Abstract
Jacques Dupuis, Paul Griffiths, and other scholars investigate the salvation available for those of other religions rather than the question of the divine revelation to which they might respond with faith. Biblical usage illustrates how faith is a diversified reality, including faith as content (fides quae) and as commitment (fides qua). Faith, described in Hebrews 11:1–3 more theologically than christologically, is then exemplified not only by Abraham and his descendants but also by pre-Israelites (Abel, Enoch, and Noah) and by the ‘outsider’ Rahab, a prostitute. When we unpack Hebrews 11:6, we can see in detail what ‘pleasing God’ through faith entails—for Christians and others. While both groups share in varying degrees the obedience of faith (fides qua), for the latter the content of faith (fides quae) can match the lesser requirements of Hebrews 11:1–3.
Jacques Dupuis and many other scholars who have contributed to the theology of religions and a few, like Paul Griffiths, who write in the area of the philosophy of religion, have dedicated much attention to salvation for those of other religions. But they have paid less attention to the question of divine revelation reaching them. Since human faith forms the response to God’s self-revelation, this (relative) neglect of revelation has also meant a similar (and often even greater) neglect of the question: in the light of the Scriptures and, in particular, in the light of New Testament teaching, how might we understand and interpret the faith of those who follow other religions?
One might speculate about the reasons for highlighting salvation but neglecting divine revelation (and the reciprocal human faith). Undoubtedly the ancient slogan ‘outside the Church no salvation (extra ecclesiam nulla salus),’ which continued to cast its long shadow for many centuries, has encouraged a one-sided attention to the issue of salvation for those who practise other faiths. 1 There was no parallel slogan ‘outside the Church no revelation (extra ecclesiam nulla revelatio),’ which might have called for reflection on the divine self-revelation and responding human faith for ‘the others.’ We need to illustrate this imbalance before making any proposals about a biblical possibility for reflecting on the faith of those who follow other religions.
Jacques Dupuis, Paul Griffiths, and Others
The lengthy index entries under ‘salvation’ and ‘salvation history’ in his final book reflect how Dupuis continued to privilege the question of salvation ‘for the others.’ 2 Admittedly, he discussed, albeit briefly, the revelation that reaches them and their responding human faith in two sections. 3 He did so in the light of what he called ‘genuine religious experience’ and ‘authentic prayer,’ understood as signs of such revelation taking place and evoking faith.
‘Wherever there is a genuine religious experience,’ Dupuis wrote, ‘it is surely the God revealed in Jesus Christ who thus enters into the lives of men and women, in a hidden secret fashion.’ Authentic prayer on the part of human beings witnesses to the fact that their religious experience is ‘genuine,’ and that God has taken the initiative to reveal himself to them: ‘Authentic prayer is always a sign that God, in some secret and hidden way, has undertaken the initiative of a personal approach to human beings in self-revelation and has been welcomed by these human beings.’ Dupuis pressed on to specify this ‘welcome’ as faith: ‘Those who entrust themselves to God in faith and charity are saved, however imperfect their conception of the God who has revealed himself to them.’ He added: ‘Salvation depends on the response made by sinful human beings in faith to a personal communication initiated by God.’ 4 The references to salvation indicate how it remained the predominant issue for Dupuis, even when he (very briefly) discussed divine self-revelation to ‘others’ and their human response of faith.
Later and in passing, Dupuis remarked that ‘divine revelation’ is ‘not to be considered monolithically, but as a diversified and complex reality.’ 5 The biblical record of revelation, with its differing means and mediators along with its progressive character, emphatically supports this observation. 6 Dupuis might have added that, correspondingly, the response which human faith makes to revelation is also ‘not to be considered monolithically, but as a diversified and complex reality.’ There were and are different ways of responding with faith to diversified forms of revelation and living a ‘faithful’ lifestyle. The entry on ‘faith’ in the Anchor Bible Dictionary amply exemplifies this variety. For instance, in the Letter to the Hebrews ‘pistis,’ in ‘contrast to Paul and John,’ is ‘not used in connection with the Christological content, but it marks the way which those who belong to Christ, as Son and High Priest, must follow.’ It ‘means above all “perseverance,” the holding fast to a promised hope.’ 7 As we shall see, the account of ‘faith’ offered by Hebrews can also be applied to those who persevere in holding fast to a promised hope without consciously belonging to Christ.
In Problems of Religious Diversity, Paul Griffiths presents ‘salvation’ (but neither revelation nor faith) in an opening, two-page account of key terms, 8 and, as the index illustrates, has more to say about salvation than about revelation and faith. 9 The book ends with a chapter on ‘The Question of Salvation.’ 10 Salvation is a key term for him, but not revelation or faith
When discussing Karl Barth’s criticism of religion, Griffiths speaks in passing of ‘responding to the living God with faith,’ 11 and so draws attention to the subjective, personal commitment of faith (what many call the fides qua). But generally he presents faith as fides quae, or the assent to truths or ‘claims’ revealed by God and so to be held de fide. He writes of ‘claims revealed by God,’ to which it is ‘a matter of faith’ to assent. 12 Hence he can describe faith as ‘faith in facts’ (rather than faith in the living God who has personally approached human beings). For Christians this ‘faith in facts’ means, for instance, accepting that Jesus Christ is the second person of the triune God. 13 The revelation that elicits such faith in facts, rather than being understood primarily as God’s personal self-manifestation, amounts to what many call a ‘propositional’ affair, or revelation understood to be the disclosure of otherwise inaccessible truths that are to be accepted, ‘preserved, and transmitted.’ 14
A propositional account of faith inevitably involves a propositional view of revelation, and vice versa, with faith being primarily an assent to truths now revealed by God. 15 For this scheme, even if Griffiths may want to leave things open for those of other religions (whom he calls ‘religious aliens’), by privileging the content of faith (the fides quae) he makes it more difficult for Christians to acknowledge any faith exercised by these others. However, as we shall see, in its version of faith the Letter to the Hebrews offers a different vision. It links a limited content (fides quae) to a steadfast loyalty (fides qua) that can be seen to characterize the faith not only of Christian believers but also of those who profess other religions.
We could continue to sample recent writing in the theology of religion and see how its exponents prefer to reflect on salvation for the followers of other religions, and hence fail to treat sufficiently the divine self-revelation or at least the human faith that this revelation initiates. S. Mark Heim entitled his 1995 book Salvations: Truth and Difference in Religion, and paid much more attention to matters of salvation than to revelation. 16 A 605-page book, edited by Karl Josef (later Cardinal) Becker and Ilaria Morali, repeatedly examines issues of human salvation and divine revelation and expounds the faith of Christians, but has little to say about the possibility of faith for others. 17
‘Ad Gentes’ on Revelation and Faith
Here the Second Vatican Council’s Decree on the Church’s Missionary Activity (Ad gentes; hereafter AG) has in three ways significant things to say about the presence of revelation (with responding human faith) and salvation that characterizes or can characterize the religious situation of those who have not or who have not yet accepted faith in Christ. First, it picks up the Johannine terminology of ‘truth and grace’ (John 1:14, 17) to recognize how Christ, ‘the author’ of these elements, is already present among ‘the nations’ even before they hear the word of Christian preaching. As giver of the gifts of revelation (‘truth’) and salvation (‘grace’), he has already come to the non-evangelized, albeit mysteriously with his gifts (AG 9). The implication is clear: to the extent that these ‘others’ respond positively to this ‘prior’ offer of truth (or revelation), they respond with faith.
Second, by its preaching and sacraments the Church aims to open up for all human beings the way ‘to participate fully in the mystery of Christ’ (AG 5; emphasis added). Once again an important implication is clear: even before people respond with faith to the revelatory preaching of the Church and accept salvation through baptism and the other sacraments, they can participate, albeit not yet fully, in the revealing and saving mystery of Christ. 18
Third, Ad gentes follows St Irenaeus to state that the Son, ‘present in creation,’ ‘reveals (revelat)’ the Father universally (AG 3, n. 2). The decree then goes on to complete the picture by referring to the faith prompted, as it always must be, by revelation. Those human beings who are ‘inculpably ignorant of the Gospel’ can be ‘led to faith (fides), without which it is impossible to please’ God (AG 7; see Heb 11:6). 19
Apropos of this possibility of being led to faith, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s declaration of 2000, Dominus Iesus (‘the Lord Jesus’), contrasted the ‘theological faith (fides theologalis)’ of Christians with the ‘belief (credulitas)’ of those who follow other religions. 20 The former means ‘the acceptance in grace of revealed truth,’ whereas the latter is ‘that sum of experience and thought that constitutes the human treasury of wisdom and religious aspiration, which man in his search for truth has conceived and acted upon in his relationship to God.’ In short, it is ‘religious experience still in search of the absolute truth and still lacking assent to God who reveals himself’ (no. 7).
This teaching forgot, however, that God is already present in any religious search (St Anselm, Proslogion, 1); human beings seek God because God has first ‘found’ them. As St Irenaeus of Lyons wrote in the second century, ‘no one can know God unless God teaches [him or her]: that is to say, without God, God is not be known (Deum scire nemo potest, nisi Deo docente: hoc est, sine Deo non cognosci Deum)’ (Adversus haereses, 4.6.4). What Dominus Iesus claimed also appeared incompatible with Ad gentes 7, which took seriously Hebrews 11:6 (‘without faith it is impossible to please God’) and acknowledged that God can lead to faith those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the gospel and may be followers of major world religions, members of ethnic religions, and so forth. The divine self-revelation and responding human faith are genuine possibilities for all these ‘others.’ 21
Here the Second Vatican Council points us towards the Letter of the Hebrews. It takes up and applies to the non-evangelized one verse of Hebrews (11:6). Unquestionably the author of Hebrews was writing for Christians, and, even when expounding a general principle (‘without faith it is impossible to please God’), did not have in mind the non-evangelized or those not yet evangelized. Nevertheless, we are justified in following Vatican II and acknowledging the relevance of Hebrews to those never expressly envisaged by its author. This text can always communicate more than its author ever consciously intended. 22 What if we follow the Council’s lead and explore what Hebrews 11 has to offer? Elsewhere I have done this more briefly and without offering a full treatment. 23
Hebrews on Faith
The Faith of Christians
Written between CE 60 and 95 (more plausibly before 70), coming from a priestly milieu, and sent to Italy (Rome?) probably from Ephesus (13:23–24), the Letter to the Hebrews is an anonymous sermon aimed at encouraging a Christian community, which had earlier suffered considerable hardships (10:32–34), to sustain their faith and hope. They may be facing further persecution (13:3). Some of them could already be ‘slipping away’ (2:1), in danger of letting their hearts become ‘hardened by sin’ (3:13) being threatened by ‘strange teaching’ (13:9), and even abandoning faith in Christ (3:12; 6:4–6; 12:25). It is the responsibility of ‘the leaders’ to speak the word of God, give a shining example in living their Christian faith, and watch over those whose faith may be eroded by strange teaching (11:7,15). The author of Hebrews urges the community to ‘obey’ their leaders, who themselves are accountable to God (13:17). As a ‘word of encouragement’ (13:22), the letter is to be presented orally to a community of Christians gathered for worship. 24
Hebrews uses pistis (‘faith’) 32 times and the corresponding verb, pisteuein (‘to believe’) twice—not to mention near equivalents. This letter primarily understands ‘faith’ to be the appropriate response to the ‘good news’ or the ‘gospel.’ Christopher Koester summarizes the way Hebrews envisages the genesis of faith: ‘Faith is called into being through the word of God, who spoke through the prophets and a Son (1:1–2). The principal form of the divine word is that of a promise, which points to a future fulfilment’ (e.g., 10:23; 11:11). 25 In detail, faith means hearing and receiving the gospel message (4:2–3), repenting of sin or ‘works that lead to death,’ having faith ‘towards God’ (6:1), confidently drawing near to God (10:22), and trusting that God will reward those who seek him (11:6).
The only time that Hebrews indicates the ‘object’ of faith comes in 6:1, where it is God (rather than Christ) who is the object of faith. Likewise it is God (rather than Christ, as in Matt 25:31–46) who ‘rewards those who seek him’ (11:6). Unlike the letters of Paul and the Gospel of John (which present faith in a specifically Christological way) and the Synoptic Gospels (which, in a less reflective way, also present faith as faith in Jesus Christ), Hebrews tends to picture faith ‘theologically’ rather than as a personal relationship to Jesus.
In several ways, the vision of faith provided by Paul, for instance, finds little counterpart in Hebrews. First, for him it is the apostolic preaching of Jesus Christ that arouses faith (e.g., Rom 10:14–17). By hearing and obeying ‘the word of Christ’ (e.g., Rom 10:17), human beings share in the redemption effected by his death and resurrection. Second, the Holy Spirit, who is ‘the Spirit of Christ’ and ‘the Spirit of God,’ is actively involved when human beings come to faith (e.g., Rom 8:9; 2 Cor 3:6; Gal 3:2). Third, Paul interprets faith as essentially ‘justifying’ and ‘salvific’ (e.g., Rom 10:5–13). Forgiveness and justification set right a situation that has been destroyed by sin (e.g., Rom 4:25). These three particular perspectives on faith enjoy no clear parallels in Hebrews. 26
It is in 11:1–12:2 that Hebrews invokes ‘faith’ most emphatically; this passage contains 26 out of the 32 occurrences of ‘pistis’ that we find in the letter. (‘Faith’ occurs only six times elsewhere: 4:2; 6:12; 10:22, 39; 13:7.) Given the chapter’s emphasis on faith, not surprisingly it opens with a claim to ‘define’ what faith is—proving itself, in fact, the only passage in the New Testament that attempts such a ‘definition:’ ‘faith is the assurance (hypostasis) of things hoped for, the conviction (elenchos) of things not seen’ (NRSV).
This passage in Hebrews led St Augustine and other fathers of the Church to find here a definition of faith. 27 St Thomas Aquinas more or less followed suit by commenting that Hebrews 11:1 ‘describes’ faith and gives ‘a complete but obscure definition’ of faith (Ad Hebreos, 11, 1, 551–52). In his Summa theologiae he stated that ‘the verse touches on all the elements whereby faith is definable,’ even if ‘it does not cast the words in definitional form’ (IIa IIae 4.1). In the Divine Comedy, when Dante arrives in paradise, he is asked, ‘Faith, what is it?’ He responds by quoting Hebrews 11:1 (Canto 24.52, 64) and presses on to explain faith in terms of what Aquinas had written.
Let us see the possibilities for the theology of religions offered by the ‘theological’ (rather than ‘christological’) characteristics of faith set out in Hebrews 11:1–12:2. To be sure, this passage packs in many (biblical) heroes and heroines of faith who preceded Jesus and ends by proposing him, ‘the pioneer and perfecter of faith,’ as a model for the Christian community to whom the letter has been sent. Nevertheless, the passage suggests ways to understand and interpret the faith of those who do not (or do not yet) receive the revelation conveyed through the Jewish-Christian message. When Hebrews ‘defines’ faith, it offers the possibility of looking beyond the biblical people of faith and applying the ‘definition’ to those who believe in God through experiencing the witness of visible, created reality, 28 and through accepting some truth offered by their religious traditions and their spiritual leaders.
The Faith of Others
Traditionally some have favoured translating the opening account of faith (Heb 11:1) ‘subjectively,’ and render the key words as the firm ‘certainty’ and ‘conviction’ or sure confidence of believers. 29 Sensitive to the basis for this confidence, others, however, take ‘hypostasis’ as the objective reality of the good things (that constitute the heavenly world) that are hoped for, and ‘elenchos’ as the objective proof or guarantee for what is not seen (the heavenly world), the evidence that produces conviction. Thus understanding both ‘hypostasis’ and ‘elenchos’ objectively, the REB translates: ‘faith gives substance to our hopes and convinces us of realities we do not see.’ 30 The NRSV (see above), by rendering hypostasis as ‘assurance,’ takes advantage of two possibilities this English word offers: ‘objectively it is a pledge or guarantee and subjectively it is a personal state of certainty,’ hope, or expectation. 31 In this interpretation the objective assurance of faith comes from what is hoped for, just as the firm, personal assurance of faith concerns what is hoped for. 32
The ‘objective’ preference of the REB translation strengthens the case for the prior initiative of God’s revealing and saving action, to which we will return below. For the moment we need to bring together Hebrews 11:1 and 11:3 (‘By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was made from things that are not visible’—NRSV). 33 Hebrews 11:1 and 11:3 present faith as looking both to the origin and to the goal of things. The reality of the visible world is there—before our eyes. But we do not see either its origin (in being fashioned by the divine word) or the future reward that we hope for (in response to God’s promises). Yet the ‘unseen realities of God give proof of their existence by their power to evoke faith.’ 34 Faith is the bridge to the invisible reality of God, who as the unseen power has formed the things that we see and towards whom our hope reaches out in expectation. Thus faith relates believers not only to the existence of God’s invisible world but also to a future not yet present.
Hebrews 11:2 speaks of ‘the elders’ who ‘received approval’ from God for their faith; some of those specified later in the chapter were Israelites (e.g., Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, and Jacob). Nevertheless, the chapter’s roll call of heroes and heroines of faith opens with pre-Israelites (Abel, Enoch, and Noah; Heb 11:4–7), and includes a later non-Israelite heroine, Rahab the prostitute (Heb 11:31). All four represent, in general, human beings who receive approval from God, since they acted on the basis of faith, hoped in what God promised, and trusted that God would keep those promises about future things not yet ‘seen.’ By faith they also ‘understood’ the unseen origin of the world to have been formed by the command of God. People of faith, whoever they were and are, recognize God in the genesis of the universe, just as they hope in God’s promise about the goal of the world. Both in their understanding of the past and their hope for the future, the lives of those who have faith are entwined with the life of the invisible God. Faith cannot prove the ‘unseen things’ of God; rather faith itself is the ‘proof’ of these things. The invisible power of God evokes faith and hope, and directs human beings towards invisible ends. Thus both the visible universe and human beings (through their faith) witness to the reality of the unseen power of God.
The account of faith provided by the opening verses of Hebrews 11 allows us to glimpse the human (and not merely Christian) questions to which faith supplies an answer. (1) Is there anything beyond the visible world? Are we bonded with things unseen or, rather, with the unseen God? (2) Where do we and our universe come from? Has ‘that which is seen’ come into being ‘from that which cannot be seen’: that is to say, from God and his creative command? We are born into a world that is not of our making. Do we nourish faith in the invisible Creator from whom all things have come? Such faith is close to gratitude towards the invisible Giver, a gratitude for the past from which we have emerged and for the future to which we are summoned. (3) Does it matter how we behave? Should we imitate our ‘ancestors,’ approved by God for their persevering faith? Should we live as pilgrims afflicted by various sufferings but always hoping for ‘a better country’ (Heb 11:16) and yearning for a God-given salvation to come? In short, may we and should we trust God as the One who ‘rewards those who seek him’ (Heb 11:6)?
Such questions are not limited to Christians but arise for every human being and call them to faith. Hebrews 11:6 allows us to glimpse what such faith entails. As we saw above, Vatican II referred to this universal need for faith and specified only that it ‘pleases God,’ without explaining what that means (Ad gentes, 7). We can unpack what ‘pleasing God’ involves and then add three further items that Hebrews 11:6 also indicates by stating, ‘for whoever would approach him [God] must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him’ (NRSV).
(1) Subsequent exhortations in Hebrews fill out what ‘pleasing God’ involves: ‘let us give thanks by which we offer God worship in a pleasing way with reverence and awe’ (Heb 13:16). A further passage summarizes such ‘pleasing God’ in terms of doing the divine will: ‘May the God of peace … make you complete in everything good so that you may do his will, working among us that which is pleasing in his sight’ (Heb 13:20–21). We could sum up what this view of ‘pleasing God’ intends: it envisages a faith that gratefully offers to God a reverent worship and does his will through acts of kindness and service of others. Obviously explicit faith in Christ should vigorously empower this life of faith. Yet a vertical relationship with God (through grateful worship and the ‘authentic prayer’ mentioned above by Dupuis) and a horizontal relationship with other human beings (through self-sacrificing kindness) do not as such depend upon a conscious relationship with Christ. Hebrews does not say: ‘without faith in Christ it is impossible to please God.’ A faith that pleases God is open to those who have never heard of Christ.
(2) What ‘approaching’ or ‘drawing near’ to God involves is also explained by other passages in Hebrews. It means approaching God in prayer and worshipping God. Thus the anonymous author writes of ‘drawing near to the throne of grace’ (Heb 4:16; see 4:1–11; 10:19–22). Christian believers will be conscious of doing this through Jesus, ‘since he always lives to make intercession for them’ (Heb 7:25). But approaching God in prayer and worship does not demand an awareness that such ‘drawing near’ depends on the priestly intercession of the risen and actively present Christ. His intercession is at work, whether or not worshippers are conscious of Christ when they approach God in prayer.
(3) Obviously those who draw near to God in prayer believe that he exists. They answer the question ‘is there anything or anyone beyond the visible world?’ by bonding with the invisible God and somehow recognizing that he has entered into a gracious relationship with them (see Heb 4:6). Their faith involves accepting that the world has been made by God, whom they worship as the unseen Creator, from whom all things have come, and towards whom all things are directed. God is both the origin and the goal of the world (Heb 11:1, 3; see 2:10).
(4) In faith God is accepted not only as the origin of the universe but also as the One who ‘rewards those who seek him.’ This means letting God be the future goal of one’s existence. God is trusted as just and faithful to his promises, however they are specifically understood and construed. In some way or another, those who embrace faith and set themselves on a journey as pilgrims who hope for ‘a better country, that is, a heavenly one’ (Heb 11:16), and a future as yet unseen. Yet in Hebrews 11:6, the author does not specify what shape this reward will take, nor does he distinguish between ‘rewards’ for his Christian readers 35 and for others ‘who seek’ God. Without consciously intending this, he summons all God-seekers alike to put their future in the hands of the just and faithful God (see Heb 10:23).
Moving beyond these four reflections on Hebrews 11:6, we can see that this letter recognizes how those who in faith seek God not only do great things but also suffer great things. The pilgrimage of faith that directs them to the future reward may involve severe suffering. Apropos of Hebrews 11:32–40, Koester remarks: ‘the text evokes associations with an ever widening circle of faithful people. The passage creates a collage of people and events from various periods, showing that what matters is not the time in which people live, but the faith that they exhibit.’ 36 The passage in Hebrews invites us to recognize the faithful perseverance of those who remain steadfast when faced with suffering. Koester’s words could be modified to read: ‘the text evokes associations with an ever widening circle of faithful and suffering people. The passage creates a collage of people and events from various periods, showing that what matters is not the time in which people live, but the genuine faith, explicitly Christian or otherwise, they persevere in showing when confronted with great suffering and difficulty.’
While Hebrews 11:32–40 explicitly refers to men and women remembered from the history of Israel, the verses apply also to all non-Israelites whose faith enables them to endure suffering and persevere in their pilgrimage to the divine rewards. They too are called to ‘run with perseverance the race set before’ them by faith (Heb 12:1). An appeal for perseverance made elsewhere applies also to them: ‘do not abandon that confidence of yours; it brings a great reward’ (Heb 10:35; see 10:23).
The Faith of Christians and the Faith of Others
Drawing on Hebrews 11:1–12:2 to fashion an account of the faith of ‘others’ leaves us with the challenge of facing the differences between the faith of Christians and that of others. Let us begin by specifying three such differences that emerge when we compare and contrast the passage from Hebrews with other New Testament witnesses.
Paul’s vision of the move to faith specifies repentance from sin (for instance, by turning away from ‘idols’ [1 Thess 1:9]), the action of the Holy Spirit (e.g., Gal 3:2), and entering a new community, the Body of Christ (e.g., Gal 3:23–29). Our passage from Hebrews remains silent about these three features in the genesis of faith; it neither affirms nor denies them. It simply does not say that ‘without a faith that turns away from sin, obeys the promptings of the Holy Spirit, and joins a community of faith, it is impossible to please God.’ We recognize here limits in the teaching of Hebrews, rather than genuine difficulties against applying this teaching to the case of religious ‘others.’
What Hebrews does state, however, provides difficulties in two areas: (1) the trigger of faith and (2) its content. (1) First, on the basis of such items as God’s warning to Noah and call to Abraham (Heb 11:7, 8), Koester maintained: ‘the unseen realities [of God] are made known through divine revelation, including promises, commands, and warnings’ and ‘revelation is received by faith.’ 37 Since human faith responds to divine revelation and exists only as a response to revelation, what about those to whom no such ‘promises, commands and warnings’, come? In the light of Hebrews 11:1 and 2, Koester should have added something: the divine revelation which makes known the unseen realities of God also includes the witness of ‘what is seen.’ This witness, while not constituting a command or warning, also conveys the promise of unseen things what we ‘hope for.’ This witness and promise form a revelation of God that invites human beings, whoever they are, to embrace faith and continue steadfastly the journey of faith. Hence Hebrews allows or even encourages us to acknowledge how, in the case of the non-evangelized, their faith also exists as a response to divine revelation.
(2) The content of faith (fides quae) may pose a more troublesome question. Hebrews, after all, insists on a Christian ‘confession’ (Heb 10:23), which accepts that Jesus is the Son of God (Heb 4:14), the heir of all things (Heb 1:1–5), and ‘the apostle and high priest of our confession’ (Heb 3:1). The content of faith for those who do not (or do not yet) share the Christian confession lacks such specificity. It involves simply believing that God exists and is a just, life-giving power who promises a mysterious future to those who believe in him (Heb 11:1, 3, 6).
Such a marked difference (along with a partial similarity) at the level of content will concern those who look for a more or less uniform content of faith. That is what apparently Aquinas wanted to argue. He claimed that, even though the gospel had not yet been proclaimed, the Israelites enjoyed essentially the same faith (in the sense of fides quae) as Christians, since the real object of their confession was the same. On the basis of Hebrews 11:6, Aquinas maintained that belief in God’s existence and rewards constituted the primary, essential content of faith. By holding this faith, the Israelites implicitly grasped the entire revealed mystery of God, and hence could be seen to have already enjoyed essentially the same faith as (later) Christians. 38
Instead of this ‘levelling’ of the content of faith down to the lowest common denominator, I propose an alternative which allows for variations in the fides quae. In what they confessed about God revealed in history and creation, there were and are similarities and differences between devout Israelites and Christians. There is no need to argue, for instance, that the faith of Abraham, Sarah, Moses, Rahab, and the prophets was essentially, if implicitly, the same as that of Christians responding to the good news of Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, ascension, and gift of the Holy Spirit.
Moreover, within the history of Israel itself we observe growth in the content of the confession of faith. Creeds of Israel confessed the revelation of God through divine acts in the history of the chosen people: A wandering Aramean was my ancestor; he went down to Egypt and lived there as an alien, few in number, and there he became a great nation, mighty and populous. When the Egyptians treated us harshly and affected us, by imposing hard labour on us, we cried to the Lord, the God of our ancestors. The Lord heard our voice and saw our affliction, our toil and our oppression. The Lord brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm, with a terrifying display of power, and with signs and wonders, and he brought us to this place and gave us this land, a land flowing with milk and honey. (Deut 26:5–9; see 6:20–25; Josh 24:2–13)
Hebrews 11 lists Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, and Jacob among the ancient exemplars of faith, but none of them could share in the confession of faith we find in Deuteronomy and Joshua. The liberation from suffering in Egypt and the entrance into ‘a land flowing with milk and honey’ had not yet taken place. Paul holds Abraham up as the great model of faith (Rom 4:1–22). However, ‘our father in faith,’ even if he obeyed God’s commands and trusted God’s promises in an exemplary way (Heb 11:8–12), embraced a fides quae that was considerably ‘less’ than and somewhat different from that of later Jews and the future Christians. He could not, for instance, accept in faith the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead (Rom 10:8–10); it had not yet occurred. The content of faith (fides quae) for Abraham and Sarah was in important respects unlike that accepted by the followers of Jesus. It was their ‘obedience’ (fides qua) that brought them closer to the faith of committed Christians. Thus it was much more his obedient fides qua than his fides quae that made Abraham ‘our father in faith’ and the ‘father in faith’ for all faithful human beings.
Obedience and the Divine Initiative
The roll call of heroes and heroines of faith in Hebrews 11 introduces only once the theme of ‘obedience.’ It does so when expounding the central example of Abraham: ‘by faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to set out for a place that he was to receive as an inheritance; and he set out not knowing where he was going’ (Heb 11:8). Elsewhere obedience shows up as a key feature in the plot of Hebrews, not least when it portrays the prayer and obedience of Jesus himself. By obediently submitting to the divine will and dying, he ‘became the source (cause) of eternal salvation for all who obey him’ (5:7–9). Thus the faithful obedience of Jesus became God’s way for saving human beings.
But where does that leave all those innumerable outsiders who do not know Jesus and hence cannot consciously obey him and experience in him the cause/source of their eternal salvation? This question can be met by observing a qualification that Hebrews introduces into the drama of human salvation. We may presume that the ‘great cloud of witnesses’ (Heb 12:1) cited, either by name or in general, in Hebrews 11, were eventually blessed with eternal salvation. Yet they all existed before Christ and could not have consciously obeyed him. If they had known him, they would presumably have obeyed him. Yet they did not know him. The same is true of innumerable ‘outsiders,’ whose faith enabled and enables them to ‘please’ God. Without knowing Jesus and hence without the possibility of consciously obeying him and of ‘looking to’ him as the supreme exemplar in the ‘race’ of faith (Heb 12:1–2), they mysteriously experience him (and his Holy Spirit) as the cause of their salvation. The faith they can exercise does not include conscious obedience towards Jesus, but that does not prevent him from being the effective ‘pioneer of their salvation’ (Heb 2:10).
Obedience, whether conscious or unconscious, responds to the divine initiative. Above we cited Irenaeus on the prior initiative of God in matters of revelation and salvation: ‘no one can know God unless God teaches [him or her]; without God, God is not to be known.’ Hebrews 11 points to the prior activity of God in rousing faith. By calling faith ‘the assurance of things hoped for,’ our text implies prior promises being somehow communicated by God and evoking the response of human hope. By naming faith as ‘the proof of things not seen,’ Hebrews suggests the unseen reality of God that gives proof of its existence by its power to call forth faith. The prior divine initiative applies not only to the Israelites and Christians but also to all those ‘others’ who respond in faith to God’s self-communication.
Conclusion
This article moved beyond the question of salvation for those who follow other faiths and examined a possible biblical approach to their responding in faith to the divine self-revelation. Standard scriptural dictionaries illustrate how faith is a diversified reality and assumes at least six forms in the New Testament. The Second Vatican Council’s decree on missionary activity (Ad gentes, 7) pointed to one of these forms—in Hebrews 11:6 (‘without faith it is impossible to please God’)—and applied it to the faith possibilities for the religious ‘others.’ In fact, the whole section of Hebrews 11:1–12:2 illuminates what their faith could be: a fides qua or commitment of hopeful obedience and a fides quae or content which accepts God as the origin and goal of human living but does not include any explicitly Christological component.
Hebrews does not say: ‘without (explicit) faith in Christ it is impossible to please God.’ A faith that ‘pleases God’ is open to those who have never heard of Christ.
Footnotes
Funding
This article received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or non-for-profit sectors.
1
See Bernard Sesboüé, Hors de Église pas de salut: Histoire d’une formule et problèmes d’interpretation (Paris: Desclée, 2004); Francis A. Sullivan, Salvation Outside the Church? (New York: Paulist, 1992).
2
Jacques Dupuis, Christianity and the Religions: From Confrontation to Dialogue, trans. Phillip Berryman (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2002), 273.
3
Ibid. 114–37, 230–31.
4
Ibid. 122; emphasis added.
5
Ibid. 135.
6
For varying features of revelation, see Gerald O’Collins, Rethinking Fundamental Theology: Toward a New Fundamental Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 56–165.
7
Joseph P. Healey and Dieter Lührmann, ‘Faith,’ in Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David N. Freedman, vol. 2 (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 744–58, at 755. This entry lists and discusses six forms of ‘faith’ to be found in the New Testament: in Paul, the Deutero-Paulines, the Synoptic Gospels, the Johannine tradition, Hebrews, and James. See also Rudolf Bultmann et al., ‘Pisteuō, pistis,’ etc., in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, vol. 6 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1968), 174–228.
8
Paul J. Griffiths, Problems of Religious Diversity (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2001), xv.
9
Ibid. 173, 175.
10
Ibid. 138–69.
11
Ibid. 152.
12
Ibid. 95.
13
Ibid. 133.
14
Ibid. 62, 63.
15
But, as the late Cardinal Avery Dulles wrote in reliance on Thomas Aquinas, ‘faith is not primarily propositional.’ See Avery Dulles, ‘Faith and Unbelief,’ in Catholic Engagement with World Religions: A Comprehensive Study, ed. Karl J. Becker and Ilaria Morali (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2010), 303–14, at 313.
16
S. Mark Heim, Salvations: Truth and Difference in Religion (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1995).
17
Catholic Engagement with World Religions: 86–88, 91–142, 368–79, 408–12, 447–58 (on salvation); 113–14, 117–19, 230–52, 360–68, 501–2 (on revelation); 153–206 (on the faith of Christians); 138, 303 (on the possible faith of non-Christians).
18
This prior, less-than-full participation takes nothing away from the Church’s ‘need to evangelize’ (AG 7); indeed it makes missionary activity as urgent as ever, if people are going to reach full faith and share in the sacraments of salvation.
19
For a fuller treatment of the teaching of AG on the divine revelation that can universally trigger human faith, see Gerald O’Collins, The Second Vatican Council on Other Religions (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 109–27. The Council Fathers debated the final draft of AG and then an emended version of it 7–11 October 1965 and 10–11 November 1965, respectively; see the Acta for details. On Congar’s central role in creating and emending AG, especially its first chapter, see O’Collins, The Second Vatican Council, 109–11.
20
Like most commentators on the Second Vatican Council, the CDF failed to notice the language of universal ‘revelation’ already used in AG 3 before the decree went on to speak of the corresponding universal possibility of ‘faith.’ One should also add that Vatican II in its 16 documents never introduced the terms ‘fides theologalis’ and ‘credulitas.’ Only a generous translation renders the latter term as ‘belief’; the original Latin would be more accurately rendered as ‘credulity’ or ‘gullibility.’
21
See further O’Collins, The Second Vatican Council on Other Religions, 117–19. On texts (e.g., Hebrews) being relatively independent from their original authors (and readers), see Hans-Georg Gadamer, Truth and Method, trans. Joel Weinsheimer and Donald G. Marshall, 2nd ed. (New York: Crossroad, 1989). He states a universally valid principle: ‘not just occasionally, but always, the meaning of a text goes beyond its author.’ When repeating this point, Gadamer adds that texts also become independent from their original addressees: ‘the horizon of understanding cannot be limited either by what the writer [e.g., the anonymous author of Hebrews] originally had in mind or by the horizon of the person to whom the text was originally addressed [e.g., the Christians to whom Hebrews was sent]’ (296, 395). On the interpretive theory of Gadamer and the similar proposals of Paul Ricoeur, see the Pontifical Biblical Commission, The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church (Rome: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1993), 74–75.
22
For the interpretation of biblical and other texts, see O’Collins, Rethinking Fundamental Theology, 254–61.
23
Ibid. 61–65, 317–18; Gerald O’Collins, Salvation for All: God’s Other Peoples (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 252–59.
24
On Hebrews and ‘faith’ in Hebrews, see Harold W. Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress, 1989); Richard J. Bauckham, ed., The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009); Gerhard Dautzenberg, ‘Der Glaube in Hebräerbrief,’ Biblische Zeitschrift, 17 (1973), 161–77; Erich Grässer, Der Glaube im Hebräerbrief (Marburg: Elwert, 1965); Christopher R. Koester, Hebrews (New York: Doubleday, 2001), 468–521. Here it is essential to respect the varying (six) accounts of ‘faith’ offered by the New Testament (see n. 7 above). Unquestionably these accounts show family resemblances, but they should not be homogenized to produce ‘the’ New Testament teaching on faith.
25
Koester, Hebrews, 125.
26
For the differences between Paul’s perspectives on faith and those of Hebrews, see Grässer, Der Glaube im Hebräerbrief, 64–71.
27
St Augustine, In Ioannem 79. 1; 85.2; Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Interpretatio Epistolae ad Hebreos, PG 82, 757A.
28
Although often neglected, a speech made by Paul and Barnabas in Lystra proves its relevance: ‘the living God … made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and all that is in them … he has not left himself without witness in doing good, giving you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, and filling you with food and your hearts with joy’ (Acts 14:15, 17).
29
The general usage of elenchos, however, makes it difficult to follow the NRSV and interpret the term subjectively as personal conviction; see Walter Bauer, Frederick W. Danker, William T. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich (BDAG), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 315.
30
See ibid. ‘hypostasis,’ 818–20.
31
Koester, Hebrews, 472.
32
Ibid. 473.
33
‘By faith we understand that the universe was formed by God’s command, so that the visible came forth from the invisible’ (REB).
34
Koester, Hebrews, 480.
35
Elsewhere Hebrews speaks of Christians striving to enter God’s ‘rest’ (e.g., 4:1–11) and ‘looking for the city that is to come’ (13:14), the city ‘whose architect and builder is God’ (11:10). After speaking of Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, and Jacob, the author of Hebrews remarks that they all looked for a ‘homeland’ or ‘a better country that is a heavenly one’ (Heb 11:13–16).
36
Koester, Hebrews, 516–17.
37
Koester, Hebrews, 100.
38
Summa theologiae, IIa IIae 1. 7.