JESUS AND THE RELIGIONS

Jesus Christ said he had never been to a football match. So, we took him to one, my
friends and I. It was a ferocious battle between the Protestant punchers and the Catholic
Crusaders. The Crusaders scored first. Jesus cheered wildly and threw his hat high up in the
air. Then the Punchers scored. And Jesus cheered wildly and thre his hat high up in the air.
This seemed to puzzle the man behin us. He tapped Jesus on the should and asked, “Which
side are you tooting for, my good man?” “Me?” replied Jesus, visibly excited by the game.
“Oh, I’m not rooting for either side. I am just enjoying the game.” 1

The Philippines, though with a little more than 80% of its population
Catholic, is religiously plural. The Muslims in the South, which comprise a
considerable percentage of the population, have more in common with their
brethren in Indonesia, Brunei and Malaysia, than with their compatriots living
in the north.2 Furthermore, the presence of various Protestant denominations
is significant. There are also denominations founded by native-born Filipinos
like the Iglesia Filipina Independiente and the Iglesia ni Kristo. And there are
those who belong to the indigenous religions whose origins would antedate
the coming of all the religions mentioned above.

Conflicts with the Religious Other

The diversity of religions has, from time to time, resulted into armed
clashes. To this day, some Muslim groups like the Moro Islamic Liberation
Front, still aspire independence from “Christian Philippines.”
There is mutual distrust rooted in long held-biases. For instance, many
Christians stereotype Muslims as traitorous. It is not uncommon for a
supposedly decent Christian to say that the only good Muslim is a dead
Muslim. On the other hand, Muslims label Christians as land grabbers and
lacking in decency.
There are missionary accounts that reveal that there were conflicts
between those who were converted to the faith and those who remained in
their indigenous religions. We read, for instance, in the volume of Blair and
Robertsons, this account of a Dominican on Christians in what is now Nueva
Vizcaya: “Those Indians were at war continually with other people of the
interior, more powerful, who greatly persecute them, and the faith of Christ.”

1
Anthony de Mello, The Song of the Bird, New York: Doubleday, 1982), p. 147.
2
Patricio Abinales, an expert in the history of Mindanao, writes of the Muslims at the beginning of American
colonization: “Muslims viewed their responses to the Americans in terms of their experiences in Southeast
Asia, not just in the Philippines.” Cf. Abinales, Orthodoxy and History in the Muslim-Mindanao Narrative
IQuezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Press, 2010), p. 41.
But the translator failed to translate one important phrase from the original
account: “por averse sugetado a los Espanoles, y la Fe de Cristo,” which is
translated, “for having submitted to the Spaniards and the Faith of Christ.” This
suggests that there was a conflict between those who converted to Christianity
and those who did not.3 There were also conflicts between Spanish authorities
and the indios over what the latter believed was the imposition of Christianity
on them. A good example of such revolt was the one led by Tamblot in Bohol in
the 17th century.
Our colonizers too treated differently the Christians on the one hand and
the Muslims and the unconverted on the other hand. For the most part of the
Spanish occupation, the Spaniards had little or no influence at all in Muslim
dominated area like Sulu. The United States on the other hand, ruled
Maguindanao and Sulu differently from the rest of the Philippines. In the
words of one historian,

To American eyes, Moros multiplied the already substantial otherness of Filipinos by

beings Muslim and having evaded direct cultural influence of Spanish colonization...By
marking the Moros as inherently different from (Catholic) Filipinos, American colonialism
inscribed both groups with corporate identities founded in the ostensibly natural
distinctions of racial ancestry.4

It is interesting to note that both Spain and the United States held cultural
fairs that exhibited indigenous (non-Christian) people. In 1888, there was an
exposition of the Philippine islands in the Madrid Zoological Gardens. What
attracted most was the display of tattooed Bontoc warriors. In 1904, there also
was a Philippine exhibit in the Saint Louis World Fair. A magnet for wide
attention in the Philippine exhibit was the display of half naked Negritos who
showed their bow and arrow skills.
Whatever the intentions of the organizers were in showing Filipino
ethnic groups, these exhibits had the effect of giving the impression that these
un-Christianized natives were still far from the civilized world. They were
different from the Christianized Filipinos.
Not surprisingly, - although embarrassingly from our own contemporary
perspective – even the Filipinos felt ashamed of these natives. Commenting on
the Madrid Exposition, Philippine national hero Jose Rizal advised his friend
Ferdinand Blumentritt not to visit the exposition for it was not about the
Philippines but about the Igorots. He complained that Filipinos were exhibited
among animals and plants.
3
This whole paragraph is indebted to William Henry Scott, Looking for the Prehispanic Filipino (Quezon City:
Newday, 1992), p. 3.
4
Michael Salman, The Embarrassment of Slavery: Controversies in the American Colonial Philippines ( Quezon
City: Ateneo Press, 2001), p. 60.
 But on the other hand, even as we note the reality of these religious
conflicts, there is also the phenomenon of multireligious identities. For
instance, it is not uncommon in Filipino homes to have the image of the Sacred
Heart of Jesus and Gautamma Buddha in one living room. There are also
families where parents come from different religious traditions and the
children may accompany either parent in week-end worship.

Plurality of Religions and the Christian Concept of Salvation

In connection with the de facto division among people based on

religious traditions, many have attempted to reconcile the Christian belief that
Jesus Christ is the only mediator of salvation and our belief that salvation is
offered to all human beings. Do the Muslims and the indigenous people have
to be Christianized before they can hope to enter the Kingdom of God?
The first attempt is the one embraced by the Catholic missionaries of the
past. The foreign missionaries who introduced Christianity to our foreparents
were most probably thinking along the paradigm of extra ecclesiam nulla salus
(outside the Church there is no salvation.) These missionaries came with the
mentality that they possessed the light of truth and others were in complete
darkness. It never occurred to them that God was already in these islands long
before their arrival. King Philip of Spain, himself a committed Catholic, may
have been thinking of the same when he said that he was willing to spend a
fortune just to save one soul. Although uttered with a fair amount of
exaggeration, it may also have expressed his thoughts that what he was doing
was worth all the fortunes since salvation can never be monetarily quantified.
This paradigm is usually called exclusivism. It believes that one has to be
a Christian in order to be saved by the one and only savior Jesus Christ.
Furthermore, it is Christ who judges everyone and everything, including local
cultures. Anything that does not conform to what Christ taught has to be
judged negatively. Exclusivists dogmatically insist they have the only valid
interpretation of Christ’s teachings. Quite surprisingly in this age of pluralism,
this view is still held by a considerable number of people today. They recognize
that there can be decent people among those who do not share the Christian
faith. But still they insist that they cannot enter the kingdom of God for they
have not accepted Christ as their Lord and savior. People who embrace this
paradigm disdain interreligious dialogue. For them, the doctrines of other
religions are simply incompatible with the doctrines of Christianity. Thus, any
dialogue is pointless and may result in compromising the eternal truth of the
Christian faith.
 For most of its history, Christianity embraced this idea even without
employing the term “exclusivism.”5
The opposite side of the spectrum is called religious pluralism. Pluralists
consider Christ as one savior among a plurality of saviors. Every person is saved
by that being one considers his or her savior. Christians are saved by Jesus
Christ and thus are justified in believing that Christ is their savior. But other
people can be saved by the Deity whom they worship. Furthermore, one
religious tradition is just as good as any other as there cannot be a privileged
position where one can adjudicate the different their claims. After all, religious
dogmas are culturally conditioned. Or, if different religions are to be judged,
the criterion can only be the fruits of good works: a tree is known by its works.
Following the accepted principles of hermeneutics that understanding
always involves interpretation, pluralists state that religious dogmas as our
human and contextualized interpretations of who or what God is. But God in
the divine self remains unknowable. Thus, there is no sense of speaking of an
exclusive and absolute validity of a single religion.
At this stage of our description of the first two schools of thought, a
discerning reader should be able to see dangerous pitfalls of each theory.
Exclusivism is tantamount to absolutism and dogmatism. It is a virtual order to
cease the conversation. Pluralism on the other hand may fall into relativism
which some Popes have warned us against.6
A middle ground is known as inclusivism.
Foremost among these attempts is that of Karl Rahner. The younger Karl
Rahner coined the term “anonymous Christians,” which may sound offensive
to the sensitivities of those who do no not share the Christian faith. According
to this theory, the grace of God permeates all of reality, including all religious
traditions and in all men and women, including unbelievers. Thus, the idea is
that we can only be saved by the grace of Christ is steadfastly maintained.
However, it is added that even those who do not consciously accept Christ as
saviour can be saved by the same grace brought about by his life, death and
resurrection.

5
It is important to point out that exclusivism is not exclusive (this terrible pun is unintended) to Christianity.
For instance, exlusivism can be found in Judaism among those who give a rigid interpretation to their faith that
they are God’s chosen people. In Islam, there is also the common belief that with the transmission of the
Qur’an and the foundation of Islam, all other religions are surpassed or abrogated. (Cf. Perry Schmidt-Leukel,
Religious Pluralism and Interreligious Theology: The Gifford Lectures [Maryknoll: Orbis, 2017], p. 42. It is also
good to note that there are fundamentalists in most religious traditions. Although religious fundamentalism
and exclusivism are theoretically different concepts, still almost all fundamentalists are exclusivists. For an
analysis of fundamentalism in Christianity, Judaism and Islam, cf. Karen Armstrong, The Battle for God: a
History of Fundamentalism (New York: Random House, 2000).
6
In Dominus Iesus,
 Obviously, Jesus was not aware of these categories which appeared
almost two thousand years later. Yet, we can discern his attitude towards
people outside of the Jewish dispensation.

Some important passages7:

1. The coming of Jesus was welcomed by non-Jews.

Right at his infancy, Jesus was visited by magi from the east (Mt. 2: 1-
12), who could represent the Gentile world. These Gentiles knelt down
before Jesus and paid him homage. Although there is an almost
universal agreement that the story of the magi visit is a form of Christian
midrash and cannot be interpreted as historical, still the theological
truth behind the story is that the coming of Jesus has a universal
significance. Although the story could not be made to address an issue
which was not the concern of the author, still it is noteworthy that they
returned to their country without changing their religious affiliation.

2. Jesus tells his townmates to look beyond Nazareth

At the start of his ministry, Jesus returned to Nazareth where he was

welcomed by his townmates. It seemed they were welcoming a local boy
who did amazing things in other towns. They were amazed that
someone whom they knew as Joseph’s son would speak so well. Jesus
read their minds as wanting him to do in Nazareth what they knew he
had already done in Capernaum (Lk. 4;23). But Jesus reprimanded them
for being parochial in their thinking. Jesus then cited examples of
prophets who went out of their way to attend to Gentiles: There were
many widows in Israel during a famine but Elijah was sent to a widow in
Zarephath; There were many lepers in Israel during the time of the
prophet Elisha but he was sent to cure Naaman, a Syrian; His townmates
did not take this message lightly, but Jesus did not relent in his message
that his activity could not be restricted by geography.

3. Love your neighbour as yourself.

One may ask how this commandment is related to the theme of the
multiplicity of religious traditions. To answer this question, we need to
go back to its Hebrew roots. The commandment is found in Levitcus
19:18 which, in its complete formulation, runs: “You shall not take
7
Although I have added my own reflections and have developed the themes differently, this section is largely
indebted to Gerald O’ Collins, Christology of the Religions
 vengeance or bear a grudge again any of your people (my italics) but
you shall love your neighbour as yourself. I am the Lord.” The italicized
words would indicate the neighbour refers to fellow Jews. In the same
chapter, they were also exhorted not to oppress an “alien who resides
with you (v.33)
But when Jesus was asked by an expert of the law to define the term
“neighbour,” he obviously went beyond the ethnic-based definition. He
answered the expert by narrating the Parable of the Good Samaritan.
Instead of defining what is a neighbour, Jesus instead tells us “to be a
neighbour” to those in need, specifically the victims.

4. Calling a non-Jew a dog.

This one incident in the life of Jesus deserves a separate section. On this
issue of Jesus’ attitude towards people of other faith, the most striking
pericope could be his encounter with a woman described as of
Syrophoenician origin (Mk. 7 26) or a Canaanite (Mt. 15:22). This non-
Jew pleaded that Jesus drive away the demons that were tormenting her
daughter. Quite shockingly, Jesus’ answer was extremely insulting: he
first explained that he came only for the lost sheep of Israel and then
called her a dog.
Most commentators will try to soften the insult by interpreting the
words of Jesus as a way to test the faith of the Gentile. But is it not
possible that Jesus, being truly human and thus situated within the
prevailing culture milieu of his time, also had his share of biases against
non-Jews?
Yet, at any rate, he surely abandoned his biases when confronted with a
concrete face of a woman in desperate need.

5. Jesus praises the virtues of non-Jews.

In contrast to some Filipino Christian fundamentalists who cannot see
goodness in other religions, Jesus was more than generous in
appreciating the virtues of non-Jews. He never believed that goodness is
never a monopoly of his fellow Jews.
Once a Roman centurion pleaded that Jesus heal a servant of his who
was paralyzed. In reply, Jesus expressed willingness to see the servant.
But the centurion, most probably aware that it would be embarrassing
on the part of Jesus to be seen visiting the house of a Roman, expressed
his faith that Jesus can simply say the word and heal from a distance.
 Before Jesus acceded to the request, he lauded the centurion’s faith,
saying that he has not seen such faith in the whole of Israel (Mt. 8:10). It
is important to point out that Jesus did not demand that the centurion
join his mission as a prior condition for healing.
In the story of the healing of the ten lepers (Lk. 17: 11-19), Jesus
commended a Samaritan for coming back to give thanks.
In the parable of the Good Samaritan, the Samaritan is offered as an
exemplar of a person who cares for victims. The character of the Good
Samaritan is a twist in the story. It would have been the expectation of
the typical listener then that the third character would be an Israelite,
following the common Priest-Levite-Israelite classification. Thus, for the
Lukan Jesus, the parable is not just a story intended to exhort listeners
to be compassionate. If that were the only lesson, Jesus could have
simply retained the conventional classification. He twister the story to
drive home the point that people whom they consider apostates can
teach them how to be a neighbour.
It is worth noting that in all these stories, the virtues of different persons
not belonging to the Jewish dispensation are contrasted with the lack of
the same virtues of the Jews. In the first story, Jesus explicitly
proclaimed “… no one in Israel have I found such faith.” In the story of
the ten lepers, we can presume that the other nine were Jews. In the
parable of the Good Samaritan, the priest and the Levite looked at the
other way and failed to help the victim.
To explain how radical Jesus was during his time, let us try to imagine
today a Catholic priest telling his congregation that Muslims have a more
authentic faith. Or what about a Muslim imam telling his fellow Muslims
they can learn about charity from Christians?

6. Jesus performs miracles for non-Jews

We have already seen Jesus exorcising the demons that possessed the
daughter of a Syro-Phoenician woman. That is not the only instance
when non-Jews benefited from the miracles of Jesus. We have also seen
that Jesus healed ten lepers one of whom was a Samaritan. Let us now
cite other examples of Jesus performing miracles that benefitted non-
Jews.
Let us go to miracle stories performed in pagan territories. Although
there is no mention of the religious identity of the beneficiaries of the
miracles, we can presume that they were pagans.
In the region of Decapolis, Jesus enabled a deaf-mute to hear and speak
(Mk. 7:31-37) after he put his fingers into his ears, spat and touched his
 tongue. The gestures of Jesus suggest close physical contact with a
person who was presumably non-Jew.

The Gospel of Mark narrates two instances when Jesus miraculously fed
thousands of people by multiplying loaves of bread and fishes. The first
happened in a Jewish territory which involved five thousand people,
(Mk.6:30-43). The second follows the same pattern as the first but this
time it took place in a pagan territory and involving four thousand
people.8

There is also a unique exorcism story in the country of the Gerasenes

(Mk. 5:1-20). In this periscope, a man who lived among the tombs, and
whose movements could not be restrained despite attempts to chain
him, met Jesus. Jesus expelled the evil spirits in the man and sent them
to a herd of swine.

7. Jesus uses images signifying universality in describing the coming

kingdom.
In his infancy, wise men from the East already came and adore him.
Although this story may be a form of Christian midrash and thus we
focus more on the meaning rather than on its literality, still the story
could not have been created if Jesus is not also pictured as having a
universalist attitude as an adult. Thus, we see in the same Gospel of
Matthew, Jesus proclaiming, “Many will come from the east and west
and will eat with Abraham an Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven”
(Mt. 8:11). He made this proclamation, it is worth noting, after he
acceded to the request of the Roman centurion to cure his servant.

8. Jesus relates with Samaritans

We have already seen that Samaritans benefited from the miraculous
healing powers of Jesus. But in this section, let us see how he would
relate with Samaritans outside the context of his healing ministry.
In one instance, Jesus was not received warmly in a Samaritan village
because he was on the way to Jerusalem, (Lk. 9:53). Bear in mind that
there was a long standing animosity between Jews and Samaritans. The
Jews believed that the Samaritans have lost their religious identity after
they have assimilated elements from other cultures and after they have
inter-married with the conquering Assyrians.
8
John Meier opines that the two stories come from “two alternate versions of the feeding miracle, both of
which circulated in the pre-Marcan of the first Christian generation.” Cf. John Meier, A Marginal Jew: Re-think
the Historical Jesus, Vol. II: Mentor, Message and Miracles (New York: Doubleday, 1994), p. 958.
 With this brief backgrounder, we can understand the feelings of the
disciples James and John who wanted divine wrath to come upon the
Samaritan town. But Jesus would have none of what they were thinking.
He did not take it against the Samaritans for not welcoming him.
The animosity between Samaritans and Jews is also evident in the story
of Jesus’ encounter at the well with a Samaritan woman (Jn. 4: 1-42).
The disciples’ surprise that he was talking alone with a Samaritan
woman indicated that this was against social convention (v. 27).
Furthermore, the woman reminded Jesus that Jews could not be asking
water from a Samaritan, and a woman at that. (v. 9)
In the course of their conversation, the Samaritan woman mentioned
one source of division between Jews and Samaritans: “Our ancestors
worshipped on this mountain, but you say that the place where people
must worship is in Jerusalem.”
The answer of Jesus is important to the theme of inter-religious
dialogue. Although Jesus insisted that salvation is from the Jews, he
supported neither the Samaritans nor the Jews on the issue of where
God can be worshipped: “...the hour is coming when you will worship
the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem... The hour is
coming when true worshippers will worship the Father in Spirit and in
truth.” The message is that the authenticity of worship is not dependent
on the location of the church or temple.

9. Jesus’ message is for everyone

Although the addressees of Jesus preaching were mostly Jews, still it was
not as Jews that they were spoken to but as human persons. This is
evident in several “whoever” sayings. We give some few examples:
 Whoever welcomes a child such as these welcomes me and
whoever welcomes me welcomes him who sent me.
 Whoever, does the will of God is my brother or sister and
mother.
 Whoever does not take up the cross and follow me is not worthy
of me.
 Whoever gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little
ones in the name of a disciple – truly I tell you, none of these will
lose their reward.
 He did not say, “Any Jew who welcomes a child,” or Any Jew who does
the take up his cross.” It would appear that Jesus was teaching that
anyone who does the will of God is welcome to his circle, even if his first
disciples were all Jews.
But this theme is not limited to saying that starts with the word
“whoever.” The beatitudes, for example, speak not of Jews but of any
person who are poor in spirit, who seek justice, who are peacemakers,
who are meek, etc. Jesus did not proclaim “Blessed are the Jews who are
peacemakers.” The formulation is more inclusive.
Although the parables may have a concrete context, their lessons can
have universal application.

10.Religious affiliation is not a criterion for entrance into the reign of God.

In the parables of Jesus, nowhere did he state that one religious

tradition is a pre-condition for entrance into God’s kingdom. In the so-
called Parable of the Last Judgment, the only criterion basis for the final
judgment is what one has done or not done to the least of the brethren.
Indeed, someone who is feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty,
visiting the sick, is doing it for God even he or she is not aware of it.
In the parable of the dragnet (Mt. 13: 47-50,) fishermen collect all kinds
of fish. When they reach the shore, they place the good fish into a
basket and throw out the bad. And Jesus then explains that the same
thing will happen at the end time. But it is important to note that the
good and bad fish symbolize the righteous and the wicked. On that basis
alone, and not religious boundaries, can spell the difference between
salvation and damnation.

CONCLUSION

It is overly simplistic to ask whether the historical Jesus himself was an

exclusivist, a pluralist or an inclusivist. Even today, these topologies may not be
able to capture all the fine nuances of every answer that a theologian may
make in answer to the issue of the Christian concept of salvation vis-a-vis other
religions. But it becomes even more problematic when these categories of
today are read back onto a person who lived in the first three decades of the
first century in Galilee.
 What can be said with certainty is that Jesus did not limit his own world
to his fellow Jews. By relating with Samaritans, Romans, and other non-Jews,
Jesus clearly thought out-of-the box of exclusivistic attitude which was
common during his time.
But even as Jesus himself related with non-Jews and admired their
virtues, does the Catholic Church today still teach that those who do not
accept him as Lord and savior cannot possibly be saved? After all, the
Johannine Jesus also said, “No one comes to the Father except through me,”
(Jn. 14:6). After the resurrection, Peter also said, “There is salvation in no one
else...,” (Acts 4:12).
It is true that the above passages were interpreted by the Catholic
Church in an exclusivistic sense. For instance, the General Council of Florence
declares,

(The Holy Roman Church).... firmly believes, professes and preaches that ‘no one
remaining outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans’ but also Jews, heretics or
schismastics, can become partakers of eternal life, but they will go the ‘eternal fire
prepared for the devil and his angels,’ (Mt. 25:41); unless before the end of their life they
are joined (aggregati) to it. For union with the boy of the Church is of so great importance
that the sacfaments of the Church are helpful to salvation only for those remaining in it;
and fasts, almsgiving , other works of piety and the exercises of a militant Christian life
bears eternal rewards for them alone. ‘And no one can be saved, no matter how much
alms one has given, if if shedding one’s blood for the name of Christ, unless one remains in
the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church. 9

Even prior to the Second Vatican Council, there were already attempts
to give a more inclusive approach to other religions and less rigid
interpretation of the dictum “outside the church there is no salvation. A
concept like invincible ignorance is invoked presumably in order to give more
leeway to the possibility that people who do not belong to the Christian
dispensation can be saved.10 According to this notion, a person cannot be
faulted for an ignorance which one cannot overcome. A person cannot
conquer ignorance if s/he is not aware of one’s lack of knowledge. Or one may
sincerely not believe in what one is supposed to know. In the context of the
issue at hand, a person is invincibly ignorant of the need for Christ if one has
not even heard of this person whom Christians consider as their Lord and
savior. Or it is possible that one has heard of Christ but in all sincerity does not
believe in the Christian claims. In these cases, the ignorance cannot hinder
one’s salvation.

9
Cf. Jacques Dupuis, ed.,The Christian Faith in the Doctrinal Documents of the Catholic Church, 7th and enlarged
edition (Bangalore: Theological Publications in India) ND 1005.
10
This is the approach taken by Singulari Quadam (1854) Cf. ND 1010.
 But what is hinted in statements prior to Vatican II is now made clear in
the same council. One clearest statement is from Gaudium et Spes. After a
statement on the Christian hope for resurrection patterned after the paschal
mystery, Vatican II continues,

All this holds true not only for Christians but for all men and women of good will in
whose hearts grace works in an unseen way. For since Christ died for all men and women,
and since the ultimate vocation of of the human being is in fact one, and divine, we ought
to believe that the Holy Spirit, in a manner known to God offers to every person the
possibility of being associated with the paschal mystery. 11

What is a general statement in Gaudium et Spes is made more specific in

Lumen Gentium when it specifically mentions that the plan of salvation
includes Jews, Muslims, and “those who do not know the Gospel of Christ or
His Church yet sincerely seek God” and “those who have not yet arrived at an
explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life.”

11
Gaudium et Spes 22 in Documents of Vatican Council II, James Kroeger ed. (Pasay City: Pauline Publishing
House, 2011). (inclusive language supplied)