Global Perspectives on Judgment

I said last week that grace and judgment are fundamental religious concepts with deep theological significance and that they play a crucial role in shaping moral and ethical perspectives across the five major faiths—Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Judaism. Last week we discussed grace as a global concept. Today, it’s judgment day.

In religious contexts, judgment typically involves the assessment of an individual’s actions and character, both in this life and in the afterlife, usually resulting in reward or punishment. In one way or another, the concept is enshrined in the moral and ethical frameworks of all faiths, which then influence adherents’ behavior and practices.

While grace is generally held to offer forgiveness, compassion, and mercy, judgment underpins moral and ethical behaviors in all religious traditions. Both grace and judgment contribute to a universal framework for understanding human nature, divine nature, and the relationship between the two. Despite some differences, in essence all faiths view judgement and grace as moral, social, and spiritual guides: 

First, they are Moral guides to what is ethical behavior. The promise of divine judgment discourages acting badly, while the hope of divine grace offers forgiveness and redemption when we do act badly. In all faiths, judgment emphasizes that our actions have consequences, either in this life or an afterlife.

Second, grace and judgment are Social guides, with grace inspiring acts of charity and compassion while judgment seeks to impose justice and fairness in societies. 

And third, they are Spiritual guides that encourage a deeper reflection on one’s life, behavior, and spiritual journey.

In sum, then, grace and judgment are not just theological concepts but are deeply intertwined with the moral and ethical fabric of all religious communities, guiding beliefs, behaviors, and practices. They counterbalance one another. Grace is the carrot, punishment the stick; but while grace pre-empts the consequences of judgment it does not—as far as I can tell—pre-empt judgment itself, and neither does judgment does not pre-empt grace.

But all that refers primarily to divine judgment. What about human judgment? We’ve discussed this in depth in the past, and concluded that the Christian exhortation to “Judge not, let ye be judged” (Matthew 7:1) is about the last and best word on the subject. But the principle of refraining from judgment—at least, from harsh judgment—and the principle of exercising compassion after judgment—is that grace?—can be found in various forms across many religions:

Islam posits that an individual’s deeds determines his or her fate in the afterlife. But in this life, the Qur’an and Hadiths emphasize compassion, mercy, and not being harsh in judgments. For instance, a Hadith (in Sahih Muslim) says, “The merciful are shown mercy by the Most Merciful. Be merciful on the earth, and you will be shown mercy from Who is above the heavens.” While not a direct equivalent to “judge not, lest you be judged,” this does stress the importance of mercy and compassion, which can be extended to judgments.

Buddhism teaches the concept of “Right Judgment” or “Right View” as part of the Noble Eightfold Path. It encourages seeing things with clarity and understanding the nature of things without prejudice. While it doesn’t explicitly say “judge not,” it promotes a kind of judgment that is free from ill will and delusion. Like Hinduism, as we shall see in a minute, Buddhism ties the concept of judgment to Karma, believing that ethical actions lead to favorable outcomes and unethical actions lead to suffering, but they see it more as a natural law of cause and effect rather than as a divine law.

Hinduism posits that judgment is integral or inherent to Karma, the force that determines an individual’s fate in the next, reincarnated, life based on his or her actions in this life. But it emphasizes understanding the self and practicing compassion and non-harming (ahimsa). The Hindu scriptures—the Bhagavad Gita and the Upanishads—apparently (ChatGPT tells me) don’t directly say “judge not,” but the underlying philosophy discourages harsh judgment and promotes the concept of the unity of all beings, which then naturally leads to softer judgmental attitudes.

Judaism considers God to be the ultimate judge but also posits that divinely inspired Rabbinic law and ethics reflect divine principles of justice and fairness in everyday life and that the community has a significant role to play in them. However, the Talmud and other rabbinic literature teaches the importance of “favorable” judgment. I’m not sure but I take that to mean we should always look for saving graces in a sinner when judging him or her. A scripture called the Pirkei Avot (Ethics of the Fathers), which is a part of the Mishnah, itself a part of the Talmud, says: “Judge every person favorably.” This aligns with the Hindu idea of being cautious in judgment and looking for the good in others, although it doesn’t directly parallel the Christian admonition to refrain from judgment.

Christians have a dualistic view of judgment: Divine vs. earthly judgment. In divine judgment, individuals will be judged by God or Christ in the afterlife in the Last Judgment. This divine judgment is a central eschatological event that determines the eternal fate of souls. John the Apostle described it in Revelation 20:11-15:

Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. The earth and the heavens fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done. Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.

On the other hand, earthly judgment in Christianity, guided by passages like Matthew 7:1-5, encourages discernment while cautioning against hypocrisy. Christians are advised to judge fairly and humbly, recognizing their own imperfections. 

While Aquinas discusses judgment, particularly in the context of the Last Judgment and moral judgment, the categories are less distinct than those of grace (which we discussed last week). However, he and Christian theology in general posits four different aspects of judgment:

Particular Judgment refers to the belief that each individual will be judged immediately upon death, as opposed to a future final judgment. (Hebrews 9:27.)

Judgment of Nations refers to the judgment of nations based on their treatment of the most vulnerable. (Matthew 25:31-46.)

Self-Judgment encourages believers to examine themselves and their actions in light of their faith and morals. Paul wrote: “But if we were more discerning with regard to ourselves, we would not come under such judgment.” (1 Corinthians 11:31.) 

The Last Judgment (or Final Judgment) is the belief in a final and eternal judgment by God of all humanity. (Revelation 20:11-15 and Matthew 25:31-46:)

But when the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory. Before him all the nations will be gathered, and he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then the King will tell those on his right hand, ‘Come, blessed of my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry, and you gave me food to eat. I was thirsty, and you gave me drink. I was a stranger, and you took me in. I was naked, and you clothed me. I was sick, and you visited me. I was in prison, and you came to me.’

Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry, and feed you; or thirsty, and give you a drink? When did we see you as a stranger, and take you in; or naked, and clothe you? When did we see you sick, or in prison, and come to you?’

The King will answer them, ‘Most certainly I tell you, because you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’ Then he will say also to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry, and you didn’t give me food to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me no drink; I was a stranger, and you didn’t take me in; naked, and you didn’t clothe me; sick, and in prison, and you didn’t visit me.’

Then they will also answer, saying, Lord, when did we see you hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and didn’t help you?

Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Most certainly I tell you, because you did not do it to one of the least of these, you didn’t do it to me.’ These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.

To sum up some of the salient features of judgment as viewed globally:

Islam also has a Day of Judgment, the Yawm al-Qiyamah, the day when all individuals will be resurrected and judged by Allah for their deeds. This judgment determines one’s eternal destiny in the afterlife. It emphasizes personal accountability and the ultimate justice of Allah. Every action, thought, and intention is taken into account, underscoring the importance of living a righteous and ethical life in accordance with Islamic teachings. It sounds very much like Christianity and Judaism, doesn’t it?

In contrast to these Abrahamic religions, Hinduism focuses on the law of Karma and reincarnation, where actions in this life directly affect one’s future lives. Divine judgment is less emphasized; instead, the focus is on the moral cause and effect governed by Karma. Good actions lead to positive outcomes in future lives, while negative actions result in hardships. This system of moral retribution encourages ethical living and personal responsibility, providing a self-regulating mechanism for moral behavior.

Similarly, in Buddhism, judgment is primarily self-imposed through the laws of Karma. It’s not a judgment by a divine being but a natural law where ethical living and personal responsibility are crucial. The aim is to avoid suffering and achieve enlightenment, with the understanding that one’s actions have direct consequences on their journey towards spiritual awakening.

Judaism sees God as the ultimate judge, but earthly judgment, too, holds significant importance to Jews, as reflected in Rabbinic law and ethics, which seek to apply divine principles to everyday life, with an emphasis on justice and fairness. Thus, the Jewish understanding of judgment intertwines divine commandments with ethical living, and it stresses the community’s role in upholding justice.

They all view judgment as having consequences, though to Hindus and Buddhists, at least, the consequences are actual in this life or the next, reincarnated, life on earth; while to Christians and perhaps Moslems, they seem to be more potential than actual, because of the intervention of grace. It is frankly not clear to me how the Judaic balance between grace and judgment works.

Nevertheless, despite these differences, the concept of judgment consistently serves as a universal guiding principle for moral and ethical conduct—as does grace, as discussed last week. Whether it’s the divine judgment of the afterlife or the mundane consequences of actions here on earth, the idea of judgment profoundly influences the beliefs and behaviors of adherents in these diverse faith traditions.

So: Are any of these views more correct than others? Is there a universal definition of judgment that would not contradict any individual faith’s definition? Does all this make judgment easier to understand, or more difficult?  

Donald: It seems that the fundamental understanding of judgment is part of being human. We’re taught early on that there are consequences to behavior. This could explain why different faith perspectives include judgment as part of their religious practice and understanding. So, is the reason faith groups try to control behavior linked to this concept of judgment? Does a church try to control one’s behavior in the context of faith?

Michael: I think it’s a good observation that judgment is part of all the major religions, which were, at some point, not just spiritual guides but also mechanisms for controlling behavior, as those were the societal rules dictated by religion. Judgment is a crucial part of having a functional society. The question now is whether we can separate religion from judgment, considering we have civil structures that might offer a more efficient or perhaps better mechanism for administering judgment than religion. 

Does religion still need to serve that function like it did 2,000 or 3,000 years ago? And how would religion look if it were only confined to the spiritual domain, without being forced to serve a civil or societal role in that way?

C-J: Last night, I was watching the second half of Ken Burns’ biography on Benjamin Franklin. It discussed how politics, which can be akin to a form of religion for people, emphasizes the importance of diplomacy, comparable to the concept of grace. It’s like assessing how much to tolerate before saying, “Okay, I’m done.” This relates to Benjamin Franklin’s approach to the King of France, proposing mutual benefits in supporting the American war against Britain, needing money and troops to establish a democracy instead of a monarchy. 

Drawing parallels to a faith belief system, there’s a hierarchy of power, rules, and distribution of wealth. I thought of “Lord of the Flies,” where might equals right. It’s a cautionary tale for religion, highlighting the cost of power, not just in immediate terms but also in societal, quality of life, and environmental impacts.

Considering current events like the situation in Gaza, with the Israeli Prime Minister’s staunch stance influenced by a belief system and the “mandate of heaven,” it’s clear that religion and politics are intertwined. They both create rules, have leaders, expectations, discipline, and judgment. They delineate ownership and protections under the law. This complexity means that these aspects can’t be easily separated; they are deeply entangled. Religion, with its divine mandate, often sanctifies actions. This is evident in historical instances, like Constantine’s vision before a battle, reinforcing the interplay between politics and religion. Both share similar messages, and it’s a matter of which one takes precedence at the negotiation table. Diplomacy, in this context, represents grace.

Donald: Surrender is another concept to this conversation that probably needs to be discussed. We’ve talked about grace as an act of God, but what about our response to grace? Is it simply surrender, asking for forgiveness, or can we receive grace without even requesting forgiveness? By definition, grace might not require anything from us. However, the idea of surrender is certainly embedded in our understanding of faith. It may not be the word ‘surrender’ itself, but something adjacent to it, like asking for forgiveness or expressing remorse.

Don: The issue of judgment is indeed complex. Beyond grace, I recall a conversation with a Muslim friend about judgment and grace. Without grace, judgment becomes a matter of how bad one needs to be to fail or how good to pass. This quantitative aspect is challenging. How good must I be, or how bad can I be? Since perfection is unattainable, who decides? God does, but are there any metrics or parameters to gauge if I’ll pass or fail judgment? 

Grace, on the other hand, eliminates the need for such metrics. It’s not about cause and effect but receiving what you don’t deserve. The issue of quantifying behavior is troubling but has been stressed by religion and the church as crucial for coming out on the right side of judgment.

Carolyn: When we’ve fully surrendered to the Lord, our sins are said to be cast into the depths of the sea. What then does judgment entail? If upon death we are judged, doesn’t grace cover those sins already?

C-J: Isn’t there an aspect where it’s said, ‘Go and sin no more’? You must understand what made the sin a sin and take responsibility for not continuing in that sin, especially habitually. It’s about relationship and maturity, taking responsibility for harm done to ourselves and others. When I sin, especially in anger towards someone, I first seek God’s guidance to understand my shortcomings—why I was bothered, why I reacted that way, and how I justified it. It starts with my relationship with God, and then I can approach others to discuss and move forward, whether it leads to lasting peace or a severing of ties, but at least to clear the air and give the other person a voice.

Donald: But the question is, is it necessary? That’s a relationship aspect you’re talking about, going to another person to clear the air or make peace. If you were brought to anger, will God require you to talk to that person and ask forgiveness seven times seventy? Does grace prevail independently of our actions? Is it a blanket over everything, or do we need to address each situation, asking for forgiveness where we didn’t, in order to receive grace?

C-J: If you’re dealing with a past hurt involving a child and an adult, it’s impossible to go back and fix that. You have to meet at the current time and place. When someone says, “You hurt me,” I try to understand the unspoken pain. My intention is not to replicate trauma. If I don’t know the person well, I may assume they’re overreacting or responding to some trauma. I don’t think God operates like that.

Donald: So, it’s about the relationship. Let’s not focus on harm done to others. Suppose you stole something and never corrected it. Will grace prevail even if you didn’t return the stolen item?

C-J: The theft could be of trust.

Donald: I mean a physical item. How extensive is grace? Is it a blanket over all sin?

C-J: The Bible says grace is sufficient unto itself. We don’t need to dissect it. It would be too complex to unravel every situation. Grace meets us where we are, allowing us to move forward. We should receive it, learn from it, and extend it to others. It’s about acceptance and love without further conditions. That’s significant.

Kiran: This is the dilemma I’ve long struggled with. On one hand, God says He has thrown all our sins away and then tells us to ‘Go and sin no more.’ This creates a mental conflict. Did He really forgive all my sins, and if so, why can’t I live a perfect life? The issue is in the transformation. 

Take Paul, for instance. Before his conversion, when he was Saul, he committed grievous acts. But at the gate of Damascus, he faced judgment, understood the enormity of his errors, received grace, and was transformed. Receiving grace means not just forgiveness for past, present, and future sins, but also the presence of Jesus, led by the Spirit, which guides and convicts us. This doesn’t mean we become sinless, but we become aware and struggle with our sins.

And look at Peter, who spent years with Jesus yet still faltered, when he denied Jesus three times. He judged himself, which was necessary for him to receive grace. Both Peter and Paul admitted to their imperfections, yet they were led by the Spirit. They were aware of their capacity for wrongdoing and strove to do good, influenced by the Spirit.

The misconception is thinking that accepting grace turns us into holy beings who never sin. Rather, it makes us aware of our potential for evil, and we wrestle with ourselves to do good. When God says He has thrown away our sins, it includes past, present, and future sins. But this awareness doesn’t lead to carelessness; instead, it instills a fear of the harm our actions can cause. Grace transforms us. It brings Jesus into our lives, and His presence challenges and changes us, just as it did Paul. 

The transformative power of grace is often overlooked. When we receive grace, we don’t return to our old ways; we’re changed fundamentally, bothered by the wrong and driven to become better. So, when Jesus throws our sins away, that’s it. There’s no need to worry about it anymore.

Don: If we liken grace to oxygen, widely available, free, and sufficient for everyone, what is the spiritual equivalent of putting a bag over your head, thereby depriving yourself of oxygen? This relates to Donald’s question about what we need to do to receive grace. It’s ever-present and abundant, but there is a judgment leading to destruction for some. It’s not simply a matter of doing too few good deeds or too many bad ones. It’s more about deliberately refusing the grace available to us. The question then becomes, what does it mean spiritually to deprive ourselves of this essential ‘oxygen’?

Carolyn: Once we have grace, it’s because we have accepted the Holy Spirit. The concern often is whether it’s possible to lose grace. Although we may falter, I believe it’s difficult to lose grace. The unforgivable sin might be rejecting the Holy Spirit. Having the Holy Spirit means grace covers us, and He is our pathway to heaven. Despite our sins in this sinful world, they are forgiven under grace. The key is maintaining a close relationship with Christ.

Don: I agree. But this leads us back to the question of the action or mechanism that causes us to reject grace. How do we isolate ourselves from this ever-ready supply of grace? Consider the story of the prodigal son: one son accepts the father’s grace and rejoins the household, while the elder son essentially puts a ‘plastic bag’ over his head, refusing the father’s grace. My question is, what limits our access to grace voluntarily? Why do we do it? And what is the spiritual equivalent of this self-imposed limitation?

Anonymous: I find guidance on this topic in Micah 6:8, which says:

 “He has shown you, O man, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.” 

Our human nature is inherently proud, making it difficult to walk humbly with God. This was my conclusion after starting from Exodus 34:7, which states:

“[He] keeps loving kindness for thousands, [He] forgives iniquity, transgression, and sin but will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the grandchildren to the third and fourth generation.”

This passage initially seemed harsh. Why should one suffer for the sins of their father? However, my understanding evolved. God isn’t against man, but against sin. Sin is inherent in us, and when we persist in pride and sin, our children and descendants learn these sinful ways. They inherit sin not only by nature but through our actions. If the first person repents and turns to God, seeking forgiveness, God begins the process of eradicating sin, not only in that individual but potentially across generations. It may take several generations to eliminate this sin, but with God’s intervention, there can be a fundamental change in our inclination towards sin.

Then, Psalm 116 says:

“How can I repay the Lord for all his goodness to me? I will lift up the cup of salvation and call on the name of the Lord. I will fulfill my vows to the Lord in the presence of His people.”

This implies that our response to God’s grace should be to accept the offered salvation. This isn’t about repaying God but simply receiving the grace He freely offers. This understanding paints a different picture of God, not as vindictive but as one who wishes to help us overcome sin. The first step is accepting God’s grace and allowing it to transform us and our descendants, eradicating sin over time.

Reflecting on Isaiah 59:17, which says, “He puts on righteousness as his breastplate, and the helmet of salvation on his head. He put on the garment of vengeance and wrapped himself in zeal as a cloak,” I noticed the language of war. Words like ‘breastplate,’ ‘helmet,’ and ‘vengeance’ suggest passion, wrath, and a readiness for battle. Initially, this led me to think of judgment, as if God were fighting us. However, it became clear that the battle is not against us, but against sin. The ‘equipment’ of war – righteousness, salvation, zeal – are inherently good. 

This shifts the perspective from God waging war against people to God combating sin to save and bring people to righteousness.

The idea of God’s zeal is also important. Zeal can be destructive, like Paul’s initial fervor against Christians, or protective and loving, like Jesus’ zeal for the house of God. God’s righteous zeal is fully committed to eradicating sin, which is ultimately beneficial for us.

Then, considering Romans 8:1, “There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus,” it brings a sense of relief and clarity. This verse suggests that judgment is not a concern for those united with Christ. The focus shifts to who is with Jesus and who is not, as seen in Isaiah 59, which details the people’s sinfulness yet also God’s willingness to save them.

At the end of this chapter, the imagery shifts to Jesus as the one who will conquer the consequences of this war against sin, referring to His sacrifice. This brings hope that ultimately, through Jesus, sin will be overcome, leading to a state where sin no longer prevails. It’s a complex reflection, intertwining themes of judgment, war, sin, and salvation, culminating in the hope and assurance found in Jesus Christ.

Micah 6:8 (above) encapsulates the essence of what God desires from us. What does God want from you but to love mercy and to walk humbly? It highlights the nature of God’s grace. He is in a relentless battle against Satan, aiming to eradicate evil from the world. The reason we might ‘put a bag over our heads,’ refusing this grace, is likely not due to outright rejection but a lack of understanding. The Bible, through numerous examples, shows that God is not against us but against the sin within us. He aims to save us while destroying the sin. Those who perceive judgment as something harmful to people are missing this crucial point.

Don: We’ll continue this discussion next week. Anon has introduced an important aspect: God loves the sinner but is at war with the sin, not with us. This perspective is a positive and insightful foundation for our next conversation.

* * *