a response: who benefits from salvation?

February 28, 2008

[this is a response to a response of a rather large bloggersation begun here and catalogued here]

Notes from off center,

Great stuff here. I’m working through the cross posting trying to formulate an entry point or simply spectate. [This response grew into a monster...so, not having the time to enter the main dialogue, I hope you will humor a response to your response] As to your lucid question:

“So the question in my mind is this: Does inclusion into this covenant as radically re-instituted by Christ through the Cross require a public pledge or affirmation of allegiance? Or does the Cross have efficacy beyond the public recognition of people of its efficacy?”

Paul continues in Romans, “If you declare with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raises him from the dead, you will be saved (10:9).”

The public pledge/affirmation of allegiance is a very accurate way to state what is going on here. Paul is drawing from the Deuteronomic covenant structure which of course bears its marks from the entirety of the vassal/lord covenants of the early Mesopotamian world. Without public acknowledgment (and let’s just stay in the the primordial history that shaped the Hebrew concept of covenant) there can be no agreement. Without allegiance, the treaty or covenant is broken and the resultant wrath is unleashed (see the Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon).

The Cross has efficacy not because it is a religious fixture post-crucifixion, but instead because “it is the power of God”. The Assyrian war machine was the empowering faculty of the vassal treaty, the cross is such for the covenant of Christ. One only has to look at Sennacherib’s siege of Lachish relief (below) to witness the chilling threat of costly disobedience. The cross is something altogether different, you accurately termed it “radically re-instituted” covenant. The cross is the chilling reminder of Christ’s costly obedience. As unpleasant as the nature of covenant may seem, there is no covenant without these former prerequisites. The good news is that covenant is an equal opportunity invitation. There does appear to be action required, however, when covenant is the entry point of salvation.

Paul, in the letter to the Romans, quotes Isaiah: It is written: ” ‘As surely as I live,’ says the Lord, ‘every knee will bow before me; every tongue will confess to God.’ ” Isaiah spells out in a much broader context what appears to be on God’s heart regarding the finality of this global salvific end, “Turn to me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other. By myself I have sworn, my mouth has uttered in all integrity a word that will not be revoked: Before me every knee will bow; by me every tongue will swear (Is 45:22-24).” The Hebrew root panah indicates a return, a turning away from — in this three letter root lies the whole story of The Prodigal Son (Lk 15). God is making a sweet offer here as Isaiah continues, “all who have raged against him will come to him ashamed (24).” As surely as the son raged against his father (see Bailey’s Jacob and the Prodigal), a humble turn was all that separated him from a signet and embrace — restoration.

The son’s soliloquy of 15:17-20a is a covenant in brief. His is a human pander for salvation, however, the covenant sealed upon the cross requires no vassalage, merely panah (v.21).

In reference to the Muslim/Christian scenario, I fall into the sweaty realm of religious calisthenics here, trying not to be offensive to two predominant and large “religions,” so I’ll try to stick to the more literate narrative of the Bible. Your question: “Does this reduce the efficacy of the Cross since the the Muslim does not initiate it through an act of allegiance of some sort?” is once again well worded because an act of allegiance is at the core of Paul’s argument of the same in Galatians 4. Paul’s discourse relates to Hagar and Sarah, the Arab and the Jew (whose progeny wind up in your scenario, respectively). In verse 28, Paul writes, “Now you brothers and sisters, like Isaac, are children of promise.” Paul’s use of promise here is derived a greek word, epanglia, which carries the weight of a pledge, especially regarding a divine assurance. Again, there is the language of allegiances here. The epanglia of the Lord is only offered to those who will pledge allegiance. Paul doesn’t say that (as in it’s not a direct quote), but that’s the nature of covenant, it’s the statesmanship of the Ancient Near Eastern world “radically re-institued” into Yahwistic context.

It is Sarah whom Paul quotes in v.30 (lest detractors bemoan that God is not the source of Paul’s citation…I know), “But what does Scripture say? ‘Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman’s son.’ The Genesis account continues, illuminating Paul’s intent for Gal 4 and his discourse on law, “The matter distressed Abraham greatly because it concerned his son. But God said to him, “Do not be so distressed about the boy and your maidservant. Listen to whatever Sarah tells you, because it is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned. I will make the son of the maidservant into a nation also, because he is your offspring (21:11-13).” Bear in mind that a “nation” does not in itself carry salvific significance.

Because you asked open ended questions, I’m just engaging them. Your follow up to the previous question: “Or, can the behavior of loving one’s neighbor with a motivation not self-directed act as a further conduit for the grace of God to work out the Kingdom of God in our midst – even through the actions of a Muslim?” I think that your question in the form of a statement would be true. Loving behavior does act as a conduit of God’s grace — there are simply too many Scripture verses to quote, but this mere statement does not singly constitute the truth regarding salvation. Works done under Zakat are no different than works done under law, if scripture is the standard authority. The Galatians ultimately asked the same question, which earned this answer from Paul, “Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe. Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law (3:21-25).”

I do believe that this is an end for now. Thanks to all who began and continue to engage this discussion!

Posted in scripture