Judgement in the 4th Gospel

Useful resources:

Pelican commentary on John  - J Marsh
The Gospel and Acts Vol 2 Ch 9 'The Originality of the 4th Gospel'   - W Barclay
Abacus 4th Gospel Series 'Eschatology and Judgement' - J Russell
The Gospel according to St John esp  pp  403-9   C K Barrett  (Important points tied up in the Paraclete passage on judgement in Ch 16)

 I propose to base this section largely on the discourse following the healing of the crippled man in Ch 5, but will be referring to several other passages as I go along.  Please also refer to the section on Judge/condemn in Johannine terminology.

How and when are people judged

"And this is the judgement, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil."  3:19

In many ways, I  think that this is the key to understanding the concept of how and when people are judged in the 4th Gospel, because it demonstrates that judgement is not 'one-sided', ie that it is not simply something that God does.  In this sense the use of the word in the 4th Gospel is often different from the way it is used in other OT and NT writings.  In traditional Jewish eschatology, judgement was one of the four last things.  It was a process undertaken by God, and it would have one of two outcomes, reward or punishment, which those being judged would not know in advance.  The classic synoptic expression of this is in Matthew 25, in the parable of the Sheep and the Goats.  

In the 4th Gospel, however, judgement is a process in which those who are judged participate.  They indeed have the choice as to what the outcome of the judgement is.  They can know what will happen to them, for the focus of judgement is moved from human obedience to the Shema to human response to Christ.  In this sense, we might compare judgement to the course that some of you reading this are on at present.  The course is an ongoing judgement, and your response will largely determine the outcome.  If you work hard, read appropriately, consult and follow advice, generally trust what your teachers tell you and act on it, it is likely that you will pass your A Level.  (We are not talking about levels of passing here.)  If. on the other hand, you ignore all advice given, fail to do any work and bunk classes ... then you have (very likely) judged yourself already, and eventually, the ones with the authority to judge you publicly (the Exam Board) will do so for all to see.  But in a way you've judged yourself already.

Furthermore, the word judgement is used in a different sense, not so much to indicate a process in which the verdict could go either way, but as the opposite of 'life' - ie, condemn.  The Greek work krino which is used for 'judgement' has another meaning, 'to condemn'.  It all depends on the context in which it is used, and frequently, in John it is used in the context of 'life' to mean the opposite of life.  See 3:15-20; 5:24;12:47, all passages in which the direct comparison is made.

So how is the judgement made?  It is based totally on the response of a person to Jesus.  Again and again in the 4th Gospel, Jesus states that those who hear His word and believe it will 'live'.  Those who have faith in Him, will 'live'  Those who come to Him will 'live'.  This is an ongoing process, of course.  At any moment one might encounter the living Christ and make the decision to accept or to reject Him.  This is what all these encounters with Jesus are about in the 4th Gospel.  Some of the people who believe in Jesus are: the Samaritan Woman and the Official in Ch 4; The Blind Man in Ch 9; Martha in Ch 11; Mary and Thomas in Ch 20, etc.  Although we are informed by the 4th evangelist that after some of the signs, like the Raising of Lazarus, 'many believed in Him', nevertheless, most of the responses of crowds are negative, demonstrating what can happen when people reject Jesus' claims for whatever reason.  See Ch 2 in Jerusalem, Ch 6, 7 and 8, and, of course, Ch 11.

For the 4th Evangelist, Jesus is the Father's appointed source of Life for the world.  There is no other source, and Jesus has superseded any that claimed to be 'saviours' ("Those that came before me were thieves and robbers").  Judgement therefore "consists simply in a person's withdrawal from God's offer (of life), so remaining in death (5:24) under the wrath of God. (3:36)  This judgement is a continual, ongoing process. 'The hour is coming and now is' 4:23; 5:25.   At all times, the living Messiah offers Himself and the life He can give to all who will receive it (1:12)  It is possible to pass from death to life at any time by 'believing in Him'.  However, this does not make the 'state of judgement' any less real.  Those who reject Christ are under judgement until they turn to Him.  This fits the pattern of eschatology in John's gospel - that the key eschatological events occur where eternity hits time - ie NOW.  However, the state of 'judgement' may not be immutable.  Another key event 'new life' - being 'born again' can change the one who is under judgement into one who is enjoying new life in Christ.

I think it's worth asking what constitutes 'being under judgement'.  Traditionally, the Church has suggested that anyone who is not a Christian, baptised or not, is outside the 'flock' whom The Good Shepherd has called to life.  This does not seem to me to be borne out by this gospel.  It seems to me that time and time again, it is those who actively reject the claims of Jesus who are being condemned by the words of the Gospel, who are 'under God's wrath', under judgement, etc.   In other words, the rejection of Jesus' claims has to be active.    For evidence to support this view, see 5:39-47; 10:31-39;12:44-50; and especially, 8: 31-59.  The reader of the Gospel is assumed to have a free choice to believe or disbelieve, just as those listening to Jesus did. The same choice is open to readers, therefore - they will 'live' or they will be under judgement.  Where there is an informed decision to reject the claims the gospel makes about Christ, then, the Gospel assumes that that person is under condemnation.  I see no evidence to suggest that simply not knowing about the Gospel is sufficient for a person to be under judgement.

Who is the Judge?

This is one of the areas that you could bring in if the eschatology question asks you about possible contradictions in John's teaching about eschatology and judgement.

On the one hand, we are told that Jesus has 'not been sent into the world to judge the world, but so it could be saved'.  (3:17)  He "will not accuse you before the Father; your accuser is Moses, on whom you have set your hope." 5:45.  Then again, Jesus says that he does not seek his own glory - but the Father, who does seek the glory of the Son, will judge those who dishonour the Son.  (8:50).  The Father will burn unfruitful branches of the Vine (Ch 15).  In 12:47, the role of the Son as Saviour, not judge is stressed again.

However, 5:22 and 5:27 state that the Son has the authority to judge, and to execute judgement, for the Father has given that authority to the Son of Man.  In 8:16, the Son shares judgement with the Father, and has much to condemn (8:26). He announces the judgement of the world, and of the'ruler of this world',  which will begin as He is 'lifted up' on the cross.  Finally, in 9:36, we are told that 'for judgement I came into this world'. There appears to be contradiction then (a) over who has authority to judge - The Father, the Son (or even Moses) and (b) whether the role of the Son is primarily that of Saviour of the World or Eschatological Judge.

Russell comments that most scholars attempt to 'explain away' such apparent contradictions, and "seem almost unnerved" by the possibility of inconsistency within the 4th Gospel.  Schnackenburg comments that the role of Jesus as Judge appears 'paradoxical', and insists that the references to future judgement within the Gospel are intend to stress the saving nature of Jesus' mission NOW - whilst not forgetting that for those who do not believe, judgement WILL come later.  

Russell suggests that the apparent contradiction between the role of the Father and the Son in judgement should in fact be read in the context of the unity that the 4th Evangelist wishes to stress in their nature and authority.  As the Father has authority to judge, then so does the Son.  There is a 'mutuality' between them that enables the Evangelist almost to interchange between them.  So just as the Father gives life, and the Son 'Has Life in Himself', the Father judges but has passed all judgement to the Son.

I think that the key to the conundrum is to be found in the nature of judgement.  Essentially, the 'exam' has been set by the Father.  It is, to use St Paul's expression 'What think ye of Christ?'   For the 4th evangelist, this is the crux of judgement, and there is only a 'pass' or 'fail' - believing in Jesus and responding to Him, or knowingly and actively rejecting Him.  The acts of judgement and redemption are inextricably linked.  Yet it is the one who responds who brings judgement or life on himself.  It is the SON who brings judgement to the world.  But the unbeliever appropriates it to himself through unbelief.  As Russell comments "The Son... and the Father are observers waiting for the outcome, the person;s own determining of life or death."

This is what Barclay refers to as "personalized eschatology".  "Judgement", he comments "is immediate and continuous" as Christ continually confronts the world with the offer of LIfe.  He comments further that "the here and now verdict of judgement will be confirmed."  It could come from Father, Son or Paraclete, but it will come - the 'Last Day'.