How Does Christianity Relate to Other Eastern Religions?
by Winfried Corduan
One of the distinctives of biblical religion is that it does not readily accommodate elements from other religions. Eastern religions, on the other hand have more flexible boundaries. For the five religions below, we will give a brief summary and a response from a biblical perspective.
1. Jainism is a popular Indian religion, similar to Hinduism and Buddhism. It was founded by a man named Mahavira in the sixth century b.c. (roughly a contemporary of Jeremiah and Daniel in the Bible). Mahavira taught that human beings need to escape from reincarnation and that they can do so by living a rigorous life of self-deprivation. The highest obligation is never to harm any living being, whether it be animal, insect, or plant. Someone who observes this duty faithfully will attain a higher state of life and, ultimately, release from reincarnation. Jains venerate Mahavira and his mythological predecessors, the Tirthankaras.
Response: The Bible teaches that humanity's main problem is not reincarnation but separation from God due to sin. Salvation cannot be earned by an ascetic life; it can only be received by faith through God's work of redemption in Christ. Christians agree with Jains that all life deserves respect, but they do so because life was created by God, not because it is inherently divine.
2. Sikhism was founded by Guru Nanak in India around a.d. 1500, contemporary with the Protestant Reformation in Europe. Nanak sought to establish harmony between Hindus and Muslims by teaching that God is beyond any human name or attribute and that true devotion to God will bring about union with Him. There were nine successive gurus after Nanak, but the last of the line declared that the Sikh holy book, the Adi Granth, would henceforth be the true guru. It has been the focus of veneration among Sikhs ever since.
Response: Christians who believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God can appreciate the Sikhs' devotion to the Adi Granth. But whereas for Sikhism their holy book itself is a sacred object, for Christians the Bible is the revelation of God's message. The Bible offers to Sikhs (and anyone else) a hope for the future and an assurance of salvation that is absent from Nanak's message.
3. Daoism (formerly spelled Taoism) is part of popular Chinese religion, originally based on some fairly esoteric philosophical writings. Its founder, the legendary Laozi (roughly sixth century b.c. again), taught that the true "Way" (the Dao) of life could be found by allowing the opposing forces of the universe—yin and yang—to find their balance. This philosophy eventually metamorphosed into a religion devoted to the service of many gods and spirits, presided over by the Jade Emperor in heaven. Religious Daoism emphasizes devotion to one's ancestors.
Response: In contrast to philosophical Daoism, the Bible asserts that good and evil are genuine realities, not just matters of cosmic imbalance. The Bible condemns all worship of creatures, including nature spirits, ancestors, or images of deities. The Christian gospel offers release from the bondage to the spirit world in which religious Daoists usually live.
4. Confucianism is the philosophy of life taught by Confucius, another sixth century b.c. figure in China. It is primarily a code of conduct for individuals and the society they comprise rather than a set of doctrines about gods or worship practices. The fundamental premise of Confucianism is that there is a proper way in which all persons should act, depending on their station in life and the specific relationship of the moment. Thus a prince lives under a different set of expectations than a common worker. The obligation of setting the right example lies with the prince; if he will set the proper example, his subject will follow him in proper behavior, and a perfect society will result. The highest Confucian virtue is filial piety, the unconditional obedience of children to their parents. Even though many Confucian
ideals are outdated, the attitude of filial piety persists prominently among traditional Chinese, Japanese, and Korean people today.
Response: Christians can resonate with the Confucian commitment to a life of virtue, though they will take exception to the way it puts forms ahead of sacrificial love. Even more importantly, the Bible teaches that perfection is unattainable for human beings, who need inward reconciliation with God before outward changes in actions are possible.
5. Shinto is the national religion of Japan, worshiping spirits and deities. The Kojiki, the Shinto sacred writing, claims the emperor of Japan is a direct descendant of the sun goddess and therefore divine—a claim now officially renounced. Shinto shrines, marked by the traditional torii gate, are colorful ceremonial centers.
Response: Shinto illustrates two problems commonly addressed by the Bible: ritualism and escape into myth. By contrast, the Bible offers salvation grounded in the historical Christ, whom we can receive by faith.
What Does It Mean to Say, "Jesus Is Messiah"?
by Walter Russell
The Bible is more focused upon proving that Jesus is the Messiah than on proving that Jesus is God. While some NT passages clearly declare that Jesus preexisted as deity, dozens demonstrate that Jesus of Nazareth is the long-awaited Davidic Messiah-King of Israel. In other words, Jesus is the only one anointed with the Holy Spirit by God the Father and thereby uniquely authorized and empowered to bring about God's kingdom on earth. He is the Anointed One (Hebrew = Messiah; Greek = Christ). While His messianic identity includes His divine preexistence, this isn't the primary emphasis of the NT. That's why all four Gospels speak of Jesus' anointing (baptism) with the Holy Spirit as the beginning of His ministry as the Christ (Mt 3:13-17; Mk 1:9-11; Lk 3:21-22; Jn 1:32-34). For this reason, Christ is a title or office, not a part of Jesus' name. Whenever "Jesus Christ" or "Christ Jesus" or "Lord Jesus Christ" is used, the NT is saying, "Jesus the Messiah" or "Messiah Jesus" or "Lord Jesus the Messiah."
To understand the full significance of saying, "Jesus is Messiah," we must think primarily historically and secondarily theologically. For example, when it comes to Luke 4:16-30—Jesus' inaugural address in the Nazareth synagogue—we must think historically to understand what Jesus was claiming about Himself. He quoted from Isaiah 61:1-2, a favorite messianic passage of the Jews in Jesus' day and one of a cluster of OT passages speaking of the Spirit of the Lord anointing the Servant of the Lord to preach good news to needy people. In Luke 4:21, Jesus claimed that the Spirit anointing that Isaiah prophesied had been fulfilled in His anointing (baptism) in John the Baptist's presence a short time before (Lk 3:21-22). In other words, Jesus claimed to be the Anointed One—the Messiah of Israel. Moreover, Jesus made the unpopular point that His present messianic ministry would be gracious to Gentiles, not wreaking vengeance upon them or overthrowing Rome (Lk 4:23-30). Jesus' claims can be understood only when we see them primarily as claims to be the Messiah who is the unique representative of the Father.
Even in passages clearly emphasizing Jesus' deity (e.g., Jn 1:1-18), such a theological emphasis is secondary to the historical emphasis that the Word who preexisted as God has become flesh and dwelt among us as Messiah. The double mention of John the Baptist, Messiah's forerunner, reveals that the messianic framework is primary (Jn 1:6-8,15).
Even Jesus' miracles weren't primarily to prove His deity but to prove His Spirit-anointed identity (e.g., Jn 6:1-15). However, they prove He is the Messiah as well as God. Also, the confession Jesus spent three years soliciting from His disciples was not "You are God" (which He is) but "You are the Christ" (Mt 16:16; Mk 8:29; Lk 9:20). Moreover, rejection of Jesus' works is not a rejection of His deity per se but rather is a blasphemy against the Holy Spirit who has empowered these works by the Anointed One (Mt 12:22-32; Mk 3:20-30). Last, Jesus' resurrection is the occasion of His coronation or official installation as the messianic ruler (Ps 2, esp. vv. 7-12; Mt 28:16-20; Rm 1:1-5; Ac 13:30-33; Heb 1:1-14).
In defending Jesus' identity, we should confidently set forth, as the NT does, that "Jesus is Messiah!"
Does the Bible Teach Annihilationism?
by J. P. Moreland
Does the Bible teach that the unsaved will suffer in hell for only a time and then be annihilated? Some argue from Scripture that the flames in hell are literal and point out that flames destroy whatever they burn. Further, they claim that infinitely long punishment is disproportionate to a finite life of sin. Thus extinction is morally preferable to everlasting punishment.
The scriptural argument is weak. Clear texts whose explicit intent is to teach the extent of the afterlife overtly compare the everlasting conscious life of the saved and the unsaved (Dn 12:2; Mt 25:41,46). Moreover, the flames in hell are most likely figures of speech for judgment (cp. Heb 12:29; 2 Th 1:8). Otherwise, contradictions about hell are apparent (for example, it is dark despite being filled with flames).
The moral argument fails as well. For one thing, the severity of a crime is not a function of the time it takes to commit it. Thus rejection of the mercy of an infinite God could appropriately warrant an unending, conscious separation from God. Further, everlasting hell is morally superior to annihilation. That becomes evident from the following consideration.
Regarding the end of life, sanctity-of-life advocates reject active euthanasia (the intentional killing of a patient), while quality-of-life advocates embrace it. In the sanctity-of-life view, one gets one's value, not from the quality of one's life, but from the sheer fact that one exists in God's image. The quality-of-life advocates see the value of human life in its quality; life is not inherently valuable. Thus the sanctity-of-life position has a higher, not a lower, moral regard for the dignity of human life.
The traditional and annihilationist views about hell are expressions, respectively, of sanctity-of-life and quality-of-life ethical standpoints. After all, the grounds that God would have for annihilating someone would be the low quality of life in hell. If a person will not receive salvation, and if God will not extinguish one made in His image because He values life, then God's alternative is quarantine, and hell is certainly that. Thus the traditional view, being a sanctity-of-life and not a quality-of-life position, is morally superior to annihilationism.