with this feeling, indicate that the final judgment will bring such vindication.

11. Scripture Indicates Certainty of Vindication:

In the Old Testament it is frequently presented as the solution of the baffling problems which beset the ethical sphere, as for instance in that fine utterance of religious philosophy in Ps 73; the Psalmist has before him all the puzzling elements of the problem; the prosperity, the insolent and aggressive prosperity of the wicked, the non-success, the oppression, the misery of the righteous; he is well-nigh overwhelmed by the contemplation, and nearly loses his footing on the eternal verities, until he carries the whole problem into the light of God’s presence and revelation, and then he understands that the end will bring the true solution.

So too the somber ruminations of the Preacher upon the contradictions arid anomalies and mysteries of human life, “under the sun,” close in the reflection which throws its searchlight upon all the blackness: “This is the end of the matter:... Fear God, and keep his commandments; for this is the whole duty of man. For God will bring every work into judgment, with every hidden thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil” (Ecc 12:13 f). In the light of the same truth, the apostles labored, believing that when the Lord comes He “will both bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and make manifest the counsels of the hearts” (1Co 4:5). The more fully the subject is considered, the more we must feel that for the vindication of righteousness, the justification of the divine procedure, the rectification of wrongs, the explanation of mysteries, the reward and triumph of the righteous and the confession and punishment of the wicked, a great final, retributive judgment is Scriptural, reasonable, necessary.

Literature.

See the articles on PUNISHMENT, EVERLASTING; JUDGMENT; SHEOL, etc., and the works cited there.

See Vengeance.