When Scripture talks about someone, outside one’s own faith, having knowledge about the ‘true’ God, we must accept it. However, tension arises when we impose our particular view that does not align with a specific doctrine, necessitating the addition of adjectives like “some,” “saving or special knowledge,” or “seems” to interpret the text. This is evident in McDermott’s argument:
“If Scripture suggests that God desires the entire world to know him, it also indicates that people outside the Jewish and Christian communities have known at least some aspects of his person and character.” (Gerald R. McDermott, God’s Rivals: Why Has God Allowed Different Religions?, Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic, 2007.)
McDermott uses the example of Melchizedek:
“Melchizedek blessed Abram by El Elyon, and said El Elyon is maker of heaven and earth (Gen 14:19)….who delivered Abram’s enemies into his hand (14:20)….and later Abram refused to accept the offer by the king of Sodom, sworn in the name of ‘Yahweh El Elyon.’” (p. 31)
He elaborates:
“Notice what Abram had done in these words: he identified Yahweh with El Elyon in two ways. He joined the two names in a gesture that suggests they point to the same God, and—as if it were not completely clear—he gave Melchizedek’s description of El Elyon to Yahweh: maker of heaven and earth….thereby acknowledging the legitimacy of Melchizedek’s priesthood and sanctuary by giving tithe to him.” (p. 31)
McDermott reconciles this with his evangelical doctrine of exclusivism:
“Do you see how remarkable this is? Melchizedek is shown to be worshiping the true God under the name of a Canaanite deity. Another way of putting this is to say that Melchizedek had knowledge of the true God despite all appearance of NOT having received revelation from the Hebrews. This is NOT to suggest that Melchizedek’s beliefs about God were the same as Abram’s, and it certainly does not imply that all Canaanite beliefs about El Elyon were accurate. But the text does SEEM to imply that Melchizedek had SOME sort of knowledge of the God who manifested himself as the Holy One of Israel. It means that true knowledge of God came to Melchizedek apart from revelation given THROUGH the ABRAHAMIC LINEAGE.” (pp. 31-32)
Key Questions Raised
Does the text suggest that any revelation about God outside the Hebrew tradition is invalid? Does it imply that knowledge of God outside the Abrahamic lineage is partial and to be revealed in full only through it?
McDermott continues:
“The Old Testament is full of Gentiles who knew SOMETHING of the true God…. but there is no indication that they had SAVING knowledge of God.” (p. 32)
He lists examples like Rahab, Abel, Enoch, Noah, Job, Abimelech, Jethro, Ruth, Naaman, and the Queen of Sheba:
“Other people outside the Jewish tradition who knew and sometimes ‘walked with’ the true God were Abel, Enoch, Noah, Job, Abimelech, Jethro, Ruth, Naaman, and the Queen of Sheba. But they walked WITH God, not receiving revelation through Hebrew religion, only having ‘SOME’ knowledge about the TRUE God.” (p. 32)
Furthermore:
“Many of these Gentiles came to know certain things about the true God only by contact with Jews…. They may NEVER HAVE come to a SAVING knowledge of Yahweh. Yet they nevertheless knew SOMETHING about the true God. They were Gentiles outside of Israel who nonetheless knew SOMETHING of the God of Israel. What they knew was not part of GENERAL revelation since it was not given to all, nor was it SPECIAL revelation since it usually did not point to salvation. But it was TRUE knowledge of the TRUE God, given by God directly or through an encounter with God’s work.” (p. 33) [Underline, bold, and capitals added by me]
He extends this:
“It is Christ, then, who is responsible for whatever knowledge of the true God is found outside of Judaism and Christianity. John goes on to say…. ‘The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world’ (Jn 1:9). Further, the knowledge of God to Epimenides and Aratus, whom Paul quoted APPROVINGLY at Athens, shows that for Luke and Paul, these secular poets possessed religious truth. They knew SOMETHING about the true God. And according to John, this knowledge was MEDIATED to Epimenides and Aratus by Christ.” (pp. 33-34) [Bold and capitals added by me]
My Critique
McDermott’s words highlight a contradiction. On the one hand, he acknowledges “TRUE knowledge of the TRUE God, given by God directly or through an encounter with God’s work.” On the other, he states that these Gentiles had only “some sort of knowledge of God” (p. 32).
McDermott’s notes also underscore this tension:
- General revelation: “God has revealed himself to all people (thus ‘general’) through nature (e.g., Rom 1:18-20) and conscience (Rom 2:14-15).”
- Special revelation: “God’s saving plan through Israel and Jesus Christ, made not to every human being but to many.”
This tension reflects the challenges religious traditions face when reconciling early Scriptures with later doctrines, particularly in the context of ‘Natural, Revealed, and Natural Religions’. [see Appendix more on this] For instance, the Upanishads do not fully endorse the Vedas, and the subsequent Smritis introduced additional insights that gave rise to philosophical systems. These systems required interpretative tools such as arthavada (laudatory statements) and kalivarjya (exceptions for the Kaliyuga), which helped navigate the complexities of evolving beliefs and practices.
Swami Vivekananda’s perspective further illuminates this tension. He argued that Vedanta validates all religions, asserting that all faiths, despite their differences, point toward the same ultimate truth as he says:
This perspective underscores the pluralism inherent in spiritual traditions, challenging attempts to assert exclusivism as the definitive interpretation of divine revelation.
Personal Experience: Finding My Guru in Muktinath
This I can share from my own experience. When my search for MY GURU ended in Muktinath, then He became special for me and both His life and Teaching become ‘saving Grace’ for me. At the same time, I never try make Him as Universal by inserting Him as the Cosmic, Unknown and Universal Knowledge and Truth. Because when I accepted that Common Saving Grace which is available for everyone, becomes special and specific when I accepted it for me. As He came in a Particular time in history, He also came in a particular time in my history. Only from there He become real to me. But God, if at all if one even wants to use the English Word G-O-D, cannot be limited to any history, scripture, tradition or interpretation. She or He remains Sad as Veda says: Ekam Sad which always remains complete and Universal, never becomes partial or special though an individual can only comprehend in part and continue to grow to know it in full either here or in the Further Shore. Till that time, we have to live accepting the Pluralism in every part of life.
Pluralism Versus Exclusivism
Pluralism is a reality in life. Attempting to extract exclusivism from pluralistic Scriptures or traditions leads to interpretive challenges. Honest students of Scripture must either:
- Acknowledge pluralism in their texts.
- Uphold exclusivism, stating: “There is one God whom I worship, and my founder alone is the true prophet or acharya.”
Riding two horses—affirming both pluralism and exclusivism—creates unresolved tensions.
Salvation Across Traditions
I find it challenging to understand the idea that salvation is uniform across all individuals and religions. McDermott states:
“What they knew was not part of general revelation since it was not given to all, nor was it special revelation since it usually did not point to salvation” (p. 33).
This raises pivotal questions:
- What does salvation mean to pre-Hebrews, like Abram the Canaanite, whom God called to become the Father of all Nations?
- How did the Hebrews interpret salvation, especially in the pre- and post-exilic periods, as they struggled to preserve their identity as God’s chosen people?
- What does salvation signify for a Hindu, either as an individual seeker or a follower of a particular sampradaya (tradition)?
These definitions of salvation are far from identical and vary significantly across philosophical and spiritual traditions. In a pluralistic world, the concept of salvation cannot remain static or universally applicable without clear explanation.
What, then, was this “special revelation” that McDermott claims did not point to salvation for the Hebrews and those before them? How does it reconcile with the multifaceted interpretations of salvation in today’s diverse religious contexts?
Saving Grace and Common Grace
The distinction between “saving knowledge” and “common knowledge”—or “general revelation” and “special revelation”—is fraught with complexities. If God is whole and true, then His revelation must also embody wholeness and truth, even if human understanding remains partial.
As the Vedas affirm:
Purnamadah; Purnamidam; Purnat Purnam Udachate; Purnasya Purnamadaya Purnamevavashiyate.
This translates to:
That is complete; this is complete. From that completeness comes this completeness. When completeness is taken from completeness, completeness remains.
God’s grace, whether termed as “common” or “saving,” remains the same. It transforms into something “special” or “saving” only when an individual personally experiences and acknowledges it.
Conclusion: A Call for Humility and Unity
In exploring the knowledge of God across traditions, we encounter profound questions about revelation, salvation, and divine grace. These questions challenge us to navigate the tension between pluralism and exclusivism, acknowledging both the universal accessibility of divine truth and the unique, personal ways in which individuals experience it.
The arguments presented highlight the limitations of rigid categorizations like “saving” versus “common” grace or “special” versus “general” revelation. If God is truly complete and universal, as affirmed by the Vedic concept of Purnamadah (“That is complete; this is complete”), then our understanding of divine knowledge must also embrace this wholeness. It is not the knowledge itself but our ability to perceive and respond to it that varies.
Rather than asserting dominance of one tradition over another, we are called to recognize the diverse ways in which humanity has sought and encountered the divine. Pluralism does not diminish the truth; it enriches it, revealing facets of the divine that might otherwise remain hidden.
Ultimately, the journey toward understanding God is not one of competing doctrines but of shared humility. It is through this humility that we may transcend boundaries and witness the unity underlying all spiritual paths—a unity that reflects the profound mystery and completeness of the divine.
Erode, 1-1-2025
Appendix
Complexity of Religion
The topic of religion, its evolution, and the varied interpretations across time and cultures is vast and multi-dimensional. Different traditions categorize their understanding of the divine in distinct ways—some through natural revelation (observable in the world), others through special or revealed knowledge (often through scripture or divine intervention), and some through rational inquiry (philosophical reasoning). These categories help us understand the scope and diversity of religious experience, but they also raise important questions about exclusivity and inclusivity in divine revelation.
While it’s beyond the scope of my work to delve deeply into all these perspectives, it’s worth noting that religious knowledge is often partial and shaped by context. It’s essential to approach these matters with humility, recognizing the shared human pursuit of the divine. However, for those interested in a deeper exploration, several books and articles are available. Here, I would like to share insights from just two scholars:
Rajah
Muller holds that without natural religion “revealed religion itself would have no firm foundation” ((Muller, Max F. Chips from a German Workshop, vol. I. Essays on the Science of Religion, London: Longman, Green. 1868: xxxiii). On this view, the differences between religions is one of degree, as is the difference between the child and adult….— Sharada Sugirtha Rajah, Imagining Hinduism: A Postcolonial Perspective. Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Private Limited, Reprint, Special Indian Edition, (2003) Reprint 2017, p. 62
Balagangadhara
…the Enlightenment thinkers and the Romantic scholars periodised human history. A primal religion and its decay, and its subsequent degeneration constituted the recognizable landmarks of such a history. What the Religionsgeschichtliche Schule did was to carry this orientation one-step further and one-step sideways. Religion itself has a history and it is a part of human history. The history of religion evolves, and this history is the story of the evolving human responses to the revelation of the Divine. In short, religion itself evolves as humankind does. In this way, it transcends the idea that religion was an error—after all, if (p.177) it is an error, why does it continue to flourish?—while recuperating the developmental ordering of human history.
The third claim is consistent with the above two. Religion is one. They tried to argue this not by looking at this or that theological claim but by focusing upon the human response. That is, they looked at the ‘living’ religion in its various manifestations. By doing so, on the one hand, they rejected the attempted reduction of religion to morality alone. In its trajectory, ‘Natural Religion’ had landed up somewhere in the vicinity of such a view. They rejected this position, on the other hand, by accepting the Enlightenment contribution to the Christian thought, viz. the belief in the universality of the domain of religious experience. The human response to the revelation of divine—which constitutes the domain of religious experience or religiosity—is universal and cross-cultural. This is what religion is. The difference among religions, as a first approximation, is the variety in the responses. As these responses get articulated, the variety gets its Gestalt. Articulations of different responses, in their turn, are non-trivially dependent on the nature of the divine revelation. The tension between the revelation of the Divine and human responses to it defines the dynamics of the evolution of religion and its history.
In sum, this is the contribution of the Religionsgeschichtliche Schule to the twentieth-century scholarship. In the latter, a discerning student will find more than mere echoes of this school and its influence. Yet, very little scholarly work is done about this school. I have no explanation for this neglect; I am not even sure that such an explanation is relevant for my purposes. What I will do in these two chapters is to trace the importance of the claims of this school through different authors: in Schleiermacher, their spiritual teacher; in Soderblom, their contemporary; in Otto, an independent thinker; in Eliade, who founded the journal History of Religions; in Durkheim, who tried to build a ‘scientific’ theory of religion; and among some proponents of the idea of ‘atheistic’ religiosity; and in an argument about the nature of our secular world. While the themes of the Scule constitute the background of my textual analyses, the latter are meant as answers to other questions and concerns….— S.N. Balagangadhara, The Heathen in His Blindness, Asia, the West and the Dynamic of Religion, New Delhi, Manohar, 2005,pp.177-78
Leave a Reply