bible christianity theology

gospel response

I’ve always had a soft spot for soteriological Inclusivism, the theory of Christian ultimate salvation (sometimes expressed in different ways) that holds that some can or may be saved apart from an explicit congnitive act of conscious belief in Jesus.

Exclusivism insists on a personal response to the Gospel, but most forms of exclusivism make exception for those too young or perhaps lacking the (apparent) cognitive ability to make an (apparent) response to the Gospel.  These exceptions prompt Inclusivism’s concern for the fate particularly of “those who have never heard” the Gospel. But I wonder if the very notion of ‘those who have never heard the Gospel’ might be challenged by Scripture? Perhaps a Scriptural understanding of revelation, gospel, preaching, hearing and responding is different to at least some of our modern instincts? Perhaps some biblical language suggests that “the (G)gospel” has been preached to everyone; perhaps in a mode that escapes or transcends the modern mind?

It would be one thing to entertain such notions due to some discomfort or fear regarding communicating the gospel or having people not respond to it.  But it’s quite another thing if Scripture itself actually supports the notion. And whilst we don’t want to alter the Gospel to make it more palatable, we also don’t want to go beyond Scripture and ‘add’ requirements or barriers to God being able to work in ways we don’t understand.  Two relevant passages among others are: Romans 2:12-16 and 10:9-21; and another I recently encountered again is Hebrews 4:1-11.

In interpreting the texts, we have to keep the literary purposes of the authors in mind.  Both Romans and Hebrews are engaging with the early controversy around the attitudes of Jewish and Gentile (non-Jewish) Christians toward (among other things) the Jewish Law, common faith, and table fellowship. In Romans 2, the Jewish Christian readers have just had a surprising hard word given to them about their own failure to keep the Law, which has the result of putting them on even par with Gentiles.  Interestingly, the Gentles, even without having the Jewish Law, are nonetheless able to follow the ‘Law written on their hearts‘, which apparently not only accuses them when they live contrary to it (1:18-32), but also excuses them when they live according to it (2:14). This battlefield of hearing and obeying (or not!) seems to at times be public and visible, and other times private and ‘secret’ as Paul’s language suggests in 2:16 (‘God will judge men’s secrets…’).

Oh, sure, but some will say Paul is just getting the foundation of his
argument going in Romans; it’s only chapter 2! But, we have a similar tension in chapter 10, long after Paul has made his points about both the universality of Sin and the superabounding nature of Grace. Here is actually a favourite verse of
Exclusivists, where it is insisted that ‘faith comes by hearing’; when the Gospel of Christ preached and heard, believed and finally confessed (10:9-15). However, Paul does not finish there, but then goes on to contrast the unbelief of previous generations of Israel (long before Christ) with the Gentiles of old, who along with Israel apparently have indeed ‘heard’; the pertinent difference being that (‘all’) Israel did not accept the good news due to their disobedience, while the Gentiles were apparently ‘found’ by God who says ‘I revealed myself’ to them (10:16-21). The context of chapter 10, to state the obvious, is chapters 9 and 11, which all together form a rich tapestry of argumentation exploring the way that God remains faithful to the ‘old’ covenant with Israel, even when the church must have looked mostly Gentile at the time of writing. This is precisely the point the author of Hebrews makes in chapter 4; except only the negative criticism is made of Israel, for having ‘the gospel preached to them’ yet not combining that with ‘faith’.

The first key point in all of this is that the biblical authors here seem to be quite comfortable in describing ‘the gospel’ being known to people long before Christ; much like Paul in 1 Corinthians 10 will, in passing, assert that “the Rock that followed [Israel during the Exodus] was Christ.” The other point is that it seems those outside of God’s central and standard means of revelation (Law teaching in the Old; Gospel preaching in the New) have indeed had ‘the Gospel’ preached to them (Colossians 1:23); and their response, arguably in the New as well as the Old, is not always rejection. Indeed (clearly in the Old, and possibly in the New), when those on the ‘outside’ respond more obediently than those on the ‘inside’, the latter are humbled and (hopefully) brought to their knees again in renewed repentance; or (Paul hopes in Romans 9-11) ‘provoked to jealousy’ (and hopefully faith).

Similar themes appear elsewhere.  The Gentile King Cyrus was called God’s ‘anointed one’, who was moved by the Spirit to let Israel go home. The pagan Preist Melchizidek was the agent (not the recipient!) of blessing for Abram. And Jesus set the tone for his ministry with a rousing critique at Nazareth, making clear that God’s action was not limited to Israelites.

So could it be that God is at all times, all ways and in all places preaching the Gospel, through both public and ‘secret’ channels (one thinks of the many accounts of Muslims having dreams and visions of Jesus)? Could it be, as inclusivism suggests, that some of these people can respond to such preaching with at least some form of faith?

bible christianity theology

rosner’s latest

Enjoying Brian Rosner’s latest JSNT article on Paul and the Law ((Rosner, Brian S.Paul and the Law: What he Does not Say“, JSNT, 32(4): (2010), 405-419.)), which draws interesting insights from the differences between how, particularly in Romans (though elsewhere in the Pauline corpus as well), Paul speaks of the Law in relation to Jews and the absence of such speech about the Law in relation to Christians.  In sum, for Paul, Christ does for Christians what the Law does for Jews.

But among the more salient observations I appreciated was how (p. 409-10) Romans 12:2 follows on from and develops what has been described in 2:18.

  • 2:18 on Jews knowing God’s will through being instructed out of the Law; καὶ γινώσκεις τὸ θέλημα, καὶ δοκιμάζεις (dokimazeis – ‘test/approve’) τὰ διαφέροντα (diapheronta – ‘superior/better’), κατηχούμενος ἐκ τοῦ νόμου…
  • 12:2 on Christians knowing God’s will through the renewal of the mind; εἰς τὸ δοκιμάζειν (dokimazein – ‘test/approve’) ὑμᾶς τί τὸ θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ, τὸ ἀγαθὸν καὶ εὐάρεστον καὶ τέλειον (to agathon kai euareston kai teleion – ‘the good and acceptable and perfect/complete’).

For me, the contrasting descriptions of what is ‘known’ (Jews know what is ‘superior’, and Christians know what is ‘good, acceptable and complete’) may well hint that Paul is highlighting Jewish tendency to see Jews as ‘superior’ to Gentiles, whereas Christians (whether Jew or Gentile) are progressively made and remade/renewed into the likeness of Christ, the personification of and reference point for what is ‘good, acceptable and complete’.

bible christianity theology

romans authorial intent

In the midst of a blogging hiatus, here are some observations about Paul’s purpose in writing Romans (a.k.a. a bit I cut out of my recent essay!).

  • he wants them to understand their common need for salvation (chapters 1-3).
  • he wants them to grasp their common access to this salvation through Abrahamic faith (chapters 4-5).
  • he wants them to know their common dependence on the Spirit for the obedience of faith (chapters 6-8).
  • he wants them to see their common membership of the same ‘tree’ of faith (chapters 9-11).
  • he wants them to experience their common new life of unity and love (chapters 12-16).
  • his desire throughout is that they would not only put up with (i.e. 15:1ff) but also invest in one another (15:24, 27, 30).
bible christianity theology

romans 10:13-15

On Sunday, a well-quoted passage was… well… quoted. Not exactly a blog-worthy occurrence, as this should be pretty common.

Romans 10:13-15 – How can they call upon who they’ve not believed >> and believe in whom they’ve not heard >> and hear without preaching >> and preach without being sent? Standard missionary text. People need to hear to believe, so we need more missionaries. I don’t disagree. But I did have an observation…