7. Twentieth And Twenty-First Century Developments

The discussion concerning the spiritual status of the unevangelized described in the previous pages continued unabated during the past century, in every wing of the Christian church. Not only in the Roman Catholic Church, but also among Protestants, the question of whether explicit faith in Christ is necessary for salvation has been thoroughly debated. This has been true both in the mainline Protestant denominations, as well as among evangelical groups.

The fact that Protestant Christians held divergent views regarding the status of the unevangelized became more and more evident through the series of conferences, beginning with the World Missionary Conference in Edinburgh in 1910.¹ At this conference, though there was a strong emphasis on the continuity between Christian faith and other faiths, and on Christianity being a “fulfillment” of non-Christian religions, nonetheless, the uniqueness of Christianity was clearly expressed: “Christianity claims to be, for all ages and peoples, the all sufficient and the only sufficient religion. A moral obligation attaches itself to such a claim. If Christianity be the only sufficient religion for all the world, it should be given to all the world. Christ’s command also lays upon the Church an obligation for nothing less than a world-wide promulgation of the gospel.”²

At the meeting of the International Missionary Council (IMC) in Jerusalem in 1928, Veli-Matti Karkkainen states that “(A) rift began to develop between the Continental thinking, which tended to be more conservative, and the American position, which tended to focus on the continuity between religions. The Continental view was influenced by the dialectical theology of Karl Barth and the conservative voice of Heindrick Kraemer (1888–1965) and others.”³

At the next meeting of the IMC in Tambaram, near Madras, in 1938, the split between these two groups became even more evident.

Two differing, even conflicting voices were heard. On the one hand, there was an openness to other religions as expressed in Rethinking Missions: A Laymen’s Inquiry, a study conducted by the leading American pluralist William Ernest Hocking (1873–1966). On the other hand, there was the influential exclusivist voice of Kraemer, who criticized the conciliar mission thinking for its tendency toward syncretism and who issued a powerful call to reacknowledge the uniqueness of Christ.⁴

From this point on, the ecumenical movement has focused on the necessity for dialog between Christians and non-Christians, and on the continuities between Christianity and other faiths.⁵

A full history of the developments over the latter half of the twentieth century is beyond the scope of this work. However, the statement by Karkkainen, at the conclusion of his survey of the attitudes of various Christian groups regarding non-Christian religions and the possibility of salvation outside the church, is worth noting:

What the survey clearly showed is that there is a bifurcation among Christian churches regarding the relation to other religions. An inclusivist view is by far the most widely held, ranging from Roman Catholics to Anglicans to mainline Protestants. Even with different nuances all the ‘mainline’ churches basically believe that while Christ is the theological norm as well as source of salvation, access to salvation is not limited to those who confess the name of Christ. Yet the church is to proclaim Christ as the Savior. The other main understanding among Christian churches is some kind of exclusivist interpretation that emphasizes the need for evangelization and mission in order to bring the people into saving faith. In fact, though this voice is heard much less in scholarly circles, the number of Christians adhering to this traditional view is surprisingly large in view of the fact that with the shift of Christianity to the southern hemisphere, the growth of Christianity is happening mainly in conservative churches. Interestingly, numerically there are two giants among ecclesiastical opinions: the Roman Catholic Church’s inclusivism and the quite exclusivistic stance held by evangelical, Pentecostal/Charismatic and (other) independent churches. Pluralism governs the academy, but in the pews these two other views predominate.⁶

A few statements representative of the views of the mainline denominations will give some perspective on this summary statement. Anglican theologian Peter Slater describes his perception of the prevailing attitude in his communion:

From our perspective, continuing the Jesus movement is the ordinary way ‘home.’ But this does not preclude others having saving knowledge engendering ways which to us seem extraordinary. A ‘christomorphic’—as contrasted with a ‘christocentric’—sense of mission invites us to celebrate deeds done in a Christlike spirit, wherever and whenever we encounter them. We do not use our traditions to build a fence around but to provide guidelines for discerning the disclosure of enlivening truth (italics in original).⁷

A similar statement appears in a document published by the General Synod of the Church of England: “We believe that God has chosen to provide the fullest revelation of himself in Christ, and the fullest revelation of his love for all humanity in the cross and resurrection. Hence we naturally pray that God will bring all people, including those of other faiths, to explicit faith in Christ and membership of his Church. This is not because we believe that the God revealed in Christ is unable to save them without this, but because Christ is the truest and fullest expression of his love, and we long for them to share it.”⁸

The “Presbyterian Principles for Interfaith Dialogue” of the Presbyterian Church (USA) includes the following statements: “In our pluralistic world, we confess that Jesus is the truth and the way; through him God gives life. Jesus does not point to truth, but is the truth, in his person . . . . God’s Spirit works in surprising places throughout creation and is found even among people who are unaware of the Spirit’s presence . . . . We are called to work with others in our pluralistic societies for the well-being of our world and for justice, peace, and the sustainability of creation.”⁹ Concerning the possibility of salvation outside the church, Question 49 of the Study Catechism of the Presbyterian Church (USA) states: “The limits to salvation, whatever they may be, are known only to God. Three truths above all are certain. God is a holy God who is not to be trifled with. No one will be saved except by grace alone. And no judge could possibly be more gracious than our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.”¹⁰

Nehemiah Thompson characterizes the mainline Methodist perspective in this statement:

The realm of grace reaches to all people in all religions. This understanding has come to Christians because of Jesus Christ. Religions, including Christian faith, are preparations to receiving the gospel, and the partial light that exists in all religions is a sign of God’s prevenient grace. This understanding must impel Methodist Christians to engage in dialogue with other faiths in order to determine how those lights in other faiths are significant, first, to the salvation of the adherents of those faiths, and secondly, to the full understanding of the gospel that has come to Christians through Jesus Christ.¹¹

The World Council of Churches (WCC) has for many years promoted an inclusivist view of soteriology. Karkkainen quotes the WCC “Statement on Religious Plurality” (1991): “We find ourselves recognizing a need to move beyond a theology which confines salvation to the explicit personal commitment to Jesus Christ.”¹² Karkkainen states: “(T)he most recent WCC affirmations concerning other religions are very close to the official standpoint of the Roman Catholic Church.”¹³

The evangelical movement has been associated with belief in the necessity of explicit faith in Christ for salvation. This was reflected in the Frankfurt Declaration of 1970, drafted primarily by German theologian, Peter Beyerhaus. It reads in part:

The offer of salvation in Christ is directed without exception to all men who are not yet bound to him in conscious faith. The adherents to the nonchristian (sic) religions and world views can receive this salvation only through participation in faith. They must let themselves be freed from their former ties and false hopes in order to be admitted by belief and baptism into the body of Christ. Israel, too, will find salvation in turning to Jesus Christ . . . . We therefore reject the false teaching that the nonchristian religions and world views are also ways of salvation similar to belief in Christ.¹⁴

A similar view was also expressed in the document drafted by the International Congress on World Evangelization at Lausanne in 1974:

We affirm that there is only one Savior and only one gospel, although there is a wide diversity of evangelistic approaches. We recognize that everyone has some knowledge of God through his general revelation in nature. But we deny that this can save, for people suppress the truth by their unrighteousness. We also reject as derogatory to Christ and the gospel every kind of syncretism and dialogue which implies that Christ speaks equally through all religions and ideologies. Jesus Christ, being himself the only God-man, who gave himself as the only ransom for sinners, is the only mediator between God and people. There is no other name by which we must be saved. All men and women are perishing because of sin, but God loves everyone, not wishing that any should perish but that all should repent. Yet those who reject Christ repudiate the joy of salvation and condemn themselves to eternal separation from God. To proclaim Jesus as ‘Savior of the world’ is not to affirm that all people are either automatically or ultimately saved, still less to affirm that all religions offer salvation in Christ. Rather it is to proclaim God’s love for a world of sinners and to invite everyone to respond to him as Savior and Lord in the wholehearted personal commitment of repentance and faith. Jesus Christ has been exalted above every other name; we long for the day when every knee shall bow to him and every tongue shall confess him Lord.¹⁵

In 1989, at Lausanne II in Manila, a Manifesto was issued which included this affirmation: “We affirm that other religions and ideologies are not alternative paths to God, and that human spirituality, if unredeemed by Christ, leads not to God but to judgment, for Christ is the only way.”¹⁶ The same sentiment was voiced in the Cape Town Commitment arising out of Lausanne III in 2010: “Solely through trusting in Christ alone, we are united with Christ through the Holy Spirit and are counted righteous in Christ before God.”¹⁷

Of interest regarding the views of evangelicals on this subject is the D.Miss. project presented to Trinity Evangelical Divinity School by Allen C. Tunberg in 1992. His project surveyed the views of church leaders within the Evangelical Free Church of America. Tunberg’s survey revealed that while over 90% of the respondents personally embraced a particularist view, nearly 20% were at least open to ordaining persons for ministry in their denomination who believed that general revelation could be an avenue for saving faith for those who do not know of Christ.¹⁸

In 1992 a group of theologians under the sponsorship of the Theological Commission of the World Evangelical Fellowship met in Manila. They issued a proclamation which affirmed the uniqueness of Christ and his salvation: “(W)e affirm that God has acted decisively, supremely, and normatively in the historic Jesus of Nazareth. In his person and work, Jesus is unique such that no one comes to the Father except through him. All salvation in the biblical sense of eternal life, life in the kingdom, reconciliation with God and forgiveness of sins comes solely from the person and work of Jesus Christ.”¹⁹ However, the proclamation also contains this statement regarding the possible salvation of the unevangelized: “Is it possible that others also might find salvation through the blood of Jesus Christ although they do not consciously know the name of Jesus? We did not achieve a consensus on how to answer this question. More study is needed.”²⁰ As can be seen, there is ongoing debate among contemporary evangelicals on this question. It is the same question that evangelicals have been debating since the Reformation, and to which they have given diverse answers.

Recent Particularists

This debate is reflected in the statements of a large number of evangelical writers who have published books or articles in recent times on the fate of the unevangelized. Some have espoused the particularist perspective (which sees explicit faith in Christ as necessary for salvation).²¹ Following are some representative statements by particularist writers.

Henry W. Frost, former Director of the China Inland Mission:

The Rev. J. Hudson Taylor, the founder of the China Inland Mission and for many years a missionary in China, made the declaration toward the end of his life that he would never have thought of going to China had he not been convinced that the Chinese were lost and that they needed Christ . . . . But times have changed. Now, comparatively few persons believe that the heathen are lost or that they need Christ as a Saviour. And the result is that there is a general apathy in the church concerning those in heathendom, in offering prayer, in giving money, and in going forth as preachers of the Gospel . . . . The Word declares that sin has passed upon all men, including the heathen, and in consequence, that they are estranged from God and lost; that Christ has commanded that the Gospel should be preached to them as to those who are in need of being saved; that the apostles and early disciples went forth throughout the heathen world proclaiming that there was but one way of salvation, which was by a faith exercised during the present life and in the person of Christ; and finally, that we are to believe as our forefathers believed, to go forth as they went forth, and to preach as they preached.²²

Richard Wolff (speaker on the French program of the Back to the Bible Broadcast):

The Gentiles, or heathen, are in darkness and under the power of Satan; they are without a vital knowledge of the truth, and although they may not be aware of it, their religion is actually demon worship. Their basic preoccupation is with material things and they are dominated by passions and lusts. They are without Christ, without hope and without God, walking in the vanity of their mind, their understanding darkened and their hearts hardened. It is hardly necessary to remark that according to Scripture such people are lost. The heathen are lost. The verses quoted do not refer exclusively to those who had heard the message of Jesus Christ and rejected it, but also to those heathen who had never heard the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is, therefore, the explicit teaching of the Word of God that those who have never heard the gospel of Jesus Christ are lost.²³

Former director of the China Inland Mission, J. Oswald Sanders:

There is not a single Scripture which clearly assures us that the atonement of Christ can be made efficacious for the person left in ignorance of it.²⁴

Ajith Fernando, Bible teacher and former national director of Youth For Christ in Sri Lanka:

The Bible does not make any clear statement about exceptional persons to whom God speaks directly and gives salvation without their hearing the gospel. This principle can be derived only from hints and questionable examples in Scripture. If God wants to save people without their hearing the gospel, I am not going to protest! Certainly God can directly do in a person what He does through an evangelist. But from what the Bible says, we do not have sufficient grounds to entertain a hope of salvation for anyone apart from hearing the gospel. We know that most people in the world do not seek after God as Cornelius did. We have no convincing evidence to expect that the few Cornelius-type seekers in the world can be saved apart from hearing the gospel. God would have us regard all people everywhere as lost and desperately in need of the message of the gospel.²⁵

R. Douglas Geivett and W. Gary Phillips:

In our view, Christianity is uniquely true, and explicit faith in Jesus Christ is a necessary condition for salvation . . . . If particularism is true, then pluralism and inclusivism offer dangerously misleading assessments of the human condition and of the prospects for resolving the human predicament.²⁶

Christian theologian and philosopher Ronald H. Nash:

Saul, I submit, passed every test of inclusivist salvation. He satisfied Clark Pinnock’s faith principle with plenty to spare. Not only did Saul believe that God existed, but he was also diligently seeking him. In fact, he sought Yahweh with such diligence that he participated in the persecution and execution of Yahweh’s enemies (Acts 22:20) . . . . It is appropriate to reread Paul’s own description of his preconversion zeal for God (Acts 26:4–5; Phi. 3:4–6). If inclusivism is true, then Saul the Pharisee was saved. But this judgment was not shared by the divinely inspired writer Paul the apostle (Phi. 3:7–11). Even though Saul satisfied every requirement of inclusivist salvation, he was still a lost sinner (I Tim 1:15).²⁷

New Testament scholar Andreas J. Kostenberger:

For people to ‘cross over from death to life’ (Jn 5:24), they have to believe in Jesus and his word. The world without Christ is a dark place, and people are lost without him (Jn 3:19–21). For this reason, ‘Those who believe in the Son have eternal life, but those who reject the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them’ (Jn. 3:36). Thus there is no ‘third way’ for people: either they believe and are saved, or God’s wrath remains on them. This is precisely why the gospel, and it alone, is such good news, because, without it, people are lost in their sin and doomed to hell.²⁸

Pastor John Piper:

Paul and John are of one mind: people only come to saving faith through the word of the gospel of Christ. The sheep hear the voice of their Shepherd through the word of those who are sent (John 10:4; 17:20); and Paul knows himself to be sent in this way: ‘I am sending you to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins’ (Acts 26:17–18). Apart from the work of the Holy Spirit, who works through the word of the gospel of Christ (1 Peter 1:23–25), there is no faith and no new birth and no salvation. This is why ‘repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations’ (Luke 24:47).²⁹

Recent Inclusivists

Other writers of this era have embraced the inclusivist perspective (which allows for the possibility of salvation apart from explicit faith in Christ for those who have not had a genuine opportunity to hear the gospel).³⁰ Following are representative comments by some of these writers.

Though Roman Catholics, Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli are widely read by evangelicals. They stated:

Socrates (or any other pagan) could seek God, could repent of his sins, and could obscurely believe in and accept the god he knew partially and be saved.³¹

C. S. Lewis, in commenting on the eighteenth of the Articles of the Church of England:

(O)f course it should be pointed out that, though all salvation is through Jesus, we need not conclude that he cannot save those who have not explicitly accepted Him in this life.³² In his much beloved book Mere Christianity he states: “Is it not frightfully unfair that this new life should be confined to people who have heard of Christ and been able to believe in Him? . . . . We do know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through Him.”³³ In one of his letters, he states: “I think that every prayer which is sincerely made even to a false god . . . is accepted by the true God and that Christ saves many who do not think they know him. For he is (dimly) present in the good side of the inferior teachers they follow. In the parable of the Sheep and the Goats (Matt. xxv. 31 and following) those who are saved do not seem to know that they have served Christ.”³⁴ He also went so far as to say that: “honest rejection of Christ, however, mistaken, will be forgiven and healed—‘Whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him.’”³⁵

Scottish missionary to India John Nicol Farquhar:

Will then no one be saved except such and amongst them there must be large numbers who have lived in accordance with all the moral and spiritual light they had; such men will undoubtedly be saved; for they have done the will of our Father in heaven as for (sic) as they knew it.³⁶

Missiologist Charles Kraft:

We have usually assumed discontinuity and antagonism between Christianity and paganism. Yet it was within paganism that God stimulated Abraham (and countless others whose stories are not recorded in the Bible) to faith based largely on the knowledge they already possessed . . . . Can people who are chronologically A.D. but knowledgewise B.C. (i.e., have not heard of Christ), or those who are indoctrinated with a wrong understanding of Christ, be saved by committing themselves to faith in God as Abraham and the rest of those who were chronologically B.C. did (Heb. 11)? Could such persons be saved by ‘giving as much of themselves as they can give to as much of God as they can understand?’ I personally believe that they can and many have.³⁷

Baptist theologian Dale Moody (1915–1992):

Those who perish, according to the Gospel of John, are those who are confronted by the Light of the world shining through Jesus and who reject this light, not those who have only the starlight of general revelation . . . . Sin for John is unbelief (16:9). Guilt before God is gauged by the light people have, and those who follow the light they have will surely be accepted by God . . . . The supreme revelation was in the days of his flesh, but it is not the sole revelation of the Son of God.³⁸

Christian Philosopher Stuart C. Hackett:

If every human being in all times and ages has been objectively provided for through the unique redemption in Jesus, and if this provision is in fact intended by God as for every such human being, then it must be possible for each human individual to become personally eligible to receive that provision—regardless of his historical, cultural, or personal circumstances and situation, and quite apart from any particular historical information or even historically formulated theological conceptualization—since a universally intended redemptive provision is not genuinely universal in the requisite sense unless it is also and for that reason universally accessible. This, I take it, is exactly the way that Paul argues (Rom. 1:18–23) when he claims that the people of all nations and civilizations, whether or not they have been apprised of God’s historical revelation that reached its climax in Jesus, are nevertheless responsible and guilty before God if they reject God’s moral and spiritual claim upon them, since there is a universally accessible knowledge of God in the manifestation of God through the whole realm of created beings, and even, as he adds later (Rom. 2:14-16), in the divine moral law that is written in their hearts and discernible by their moral consciousness. All this would be quite unintelligible if it did not imply that, through a proper response to this universally accessible revelation, individual human beings of whatever circumstances could so renounce their moral guilt and corruption and could so commit themselves to God and his claim upon them, as to become the beneficiaries of divine grace and forgiveness—a grace and forgiveness made possible only through Jesus’ redemptive provision, of which, however, they would in a large variety of cases, be historically ignorant, or perhaps, in a parallel variety of instances, only weakly, dimly, and inadequately aware.³⁹

Theologian George E. Ladd:

The operation of God’s grace may well be wider than the knowledge of the gospel, just as the grace of God in the Old Testament was wider than Israel . . . . No, we do not slam the door shut on those millions who have not heard the name of Christ, any more than we can restrict a saving knowledge of God only to Israelites in the Old Testament. We do pronounce that only the cross and resurrection of Christ saves. We equally pronounce that the non-Christian religions are devoid of any saving truth. But there may be hearts outside the sound of the gospel who have felt after God (Acts 17:27), who did seek for honour and immortality (Rom. 2:7), who do have the true circumcision of the Spirit, and to these hearts God applies the salvation of Jesus Christ. How many we do not know. We only know that the wideness of God’s mercy as testified in Scripture does not narrow the horizon of God’s grace down to just those places where His grace is clearly pronounced, whether in Israel or the Christian Church. Only in the final judgment . . . can we speak a final word as to who is saved and who is lost.⁴⁰

Baptist theologian Stanley J. Grenz:

It is simply not our prerogative to speculate as to the final outcome of the eschatological judgment, which will be a day of surprises. Rather, we continue to carry out the evangelism mandate, sometimes to bear the truth into realms of darkness, sometimes to bring to light that truth that is already hidden, and sometimes to bring to explicit confession of Christ the implicit covenant with God already present in our hearers.⁴¹

Anglican writer Michael Green:

(T)here well may be in heaven many of all races who knew nothing of Christ but somehow trusted in God to accept them though they knew themselves to be unacceptable. That is how David and Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were accepted. They had no idea how it could be. But they entrusted themselves to God, and he accepted them, knowing the atonement that was to be made. There is generosity enough and to spare in the Father’s house. All who call on his name, however ignorantly and tentatively, will not be disappointed. On that matter he has given his solemn pledge (Rom. 10:11–13).⁴²

Methodist theologian William J. Abraham:

If Christ’s activity extends through all creation, and if it is possible in principle to be saved without hearing of Jesus, then it is reasonable to infer that people outside the biblical traditions may also be saved and acquitted. Clearly such people will not know that their salvation has come to them through the work of Christ, but then Abraham did not know that either and this does not at all disqualify him from salvation. Nor is this a mere hypothetical possibility dreamed up to fit a favored theory. Cornelius is a good example of such a case from the biblical traditions.⁴³

Yale professor Mark Heim has offered the suggestion that there may be different destinies for adherents of the various religions.⁴⁴ For example, Nirvana may indeed be the destiny of Buddhists, and paradise the destiny of Muslims. But this view has not received acceptance among evangelicals.

Post-Mortem Evangelization

Still other recent evangelical writers have also embraced the idea of a post-mortem opportunity for those who have not heard the gospel.⁴⁵

Theologian Donald Bloesch states:

Christ’s descent into Hades after his crucifixion and death has a solid foundation in both Scripture and the early church. In the NT it is attested in Acts 2:31; Eph. 4:9–10; and I Pet. 3:19–20. The passages in Ephesians and I Peter seem to indicate the extension of the saving work of reconciliation and redemption to the souls in the nether world of Hades . . . . To believe in the literal descent of Christ into Hades for the purpose of offering redemption does not imply universalism. Most of those who have held to this belief admit the possibility of rejecting the offer of salvation given by Christ. Again, this is not to be confounded with the doctrine of a second chance. What the descent doctrine affirms is the universality of a first chance, an opportunity for salvation for those who have never heard the gospel in its fullness.⁴⁶

Theologian Gabriel Fackre:

The reality of sin and our creatureliness enter to limit the range of the church’s mission in time and space. We have not gotten the Word out to the last and the least. Yet the goodness of God will not relent in the face of these realities. And the power of God breaks through their limitations. The gates of death, as well as the ‘gates of hell,’ cannot prevail against the divine perseverance. The powerful love of God assures that the saving Word will be proclaimed to those who have not heard it, even beyond the gates of death . . . . Personal salvation—our righteousness before the holy God—is inseparable from hearing, believing and confessing Jesus Christ . . . . The divine perseverance will not deny the saving Word to any, and will contest all the makers of boundaries, including the final boundary, ‘the last enemy, death.’⁴⁷

Philosopher Stephen T. Davis, commenting on I Peter 4:5–6, says:

But if the gospel was once preached to the dead, perhaps the ignorant are preached to after death and receive then the chance they never had before to receive Christ and turn to God . . . . As long as it is recognized that these are conjectures without systematic or clear biblical warrant, we might even suggest that Christ has the power to save human beings wherever they are, even in hell

. . . . Is it possible that there are persons who would respond positively to God’s love after death even though they have not responded positively to it before death? I believe this is possible. In fact, one reason for this latest conjecture is the observation that some who hear the gospel hear it in such a way that they are psychologically unable to respond positively. Perhaps they heard the gospel for the first and only time from a fool or a bigot or a scoundrel. Or perhaps they were caused to be prejudiced against Christianity by skeptical parents or teachers. Whatever the reason, I believe it would be unjust of God to condemn those who did indeed hear the good news but were unable to respond positively. This is why I suggest that even in hell, people can be rescued . . . . Does this bring in universalism by the back door? Certainly not. I have little doubt some will say no to God eternally . . . , nor do I see any need for a ‘second chance’ for those who have freely and knowingly chosen in this life to live apart from God. Perhaps God never gives up on people, but some folk seem to have hardened their heart to such a degree that they will never repent. For such people, hell as separation from God exists forever, just as it exists for them now. But perhaps some who die in ignorance of Christ will hear the good news, repent, and be rescued. Perhaps even some citizens of hell will do so too. Again, the key word is perhaps. We have no ground to dogmatize here. I do not think we know the fate of those who die in ignorance of Christ. All I am sure of is that God’s scheme for the salvation of human beings will turn out to have been just, perhaps in ways we cannot now understand.⁴⁸

Dual-Covenant Theology

One development in the past century that is of particular significance is the proposal by some that there are two ways of salvation for Jew and Gentile—what is often called the “Dual-Covenant Theology.” The “Dual-Covenant Theology” (DCT) suggests that though Jesus is the mediator of salvation to the Gentiles, he is not the Savior for the Jewish people.⁴⁹ Whereas the New Covenant is appropriate for Gentiles, it is on the basis of the eternal covenants with Israel that the Jewish people relate to God.

DCT finds its roots primarily in the teaching of Jewish philosopher Franz Rosenzweig (1886–1929), who had nearly converted to Christianity, but who then promoted this thesis. He said: “We are wholly agreed as to what Christ and his church mean to the world: no one can reach the Father save through him . . . . No one can reach the Father! But the situation is quite different for one who does not have to reach the Father because he is already with him. And this is true for the people of Israel (though not of individual Jews).”⁵⁰ The allusion to John 14:6 in the first part of this statement is evident: “No one comes to the Father but through Me.” And in the second part of the statement, one can see Rosenzweig’s allusion to the words of the father to the elder son (in the parable of the “Prodigal Son”): “Son, you have always been with me” (Lk. 15:31). The implication of the DCT is that evangelization of the Jewish people is entirely unnecessary and inappropriate, because they already have a relationship with God based on his covenants with Israel.

DCT received some backing from more liberal theologians such as Reinhold Niebuhr, who said: “Missionary activities among the Jews are wrong, not only because they are futile and have little fruit to boast for their exertions. They are wrong because the two faiths despite differences are sufficiently alike for the Jew to find God more easily in terms of his own religious heritage than by subjecting himself to the hazards of guilt feelings involved in conversion to a faith which, whatever its excellencies, must appear to him as a symbol of an oppressive minority culture.”⁵¹ DCT also received support from Episcopal theologian Paul Van Buren (1924–1998), in his book A Christian Theology of the People of Israel.⁵²

Krister Stendahl was another proponent of this view. He observed what he believed was “Paul’s growing awareness that God envisages a co-existence between Jews and Christians, a co-existence that makes mission an inappropriate mode of witness.”⁵³ He bases his observation at least in part on the absence of any mention of Christ in Romans 9–11, after 10:17.⁵⁴ Stendahl’s view, however, is inconsistent with the account in the Book of Acts, which actually closes with Paul’s attempts in Rome to seek to persuade the Jews in that city about Jesus, and his turning to the Gentiles after they largely rejected his message (Acts 28:17–29).

In 1989 a group sponsored by the World Evangelical Fellowship issued “The Willowbank Declaration on the Christian Gospel and the Jewish People,” which rejected the DCT; and while renouncing anti-Semitism in every form, urged evangelical Christians, out of love, not to abandon their mission to the Jewish people.⁵⁵ This was obviously not well received by leaders of the Jewish community.⁵⁶

It is difficult to know how widely DCT is embraced by evangelicals. But not that many have publicly defended it.⁵⁷ Unlike the inclusivism of some evangelicals (who seek to support their view on the basis of Scripture), biblical support for DCT can hardly be found, and runs counter to the entire sweep of biblical theology. As others have pointed out, John 14:6 is not limited to the Gentile world, but embraces the entire world. The Apostle Paul clearly states that the gospel is for “the Jew first and also (for) the Greek” (Rom. 1:16). And as for the statement of the father to the elder son in the parable, that he had “always been with him,” this was intended to lead the elder son, not to contentment with his current position, but to repentance (and by implication, was intended to urge the Pharisees to embrace the message of Jesus).

Rich Robinson has provided an insightful critique of DCT.⁵⁸ He points out that even the Jewish scholar Alan Segal recognized that the Apostle Paul could not possibly have believed this theory. He particularly noted Paul’s words in Galatians 2:15–16, which read: “We are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles; nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.”⁵⁹

Kai Kjaer-Hansen states:

It would be a gross simplification to maintain that the appearance of two-covenant theology is due to the Holocaust. Its roots are . . . in the time before the Holocaust. On the other hand, it is difficult to over-emphasize the impact of the Holocaust on the theory’s growth and further development in Christian circles after World War II. Ridden with guilt, some Christians were forced to a rethinking which resulted in a theology of silence towards Jews . . . . It therefore becomes a relevant question whether it is God’s word and his imperatives to missionize among Jews which should be obeyed, or whether it is people’s emotions and ideas of the Holocaust that should guide one’s thinking. In double covenant thinking, so much significance seems to be attached to the Christian Church’s cruel history that the authority of the Lord of the Church according to the New Testament seems to be disregarded.⁶⁰

This is not to say that we should be insensitive to some of the terribly regretful ways in which some Christians have treated Jewish people over the centuries. One thinks of the awful words of Martin Luther, who actually recommended that Jewish synagogues and schools be burned, and their houses razed.⁶¹ We must be humble and compassionate in the way be speak with and conduct ourselves toward our Jewish friends. And if we have harbored antisemitic sentiments in any way ourselves, we must also be repentant in our attitude. But this should not keep us from urging them to listen to the message of the New Testament and its testimony to the saving work of Jesus.

As can be seen from the evidence cited in this chapter, the discussion about the unevangelized that has been going on for generations, has continued with no abatement into our own.

---