Last Judgment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Judgment 

Stefan Lochner, Last Judgment, c. 1435. Wallraf-Richartz Museum, Cologne

The Last Judgment, Final Judgment, Day of Reckoning, Day of Judgment, Judgment Day, Doomsday or The Day of the Lord (Hebrew: יום הדין‎, romanized: Yom ha-din, Arabic: یوم القيامة‎, romanized: Yawm al-qiyāmah, lit. 'Day of Resurrection' or Arabic: یوم الدین‎, romanized: Yawm ad-din, lit. 'Day of Judgement') is part of the eschatology of the Abrahamic religions and in the Frashokereti of Zoroastrianism.

Some Christian denominations consider the Second Coming of Christ to be the final and infinite judgment by God of the people of every nation resulting in the approval of some and the penalizing of others. The concept is found in all the canonical gospels, particularly the Gospel of Matthew. Christian Futurists believe it will take place after the resurrection of the dead and the Second Coming of Christ while Full Preterists believe it has already occurred. The Last Judgment has inspired numerous artistic depictions.

In the Baha'i Faith

The Bab and Baha'u'llah taught that there is one unfolding religion of one God and that once in about every 1,000 years a new messenger prophet, Rasul al-Nabii, or as Baha'is call them, Manifestation of God, comes to mankind to renew the Kingdom of God on earth and establish a new Covenant between humanity and God. Each time a new Manifestation of God comes it is considered the Day of Judgment, Day of Resurrection, or 'the Last Hour' for the believers and unbelievers of the previous Manifestation of God. The Bab told of the judgment:

There shall be no resurrection of the day, in the sense of the coming forth from the physical graves. Rather, the resurrection of all shall occur (in the form of) those that are living in that age. If they belong to paradise, they shall be believers, if to hell, they shall be unbelievers. There is no denying that upon the Day of Resurrection, each and every thing shall be raised to life before God, may he be praised and glorified. For God shall originate that creation and then cause it to return. He has decreed the creation of all things, and he shall raise them to life again. God is powerful over all things.

According to Baha'is, the coming of The Bab is the promised Mahdi and Qaim, and the coming of Baha'u'llah is the return of Christ through his revelation, which respectively signify the Day of Judgment foretold by Muhammad and the Day of Resurrection foretold by the Bayan.

Future Day of Judgment

Print of the Last Judgment, made by Johannes Wierix in the 16th century.

Baha'u'llah wrote in the Kitab-i-Aqdas: "Whoso layeth claim to Revelation direct from God, ere the expiration of a full thousand years, such a man is assuredly a lying imposter." The thousand years is calculated from beginning in October 1852 CE, when Bahaullah received a message in the Siyah-Chal from the Maid of Heaven, and they could refer to either lunar or solar years, which associate to roughly the Islamic Year of 2269 AH/2823 CE, or, 2853 CE/2300 AH.

The Bab wrote, "He Who will shine resplendent in the Day of Resurrection is the inner reality enshrined in the Point of the Bayan". This is that which Baha'is believe referred to Baha'u'llah being the inner reality of The Bab. The 'Point of the Bayan' refers to The Bab Himself. However, in al-Kafi Volume 2, this 'Point' would refer to directly to Baha'u'llah with the Bab being the Point of the Quran. Moreover, according to valid Bahai conjecture of al-Kafi Volume 2, the Point of the Most Great Name could only be from the Afnan or Aghsan just as the Qaim needed to be a descendant of Muhammad. However, the Kitab-i-Aqdas states, "Beware lest any name debar you from Him Who is the Possessor of all names". Additionally, Baha'u'llah warned not to be dismayed if the next Revelation, direct from God, is from a Nabi, Prophet, that is ominous of a lack of a Rasul al-Nabii coming. However, the Bab foretold of One like unto Him coming again after His Dispensation, which could mean that the next Prophet could slowly unveil Him/Herself in stages. Also, in the Kitab-i-Iqan, Baha'u'llah revealed that every Dispensation's Messenger is rejected using the Scriptures of the past because "every subsequent Revelation hath abolished the manners, habits, and teachings that have been clearly, specifically, and firmly established by the former Dispensation". Based on Hadith 3455, alKafi, a valid Prophet would be the foremost in virtue and deeds among the Baha'is of that time period, and her/his Word of truth would abrogate Baha'u'llah's Revelation.

It is noteworthy to call to mind the Hadith of one who asked an A'immah about meeting the Qa'im. The Imam asked him if he knew who his Imam was to which the man responded "it is you". "The Imam said, 'Then you must not worry about not leaning against your sword in the shadow of the tent of the Qa'im, 'Alayhi al-Salam.'" Also, Baha'u'llah warned that "Erelong shall clamorous voices be raised in most lands." referring to people believing they have a direct Revelation from God before the thousand-year period is complete. Further, Abdu'l-Baha states, “The East has ever been the dawning point of the Sun of Reality. All the Prophets of God have appeared there. The religions of God have been promulgated, the teachings of God have been spread, and the law of God founded in the East. The Orient has always been the center of lights”. Moreover, the Bab stated that one who does not recognize each succeeding Messenger goes even more astray than those who refused to acknowledge a previous Messenger. Also, Abdu'l-Baha wrote that the Manifestations of God have claircognizance; however, the Prophet to come will not be a Universal Manifestation. Therefore, the outward psychic powers of the Prophet could be different. Furthermore, Abdu'l-Baha stated that more than one Prophet could arise after the 1000-year period Who have direct Revelation. Also, what is most important to keep in mind is Baha'u'llah's warning that God "doeth what He willeth, and ordaineth as He pleaseth". This means at each Judgment Day were God to completely change meanings like earth to be heaven or pronounce unbelief to be belief, it is in His power.

Future disbelief

The disbelief raised in the coming Age will be based on the doubt/belief that Abdu'l-Baha is meant to be the lone successor of Baha'u'llah. It can already be discerned in the following verses all taken from The World Order of Baha'u'llah by Shoghi Effendi: "The Abha Beauty is the supreme Manifestation of God. ...All others are servants unto Him and do His bidding". "When the ocean of My presence hath ebbed and the Book of My Revelation is ended turn your faces towards Him Whom God hath purposed, Who hath branched from this Ancient Root". "There hath branched from the Sadratu'l-Muntaha ... He is the Trust of God amongst you, His charge within you, His Manifestation unto you". "They who deprive themselves of the shadow of the Branch, are lost in the wilderness of error". "Ordaineth ... for Him (Abdu'l-Baha) ... that which Thou hast destined for The Messengers and the Trustees of The Revelation". "Whoso deviateth from My interpretation is a victim of his own fancy". "In all the Divine Dispensations the eldest son hath been given extraordinary distinctions. Even the station of prophethood hath been his birthright". "Whoso doth deviate therefrom (the Universal House of Justice) is verily of them that love discord, hath shown forth malice, and turned away from the Lord of the Covenant".

Linked together, all these quotes foretell of people who, clinging to doubt, will believe that Abdu'l-Baha is the One foretold to lead after the 1,000-year period, just as a Prophet would, instead of a new Prophet with an entirely new Covenant. Although there are many quotes that can dispel this doubt, just as Christians today, they will circumvent truth with falsehood.

Also, the quote: "Manifestations that will come down in the future 'in the shadow of the clouds'", will become interpreted to mean more of a universal revelation, or, a spiritual interpretation, instead of the obvious meaning of a physically new Prophet.

In Christianity

The Last Judgment (14 c.), Saint Vitus Cathedral, Prague

Biblical sources

The doctrine and iconographic depiction of the "Last Judgment" are drawn from many passages from the apocalyptic sections of the Bible, but most notably from Jesus' teaching of the strait gate in the Gospel of Matthew and also found in the Gospel of Luke:

Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so, every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Therefore, by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that saith unto me: Lord, Lord, shall enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. (Matthew 7:13–23)

Then said one unto him, Lord, are there few that be saved? And he said unto them, Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able. When once the master of the house is risen up, and hath shut to the door, and ye begin to stand without, and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, Lord, open unto us; and he shall answer and say unto you, I know you not whence ye are: Then shall ye begin to say, We have eaten and drunk in thy presence, and thou hast taught in our streets. But he shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out. (Luke 13:23–28)

It also appears in the Sheep and the Goats section of Matthew where the judgment seems entirely based on help given or refused to "one of the least of these my brethren" who are identified in Matthew 12 as "whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven".

When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will put the sheep at his right hand and the goats at the left. Then the king will say to those at his right hand, "Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me." (Matthew 25:31–36),

And the king will answer them, "Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.’ Then he will say to those at his left hand, ‘You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not give me clothing, sick and in prison and you did not visit me." (Matthew 25:40–43)

Then he will answer them, "Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." (Matthew 25:45–46)

The doctrine is further supported by passages in the Books of Daniel, Isaiah and the Revelation:

Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. From his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done. (Rev 20:11–12)

As I watched, thrones were set in place, and an Ancient One[a] took his throne; his clothing was white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool; his throne was fiery flames, and its wheels were burning fire. A stream of fire issued and flowed out from his presence. A thousand thousand served him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood attending him. The court sat in judgement, and the books were opened. (Daniel 7: 9-10)

Even now the axe is lying at the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. "I baptize you with water for repentance, but one who is more powerful than I is coming after me; I am not worthy to carry his sandals. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing-floor and will gather his wheat into the granary; but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire." (Matthew 3:10–12)

Just as the weeds are collected and burned up with fire, so will it be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will collect out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all evildoers, and they will throw them into the furnace of fire, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Let anyone with ears listen! (Matthew 13:40–43)

I tell you, my friends, do not fear those who kill the body, and after that can do nothing more. But I will warn you whom to fear: fear him who, after he has killed, has authority to cast into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him! (Luke 12:4–5)

Amillennialism

Main article: Amillennialism

Amillennialism is the standard view in Christian denominations such as the Anglican, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, Methodist and Presbyterian/Reformed Churches. It holds that "the kingdom of God is present in the church age", and that the millennium mentioned in the Book of Revelation is a "symbol of the saints reigning with Christ forever in victory."

Anglicanism and Methodism

The Last Judgment by John Martin (1854)

Article IV – Of the Resurrection of Christ in Anglicanism's Articles of Religion and Article III – Of the Resurrection of Christ of Methodism's Articles of Religion state that:

Christ did truly rise again from death, and took again his body, with flesh, bones, and all things appertaining to the perfection of Man's nature; wherewith he ascended into Heaven, and there sitteth, until he return to judge all Men at the last day.

As such, Anglican and Methodist theology holds that "there is an intermediate state between death and the resurrection of the dead, in which the soul does not sleep in unconsciousness, but exists in happiness or misery till the resurrection, when it shall be reunited to the body and receive its final reward." This space, termed Hades, is divided into Paradise (the Bosom of Abraham) and Gehenna "but with an impassable gulf between the two". Souls remain in Hades until the Last Judgment and "Christians may also improve in holiness after death during the middle state before the final judgment."

Anglican and Methodist theology holds that at the time of the Last Day, "Jesus will return and that He will 'judge both the quick and the dead'," and "all [will] be bodily resurrected and stand before Christ as our Judge. After the Judgment, the Righteous will go to their eternal reward in heaven and the Accursed will depart to hell (see Matthew 25)." The "issue of this judgment shall be a permanent separation of the evil and the good, the righteous and the wicked" (see The Sheep and the Goats). Moreover, in "the final judgment every one of our thoughts, words, and deeds will be known and judged" and individuals will be justified on the basis of their faith in Jesus, although "our works will not escape God's examination."

Catholicism

The Last Judgment, Sistine Chapel by Michelangelo (16 c.)

Belief in the Last Judgment (often linked with the General judgment) is held firmly in Catholicism. Immediately upon death each person undergoes the particular judgment, and depending upon one's behavior on earth, goes to heaven, purgatory, or hell. Those in purgatory will always reach heaven, but those in hell will be there eternally.

The Last Judgment will occur after the resurrection of the dead and "our 'mortal body' will come to life again." The Catholic Church teaches that at the time of the Last Judgment Christ will come in His glory, and all the angels with him, and in his presence the truth of each one's deeds will be laid bare, and each person who has ever lived will be judged with perfect justice. The believers who are judged worthy as well as those ignorant of Christ's teaching who followed the dictates of conscience will go to everlasting bliss, and those who are judged unworthy will go to everlasting condemnation.

A decisive factor in the Last Judgement will be the question, were the corporal works of mercy practiced or not during one's lifetime. They rate as important acts of charity. Therefore, and according to the biblical sources (Mt 25:31–46), the conjunction of the Last Judgement and the works of mercy is very frequent in the pictorial tradition of Christian art.

Before the Last Judgment, all will be resurrected. Those who were in purgatory will have already been purged, meaning they would have already been released into heaven, and so like those in heaven and hell will resurrect with their bodies, followed by the Last Judgment.

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1038 The resurrection of all the dead, "of both the just and the unjust" (Acts 24:15), will precede the Last Judgment. This will be "the hour when all who are in the tombs will hear [the Son of man's] voice and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment" (Jn 5:28-29) Then Christ will come "in his glory, and all the angels with him. . . . Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left. . . . And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life (Mt 25:31,32,46)."

1039 In the presence of Christ, who is Truth itself, the truth of each man's relationship with God will be laid bare (Cf. Jn 12:4). The Last Judgment will reveal even to its furthest consequences the good each person has done or failed to do during his earthly life.

1040 The Last Judgment will come when Christ returns in glory. Only the Father knows the day and the hour; only he determines the moment of its coming. Then through his Son Jesus Christ he will pronounce the final word on all history. We shall know the ultimate meaning of the whole work of creation and of the entire economy of salvation and understand the marvelous ways by which his Providence led everything towards its final end. The Last Judgment will reveal that God's justice triumphs over all the injustices committed by his creatures and that God's love is stronger than death. (Cf. Song 8:6)

The Eastern Orthodox and Catholic teachings of the Last Judgment differ only on the exact nature of the in-between state of purgatory/Abraham's Bosom. These differences may only be apparent and not actual due to differing theological terminology and evolving tradition.

Eastern Orthodoxy

The Last Judgment, 17th-century icon from Lipie. Historic Museum in Sanok, Poland.

 

The Last Judgment, mural from Voroneț Monastery, Romania

The Eastern Orthodox Church teaches that there are two judgments: the first, or "Particular" Judgment, is that experienced by each individual at the time of his or her death, at which time God will decide where one is to spend the time until the Second Coming of Christ (see Hades in Christianity). This judgment is generally believed to occur on the fortieth day after death. The second, "General" or "Final" Judgment will occur after the Second Coming.

Although in modern times some have attempted to introduce the concept of soul sleep into Orthodox thought about life after death, it has never been a part of traditional Orthodox teaching, and it even contradicts the Orthodox understanding of the intercession of the Saints.

Eastern Orthodoxy teaches that salvation is bestowed by God as a free gift of divine grace, which cannot be earned, and by which forgiveness of sins is available to all. However, the deeds done by each person are believed to affect how he will be judged, following the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats. How forgiveness is to be balanced against behavior is not well-defined in scripture, judgment in the matter being solely Christ's.

Similarly, although Orthodoxy teaches that salvation is obtained only through Christ and his Church, the fate of those outside the Church at the Last Judgment is left to the mercy of God and is not declared.

Viktor Vasnetsov's The Last Judgment, 1904

Icons

The theme of the Last Judgment is extremely important in Orthodoxy. Traditionally, an Orthodox church will have a fresco or mosaic of the Last Judgment on the back (western) wall so that the faithful, as they leave the services, are reminded that they will be judged by what they do during this earthly life.

The icon of the Last Judgment traditionally depicts Christ Pantokrator, enthroned in glory on a white throne, surrounded by the Theotokos (Virgin Mary), John the Baptist, Apostles, saints and angels. Beneath the throne the scene is divided in half with the "mansions of the righteous" (John 14:2), i.e., those who have been saved, to Jesus' right (the viewer's left), and the torments of those who have been damned to his left. Separating the two is the river of fire which proceeds from Jesus' left foot. For more detail, see below.

Hymnography

The theme of the Last Judgment is found in the funeral and memorial hymnody of the Church, and is a major theme in the services during Great Lent. The second Sunday before the beginning of Great Lent is dedicated to the Last Judgment. It is also found in the hymns of the Octoechos used on Saturdays throughout the year.

Lutheranism

Lutherans do not believe in any sort of earthly millennial kingdom of Christ either before or after his second coming on the last day. On the last day, all the dead will be resurrected. Their souls will then be reunited with the same bodies they had before dying. The bodies will then be changed, those of the wicked to a state of everlasting shame and torment, those of the righteous to an everlasting state of celestial glory. After the resurrection of all the dead, and the change of those still living, all nations shall be gathered before Christ, and he will separate the righteous from the wicked. Christ will publicly judge all people by the testimony of their faith – the good works of the righteous in evidence of their faith, and the evil works of the wicked in evidence of their unbelief. He will judge in righteousness in the presence of all and men and angels, and his final judgement will be just damnation to everlasting punishment for the wicked and a gracious gift of life everlasting to the righteous.

William Blake's The Day of Judgment printed in 1808 to illustrate the Robert Blair's poem "The Grave"

Esoteric Christian tradition

Although the Last Judgment is preached by a great part of Christian mainstream churches; the Esoteric Christian traditions like the Essenes and Rosicrucians, the Spiritualist movement, and some liberal theologies reject the traditional conception of the Last Judgment, as inconsistent with an all-just and loving God, in favor of some form of universal salvation.

Max Heindel, a Danish-American astrologer and mystic, taught that when the Day of Christ comes, marking the end of the current fifth or Aryan epoch, the human race will have to pass a final examination or last judgment, where, as in the Days of Noah, the chosen ones or pioneers, the sheep, will be separated from the goats or stragglers, by being carried forward into the next evolutionary period, inheriting the ethereal conditions of the New Galilee in the making. Nevertheless, it is emphasized that all beings of the human evolution will ultimately be saved in a distant future as they acquire a superior grade of consciousness and altruism. At the present period, the process of human evolution is conducted by means of successive rebirths in the physical world and the salvation is seen as being mentioned in Revelation 3:12 (KJV), which states "Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God and he shall go no more out". However, this western esoteric tradition states – like those who have had a near-death experience – that after the death of the physical body, at the end of each physical lifetime and after the life review period (which occurs before the silver cord is broken), a judgment occurs, more akin to a Final Review or End Report over one's life, where the life of the subject is fully evaluated and scrutinized. This judgment is seen as being mentioned in Hebrews 9:27, which states that "it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment".

Artistic representations

Doom painting, St Mary's Church, North Leigh, Oxfordshire, 15th century

 

Armenian manuscript depicts the Last Judgment,1679

In art, the Last Judgment is a common theme in medieval and renaissance religious iconography. Like most early iconographic innovations, its origins stem from Byzantine art, although it was a much less common subject than in the West during the Middle Ages. In Western Christianity, it is often the subject depicted in medieval cathedrals and churches, either outside on the central tympanum of the entrance or inside on the (rear) west wall, so that the congregation attending church saw the image on either entering of leaving.

In the 15th century it also appeared as the central section of a triptych on altarpieces, with the side panels showing heaven and hell, as in the Beaune Altarpiece or a triptych by Hans Memling. The usual composition has Christ seated high in the centre, flanked by angels, the Virgin Mary, and John the Evangelist who are supplicating on behalf of those being judged (in what is called a Deesis group in Orthodoxy). Saint Michael is often shown, either weighing the deceased on scales or directing matters, and there might be a large crowd of saints, angels, and the saved around the central group.

At the bottom of the composition a crowd of the deceased are shown, often with some rising from their graves. These are being sorted and directed by angels into the saved and the damned. Almost always the saved are on the viewer's left (so on the right hand of Christ), and the damned on the right. The saved are led up to heaven, often shown as a fortified gateway, while the damned are handed over to devils who herd them down into hell on the right; the composition therefore has a circular pattern of movement. Often the damned disappear into a Hellmouth, the mouth of a huge monster, an image of Anglo-Saxon origin. The damned often include figures of high rank, wearing crowns, mitres, and often the Papal tiara during the lengthy periods when there were antipopes, or in Protestant depictions. There may be detailed depictions of the torments of the damned.

The most famous Renaissance depiction is Michelangelo Buonarroti's The Last Judgment in the Sistine Chapel. Included in this fresco is his self-portrait, as St. Bartholomew's flayed skin.^[74]

The image in Eastern Orthodox icons has a similar composition, but usually less space is devoted to hell, and there are often a larger number of scenes; the Orthodox readiness to label figures with inscriptions often allows more complex compositions. There is more often a large group of saints around Christ (which may include animals), and the hetoimasia or "empty throne", containing a cross, is usually shown below Christ, often guarded by archangels; figures representing Adam and Eve may kneel below it or below Christ. A distinctive feature of the Orthodox composition, especially in Russian icons, is a large band leading like a chute from the feet of Christ down to hell; this may resemble a striped snake or be a "river of Fire" coloured flame red. If it is shown as a snake, it attempts to bite Adam on the heel but, as he is protected by Christ, is unsuccessful.

Last Judgment (Russia, 18th century)

Swedenborgian

Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772) had a revelation that the church has gone through a series of Last Judgments. First, during Noah's Flood, then Moses on Mount Sinai, Jesus' crucifixion, and finally in 1757, which is the final Last Judgment. These occur in a realm outside earth and heaven, and are spiritual in nature.

In Islam

Diagram of "Plain of Assembly"(Ard al-Hashr) on the Day of Judgment, from autograph manuscript of Futuhat al-Makkiyya by Sufi mystic and philosopher Ibn Arabi, ca. 1238. Shown are the 'Arsh (Throne of God), pulpits for the righteous (al-Aminun), seven rows of angels, Gabriel (al-Ruh), A'raf (the Barrier), the Pond of Abundance, al-Maqam al-Mahmud (the Praiseworthy Station; where the prophet Muhammad will stand to intercede for the faithful), Mizan (the Scale), As-Sirāt (the Bridge), Jahannam (hell) and Marj al-Jannat (Meadow of Paradise).

According to Islamic eschatology, the Day of Resurrection (yawm al-qiyāmah)  is believed to be God's final assessment of humanity. The sequence of events (according to the most commonly held belief) is the annihilation of all creatures, resurrection of the body, and the judgment of all sentient creatures. It is a time where everyone would be shown his or her deeds and actions with justice.

The exact time when these events will occur is unknown, however there are said to be major and minor signs which are to occur near the time of Qiyammah (end time). It is believed that prior to the time of Qiyammah, two dangerous, evil tribes called Yajooj and Majooj are released from a dam-resembling wall that Allah makes stronger everyday. Other signs are mentioned like the blowing of the first trumpet by an archangel Israfil, and the coming of rain of mercy that will cause humans to grow from a tiny part of their tailbone, which was said to never degenerate, even in the grave, despite the decay of the human body. Many verses of the Quran, especially the earlier ones, are dominated by the idea of the nearing of the Day of Resurrection.

Belief in Judgment Day is considered a fundamental tenet of faith by all Muslims. It is one of the six articles of faith. The trials and tribulations associated with it are detailed in both the Quran and the hadith, sayings of Muhammad. Hence they were added in the commentaries of the Islamic expositors and scholarly authorities such as al-Ghazali, Ibn Kathir, Ibn Majah, Muhammad al-Bukhari, and Ibn Khuzaymah who explain them in detail. Every human, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, is believed to be held accountable for their deeds and are believed to be judged by God accordingly.

In Judaism

In Judaism, beliefs vary about a last day of judgment for all mankind. Some rabbis hold that there will be such a day following the resurrection of the dead. Others hold that this accounting and judgment happens when one dies. Still others hold that the last judgment only applies to the gentiles and not the Jewish people.

In Zoroastrianism

Further information: Frashokereti

Frashokereti is the Zoroastrian doctrine of a final renovation of the universe, when evil will be destroyed, and everything else will be then in perfect unity with God (Ahura Mazda).

The doctrinal premises are (1) good will eventually prevail over evil; (2) creation was initially perfectly good, but was subsequently corrupted by evil; (3) the world will ultimately be restored to the perfection it had at the time of creation; (4) the "salvation for the individual depended on the sum of [that person's] thoughts, words and deeds, and there could be no intervention, whether compassionate or capricious, by any divine being to alter this." Thus, each human bears responsibility for their own fate, and simultaneously shares in the responsibility for the fate of the world.

Crack of doom

In English, crack of doom is an old term used for the Day of Judgement, referring in particular to the blast of trumpets signalling the end of the world in Chapter 8 of the Book of Revelation. A "crack" had the sense of any loud noise, preserved in the phrase "crack of thunder", and "doom" was a term for the Last Judgement, as doomsday still is.

The phrase is famously used by William Shakespeare in Macbeth, where on the heath the Three Witches show Macbeth the line of kings that will issue from Banquo:

"Why do you show me this? A fourth! Start, eyes!

What, will the line stretch out to the crack of doom?

Another yet! A seventh! I'll see no more." (Act 4, scene 1, 112–117)

The meaning was that Banquo's line will endure until the Judgement Day, flattery for King James I, who claimed descent from Banquo.

Music

Marc-Antoine Charpentier, Extremum Dei Judicium H.401, Oratorio for soloists, chorus, 2 treble instruments, and continuo. (1680)

Giacomo Carissimi, Extremum Dei Judicium, for 3 chorus, 2 violins and organ.

Divine right of kings

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_right_of_kings 

Henry VIII declared himself the Supreme Head of the Church of England and ushered in the theory of divine right of kings.

The divine right of kings, divine right, or God's mandate is a political and religious doctrine of political legitimacy in a monarchy. It stems from a specific metaphysical framework in which a monarch is pre-ordained to inherit the crown before their birth. Under this theory of political legitimacy the subjects of the crown are considered to have actively (rather than merely passively) turned over the metaphysical selection of the king's soul – which will inhabit the body and rule them – over to God. In this way, the "divine right" originates as a metaphysical act of humility or submission towards God. The divine right has been a key element for legitimizing many absolute monarchies.

Consequentially, it asserts that a monarch is not accountable to an earthly authority (such as a parliament) because their right to rule is derived from divine authority. The monarch is thus not subject to the will of his people, of the aristocracy, or of any other estate of the realm. It implies that only divine authority can judge an unjust monarch and that any attempt to depose, dethrone or restrict their powers runs contrary to God's will and may constitute a sacrilegious act. It is often expressed in the phrase "by the Grace of God", attached to the titles of a reigning monarch; although this right does not make the monarch the same as a sacred king.

Historically, many notions of rights were authoritarian and hierarchical, with different people granted different rights, and some having more rights than others. For instance, the right of a father to respect from his son did not indicate a right for the son to receive a return from that respect; and the divine right of kings, which permitted absolute power over subjects, did not leave a lot of room for many rights for the subjects themselves.

In contrast, conceptions of rights developed during the Age of Enlightenment often emphasized liberty and equality as among the most important aspects of rights, for example in the American Revolution and the French Revolution.

Pre-Christian European conceptions

The Imperial cult of ancient Rome identified Roman emperors and some members of their families with the "divinely sanctioned" authority (auctoritas) of the Roman State. The official offer of cultus to a living emperor acknowledged his office and rule as divinely approved and constitutional: his Principate should therefore demonstrate pious respect for traditional Republican deities and mores. Many of the rites, practices and status distinctions that characterized the cult to emperors were perpetuated in the theology and politics of the Christianized Empire.

Christian conceptions

During early and middle ages

Outside of Christianity, kings were often seen as either ruling with the backing of heavenly powers or perhaps even being divine beings themselves. However, the Christian notion of a divine right of kings is traced to a story found in 1 Samuel, where the prophet Samuel anoints Saul and then David as mashiach ("anointed one")—king over Israel. The anointing is to such an effect that the monarch became inviolable so that even when Saul sought to kill David, David would not raise his hand against him because "he was the Lord's anointed".

Although the later Roman Empire had developed the European concept of a divine regent in Late Antiquity, Adomnan of Iona provides one of the earliest written examples of a Western medieval concept of kings ruling with divine right. He wrote of the Irish King Diarmait mac Cerbaill's assassination and claimed that divine punishment fell on his assassin for the act of violating the monarch. Adomnan also recorded a story about Saint Columba supposedly being visited by an angel carrying a glass book, who told him to ordain Aedan mac Gabrain as King of Dal Riata. Columba initially refused, and the angel answered by whipping him and demanding that he perform the ordination because God had commanded it. The same angel visited Columba on three successive nights. Columba finally agreed, and Aedan came to receive ordination. At the ordination, Columba told Aedan that so long as he obeyed God's laws, then none of his enemies would prevail against him, but the moment he broke them, this protection would end, and the same whip with which Columba had been struck would be turned against the king. Adomnan's writings most likely influenced other Irish writers, who in turn influenced continental ideas as well. Pepin the Short's coronation may have also come from the same influence. The Byzantine Empire can be seen as the progenitor of this concept (which began with Constantine I), which in turn inspired the Carolingian dynasty and the Holy Roman Emperors, whose lasting impact on Western and Central Europe further inspired all subsequent Western ideas of kingship.

In the Middle Ages, the idea that God had granted earthly power to the monarch, just as he had given spiritual authority and power to the church, especially to the Pope, was already a well-known concept long before later writers coined the term "divine right of kings" and employed it as a theory in political science. For example, Richard I of England declared at his trial during the diet at Speyer in 1193: "I am born in a rank which recognizes no superior but God, to whom alone I am responsible for my actions", and it was Richard who first used the motto "Dieu et mon droit" ("God and my right") which is still the motto of the Monarch of the United Kingdom.

With the rise of nation-states and the Protestant Reformation in the late 16th century, the theory of divine right justified the king's absolute authority in both political and spiritual matters. Henry VIII of England declared himself the Supreme Head of the Church of England, and exerted the power of the throne more than any of his predecessors. As a political theory, it was further developed by James VI of Scotland (1567–1625), and came to the force in England under his reign as James I of England (1603–1625). Louis XIV of France (1643–1715) strongly promoted the theory as well.

Scots texts of James VI of Scotland

The Scots textbooks of the divine right of kings were written in 1597–1598 by James VI of Scotland despite Scotland never having believed in the theory and where the monarch was regarded as the "first among equals" on a par with his people. His Basilikon Doron, a manual on the powers of a king, was written to edify his four-year-old son Henry Frederick that a king "acknowledgeth himself ordained for his people, having received from the god a burden of government, whereof he must be countable". He based his theories in part on his understanding of the Bible, as noted by the following quote from a speech to parliament delivered in 1610 as James I of England:

The state of monarchy is the supremest thing upon earth, for kings are not only God's lieutenants upon earth and sit upon God's throne, but even by God himself, they are called gods. There be three principal [comparisons] that illustrate the state of monarchy: one taken out of the word of God, and the two other out of the grounds of policy and philosophy. In the Scriptures, kings are called gods, and so their power after a certain relation compared to the Divine power. Kings are also compared to fathers of families; for a king is true parens patriae [parent of the country], the politic father of his people. And lastly, kings are compared to the head of this microcosm of the body of man.

James's reference to "God's lieutenants" is apparently a reference to the text in Romans 13 where Paul refers to "God's ministers".

(1) Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. (2) Whosoever, therefore, resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. (3) For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: (4) For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. (5) Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath but also for conscience sake. (6) For this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. (7) Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

Western conceptions

Louis XIV of France depicted as the Sun King.

The conception of ordination brought with it largely unspoken parallels with the Anglican and Catholic priesthood, but the overriding metaphor in James's handbook was that of a father's relation to his children. "Just as no misconduct on the part of a father can free his children from obedience to the fifth commandment", James also had printed his Defense of the Right of Kings in the face of English theories of inalienable popular and clerical rights. The divine right of kings, or divine-right theory of kingship, is a political and religious doctrine of royal and political legitimacy. It asserts that a monarch is subject to no earthly authority, deriving his right to rule directly from the will of God. The king is thus not subject to the will of his people, the aristocracy, or any other estate of the realm, including (in the view of some, especially in Protestant countries) the church. A weaker or more moderate form of this political theory does hold, however, that the king is subject to the church and the pope, although completely irreproachable in other ways; but according to this doctrine in its strong form, only God can judge an unjust king. The doctrine implies that any attempt to depose the king or to restrict his powers runs contrary to the will of God and may constitute a sacrilegious act.

One passage in scripture supporting the idea of the divine right of kings was used by Martin Luther, when urging the secular authorities to crush the Peasant Rebellion of 1525 in Germany in his Against the Murderous, Thieving Hordes of Peasants, basing his argument on St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans 13:1–7.

It is related to the ancient Catholic philosophies regarding monarchy, in which the monarch is God's vicegerent upon the earth and therefore subject to no inferior power. However, in Roman Catholic jurisprudence, the monarch is always subject to natural and divine law, which are regarded as superior to the monarch. The possibility of monarchy declining morally, overturning natural law, and degenerating into a tyranny oppressive of the general welfare was answered theologically with the Catholic concept of extra-legal tyrannicide, ideally ratified by the pope. Until the unification of Italy, the Holy See did, from the time Christianity became the Roman state religion, assert on that ground its primacy over secular princes; however this exercise of power never, even at its zenith, amounted to theocracy, even in jurisdictions where the Bishop of Rome was the temporal authority.

Antichristus, a woodcut by Lucas Cranach the Elder, of the pope using the temporal power to grant authority to a ruler contributing generously to the Catholic Church

Catholic justification for the divine rights

Catholic thought justified submission to the monarchy by reference to the following:

1. The Old Testament, in which God chose kings to rule over Israel, beginning with Saul who was then rejected by God in favour of David, whose dynasty continued (at least in the southern kingdom) until the Babylonian captivity.
2. The New Testament, in which the first pope, St. Peter, commands that all Christians shall honour the Roman Emperor (1 Peter 2:13–20), even though, at that time, he was still a pagan emperor. St. Paul agreed with St. Peter that subjects should be obedient to the powers that be because they are appointed by God, as he wrote in his Epistle to the Romans 13:1–7. Likewise, Jesus Christ proclaims in the Gospel of Matthew that one should "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's"; that is at first, literally, the payment of taxes as binding those who use the imperial currency (See Matthew 22:15–22). Jesus told Pontius Pilate that his authority as Roman governor of Judaea came from heaven according to John 19:10–11.
3. The endorsement by the popes and the church of the line of emperors beginning with the Emperors Constantine and Theodosius, later the Eastern Roman emperors, and finally the Western Roman emperor, Charlemagne and his successors, the Catholic Holy Roman Emperors.

The French Huguenot nobles and clergy, having rejected the pope and the Catholic Church, were left only with the supreme power of the king who, they taught, could not be gainsaid or judged by anyone. Since there was no longer the countervailing power of the papacy and since the Church of England was a creature of the state and had become subservient to it, this meant that there was nothing to regulate the powers of the king, and he became an absolute power. In theory, divine, natural, customary, and constitutional law still held sway over the king, but, absent a superior spiritual power, it was difficult to see how they could be enforced since the king could not be tried by any of his own courts.

Some of the symbolism within the coronation ceremony for British monarchs, in which they are anointed with holy oils by the Archbishop of Canterbury, thereby ordaining them to monarchy, perpetuates the ancient Roman Catholic monarchical ideas and ceremonial (although few Protestants realize this, the ceremony is nearly entirely based upon that of the Coronation of the Holy Roman Emperor). However, in the UK, the symbolism ends there since the real governing authority of the monarch was all but extinguished by the Whig revolution of 1688–89 (see Glorious Revolution). The king or queen of the United Kingdom is one of the last monarchs still to be crowned in the traditional Christian ceremonial, which in most other countries has been replaced by an inauguration or other declaration.

Charles I of England, with a divine hand moving his crown

The concept of divine right incorporates, but exaggerates, the ancient Christian concept of "royal God-given rights", which teach that "the right to rule is anointed by God", although this idea is found in many other cultures, including Aryan and Egyptian traditions. In pagan religions, the king was often seen as a kind of god and so was an unchallengeable despot. The ancient Roman Catholic tradition overcame this idea with the doctrine of the "Two Swords" and so achieved, for the very first time, a balanced constitution for states. The advent of Protestantism saw something of a return to the idea of a mere unchallengeable despot.

Thomas Aquinas condoned extra-legal tyrannicide in the worst of circumstances:

When there is no recourse to a superior by whom judgment can be made about an invader, then he who slays a tyrant to liberate his fatherland is [to be] praised and receives a reward.

— Commentary on the Magister Sententiarum

On the other hand, Aquinas forbade the overthrow of any morally, Christianly and spiritually legitimate king by his subjects. The only human power capable of deposing the king was the pope. The reasoning was that if a subject may overthrow his superior for some bad law, who was to be the judge of whether the law was bad? If the subject could so judge his own superior, then all lawful superior authority could lawfully be overthrown by the arbitrary judgement of an inferior, and thus all law was under constant threat. Towards the end of the Middle Ages, many philosophers, such as Nicholas of Cusa and Francisco Suarez, propounded similar theories. The Church was the final guarantor that Christian kings would follow the laws and constitutional traditions of their ancestors and the laws of God and of justice. 

Similarly, the Chinese concept of Mandate of Heaven required that the emperor properly carry out the proper rituals and consult his ministers; however, this concept made it extremely difficult to undo any acts carried out by an ancestor.

The French prelate Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet made a classic statement of the doctrine of divine right in a sermon preached before King Louis XIV:

Les rois règnent par moi, dit la Sagesse éternelle: 'Per me reges regnant'; et de là nous devons conclure non seulement que les droits de la royauté sont établis par ses lois, mais que le choix des personnes est un effet de sa providence.

Kings reign by Me, says Eternal Wisdom: 'Per me reges regnant' [in Latin]; and from that we must conclude not only that the rights of royalty are established by its laws, but also that the choice of persons [to occupy the throne] is an effect of its providence.

Divine right and Protestantism

Before the Reformation the anointed king was, within his realm, the accredited vicar of God for secular purposes (see the Investiture Controversy); after the Reformation he (or she if queen regnant) became this in Protestant states for religious purposes also.

In England, it is not without significance that the sacerdotal vestments, generally discarded by the clergy – dalmatic, alb and stole – continued to be among the insignia of the sovereign (see Coronation of the British monarch). Moreover, this sacrosanct character he acquired not by virtue of his "sacring", but by hereditary right; the coronation, anointing and vesting were but the outward and visible symbol of a divine grace adherent in the sovereign by virtue of his title. Even Roman Catholic monarchs, like Louis XIV, would never have admitted that their coronation by the archbishop constituted any part of their title to reign; it was no more than the consecration of their title.

In England the doctrine of the divine right of kings was developed to its most extreme logical conclusions during the political controversies of the 17th century; its most famous exponent was Sir Robert Filmer. It was the main issue to be decided by the English Civil War, the Royalists holding that "all Christian kings, princes and governors" derive their authority direct from God, the Parliamentarians that this authority is the outcome of a contract, actual or implied, between sovereign and people.

In one case the king's power would be unlimited, according to Louis XIV's famous saying: "L' état, c'est moi!", or limited only by his own free act; in the other his actions would be governed by the advice and consent of the people, to whom he would be ultimately responsible. The victory of this latter principle was proclaimed to all the world by the execution of Charles I. The doctrine of divine right, indeed, for a while drew nourishment from the blood of the royal "martyr"; it was the guiding principle of the Anglican Church of the Restoration; but it suffered a rude blow when James II of England made it impossible for the clergy to obey both their conscience and their king. The Glorious Revolution of 1688 made an end of it as a great political force. This has led to the constitutional development of the Crown in Britain, as held by descent modified and modifiable by parliamentary action.

Divine right in Asia

Zoroastrianism conceptions (Iranian world)

Ahura Mazda gives divine kingship to Ardashir.

Khvarenah (Avestan: 'xᵛarənah;' Persian: far) is an Iranian and Zoroastrian concept, which literally means glory, about divine right of the kings. In the Iranian view, kings would never rule, unless Khvarenah is with them, and they will never fall unless Khvarenah leaves them. For example, according to the Kar-namag of Ardashir, when Ardashir I of Persia and Artabanus V of Parthia fought for the throne of Iran, on the road Artabanus and his contingent are overtaken by an enormous ram, which is also following Ardashir. Artabanus's religious advisors explain to him that the ram is the manifestation of the khwarrah of the ancient Iranian kings, which is leaving Artabanus to join Ardashir.

In early Mesopotamian culture, kings were often regarded as deities after their death. Shulgi of Ur was among the first Mesopotamian rulers to declare himself to be divine. This was the direct precursor to the concept of "Divine Right of kings", as well as in the Egyptian and Roman religions.

Confucianism and Shintoism

Concept of "Mandate of Heaven"

The Emperor of Japan rules as a divine descendant of the sun goddess Amaterasu

Practice in China and East Asia

In China and East Asia, rulers justified their rule with the philosophy of the Mandate of Heaven, which, although similar to the European concept, bore several key differences. While the divine right of kings granted unconditional legitimacy, the Mandate of Heaven was dependent on the behaviour of the ruler, the Son of Heaven. Heaven would bless the authority of a just ruler, but it could be displeased with a despotic ruler and thus withdraw its mandate, transferring it to a more suitable and righteous person. This withdrawal of mandate also afforded the possibility of revolution as a means to remove the errant ruler; revolt was never legitimate under the European framework of divine right.

In China, the right of rebellion against an unjust ruler had been a part of the political philosophy ever since the Zhou dynasty, whose rulers had used this philosophy to justify their overthrow of the previous Shang dynasty. Chinese historians interpreted a successful revolt as evidence that the Mandate of Heaven had passed on to the usurper.

Practice in Japan

In Japan, the Son of Heaven title was less conditional than its Chinese equivalent. There was no divine mandate that punished the emperor for failing to rule justly. The right to rule of the Japanese emperor, descended from the sun goddess Amaterasu, was absolute. The Japanese emperors traditionally wielded little secular power; generally, it was the duty of the sitting emperor to perform rituals and make public appearances, while true power was held by regents, high-ranking ministers, a commander-in-chief of the emperor's military known as the shōgun, or even retired emperors depending on the time period.

Hinduism and Indic religions

Indian origin religions (also called Dharmic or Indic religions) originated in the Indian subcontinent; namely Hinduism, and its later offshoots such as Jainism, Buddhism, and Sikhism. These religions are also all classified as Eastern religions. Although Indian religions are connected through the history of India, they constitute a wide range of religious communities, and are not confined to the Indian subcontinent. With ancient roots in the Indus Valley Civilisation, the documented history of Indian religions begin with the historical Vedic religion during the Vedic period which lasted from 1750 BCE to 500 BCE. Various reform movements in Hinduism led to development of offshoots of Hinduism such as Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism.

Concept of "Chakravarti"

14 Ratnas of Chakravartin, 17th century manuscript

"Chakravarti" refers to an ideal universal ruler especially in the sense of an imperial ruler of the entire Indian sub-continent (as in the case of the Maurya Empire).

In Hinduism, the term generally denotes a powerful ruler whose dominion extended to the entire earth. In Buddhist kingship and Jainism, the term generally applies to temporal as well as spiritual kingship and leadership.

Concept of "Devaraja"

The concept "devarāja" grew out of Sanatana Dharma, in which the king was a divine universal ruler, a manifestation of Shri Bhagawan (often attributed to Shiva or Vishnu). The concept viewed the monarch to possess transcendental quality, the king as the living god on earth. The concept is closely related to the Bharati concept of Chakravartin (universal monarch). In politics, it is viewed as the divine justification of a king's rule.

The concept was institutionalized and gained its elaborate manifestations in ancient Java and Kambujadesha, where monuments such as Prambanan and Angkor Wat were erected to celebrate the king's divine rule on earth.

Indian Subcontinent

"Chakravarti" kings of Indian subcontinent

The first references to a Chakravala Chakravartin appear in monuments from the time of the early Maurya Empire, in the 4th to 3rd century BCE, in reference to Chandragupta Maurya and his grandson Ashoka.

Ashoka, also known as Ashoka the Great, was an Indian emperor of the Maurya empire, who ruled almost all of the Indian subcontinent from c. 268 to 232 BCE. For the spread of Buddhism, he sent buddhist missions to 9 destinations, including Tibet and China, Sri Lanka and Southeast Asia.

"Devaraja" tamil kings

In Dravidian culture, before Brahmanism and especially during the Sangam period, emperors were known as இறையர் (Iraiyer), or "those who spill", and kings were called கோ (Ko) or கோன் (Kon). During this time, the distinction between kingship and godhood had not yet occurred, as the caste system had not yet been introduced. Even in Modern Tamil, the word for temple is 'கோயில்', meaning "king's house". Kings were understood to be the "agents of God", as they protected the world like God did. This may well have been continued post-Brahminism in Tamilakam, as the famous Thiruvalangadu inscription states:

"Having noticed by the marks (on his body) that Arulmozhi was the very Vishnu" in reference to the Emperor Raja Raja Chola I.

"Devaraja" kings in Indianized polities in Southeast Asia

Indianised Hindu-Buddhist kingdoms of Southeast Asia deployed the Indian Hindu Brahmins scholars in their courts. Under the influence of the Brahmin scholars these kingdoms adopted the concept of deveraja. It was first adopted by the Indianised Hindu-Buddhist kingdoms of Java. Khmer empire which ruled Cambodia and Vietnam and other parts of the nearby present day nations adopted it from the Javanese kings. Eventually, Thai kings adopted the concept from the nearby Khmer empire.

Indonesian empires

Indianised Hindu-Buddhist empires such as Srivijaya and Majapahit deployed the Indian Hindu Brahmins scholars in their courts, and through Brahmins these kingdoms adopted the concept of deveraja. It was first adopted by the Srivijaya and then the Indianised Hindu-Buddhist kingdoms of Java such as Majapahit, through them the concept of deveraja transmitted to the territories under their influence (present day Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Brunei, East Timur, parts of southern mainland Southeast Asia.

The concept of devaraja or God King was the ancient Cambodian state religion, but it probably originated in Java where the Hindu influence first reached Southeast Asia. Circa 8th century, Sailendras allegedly ruled over Java, Sumatra, the Malay Peninsula and parts of Cambodia. In ancient Java, since Sailendra dynasty. The concept of devaraja is believed to be introduced to Java in 732, when king Sanjaya installed a linga to consecrate a new Mataram Dynasty, as stated in Canggal inscription, thus the king seek Shiva's protection of his rule.

Even older Tarumanagara kingdom, the state religion regarded the king as god incarnated on earth. The Tarumanagara fifth century CE Ciaruteun inscription, inscribed with king's sole print, regarded King Purnawarman as incarnation of Vishnu on earth. The Kebon Kopi I inscription, also called Telapak Gajah stone, with an inscription and the engraving of two large elephant footprints, associated king's elephant ride as Airavata (elephant ride of God Indra), thus associated the king also with Indra.

In Medang kingdom in Central Java, it is customary to erect candi (temple) to honor and sent the soul of a dead king. The image of god inside the garbhagriha (central chamber) of the temple often portrayed the deceased king as a god, as the soul of the dead king finally united with the revered god in svargaloka. Some archaeologists propose that the statue of Shiva in the garbhagriha of Prambanan main temple was modelled after King Balitung, serving as a depiction of his posthumous deified self. It is suggested that the concept of devaraja was the fusion of Hinduism with native Austronesian ancestor worship. The 11th century great king Airlangga of Kahuripan in East Java, was deified posthumously as Vishnu in Belahan temple. In Java, the tradition of divine king continued well to Kediri, Singhasari, and Majapahit kingdom in the 15th century.

After the coming of Islam in the archipelago and the fall of Majapahit, the concept of God-King were most likely ceased to exist in Java, since Islam rejects the concept of divinity in mortal human being. Yet the concept survived in traditional Javanese mysticism of Kejawen as wahyu, suggesting that every king and rulers in Java was bestowed wahyu, a divine authority and mandate from God.

Khmer empire of Cambodia, Vietnam and Laos

Khmer empire followed the Hindu concept of divine devaraja kingship which they had adopted from the Indianised Hindu Javanese Majapahit empire.

In ancient Cambodia, devarāja is recognized as the state's institutionalized religion. The Cambodian the cult of the "god-king" is believed to be established early in the 9th century by Jayavarman II, founder of the Khmer empire of Angkor, with the brahmin scholar Sivakaivalya as his first chief priest at Mahendraparvata. For centuries, the cult provided the religious basis of the royal authority of the Khmer kings.

In a Khmer context the term was used in the latter sense as "god-king", but occurs only in the Sanskrit portion of the inscription K. 235 from Sdok Kak Thom / Sdok Kăk Thoṃ (in modern Thailand) dated 8 February 1053 CE, referring to the Khmer term kamrateṅ jagat ta rāja ("Lord of the Universe who is King") describing the protective deity of the Khmer Empire, a distinctly Khmer deity, which was mentioned before in the inscription K. 682 of Chok Gargyar (Kòḥ Ker) dated 921/22 CE.

Khmer emperor Jayavarman II is widely regarded as the king that set the foundation of the Angkor period in Cambodian history, beginning with the grandiose consecration ritual conducted by Jayavarman II (reign 790-835) in 802 on sacred Mount Mahendraparvata, now known as Phnom Kulen, to celebrate the independence of Kambuja from Javanese dominion (presumably the "neighboring Chams", or chvea). At that ceremony Prince Jayavarman II was proclaimed a universal monarch (Kamraten jagad ta Raja in Cambodian) or God King (Deva Raja in Sanskrit). According to some sources, Jayavarman II had resided for some time in Java during the reign of Sailendras, or "The Lords of Mountains", hence the concept of Devaraja or God King was ostensibly imported from Java. At that time, Sailendras allegedly ruled over Java, Sumatra, the Malay Peninsula and parts of Cambodia. An inscription from the Sdok Kak Thom temple recounts that at Mahendraparvata, Jayavarman II took part in a ritual by the Brahman Hiranyadama, and his chief priest Lord Sivakaivalya, known as devaraja (Khmer: ទេវរាជា) which placed him as a chakravartin, Lord of the Universe.

Thailand

This concept of "" (Thai: เทวราชา) (or "divine king") was adopted by the Thai kings from the ancient Khmer tradition of devaraja followed in the region, and the Hindu concept of kingship was applied to the status of the Thai king. The concept centered on the idea that the king was an incarnation (avatar) of the god Vishnu and that he was a Bodhisattva (enlightened one), therefore basing his power on his religious power, his moral power, and his purity of blood.

Brahmins took charge in the royal coronation. The king was treated as a reincarnation of Hindu gods. Ayutthaya historical documents show the official titles of the kings in great variation: Indra, Shiva and Vishnu, or Rama. Seemingly, Rama was the most popular, as in "Ramathibodhi". However, Buddhist influence was also evident, as many times the king's title and "unofficial" name "Dhammaraja", an abbreviation of the Buddhist Dharmaraja. The two former concepts were re-established, with a third, older concept taking hold.

The king, portrayed by state interests as a semi-divine figure, then became—through a rigid cultural implementation—an object of worship and veneration to his people. From then on the monarchy was largely removed from the people and continued under a system of absolute rule. Living in palaces designed after Mount Meru ("home of the gods" in Hinduism), the kings turned themselves into a "Chakravartin", where the king became an absolute and universal lord of his realm. Kings demanded that the universe be envisioned as revolving around them, and expressed their powers through elaborate rituals and ceremonies. For four centuries these kings ruled Ayutthaya, presiding over some of the greatest period of cultural, economic, and military growth in Thai History.

Rajas and Sultans of Indianized polities in Southeast Asia

In the Malay Annals, the rajas and sultans of the Malay States (today Malaysia, Brunei and Philippines) as well as their predecessors, such as the Indonesian kingdom of Majapahit, also claimed divine right to rule. The sultan is mandated by God and thus is expected to lead his country and people in religious matters, ceremonies as well as prayers. This divine right is called Daulat (which means 'state' in Arabic), and although the notion of divine right is somewhat obsolete, it is still found in the phrase Daulat Tuanku that is used to publicly acclaim the reigning Yang di-Pertuan Agong and the other sultans of Malaysia. The exclamation is similar to the European "Long live the King", and often accompanies pictures of the reigning monarch and his consort on banners during royal occasions. In Indonesia, especially on the island of Java, the sultan's divine right is more commonly known as the way, or 'revelation', but it is not hereditary and can be passed on to distant relatives.

Opposition to the divine right of kings

In the sixteenth century, both Catholic and Protestant political thinkers began to question the idea of a monarch's "divine right".

The Spanish Catholic historian Juan de Mariana put forward the argument in his book De rege et regis institutione (1598) that since society was formed by a "pact" among all its members, "there can be no doubt that they are able to call a king to account". Mariana thus challenged divine right theories by stating in certain circumstances, tyrannicide could be justified. Cardinal Robert Bellarmine also "did not believe that the institute of monarchy had any divine sanction" and shared Mariana's belief that there were times where Catholics could lawfully remove a monarch.

Among groups of English Protestant exiles fleeing from Queen Mary I, some of the earliest anti-monarchist publications emerged. "Weaned off uncritical royalism by the actions of Queen Mary ... The political thinking of men like Ponet, Knox, Goodman and Hales."

In 1553, Mary I, a Roman Catholic, succeeded her Protestant half-brother, Edward VI, to the English throne. Mary set about trying to restore Roman Catholicism by making sure that: Edward's religious laws were abolished in the Statute of Repeal Act (1553); the Protestant religious laws passed in the time of Henry VIII were repealed; and the Revival of the Heresy Acts were passed in 1554. The Marian Persecutions began soon afterwards. In January 1555, the first of nearly 300 Protestants were burnt at the stake under "Bloody Mary". When Thomas Wyatt the Younger instigated what became known as Wyatt's rebellion, John Ponet, the highest-ranking ecclesiastic among the exiles, allegedly participated in the uprising. He escaped to Strasbourg after the Rebellion's defeat and, the following year, he published A Shorte Treatise of Politike Power, in which he put forward a theory of justified opposition to secular rulers.

"Ponet's treatise comes first in a new wave of anti-monarchical writings ... It has never been assessed at its true importance, for it antedates by several years those more brilliantly expressed but less radical Huguenot writings which have usually been taken to represent the Tyrannicide-theories of the Reformation."

Ponet's pamphlet was republished on the eve of King Charles I's execution.

According to U.S. President John Adams, Ponet's work contained "all the essential principles of liberty, which were afterward dilated on by Sidney and Locke", including the idea of a three-branched government.

In due course, opposition to the divine right of kings came from a number of sources, including poet John Milton in his pamphlet The Tenure of Kings and Magistrates, and Thomas Paine in his pamphlet Common Sense. Probably the two most famous declarations of a right to revolution against tyranny in the English language are John Locke's Essay concerning The True Original, Extent, and End of Civil-Government and Thomas Jefferson's formulation in the United States Declaration of Independence that "all men are created equal".

 

Mandate of Heaven

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_of_Heaven 

The Mandate of Heaven (Chinese: 天命; pinyin: Tiānmìng; Wade–Giles: T'ien-ming, literally "Heaven's will") is a Chinese political and religious teaching that was used in ancient and imperial China to justify the rule of the King or Emperor of China. According to this belief, Heaven (天, Tian) embodies the natural order and the will of the just ruler of China, the "Son of Heaven" of the "Celestial Empire". If a ruler was overthrown, this was interpreted as an indication that the ruler was unworthy, and had lost the mandate. It was also a common belief that natural disasters such as famine and flood were divine retributions bearing signs of Heaven's displeasure with the ruler, so there would often be revolts following major disasters as the people saw these calamities as signs that the Mandate of Heaven had been withdrawn.

A brief flow chart depicting the flow of auctoritas in the transfer of the Mandate of Heaven at the transition of dynastic cycles.

The Mandate of Heaven does not require a legitimate ruler to be of noble birth but how well that person can rule, depending on the just and able performance of the rulers and their heirs. Chinese dynasties such as the Han and Ming were founded by men of common origins, but they were seen as having succeeded because they had gained the Mandate of Heaven. The concept is in some ways similar to the European concept of the divine right of kings; however, unlike the European concept, it does not confer an unconditional right to rule. Intrinsic to the concept of the Mandate of Heaven was the right of rebellion against an unjust ruler. The Mandate of Heaven was often invoked by philosophers and scholars in China as a way to curtail the abuse of power by the ruler, in a system that had few other checks. Chinese historians interpreted a successful revolt as evidence that Heaven had withdrawn its mandate from the ruler. Throughout Chinese history, times of poverty and natural disasters were often taken as signs that heaven considered the incumbent ruler unjust and thus in need of replacement.

The concept of the Mandate of Heaven was first used to support the rule of the kings of the Zhou dynasty (1046–256 BCE), and legitimize their overthrow of the earlier Shang dynasty (1600–1069 BCE). It was used throughout the history of China to legitimize the successful overthrow and installation of new emperors, including by non-Han Chinese monarchs such as the Qing (1636–1912).

History

Transition between the Shang and the Zhou

The prosperous Shang dynasty saw its rule filled with multiple outstanding accomplishments. Notably, the dynasty lasted for a considerable time during which 31 kings ruled over an extended period of 17 generations. During this period, the dynasty enjoyed a period of peace and tranquility in which citizens could make a good living. The government was originally able to control most of its internal affairs due to the firm support provided by the people. As time went on, however, the rulers' abuse of the other social classes led to social unrest and instability. The corruption in this dynasty created the conditions necessary for a new ruling house to rise —the Zhou dynasty. Rebellion against the Shang was led by Zhou Wu. They created the Mandate of Heaven to explain their right to assume rule and presumed that the only way to hold the mandate was to rule well in the eyes of Heaven. They believed that the Shang ruling house had become morally corrupt and that the Shang leaders' loss of virtue entitled their own house to take over. The overthrow of the Shang Dynasty, they said, was in accordance with the mandate given by Heaven.

After the Zhou became the ruling dynasty, they mostly appointed their own officials. The Zhou Dynasty had its own way of assigning its officials. However, in order to appease some of the citizens, they allowed some Shang beneficiaries to continue governing their small kingdoms in compliance with Zhou rules and regulations. As the empire continued to expand, intermarriage increased because the rulers believed that it was a method of forming strong alliances that enabled them to absorb more countries into the dynasty. In the case of a war, the Zhou dynasty boasted excellent military and technology mostly because of influence from annexed countries. They also excelled in shipbuilding, which, coupled with their discovery of celestial navigation, made them excellent mariners. Intellectually, the Zhou excelled in fields of literature and philosophy while many governmental positions were filled according to the intellectual ability of a candidate. A large amount of literature survives from the Zhou period, including the Book of Changes, Book of History, Book of Etiquette, Book of Song, Book of Odes, and the Book of Rites. Most of these works are commentaries on the progress and political movement of the dynasty. In philosophical terms, Confucius and his followers played an important role in shaping the mentality of the government as defined by the Five Confucian Relationships. These critical thinkers served as a foundation for the government. Their works primarily stressed the importance of the ruling class, respect, and their relationship with the lower class. Due to the growing size of the dynasty, it became apparent that a centralized government would lead to a lot of confusion and corruption because the government would not be able to exert its influence or accede to the needs of everyone. To address this political barrier, the dynasty formed a decentralized government in which the empire was broken down into sections. Within these districts were administrators who were appointed by the government, in return, they had to maintain their allegiance to the main internal government. In effect, the Zhou dynasty became a collection of districts. Consequently, this marked the fall of the dynasty as it became difficult for the central government to exert influence on all other regions of the empire.

Finally, when the Zhou dynasty's power decreased, it was wiped out by the State of Qin, which believed that the Zhou had become weak and their rule unjust. This transition emphasizes the customary trend of the Mandate of Heaven, which provided leeway for the rise of a new power. The Qin initially attempted to capitalize on the errors made by the Zhou, either by eliminating the source of error or reforming it. During this reformation, administrative changes were made and a system of legalism was developed which stated that the law is supreme over every individual, including the rulers. Although significant progress was made during the Qin dynasty, the persecution of scholars and ordinary citizens led to an unstable state.

After the death of Qin Shihuang, the first emperor of the Qin dynasty, a widespread revolt by prisoners, peasants, and unhappy soldiers inevitably led to the fall of the Qin dynasty due to its tyrannical practices. The establishment of the Han dynasty marked a great period in China’s history marked by significant changes in the political structure of the country. Under the Han emperors, significant changes were made in which the government introduced entrance examinations known as civil service or imperial examinations for governmental positions. Additionally, the Han dynasty prospered economically through the Silk Road and other trading means.

Five Dynasties period

Main article: Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms period

During the Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms Period, there was no dominant Chinese dynasty that ruled all of China. This created a problem for the Song dynasty that followed, as they wanted to legitimize their rule by claiming that the Mandate of Heaven had passed on them. The scholar-official Xue Juzheng compiled the Old History of the Five Dynasties (五代史) during the 960s and 970s, after the Song dynasty had taken northern China from the last of the Five Dynasties, the Later Zhou. A major purpose was to establish justification for the transference of the Mandate of Heaven through these five dynasties and thus to the Song dynasty. He argued that these dynasties met certain vital criteria to be considered as having attained the Mandate of Heaven despite never having ruled all of China. One is that they all ruled the traditional Chinese heartland. They also held considerably more territory than any of the other Chinese states that had existed conterminously in the south. When the Mandate of Heaven gave Zhou the ruling authority they had to figure out how to govern.

However, there were certain other areas where these dynasties all clearly fell short. The brutal behavior of Zhu Wen and the Later Liang was a source of considerable embarrassment, and thus there was pressure to exclude them from the Mandate. The following three dynasties, the Later Tang, Later Jin, and Later Han were all non-Han Chinese dynasties, all having been ruled by the Shatuo ethnic minority. There is also the concern that though each of them was the most powerful Chinese kingdom of its respective era, none of them ever really had the ability to unify the entire Chinese realm as there were several powerful states to the south. However, it was the conclusion of Xue Juzheng that the Mandate had indeed passed through each of the Five Dynasties, and thus onto the Song Dynasty when it conquered the last of those dynasties.

Qing invasion

In previous dynasties; the Song, Jin, and Yuan dynasties reigned for much of the beginning three centuries where the mandate of heaven was questioned heavily between dynastic councils among each emperor. Some emperors were not entirely sure of their validity when it came to claiming the mandate, for it was ambiguous. Especially for the case of the Jurchen Jin, where much of the council was not sure how to discern the validity of their rulers. From Emperor Gaozong of the Tang Dynasty to the Kangxi Emperor much of the chosen emperors contemplated much of this when they became a contender for the mandate. The reason for this was because of the ambiguity of the Mandate and overwhelmingly unofficial formality when declaring the Mandate of Heaven. However, Kublai Khan was the only indifferent ruler when he claimed the Mandate of Heaven over the Yuan Dynasty since he had a sizable military and was part of the Khitan people, as with many others from the same background since they did not have the same traditions and culture as their Chinese adversaries.

It was said that the peasant group of the Ming dynasty were the real selectors which allowed for the Mandate of Heaven to be claimed by the ruler. As a prospective candidate to the Mandate, they could please the peasantry group in order to win favor amongst the dynasty. It was solely politics from beginning to end and an attempt from the emperor to maintain a favorable act towards Heaven. Many emperors within the Qing dynasty looked immensely within themselves trying to come to terms with their ruling if natural disasters occurred within their time. This was interpreted as a warning of Heaven's displeased wrath towards an emperors ruling, such that the Mandate under their rule was unstable. Furthermore, Qing emperors would take their advisors feedback very seriously when pertaining to ruling and take it upon themselves to reflect on their current decisions of the dynastic overview in hopes that it favors Heaven.

The right to rule and the right of rebellion

Mencius stated that:

The people are of supreme importance; the altars of the gods of earth and grain come next; last comes the ruler. That is why he who gains the confidence of the multitudinous people will be Emperor... When a feudal lord endangers the altars of the gods of earth and grain, he should be replaced. When the sacrificial animals are sleek, the offerings are clean and the sacrifices are observed at due times, and yet floods and droughts come [by the agency of heaven], then the altars should be replaced.

— Mencius

Chinese historians interpreted a successful revolt as evidence that the Mandate of Heaven had passed. In China, the right of rebellion against an unjust ruler has been a part of political philosophy ever since the Zhou dynasty, and the successful rebellion was interpreted by Chinese historians as evidence that divine approval had passed on to the successive dynasty. The Right of Rebellion is not coded into any official law. Rather, rebellion is always outlawed and severely punished; but is still a positive right grounded in the Chinese moral system. Often, it is used as a justification for actions to overthrow a previous dynasty after a rebellion has been successful and a new dynastic rule has been established. Since the winner is the one who determines who has obtained the Mandate of Heaven and who has lost it, some Chinese scholars consider it to be a sort of Victor's justice, best characterized in the popular Chinese saying "The winner becomes king, the loser becomes outlaw" (Chinese: “成者爲王，敗者爲寇”). Due to this, it is considered that Chinese historical accounts of the fall of a dynasty and the rise of a new one must be handled with caution. Chinese traditional historical compilation methods produce accounts that tend to fit their account to the theory, emphasizing aspects tending to prove that the old dynasty lost the Mandate of Heaven and the new one gained it, and de-emphasizing other aspects.

In the 20th and 21st centuries, Confucianist elements of student rebellions often claimed the Mandate of Heaven has been forfeited, as demonstrated by their large-scale activism. Important instances include Taiwan's Sunflower Student Movement in 2014 and Hong Kong's Umbrella Movement in 2019.

Influence

Because of China's influence in medieval times, the concept of the Mandate of Heaven spread to other East Asian countries as a justification for rule by divine political legitimacy. In Korea, it was first adopted by the Joseon dynasty and became an enduring state ideology.

The ideology was also adopted in Vietnam, known in Vietnamese as Thiên mệnh (Chữ Hán: 天命). A divine mandate gave the Vietnamese emperor the right to rule, based not on his lineage but on his competence to govern. The later and more centralized Vietnamese dynasties adopted Confucianism as the state ideology, which led to the creation of a Vietnamese tributary system in Southeast Asia that was modeled after the Chinese Sinocentric system in East Asia.

In Japan, the Japanese government found the concept ideologically problematic, preferring not to have divine political legitimacy that was conditional and that could be withdrawn. The Japanese Taihō Code, formulated in 703, was largely an adaptation of the governmental system of the Tang dynasty, but the Mandate of Heaven was specifically omitted. In later times, this need was obviated because the Imperial House of Japan claimed to be descended in an unbroken line from the Japanese sun goddess, Amaterasu. Nevertheless, while maintaining this role, the Japanese emperor became politically marginalized in the Nara and Heian periods by powerful regents of the Fujiwara clan who seized executive control of state. Even though the Japanese imperial line itself remained unbroken after the eighth century, actual political authority passed through successive dynasties of regents and shōguns which cycled in a manner similar to that of Chinese dynasties. Even after the Meiji Restoration in 1868, when the emperor was placed back in the center of the political bureaucracy, the throne itself had very little power vis-à-vis the Meiji oligarchy. Actual political power has passed through at least four systems since the Meiji restoration: the Taishō democracy, the militarists, the Occupation of Japan, and postwar democracy. The emperor in the modern era is a political figurehead and not a ruling sovereign.