Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament
Day of Judgment
DAY OF JUDGMENT
i. In the teaching of Jesus.—1. The Day of Judgment is one of the concepts inherited by Jesus. Its origin is to be sought in the religious belief, common to practically all primitive peoples, in a tribal deity who would punish the enemies of the tribe. This elemental concept gained varied forms in the development of different peoples. In some cases it was never carried over into the field of individual ethics, and in others it shared in the moral growth of its possessors. In the case of the Hebrews it is to be seen in the ‘Day of Jahweh,’ which formed so large and important an element of the prophetic message. In its earliest forms the expectation of this day involved simply the punishment of the enemies of Israel by Jahweh the God of the nation. As the moral content of prophetism developed, however, this punishment inflicted by Jahweh was foretold to include the punishment of the Hebrew nation. Amos and the great prophets who succeeded him warned a luxurious nation that it had grown guilty and degenerate, and would be destroyed as an indication of Jahweh’s righteousness (Amos 2:6-8; Amos 3:9-15; Amos 5:10-13; Amos 6:4-8). After Amos the Day of Jahweh never lost its religious colouring, but its use was extended until it included in its scope not only wicked Israel but a wicked world (Zephaniah 1:2-18; Zephaniah 2:4-15; Zephaniah 3:8; Zephaniah 3:14-20). Ezekiel conceived of it as a day of battle in which Jahweh would conquer Israel’s foes (Ezekiel 30:2 ff; Ezekiel 34:12; Ezekiel 39:8 ff.); but Malachi foretold the fearful punishment of all the wicked, Jews and Gentiles alike. It was this extension of punishment, and the increase in the number of the condemned, that gave particular force to the idea of the remnant which was to be saved.
Obviously the formal concept here is that of the Oriental monarch who establishes a court of justice, and decrees rewards and punishment. Jahweh was never conceived of by the prophets in terms of natural law, but always in terms of this analogy. In fact it would be probably truer to say that the monarchical concept of God was not an analogy but something more. It was this concept which conditioned teaching as to punishment throughout the entire Biblical period. Subsequent to the prophetic era, under the influence of Persian dualism, there was a marked tendency to extend the range of judgment to nature as well as to men, and the God who sat upon the throne was more than a mere national deity judging the enemy of a particular people. This extension of the idea is to be found in the apocalypses, which in so many ways lie behind the Judaism current in the time of Jesus. In these apocalypses the Day of Judgment became one of the most essential elements in the Messianic scheme. The Day of Judgment of Messianism is the prophet’s Day of Jahweh given new content by the appropriation of certain elements from the cosmic myths of Babylon, and new colour because of the new literary vehicle, the apocalypse. As a part of the more highly developed Messianism, it sometimes ceased to represent a single judicial act on the part of the sovereign Deity, and with something like a recurrence to the picture of Ezekiel, came to stand for the period of struggle in which the Messiah was to overcome and punish the enemies of a righteous nation. In its new form the thought of the day became increasingly transcendental, and joined to itself the idea of hell newly derived from the older belief in Sheol. In fact it would be difficult to understand the full force of the Day of Judgment, as it appeared both in Jewish and Christian literature, without reference to the fate of the dead. In the place of a penalty consisting of national punishment, there grew up during the Greek period of Jewish history a tolerably elaborate belief as to punishment inflicted upon individuals after death. It is difficult to know just when this idea of hell as a place of punishment, as over against Sheol as the abode of the disembodied dead, was first brought into relation with the Day of Judgment, but by the time of the apocalyptists we find the correlation complete (Ethiopic Enoch 27:2, 3, 48:9, 54:1, 2, 62:12, 13, 90:26, 27). In fact the punishment inflicted upon men is distinctly recognized as adjusted to the conditions of their life in Ethiopic Enoch 22:1–14.
Thus the Day of Judgment as a form of the Day of Jahweh became the central point in Messianic eschatology and the nomistic morality of Judaism. Different teachers elaborated its details in different ways, but, by the time Judaism was fairly developed, the Day of Judgment was conceived of as involving the examination of the records of each individual (Daniel 7:10). More or less literally, books were believed to be kept in heaven, generally by one of the seven angels, in which the deeds of men were recorded (Ethiopic Enoch 89:61, 90:14–22, Ascens. Isaiah 9:21). In the final assize these books were opened and balanced, and the future of the individual was determined according to the preponderance of his good or evil deeds (Ethiopic Enoch 51:52, 15, 89:61ff., 90:17, 20, pirke Aboth 3:24, Ascens. Isaiah 9:22; cf. Luke 10:20, Revelation 3:5; Revelation 13:8; Revelation 17:8; Revelation 20:15; Revelation 21:27). The difficulty in such a mechanical basis of judgment was to some degree mitigated by the introduction of something approaching the later doctrine of supererogation, by which the merit of the patriarchs could be transferred to the Jews. This particular doctrine, however, it is difficult to trace distinctly in the days of Jesus, although later the transfer of merits from the patriarchs is distinctly recognized. From this idea of the assize, in which sentences were formally passed by the judge, arose the two opposing concepts of condemnation and acquittal. These two concepts are the two foci of much of the NT teaching concerning the outcome of conduct.
While Jesus opposed the mercantile conception of rewards and punishment, the Day of Judgment occupied a central position in His teaching. With Him as with all men of the prophetic type, the Judgment stretched across the horizon of human destiny. No action in life was morally neutral. A man would give account at the Judgment for the very words which he spoke (Matthew 12:36). It was through the outcomes of life that Jesus estimated conduct, and these outcomes converged into what the Gospels designate the consummation of the age; that is, the great catastrophe in which the present evil age comes to a close and the new Messianic age begins.
2. The terms which the Gospels represent Jesus as using to indicate the Day of Judgment are various.
(a) Sometimes the great event which would determine the final destinies of men is called expressly ‘the day of judgment’ (Matthew 10:15; Matthew 11:22; Matthew 11:24; Matthew 12:36), or more simply ‘the judgment’ (Matthew 5:21-22; Matthew 12:41-44). These two terms are essentially the same.
(b) In one instance (Matthew 11:22-23) the ‘judgment of Gehenna’ is mentioned, but this refers not so much to the Judgment-day itself as to the punishment inflicted upon hypocrites and sinners (cf. Matthew 5:22).
(c) Parallel with these terms is ‘that day’ (Matthew 7:22, Mark 13:32, cf. Matthew 24:42; Matthew 26:29, Luke 10:12). It is in this term that the day is described in the apocalypse of Mark (cf. Mark 12:40), for the Second Gospel does not use the term ‘the day of judgment.’ Possibly the same reference is to be found in the sayings of Jesus recorded in John 16:23-26. See Day (That).
(d) ‘The day of the Son of Man’ as a precise expression is found only in Luke 17:24-30, where the thought of Judgment is immediately related to the eschatological reappearance of Jesus as Christ. A similar, although not a precise, reference is to be found in other passages speaking of the Parousia, notably Mark 13:26; Mark 14:62 and their parallels.
(e) ‘The last day’ is a favourite expression of the Fourth Gospel, to denote the day on which men were to be raised from the dead (John 6:39; John 6:44; John 6:54; John 11:24). That this day of resurrection is to be identified with the Day of Judgment appears not only from the entire drift of the Messianic expectation current in the time of Jesus, but also expressly in John 12:48.
3. The time of the Day of Judgment was not precisely fixed by Jesus, and in fact He is said to be ignorant concerning it (Mark 13:32); but the Gospels represent Him as announcing its coming before His contemporaries die (Mark 13:30; Mark 9:1 ||, Matthew 10:23, cf. John 21:20-23), and this was the expectation of the Apostolic Church in general. Notwithstanding the indefiniteness of its coming, the day is one for which all should be watching (Mark 13:33; Mark 13:35; Mark 13:37; Mark 14:38, Luke 12:38; Luke 21:36), and its nearness can be argued from the signs of the times (Matthew 16:3) as well as from various portents described in the phraseology of prophecy and apocalyptic.
Whether Jesus Himself regarded the Judgment-day as involving the fall of Jerusalem, or whether He regarded the inevitable destruction of the Jewish State as one of the foreruoners of the Judgment, will remain a matter of dispute until the critical composition of Mark 13 is more precisely fixed. On the whole, however, in view of Jesus’ forecast of the punishment to come upon the Jewish people both to Galilee and in Jerusalem, it seems probable that He did in some precise way correlate the fall of Jerusalem with the eschatological Judgment. But it would be a serious mistake to regard that destruction of Jerusalem as exhausting the content of His expectation of His Parousia. The punishment inflicted was to be universal, not Jewish. Had the disciples regarded the fall of Jerusalem as in any true sense the Judgment of the Parousia, it is inconceivable that the Fourth Gospel and the other portions of the NT written subsequent to a.d. 70 should have given no hint of such interpretation. to them as in the Synoptics the Judgment is not a process but a single event, future, eschatological. At the same time it is to be borne in mind that the Fourth Gospel appreciates the truth to which attention must be presently called, namely, that while the Judgment is eschatological (John 5:22; John 5:27; John 5:29-30; John 16:8), a man does not need to wait until that event to fix his destiny. That is already determined by the acceptance or rejection of Jesus (John 3:18-19; John 12:31). Such passages as contain the teaching are, however, not to be interpreted as indicating a loss of belief in the coming of the Judgment-day as a point in time, but rather as the Johannine equivalent and supplement of the Apostolic doctrine of justification by faith.
4. The Judge is apparently to be Jesus Himself in His Messianic capacity (Matthew 13:30; Matthew 24:50; Matthew 25:12; Matthew 25:19; Matthew 25:31.). At the same time, in the Synoptics God is also referred to as Judge (Matthew 18:32; Matthew 20:8; Matthew 22:11, Luke 18:7). This double conception is to be found also in the apocalyptic literature, and is easily understood by reference to the representative character of the Messiah. In Luke 22:30 the Apostles are also regarded as judges in the case of the twelve tribes of Israel. This is a form of the belief in the judicial prerogatives of the saints which seems to have been current in the early Church (cf. 1 Corinthians 6:2-3), and may be inferred also from the request of the sons of Zebedee to occupy seats on the right and left of Jesus when He came in His kingdom (Matthew 20:21 || Mark 10:37). The Fourth Gospel represents Jesus as expressly denying (John 8:15; John 12:47), and also as affirming that He is the Judge (John 5:22; John 5:27; John 5:30; John 8:18). But such inconsistency can be resolved either by considering that Jesus at one time is thinking of His historical and at another of His eschatological duties, or by a reference to the general position of the Evangelist that the mission of the Christ in His historical ministry was for the purpose of salvation rather than for condemnation (John 3:16).
5. The subjects of the Judgment are men at large, with particular reference to those who have come in contact with the historical Jesus, including His disciples. The question as to whether those who never heard of Jesus are to be subject to this Judgment is not distinctly raised or settled in the Gospels, but the universality of the Judgment seems inevitable from Christ’s warnings, notably in the parable of the Tares (Matthew 13:24-30; Matthew 13:36-43; Matthew 13:47-50). These passages further indicate that at the Day of Judgment mankind will be gathered together before the Judgment-throne by the angels—a further utilization by Jesus of a conventional Messianic expectation.
6. The awards of the Judgment-day are: (a) for those who have accepted Him as Christ, eternal life, including the resurrection (Mark 9:47; Mark 10:17; Mark 12:25, Matthew 19:23-24; Matthew 25:46, John 5:29; John 6:39-40; John 6:44; John 6:54). (b) For the wicked the Judgment-day fixes the destiny of misery, which is described in a variety of figures, such as the Gebenna fire (Mark 9:47, Matthew 5:22), destruction (Matthew 10:28-29, Mark 8:36-37). The terror of the day is also forecast in the various portents with which it is to be ushered in, drawn from the figures of prophecy and apocalypse (Matthew 24:6; Matthew 24:8; Matthew 24:49, Mark 8:11).
7. There is a critical question as to whether many of these sayings concerning a Messianic Judgment-day may not be a reflexion of the Apostolic hope rather than the express teaching of Jesus. This is particularly true in the case of all passages quoted from Matthew 25:31-46. It is not possible, however, so to explain all the teaching contained in the Gospels. Objective criticism must decide that many, if not a great majority, of these sayings come from Jesus Himself. The only ground upon which they can be rejected as genuine logia is the dogmatic presupposition that Jesus was superior to, and independent of, current Messianism. Such a position is difficult, however, in view of the relation of Jesus to His times, and His undoubted expectation that He would return with completed Messianic dignity. It is an unsafe method of criticism which determines first what Jesus could or could not have said, and then makes this determination the critical criterion by which to decide His relation to the current of developing Messianism. His superiority to the apocalyptic expectation of His contemporaries is no more marked than His use of certain elements of their hope for the coming of the eschatological Messianic era. Yet it is to be borne in mind constantly that here, as in so much of the teaching of Jesus, a new content is given by Him to current vocabularies and concepts. The standards of judgment are no longer those of the apocalyptic writers. Ethnic prerogatives are swept away. A man’s destiny is to be settled not by his relation to Abraham, but by his relation to God. Not even those who called Him ‘Lord,’ but those who did God’s will, were to enter the kingdom of heaven. Care bestowed upon a poor disciple was an assurance of the bliss of heaven. Such a change of moral values carries Jesus over into something other than a mechanical doctrine of rewards and punishments and of statutory merit. Instead of a balancing of good deeds and bad, it is evident from both the Synoptics and the Fourth Gospel that He recognized in eternal life the summum bonum, which is quite other than the sensuous joys of Enoch and some of the Rabbis. Eternal life with Jesus is not an artificial reward, but rather the consummation of personality which is determined by faith and relationship with God, and includes the resurrection of the body. The Day of Judgment, however else it may be used by Jesus, is primarily a pedagogical point of contact with morals and religion. It is an integral point of His teaching, not in the sense that it was an opportunity for God to wreak vengeance upon the enemies of the Jews, but in that it expressed the outcome of life, which is always to be lived in view of an impending eternity. The imagery with which He clothes this fundamental idea is Jewish, and must be treated in the same method as all prophetic imagery. But in such treatment it is impossible to deny that Jesus distinctly teaches that the final destiny of mankind is a matter that lies beyond death, and is conditioned by one’s life before death. Any constructive use of the concept of the Day of Judgment, as it is described in the Gospels, is accordingly subject to the general considerations which must obtain in the constructive use of the entire Messianic scheme of Judaism as it appears in the NT. So far as Jesus Himself is concerned, this is one of the inevitable problems of His position as a revelation of God in terms of a historically conditioned individuality. The truth of Christianity in this, as in others of its phases, does not rise and fall with the finality of its expository and pedagogical concepts. Within the concept of the Day of Judgment lies the profound recognition on the part of Jesus of the fact that a man’s ultimate destiny will be fixed in accordance with the immutable laws of God. To be saved is something more than to win the blessings of an acquittal at the Judgment-day of Judaism. It is rather to possess a quality of life due to the soul’s relation with God through faith, which will eventuate in those blessed results which are pictured by the Gospels in terms of the apocalypse.
ii. In the teaching of the Apostles.—In the teaching of the Apostles the Day of Judgment has a position quite as central as in the teaching of Jesus. But even more important is it in what may be called their system of teaching. With them as with Jesus, the chief end of faith is the achievement of salvation, that is, eternal life; but their thought is more formally concentrated on the events of the great day. St. Paul draws out the logical relations of these elements more elaborately than any of the other NT writers, but it is easy to see that there is no radical difference at this point between him and them. All alike held that there was no escaping the Judgment of God (Romans 2:3, cf. Hebrews 9:27, Galatians 1:6 f., Galatians 2:6-9; Gal_2:15 f.).
1. The term ‘day of judgment’ does not occur in the Pauline teaching, and in fact only in 2 Peter and 1 John. The day is commonly denominated ‘the judgment,’ and even more frequently is referred to in specific phrases as ‘that day’ or ‘the day’ (1 Corinthians 3:13). With this must be identified also the ‘day of Christ,’ although the term has a somewhat wider connotation (See Day of Christ) (1 Corinthians 1:8; 1 Corinthians 5:5, 2 Corinthians 1:14, Philippians 1:6; Philippians 1:10; Philippians 2:16), or ‘day of the Lord’ (1 Thessalonians 5:2). In one or two instances also it is called ‘the great day’ (Judges 1:6, Revelation 6:17). The belief in the same great assize is to be seen lying behind the idea of condemnation (κρίμα) which is so frequently met with in the NT.
2. It is around this Day of Judgment, as one of the elements in the establishing of the Messianic era, that the ‘judgment’ of the Apostles continually circles. All of them referred to it as one of the things to be assumed as believed in by all Christians (Hebrews 6:2, κρίμα). It might seem strange to the heathen (Acts 17:31), but it was one of the elementary expectations of all Jews and proselytes. It was to come within the lifetime of men living during the first age, and its awards would be final for the eternity which then began. Its subjects were to be all mankind, as St. Paul elaborately argues in the opening chapters of Romans. They were to be both the living and the dead. This, of course, implies the bringing of the dead from Sheol, and therefore accounts for the exceptional expressions which speak of the ‘resurrection of judgment’ (John 5:29, cf. Acts 10:42, Revelation 20:12-13). Such a resurrection of the dead must be treated as something other than the acquisition of the body of the resurrection, which was to be a part of the great reward of the believer. In accordance with the apocalyptic literature, angels were also to be judged, and that, too, by the saints (1 Corinthians 6:2-3).
3. This universality of the Judgment lay at the bottom of much of the discussion concerning justification by faith. The Christians believed that they, as well as others, were to stand before the Judgment-seat of Christ to give an account of the deeds done in the body. The conditions of acquittal at the Judgment were conceived by the Jerusalem Church as including participation in the blessings promised exclusively to Jews as sons of Abraham. In the case of the party of the circumcision, at least, it was the belief of the Jerusalem Church that believing Jews and prosclytes alone were to be acquitted in the Day of Judgment. The Pauline position, that any one who had accepted Jesus as Christ was to be acquitted, was exposed to certain misapprehensions. On the one hand, St. Paul insisted that it was not necessary for those who believed in Jesus as Christ to be subject to the Law as a statutory enactment; on the other hand, he was aware that the Christian life was far enough from being in absolute conformity with the will of God. How then could believers hope to be acquitted? His reply is that they know they are to be acquitted because they have the Holy Spirit, the first instalment of the heritage of salvation. His answer to the consequent question why a man who no longer feared condemnation at the Judgment of God should be good, constitutes one of the most vital of his ethical teachings It amounts to this: Realize in conduct the moral possibilities of the regenerate self. His answer to the more particular question as to what should happen to erring Christians at the Judgment is equally profound. In 1 Corinthians 3:10 he argues that the foundation of faith in Jesus Christ must always abide, but that the building which each believer erects upon this foundation may be worthless. His figure clearly teaches that the Christian is subject to the Judgment as truly as any one else, and that although he will be given the body of the resurrection and the other blessings of salvation, he will also suffer certain losses. At this point, therefore, there is to be seen the rudiments of a logical doctrine as to rewards and punishment which is far enough from the mechanical expectation of the apocalypses. And, further, it must be added that the early Church believed that it was possible even for those who, so far as could be judged by ordinary standards, had accepted Jesus as Christ, to fall away and be ultimately lost. Christians were always in danger of committing sins which at the Judgment would shut them out of the kingdom of God (Galatians 5:21, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Romans 13:2; Romans 14:23). It is clear, therefore, from such teaching, that St. Paul moved over into the moral as distinct from the purely formal field. The Judgment-day is something other than the time of registering the arbitrary decrees of God, and becomes the time when the ultimate destinies of men are determined by their actual moral conditions, these conditions including, rather than being supplanted by, faith in Jesus.
4. The details of the day are not clearly worked out by the Apostles. In their case, as in that of Jesus, there is the double expectation that both God and Jesus will be the Judge. In the Apostolic thought, however, the recognition of Jesus as Judge (assisted, as has already been pointed out, by the saints, 1 Corinthians 6:2) is very distinct. He is to sit upon the throne, and mankind is to stand before Him, and bow to Him, and be subject to Him. At the same time the correlation between His position and that of God is distinctly made (Romans 2:16). He is to be God’s agent, and at ‘the end’ is to give over the kingdom to the Father (1 Corinthians 15:24).
5. In the Apocalypse there are two Judgment-days spoken of. The first, which is established at the appearance of Jesus, is confined to the worldly powers, and Satan is then bound and shut up in the abyss (Revelation 20:1-3). Then follows the reign of Christ on earth for a thousand years, which is ushered in by the resurrection of the martyrs (Revelation 20:4-6). At the end of this period of one thousand years the great day of God (Revelation 16:14) comes, in which all those believers who survive and the members of the one thousand years’ kingdom are carried up to heaven, and all the dead are raised to stand before the Judgment-seat of God (Revelation 20:12-13). Here again there must be a distinction drawn between the idea of the ascension from Sheol and the acquisition of the body of the resurrection. At this final Judgment the evil are sent to the lake of fire (Revelation 21:8), where they continue in endless misery. In this last Judgment it may be noticed also that one’s future is determined by the records in the books of the Judge (Revelation 20:12-13).
6. As in the case of the teaching of Jesus, the award at the Day of Judgment for the wicked is eternal condemnation, which is described in a variety of ways, chief among which are ‘destruction,’ ‘fire,’ and ‘death,’ the general term for such misery being the anthropomorphic expression ‘wrath of God.’ For believers there is, on the other hand, salvation which, in the resurrection of the body, marks the completion of that eternal life already begun in the earthly life of the believer through the presence of the Spirit in the believer’s heart.
7. It is improbable that the Church of the NT times ever ceased to think of the Day of Judgment as a distinct point in time, and of the coming of Christ as a definite event of the future (Acts 24:25, Romans 2:3). See Parousia. Such late books as Jude and 2 Peter are particularly emphatic as to His coming, although the writer of 2 Peter is obviously perplexed at the delay in the return of Jesus (2 Peter 3:4).
8. It is at this point, however, that one realizes more clearly than ever the impossibility of treating any one of the particular elements of the Christian eschatological Messianic hope apart from the others. The reason for this lies in the origin of the hope. In so far as it is not the outcome of the historical facts of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection, it is the bequest of Judaism to the Christian Church. As such, its component elements are really phases of one hope, and are so inextricably combined as to make it almost impossible to separate them. The Parousia, the Day of Christ, the Day of Judgment, the resurrection of the dead, are all alike different aspects of the same great event toward which the whole creation moves. They all embody the fundamental expectation of early Christianity, that the Christ who had been crucified would shortly return to establish His Messianic kingdom. In such an establishment there was involved the punishment of all those who were the enemies of God and of His Christ, as well as the rewarding of those who were His loyal subjects. Its terrors were as far as possible from being figurative to the early Christians. From the time of Pentecost onwards men were first warned of the approach of the Judgment which all Jews expected, and were then told how by faith in Jesus as Christ and Lord they might gain acquittal in that Judgment. It is further noteworthy that in all matters relating to the future condition of mankind and the method of escaping punishment and winning salvation at the Day of Judgment, all the Christian writers are essentially at one. Differences in emphasis and methods of presentation should not be permitted to obscure this identity in elementals.
Such an expectation embodies both permanent and transitory elements. Those are transitory which depend upon an impossible cosmology and a literal monarchical conception of God’s relation to the world. Those are permanent which embody the immutable laws of the moral world and the facts of the historical Jesus (including His resurrection). To distinguish between these two groups of elements is not difficult for the historical student, and will result in a larger appreciation of the fundamental truth of an apocalyptically conceived Judgment-day. See also Eschatology.
Literature.—This is voluminous, but it is often dogmatic and apologetic in character. The unhistorical method of treatment will be found set forth in all the old treatises on theology. On the Day of Jahweh see J. M. P. Smith, ‘The Day of Yahweh,’ AJTh [Note: JTh American Journal of Theology.] , 1901, p. 501 f. Views of Judaism may be found in Bousset, Relig. des Judentums, 245, 248; Weber, Jüd. Theol.2 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred] § 88; Charles, Crit. Hist. of Eschatology; Volz, Jüd. Eschatologie. For general treatment see Wendt, Teaching of Jesus, ii. 274 f., 360 f.; Mathews, Messianic Hope in the NT; Muirhead, Eschatology of Jesus; Haupt, Eschatol. Aussagen. J. Weiss (Die Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes), Wernle (Beginnings of Christianity), Fiebig (Der Menschensohn, Lect. iv.), and Baldensperger (Das Selbstbewusstsein Jesu) treat the subject from the point of view of Judaism, and of Jesus’ teaching concerning His relation to the Kingdom of God. Teichmann (Die Paulin. Vorstellungen von Auferstehung und Gericht), Kennedy (St. Paul’s Conceptions of the Last Things), Kabisch (Eschatol. des Paulus) discuss the teaching of St. Paul on the subject. In general see Biblical Theologies, esp. those of Beyschlag and Weiss, and art. ‘Parousia’ in Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible.
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
Hastings, James. Entry for 'Day of Judgment'. Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament. https://www.studylight.org/dictionaries/eng/hdn/d/day-of-judgment.html. 1906-1918.