“My Glory I Will Not Give to Another”: The Prophets & Religious Pluralism

By Mark R. Stevenson

Mark Stevenson is an alumnus and current registrar at Emmaus Bible College.

Introduction

If you were to travel to any number of college campuses and ask students their views on “religion,” you would probably encounter answers like these:

“Your belief is your belief. If it keeps you going, you know, if it’s a support to you, then it’s…good. I mean, you need something.” 

“I think Buddhists can go to heaven, just as well as Christians.” 

“I haven’t come across any real religions that were contradictory, except for maybe Satanism or something like that.” 

“Just because I was socialized into Christianity, it doesn’t necessarily mean that that’s the only belief that’s valid.” 

“I would like to take the good parts from all the religions and make the best religion from out of it.” [1]

What these students have articulated is widely known today as religious pluralism—the belief that all religions are equally valid, and equally salvific. As such, religious pluralism is one of the challenges facing Evangelical Christians today. Those who proclaim an exclusive gospel are not welcome in the marketplace of modern religious dialogue.

However, religious pluralism is no new phenomenon. It was alive and well in the Ancient Near East. The people of Israel, though their own faith was very exclusive, found themselves wrestling with the temptations and challenges that arise from life within a pluralistic framework. In contemporary discussions of religious pluralism, the experience of God’s people under the old covenant is sometimes forgotten, misunderstood—or worse, deemed irrelevant. But biblical Christians who want to remain faithful in their generation, and who have a burden for the peoples of neighboring faiths, cannot afford to ignore the instruction of the Old Testament. The purpose of this article is to examine what the Old Testament Prophets have to say about other religions, or more properly, the gods of the nations. [2] We will survey some of the relevant material, and then consider a few implications for the contemporary situation.

The Prophets

The Rise of Prophetism

The prophetic tradition in Israel is complex and cannot be encapsulated in one-sentence definitions. [3] Nevertheless, it is not an oversimplification to say that the prophets were essentially the spokesmen of Yahweh. And although they sometimes communicated new revelation and predicted future events, it was also their job to call the people of God back to the revelation given through Moses—“they were guardians of the Mosaic revelation.” [4]

The Pentateuch contains some very exclusive commands. The decalogue begins, “You shall have no other gods before (or besides) me” (Ex. 20:3). [5] Moreover, in the book of Deuteronomy, Moses sought to prepare the people for their entrance into Canaan. His emphasis was on covenant renewal and fidelity.

But he also issued a number of passionate exhortations, warning God’s people to avoid being seduced by the gods of the Canaanites. The message was unequivocal: “Fear the Lord your God, serve him only and take your oaths in his name. Do not follow other gods, the gods of the peoples around you; for the Lord your God, who is among you, is a jealous God and his anger will burn against you, and he will destroy you from the face of the land” (6:13–15). The warnings continued, “Do not serve their gods, for that will be a snare to you” (7:16, see also 12:29–31).

Unfaithfulness to Yahweh was a capital offense. The one who said, “Let us go and worship other gods,” was to be turned in for execution, even if it was a close relative or friend (13:6ff). The Mosaic revelation was clear, Israel was to worship Yahweh alone. They were to have nothing to do with the gods of the nations.

How did Israel fare? Not very well. Some time after the Israelites had settled in the land, they began to dabble in other religions. Daniel Clendenin writes:

Israel in her harlotry lusted insatiably after foreign gods. By the time of her exile religious syncretism was rampant, so that we encounter more gods still—Succoth-benoth, Nergal, Ashima, Nibhaz, Tartak, Adram-melech, Anammelech (2 Kings 17:27–41). In fact, the tragedies of the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities are specifically attributed to Israel’s idolatrous perversions (2 Kings 17; 2 Chron. 28:22–23; 36:11–21). [6]

It should have been no surprise then that prophets—spokesmen of Yahweh—arose to utter oracles against the people for embracing foreign gods. The message was not a new one, it was firmly rooted in Torah.

Israel7 did not abandon Yahweh per se. Rather, they incorporated parts of the worship and practice of other religions into their own. The influence of polytheistic cultures around them made allegiance to only one god a rather passé notion. Hess points out that although there were a variety of religious perspectives throughout Israel’s history, most often some form of syncretism [8] was embraced. [9] He explains how for ordinary citizens “Yahweh was the state deity, the official god whom they recognized as supreme above all others in Israel. However…the people [also] sought family and local deities whom they felt could help them in their work and life.” [10] Ray Ortlund explains further:

Unalloyed, classical Yahwism was losing its compelling power among the people. It was being redefined with fewer sharp edges and more open doors as a broadly inclusive religion, increasingly tolerant of elements of paganism. What one observes in Hosea’s historical situation is the admixture of contrary theologies made congenial not by logic or principle but by fashion and feeling. [11]

Into this milieu prophets like Hosea entered with “the word of the Lord.” [12]

The Message of the Prophets

The Condemnation and Shame of Following Other Gods

Sometimes the prophets were instructed by God to act out His message. Perhaps the most drastic example is Hosea’s marriage to the harlot Gomer. Yahweh commands His prophet, “Go, take to yourself an adulterous wife and children of unfaithfulness, because the land is guilty of the vilest adultery in departing from the Lord” (1:2; cf. 3:1). The symbolism is shocking, but so is the reality. Yahweh’s wife has despised His love and goodness by going after other gods. The message Hosea brings to the people is typical of the Prophets: a) Yahweh will judge them for their harlotry (e.g. 1:4–9), but b) because of His own covenant faithfulness and unfailing love, He will restore them to Himself again one day (e.g. 1:10–2:1).

Through the prophet Jeremiah, Yahweh laments the horrific evil committed by Israel in turning to idols. “This is what the Lord says: ‘What fault did your fathers find in me, that they strayed so far from me? They followed worthless idols and became worthless themselves…. Has a nation ever changed its gods? (Yet they are not gods at all.) But my people have exchanged their Glory for worthless idols…. Consider then and realize how evil and bitter it is for you when you forsake the Lord your God” (Jer. 2:5, 11, 19). In worshipping idols, the people were harming themselves, “to their own shame” (7:19); but they were also provoking Yahweh’s wrath (7:20), and committing evil in his sight (7:30). Such evil would be severely punished (7:32ff), and they would be exiled from their land (10:17–18).

One of the purposes in judging idolatry so severely was to wean the people from foreign gods. After declaring judgment on the idolater Yahweh says, “I will do this to recapture the hearts of the people of Israel, who have all deserted me for their idols” (Ezek. 14:5). The prophet was to actively urge the people to repent, “Therefore say to the house of Israel, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: Repent! Turn from your idols and renounce all your detestable practices!’” (Ezek. 14:6).

When Israel began to follow foreign gods, she inevitably embraced the detestable practices of the nations also. Unadulterated devotion to Yahweh ought to have issued in righteousness, justice, and peace. But when Yahwism was mixed with the practices of other religions, injustice, unrighteousness, and unrest were often the result (Amos 5:7–13). The God of Israel would not accept worship from people engaged in unholy activity, nor would he tolerate sacrifices that were offered to him and other gods. He denounced the people with strong words and promised judgment.

“I hate, I despise your religious feasts; I cannot stand your assemblies. Even though you bring me burnt offerings and grain offerings, I will not accept them…. But let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream…. You have lifted up the shrine of your king, the pedestal of your idols, the star of your god—which you made for yourselves. Therefore I will send you into exile beyond Damascus,” says the Lord, whose name is God Almighty (Amos 5:21–27).

The variety of idolatrous practices that Israel had incorporated into her religious life is demonstrated through the message of Zephaniah. The Lord says,

“I will cut off from [Jerusalem] every remnant of Baal, the nanes of the pagan and the idolatrous priests—those who bow down on the roofs to worship the starry host, those who bow down and swear by the Lord and who also swear by Molech” (1:4–5).

It is clear from the texts surveyed that for the people of God to engage in idolatry (harlotry, syncretism) was an utter disgrace. Invariably, it spelled certain judgment. Yahweh was to be worshipped and served alone. Yet Israel was compromised. Despite the warnings of the prophets, they had been seduced by the gods of the nations.

The Offense and Folly of Following Other Gods

But why was idolatry considered such a serious evil? Why was it punished so severely? The primary explanation to these questions can be stated in terms of offensiveness. Yahweh was not intimidated by the other so-called “gods,” rather they were a tremendous insult to Him. Israel was to have no other god beside Yahweh because there was no other god beside Him. [13] “This is what the Lord says—Israel’s King and Redeemer, the Lord Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God” (Isa. 44:6). This theme is repeated throughout the prophets (Isa. 40:18, 25; 44:8; 45:5–6, 21–22; 46:5, 9–10; Jer. 10:5–6, 10; Dan. 3:29; Joel 2:27; cf. Ps. 96:4–5). For the creature to attribute some blessing to a non-entity, is a serious offense to the true Blesser. Ortlund writes:

At issue was the all-Sufficiency of Yahweh, with the question perhaps put this way: Where does life, in all its richness and fullness, come from? Does it come from Yahweh alone, or from Yahweh plus others? If it comes from Yahweh alone, then one will look obediently to him alone for that life. But if it comes from Yahweh plus others, then one will spread one’s allegiance around, because Yahweh alone is not enough. [14]

Israel chose to spread her allegiance around—to their own peril, and to the offense of the living God. He had created and redeemed them (Isa. 43:1, 7); to Him their everlasting praise was due. And yet they played the harlot. Nevertheless, Yahweh would not be slighted by His people: “I am the Lord; that is my name! I will not give my glory to another or my praise to idols” (42:8). So Yahweh promised restoration and delayed His wrath, not because of the people’s faithfulness, but for His purposes: “For my own sake, for my own sake, I do this. How can I let myself be defamed? I will not yield my glory to another” (48:11).

The Prophets also consider going after other “gods” as incredibly foolish, precisely because in truth, they are no gods at all. Isaiah 40–55 contains an extended satire on the gods. The folly of carving out an idol and then bowing down to worship it, is emphasized again and again. Idols are man-made (40:19–20; 41:7), but Yahweh is the Creator of all (41:19; 54:16). “All of Lebanon’s great trees could not fuel an adequate sacrificial fire for Yahweh (40:16), but an idol is made from the same wood people use to cook their food and warm their hands (44:15).” [15] In contrast to Yahweh, the gods of the nations are utterly impotent. Jeremiah wrote, “Like a scarecrow in a melon patch, their idols cannot speak; they must be carried because they cannot walk. Do not fear them; they can do no harm nor can they do any good” (Jer. 10:5). Goldingay and Wright correctly observe, “The whole point of much of the mockery of other gods, by Elijah, but even more so by Isaiah 40–55, is that when the crunch comes, they are ridiculously powerless to save. It is Yahweh alone who saves.” [16] Yet it should be noticed that idolatry is not mere stupidity, it flows from spiritual blindness. “Those who would speak up for [idols] are blind; they are ignorant to their own shame…. A deluded heart misleads him; he cannot save himself, or say, ‘Is not this thing in my right hand a lie?’” (Isa. 44:9, 20). [17]

More than just impotent, the gods of the nations are considered false. “Every metalsmith is put to shame by an image; For his molded image is falsehood, and there is no breath in them. They are futile, a work of errors” (Jer. 10:14–15 NKJV; cf. 13:25; 16:19). Yahweh stands over against the false gods, as the one true deity in the universe: “But the Lord is the true God; he is the living God, the everlasting King” (Jer. 10:10). Thus, in the final analysis, the question of syncretism and idolatry turns on what is true and what is false. And the prophets do not leave the question unanswered.

Before we move on, we should address the objection of some pluralists who claim that the prophets simply did not understand the dynamics of “idolatry.” Smith writes, “No one has ever worshipped an idol. Some have worshipped God in the form of an idol; that is what idols are for.” [18] But the prophets knew that sometimes the idols were meant to represent the deity, and were not the deity itself. Isaiah pictures the images of two Babylonian gods (Bel and Nebo) being carried away in defeat, while the deities looked on from heaven, unable to do anything about it (46:1–2). Wright’s comments are worth repeating:

Such is the impotence of these gods that they cannot save their own idols, let alone save their worshippers! And in any case, the prophet’s purpose here and in all these passages was not to describe the psychology of idolatry, but to contrast it devastatingly with the proven reality and power of Yahweh (Paul manages to do both in Rom. 1:18ff.). He was not the neutral chairman of a polite dialogue between the religions of Israel and Babylon, but the proclaimer of the imminent victory of the Lord of the universe and history, beside whom all other claimants to deity were indeed contemptible. [19]

Hope For the Nations

Though the prophets condemned the Israelites for idolatry and deemed the gods of the nations false, their message was not entirely negative. In fact, much of what they proclaimed was full of hope—not only for Israel, but for all the nations.

The eschatological vision of the prophets saw Israel and the nations together in peace, worshipping Yahweh alone. Isaiah’s words are well-known to Bible students:

In the last days the mountain of the Lord’s temple will be established as chief among the mountains; it will be raised above the hills, and all nations will stream to it. Many peoples will come and say, “Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob. He will teach us his ways, so that we may walk in his paths.” The law will go out from Zion, the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. He will judge between the nations and will settle disputes for many peoples. They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore (Isa. 2:2–4).

Indeed, the theme of hope is repeated throughout the prophetic literature (e.g., Isa. 25:6–7; 56:7; Jer. 3:17; Zeph. 2:11; 3:9–10; Zech. 8:20–23; Mal. 1:11, etc.). But it is important to note that the hope of the nations lies not in their gods but in the gracious purposes of Yahweh. He is the source of their blessing and He is the object of their worship and devotion (e.g. Isa. 19:19–25; Ezek. 37:28; Zech. 14:9, 16–19). [20]

God, however, did not intend for the nations to wait until the Millennium to experience His grace. The prophet Jonah was sent (albeit against his wishes) to Nineveh in order to announce God’s judgment, and provide the people with an opportunity to repent. And “when God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he had compassion and did not bring upon them the destruction he had threatened” (3:10). The Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar, after being judged by God for his pride, had something of a conversion experience (Dan. 4:34–37; cf. 2:47; 3:28–29). Darius likewise saw the work of Yahweh and issued a decree stating “that in every part of my kingdom people must fear and reverence the God of Daniel. For he is the living God and he endures forever; his kingdom will not be destroyed, his dominion will never end” (Dan. 6:26–27). All along Israel was to be “a light for the Gentiles, that [they] may bring my salvation to the ends of the earth” (Isa. 49:6; cf. 42:6). [21] But when Israel desired to be like the nations, following after their gods, she blocked the light, and joined them in darkness.

With the coming of Jesus Christ, God’s good purposes for the Gentiles begin to be more fully realized (Jn. 10:16). [22] The apostle Paul gave theological expression to the “mystery of Christ,” i.e. the Church: “This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus” (Eph. 3:6). Peter, among Gentiles at Cornelius’ house, realized “how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right” (Acts 10:34–35). He then spoke of the death and resurrection of Christ, and how Jesus “commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one whom God appointed as judge of the living and the dead. All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name” (vv. 42–43). The final book of the Bible sees heaven filled with people “from every tribe and language and people and nation” (Rev. 5:9). The closing vision of Scripture—in accord with Ezekiel’s prophecy—pictures the tree of life with its leaves for “the healing of the nations” (Rev. 22:2; cf. Ezek. 47:12). Thus, although God established a unique covenant with Israel, the nations were always a part of His gracious purposes. [23]

Conclusions

From our limited study of the biblical material we may draw a few brief conclusions.

1. God’s covenant people were not to follow any foreign gods. “Yahweh demanded exclusive worship and tolerated no rivals. He was unwilling to share His glory with any other ‘god.’” [24]
2. When the people pursued other deities, it was a great offense to their Creator and Redeemer and He punished them severely.
3. The prophets manifested a negative attitude toward the religions of the nations, not through triumphalism and arrogance, but because Yahweh was alone considered to be the true God. The gods/goddesses of neighboring faiths were lifeless and impotent to save.
4. Though the gods of neighboring religions were rejected, the people were not. God often reached out to the nations in grace, though they certainly were not immune to His judgment. Hope for the nations was to be found only as they abandoned their lifeless idols and followed the living God.
5. The eschatological vision of the prophets saw Israel and the nations together serving the one true God—Yahweh.

Implications for the Contemporary Situation

Like ancient Israel, God’s covenant people in this age find themselves in a very pluralistic environment. What lessons can we learn from the prophets?

1. Clark Pinnock maintains a hopeful attitude toward other religions. He explains his position as follows:

Inclusivism runs a risk of suspicion in suggesting that non-Christian religions may be not only the means of a natural knowledge of God, but also the locale of God’s grace given to the world because of Christ…. God may use religion as a way of gracing people’s lives and that it is one of God’s options for evoking faith and communicating grace. [25]

At best we may say that foreign gods were often used as foils to display the authenticity of Yahweh, over against pagan deities (e.g. 1 Kings 18). Yet Pinnock’s remark seems to suggest that grace may be meditated through non-Christian religions. It runs the risk of implying that because Christ’s work is universal in scope, it may be accessed in ways that are antithetical to the gospel’s own requirements. [26] The Prophets offered hope for the nations in spite of their religions, not through them.

2. Since the prophetic era God has revealed Himself more fully. We now know that God exists in three persons, though one in essence, and is thus still “one God.” We stand this side of the incarnation and the cross. Nevertheless, God has not changed since the time of the prophets, nor have other deities arrived on the scene. He is still “the true God; he is the living God, the eternal King” (Jer. 10:10) who admits no rivals and will not tolerate mingled devotion. The Prophets teach us that we must not compromise the exclusive claims of the only true God.

3. Of course religion is complex and cannot be dismissed out of hand, nor cavalierly branded “false.” We are to value the participants of other religions as human beings made in the image of the one true God. But other religions as such, cannot be deemed salvifically valuable as long as they ignore or minimize “the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom [he has] sent” (Jn. 17:3). [27] The Christian message, like the prophetic one, is exclusive because it alone brings revelation from the God of truth. Here Goldingay and Wright are helpful.

There is no salvation in [other religions], not because they are somehow inferior as religions to the religion of Christianity, but because they are not witnesses to the deeds of the God who saves. One might add that to stress this role of Israel and Christians as witnesses to what God has done is part of the answer to the charge of religious arrogance. The gospel is not something we invented or can take any credit for. We merely bear witness, as messengers and stewards, to what God has done in the whole biblical story, culminating in Christ himself. We do not so much say “We have the gospel”, as “There is a gospel.” [28]

4. Naturally there are differences between ancient Israel and the contemporary Church. The Church is not a national entity governed by a theocracy. Her members are citizens in whatever land they dwell. They are subject to governments who are sometimes hostile to Christianity; sometimes indifferent. Christians will never experience capital punishment for not being faithful to Christ—though they may be martyred for courageous allegiance to Him. Furthermore, Christians must be increasingly aware of the “global community,” wherein all religions have a right to exist. Believers must never compromise their own commitments, but they must learn how to live among neighbors who do not share their convictions. Israel failed to live in such a way that reflected the character of the true God they served. Instead, they longed to be just like the nations. If the Church is to have an impact for Christ, she must heed John’s instruction, “Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 5:16 NASB).

5. Finally, the Church differs from Israel in that her commission to be witnesses of the true God is more clearly defined (Matt. 28:18–20). Therein lies the greatest challenge. For at the end of the day, it is the message of the cross that alone is the power of God unto salvation (1 Cor. 1:18, cf. Acts 4:12) And only the true God whose message we herald, can give us the wisdom, grace, and compassion to be His ambassadors. But we must also learn courage from the Prophets. The message they proclaimed was often vehemently opposed—even by members of the covenant community. Yet they could not keep silent (Jer. 20:9). Jeremiah could say, “Your words were found, and I ate them, and Your word was to me the joy and rejoicing of my heart; for I am called by Your name, O Lord God of hosts” (Jer. 15:16 NKJV). Indeed, we must not forget the prophets.

Notes

1. The above quotations came from interviews with students on college campuses around the United States. The interviews were conducted by Ligonier Ministries. See R. C. Sproul, Choosing My Religion (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995), 2–3.
2. I have selected the Prophets, not because other sections of the Hebrew Bible have little to say, but because a) the scope of this article must be limited, and b) the Prophets addressed Israel as they encountered religious pluralism first hand, often when the Nation had already given in to syncretism.
3. See Willem A. VanGemeren, Interpreting the Prophetic Word (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), 18–69.
4. VanGemeren, Interpreting the Prophetic Word, 63.
5. Biblical quotations are from the NIV unless noted otherwise.
6. Daniel B. Clendenin, Many Gods Many Lords: Christianity Encounters World Religions (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995), 130.
7. For the purposes of this article I use the term “Israel” to broadly denote both the northern and southern kingdoms. Both played the harlot, and thus both were exiled (albeit at different times).
8. S. R. Imbach defines syncretism as, “The process by which elements of one religion are assimilated into another religion resulting in a change in the fundamental tenets or nature of those religions. It is the union of two or more opposite beliefs, so that the synthesized form is a new thing.” In Walter A. Elwell, ed., Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984), 1062.
9. One exception may be seen in the northern kingdom when Jezebel convinced king Ahab to embrace Baal as the official god of the nation. The confrontation in 1 Kings 18 between the prophet Elijah and the prophets of Baal demonstrated the fallacy of abandoning Yahweh for another deity.
10. Richard S. Hess, “Yahweh and His Asherah? Religious Pluralism in the Old Testament World,” in One God One Lord: Christianity in a World of Religious Pluralism, Second Edition, eds. Andrew D. Clarke and Bruce W. Winter (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 15–16.
11. Raymond C. Ortlund Jr., Whoredom: God’s Unfaithful Wife in Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 48. See Hosea 14:8
12. Of course, one may distinguish the varying emphases of the preexilic, exilic, and postexilic prophets. But we are concerned more narrowly with the oracles spoken in the face of syncretism and pluralism.
13. At times the Bible speaks of the metaphysical existence of other deities merely for the sake of argument. Sometimes it is a “strategy” to highlight the incomparable superiority of Yahweh. Chisholm explains such a “strategy” in relation to Baal: “Rather than philosophically denying Baal’s existence, Yahweh took a much more practical approach which accommodated the cultural situation of ancient Israel. Through word and deed he demonstrated that he alone could meet the very real needs which Baalism claimed to satisfy. In this way he destroyed any basis or motivation for Baal worship. It was irrelevant whether or not Baal really existed; the important point for Israel was that Baal could not deliver what he promised, while Yahweh could. In short, Yahweh contextualized his self-revelation for maximum effect without compromising to any degree his claim for exclusive allegiance.” Robert B. Chisholm, Jr., “‘To Whom Shall You Compare Me?’ Yahweh’s Polemic Against Baal and the Babylonian Idol-Gods in Prophetic Literature” in Christianity and the Religions ed., Edward Rommen and Harold Netland (Pasadena: William Carey Library, 1995), 63–64.
14. Ortlund, Whoredom, 49.
15. Chisholm, “‘To Whom Shall You Compare Me?’”, 64.
16. John E. Goldingay & Christopher J.H. Wright “‘Yahweh Our God Yahweh One’: The Oneness of God in the Old Testament” in One God, One Lord, eds. Andrew D. Clarke & Bruce Winter (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 52.
17. See Christopher J. H. Wright, “The Christian and Other Religions: The Biblical Evidence,” in Themelios 9 (January 1984), 9. Motyer writes, “The absurdity in the present case appears at first sight to be the worship of what, had chance been different, would have been used to cook lunch (15–17), but this is not the point to which Isaiah is leading. Rather, because it is what it is, the idol has no power to change the human heart (18–20) but leaves the idolater in the spiritual darkness and deception with which he started (9).” J. Alec Motyer, The Prophecy of Isaiah (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 343.
18. Wilfred Cantwell Smith, “Idolatry in Comparative Perspective,” in The Myth of Christian Uniqueness, ed. John Hick and Paul F. Knitter (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1987), 53. Smith claims, “Much more serious and central is the Old Testament source of the error, perpetuated firmly in the New. The inherently pejorative quality of our concept ‘idol’ is built into the Christian inheritance from the Jews, and from St. Paul…. Christian (and Jewish) failure to understand, let alone appreciate, what is going on in the spiritual life of communities served by images, is integral to the Bible, and to our tradition” 54.
19. Wright, “The Christian and Other Religions,” 9.
20. At times, the prophets specify that the Messiah will be the focus of attention, which of course, the New Testament makes clear (Isa. 11:10, cf. Rev. 5:9, 12). See John Piper, Let the Nations Be Glad! (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1993), 167–218.
21. See John N. Oswalt, “The Mission of Israel to the Nations,” in Through No Fault of Their Own? The Fate of Those Who Have Never Heard, eds. William V. Crockett and James G. Sigountos (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991), 85–95.
22. In relation to the “Servant Songs” of Isaiah 40–55 Wright states, “the mission of the individual Servant is to fulfil the role in which historical, corporate Israel was failing—namely to be that ‘light to the nations’ and ultimately to bring the knowledge and salvation of Yahweh to the ends of the earth.” “The Christian and Other Religions”, 10.
23. This is not to suggest that the Church has somehow replaced Israel. Scripture makes clear that God has not abandoned His people Israel. Their future restoration is repeatedly predicted in the prophetic Word and is reaffirmed in the New Testament (see for example Romans 9–11).
24. Chisholm, “To Whom Shall You Compare Me,” 67.
25. Clark H. Pinnock, “An Inclusivist View,” in Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World ed., Dennis L. Okholm and Timothy R. Phillips (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 98, 100.
26. Pinnock offers this caveat: “Cautious inclusivism stops short of stating that the religions themselves as such are vehicles of salvation.” Pinnock, “An Inclusivist View,” 99. But the fact that he needs to repeatedly qualify his assertions suggests that there may be a better way to express his position.
27. Carson’s explanation for the phenomenon of religions is not unwarranted. He notes that the Bible “begins with monotheism and, owing to the Fall, witnesses to the corruption of the knowledge of God and therefore to the rise of assorted false religions and false gods and distorted notions of the one true God.” D. A. Carson, The Gagging of God: Christianity Confronts Pluralism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 247.
28. Goldingay and Wright, “Yahweh Our God Yahweh One,” 54–55.