Jewish, Catholic, Protestant salvation

The Swiss reformed theologian Lukas Vischer participated as observer for the World Council of Churches (WCC) at the Second Vatican Council. He reported in 1965 to the central committee of the WCC that the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation Dei Verbum was one of the most important texts of the Second Vatican Council (Lyonnet, Stanislas. 1989. 335. Etudes sur l`Epitre aux Romains. Roma: Editrice Pontificio Instituto Biblico). This importance, according to Vischer, is grounded in the last chapter of Dei Verbum that is about Sacred Scripture in the life of the Church (ibid.). Dei Verbum 26 proclaims that the life of the Church, the body of Christ, develops celebrating the Eucharist and “from a growing reverence for the word of God” (ibid.: 336). Dei Verbum 22 claims that “suitable and correct translations are made into different languages” so that “all Christians will be able to use” the word of God. Dei Verbum is the first document of the Catholic Church that welcomes that “these translations are produced in cooperation with the separated brethren as well” (Dei Verbum 22) (ibid.: 337).

Already in 1967, Roman Catholic and Protestant Scholars presented the translation of the Letter to the Romans, the first publication of The French Ecumenical Translation of the Bible (TOB). The Letter to the Romans is the most difficult ecumenical challenge because it treats the questions that are discussed by Protestants and Catholics in the most conflicting way (Lyonnet 1989, 337). Lyonnet documents the extraordinary fact that the team of translators was able to reach interpretations that no longer contradicted each other concerning for example the justification by faith or justification by works (ibid.: 338).

I want to point at one specific point of discussion, namely the relation of the Law and the Spirit that is of ecumenical importance and is also of importance for the inter-religious understanding of the Torah. Lyonnet makes it clear that the ecumenical understanding of Paul does not discuss the distinction between letter of the law and spirit of the law (ibid.: 340). Romans 8,2 treats instead of the opposition of the spirit of the law and the Law of the Spirit (ibid.). In the same way, Romans 7, 6 and 2 Corinthians 3, 6 must be understood as expressing this opposition of the letter of the Law and the Spirit of God (ibid.). If the Rabbis speak of the Torah as the creation of God, they speak of the sovereign agency of God. If the Christians speak of the Spirit, they speak of this same agency. It is true, for the Rabbis the Torah is the mediation of the Spirit of God, and for Christians Jesus Christ is the mediator of the Spirit of God. It does not make sense to read Romans 8,2 against the faith of the Rabbis that the Torah is the mediation of the Spirit of God. Christians have received from the Jewish prophet Jeremiah that Yahweh will “write on the hearts” of the Israelites this law of the new covenant (Jeremiah 31, 33) and Ezekiel identifies this law as the law of the Spirit of Yahweh (Ezekiel 11,19; 18,31; 36, 25; 36, 27; 37, 14).

Scholars from the Lutheran, Protestant, Reformed Churches and from the Roman Catholic Church were able to present an official ecumenical translation of the Bible and the few differing interpretations of text verses do not contradict each other anymore, but rather show the different theological traditions. The fact that the Roman Catholic Church is not able to celebrate the Eucharist together with the sisters and brothers of the Reform shows, that there is something wrong with the Roman Catholic Church. How is it possible to share the faith in Jesus Christ and confess his reconciliation and salvation and then refuse to celebrate the thanksgiving for God’s mercy?

From the point of view of Paul, the social, political, economic, and cultural organization of the Roman Empire is based on the separating orders of free citizens and slaves, of the domination of women by men and the religious separation of Jews and Gentiles (Lyonnet 1989, 5). Paul dissolves these orders based on his understanding of the Gospel. In Romans 1, 16 he describes the Gospel as “God’s power for the salvation of everyone who has faith - Jews first, but Greeks as well - “, and continuous in 1, 17: “for in it is revealed the justice of God: a justice based on faith and addressed to faith. As it says in scripture: ‘Anyone who is upright through faith will live’” (see Habakkuk 2, 4 in the Septuagint, that is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible). We have to understand the “justice of God” as reconciling justice, liberating justice, or mercy justice. Paul repeats in Romans 10,12-13: Scripture (Isaiah 28, 16) “makes no distinction between Jew and Greek: the same Lord is the Lord of all, and his generosity is offered to all who appeal to him, for ‘all who call on the name of the Lord will be saved’” (see Joel 3, 5 Septuagint).

In Galatians 3, 28 Paul had already claimed: “There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither slave nor freeman, there can be neither male nor female—for you are all one in Christ Jesus”. This sentence constitutes one of the strongest messages of Paul (Plietzsch, Susanne. 2018. „Rhetorik der Differenz und der Gleichheit im Galaterbrief“ In Durchblicke. Horizonte jüdischer Kulturgeschichte, edited by Susanne Plietzsch and Armin Eidherr, 50–74. 57. Berlin: Neofelis). Two thousand years after this message of the Apostle Paul, the Roman Catholic Church is still failing to validate the claim by realizing the equal dignity, liberty, freedom and rights of all Catholic women, men and queer. It looks like the social realization of salvation within the Roman Catholic Church must wait for the end of times.

Although Jesus Christ, the Messiah, is central to the message of Paul, Christians must be clear about the fact that Paul never ever substitutes Jesus Christ for Go’d the Father (Lyonnet 1989, 9). It is right, the Apostle Paul claims that Go’d’s justice has been revealed apart from law (Romans 3, 21). We may interpret this justice of Go’d as reconciling justice, liberating justice, or mercy justice. It is Go’d, Yahweh who acts, it is Go’d who operates salvation for the world, who justifies, who calls to grace and glory and saves. Jesus Christ is essential for mediating salvation, but Go’d operates salvation (Lyonnet 1989, 9). The resurrection tradition of the New Testament confesses Go’d who again operates salvation by liberating Jesus from the death as He had liberated Israel from Egypt (Heininger 2015, 9). Yahweh says in Leviticus 19, 9: “I am Yahweh your God who brought you out of Egypt”.

Dei Verbum 17 claims that the New Testament shows in a “most excellent way” the power of the word of God for the salvation of all who believe and refers to Romans 1, 16. Orthodox Jewish theology proclaims salvation for the last judgement at the end of times (Lyonnet 1989, 146). Lyonnet analyses the philology and the use of the term salvation in Romans because he claims that Christian theology and exegesis does not pay sufficient attention to the fact that Paul describes salvation as the Christian hope for the end of times that is the term salvation speaks of an eschatological hope (ibid.). Romans 1, 17 uses eschatological vocabulary speaking of the “justice of God” that is liberating, reconciling and mercy justice (ibid.). This justice of God is revealed in the Gospel that is the power for the salvation of all. We must pay attention to the fact that according to Paul the terms reconciliation and justification concern the faith of the baptized Christians in Jesus Christ that is a faith realized in the presence. The reconciliation and justification in faith leads to the faith or hope of salvation that is a faith that God will realize in the future.

Romans 1, 17b: “a justice based on faith and addressed to faith. As it says in the scripture: ‘Anyone who is upright through faith will live’ (see Habakkuk 2, 4 Septuagint)”. The verb “will live” (Greek: “zaesetai”) describes the future. In Romans 10, 13 Paul speaks again of the future concerning salvation with the prophet Joel. The Lord offers His generosity to all who appeal to him, for “all who call on the name of the Lord will be saved” (see Joel 3, 5 Septuagint).

Lyonnet suggests that Paul’s design of the first eleven chapters of his letter to the Romans is based on the distinction of reconciliation or justification that he treats in chapter one to four and justification as the eschatological hope for salvation that he treats in the chapters five to eleven (Lyonnet 1989, 146).

In Romans 5, 1 and 5, 9 Paul claims “that we have been justified”; in Romans 5, 10 he claims again that “being now reconciled, we shall be saved by his life”. In Romans 8, 24–25, Paul describes this eschatological hope for salvation: “In hope, we already have salvation; in hope, not visibly present, or we should not be hoping—nobody goes on hoping for something which is already visible. But having this hope for what we cannot yet see, we are able to wait for it with persevering confidence.”

Lyonnet observes that the Old Testament often uses for God’s judgment that will operate salvation the same expression as the New Testament (Lyonnet 1989, 147). “Krisis” (judgement) is a form derived from the Greek verb krinein that means in English “to judge”. The New Testament uses this expression exclusively when speaking of the last judgement, the eschatological judgement at the end of times that explicitly or implicitly refers to the second coming of Christ, the Parousia. We find this use with Mark, Matthew, and Luke, in Acts and the Letters (ibid.).

The concept of Go’d’s last judgement excludes in the New Testament, and especially with Paul, any juridical pronouncement of judgement or sentence and execution. According to Paul there is no verdict of “not guilty” or “guilty” with Go’d. With Go’d there is mercy. Go’d’s judgement is compassion and pity, Go’d has mercy and shows mercy (ibid.: 156). The perfect picture of Go’d having pity and mercy with the sinner is the parable of the father having mercy with the lost son (Luke 15, 11–31). The promise of the year of favor, the year of Jubilee that Jesus had proclaimed with Isaiah in Luke 4, 18–19 in the synagogue of Nazareth is described in Luke 15, 11–31, that is Jesus’ parable of the lost son (Bovon, Francois. 2001. Das Evangelium nach Lukas. Lk 15,1–19,27. Evangelisch-Katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament III/3. Neukirchen-Vluyin: Neukirchener Verlag.Bovon 2001). According to Bovon, the parable of the lost son constitutes the center and climax of the Gospel of Luke).

The Gospel of John, as the rest of the New Testament, often uses the verb judging in the sense of the last judgement, the eschatological judgement at the end of times, and Jesus insists that he did not come for this last judgement: “I have come not to judge the world, but to save the world” (John 12, 47c). There are other uses for the expression judgement in John too, where the last judgement, the eschatological judgement is taking place almost in the in the present. One such use is in John 12, 31-32, where Jesus foretells his death and subsequent glorification. Lyonnet insists that the use of the noun judgment (Greek: krísis) by Jesus in John 12, 31 concerns the judgement of “the prince of the world” and not Jesus at the cross:

“Now judgement is being passed on this world; now the prince of the world is to be driven out” (John 12, 31).

It is possible to draw a line from the judgement in John 12, 31 to the last judgement. “The prince of the world” is the devil and only John uses this term in the New Testament. Rudolf Karl Bultmann (1884-1976), a German Lutheran theologian and professor of the New Testament at the University of Marburg, explains that Judaism received the term “prince of the world” from the Persian dualism, where the devil is called prince of the world, that is the ruler of the world (Bultmann, Rudolf. 1952. Das Evangelium nach Johannes. 330. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). It is important to assess that Jesus speaks in John 12, 31 of the judgement of the devil. In the next verse Jesus speaks of his death on the cross and his glorification. Both forecasts, that is humiliation, persecution, and shameful death on the cross and at the same time glorification by the Father, will await Jesus. The followers of Jesus will also participate in both forecasts; Jesus has overcome death for them, Jesus lets them take part in his glorification and at the same time they will participate at his cross (Bultmann 1952. 331):

“And when I am lifted up from the earth, I shall draw all people to myself” (John 12, 32).

In this sense, the Roman Catholic theologian at the Pontifical Bible Institute in Rome Stanislas Lyonnet assesses that the cross is seen by John as an anticipation of the last judgement. John’s concept of this judgement follows the eschatological judgement that Israel awaits, where the enemies of the people of Israel are finally defeated (Lyonnet 1989. 157–58). The Christians belief with John, that to Jesus Christ glorified the Father “has entrusted all judgement” (John 5, 22) “and, because he is the Son of man, has granted him power to give judgement” (John 5, 27) (ibid.). This is not the eschatological picture Jews are hoping for.

In Roman 8, 3 there is talk of the judgement of sin that had been realized by Go’d and Paul makes use of the expression condemnation (Greek: katakrinein) that is formed with the preposition kata and the verb krinein. Lyonnet insists again that this use of the expression condemnation corresponds to the use of the expression judgement in John 12, 31. As John 12, 31 judges “the prince of the world”, Romans 8, 3 speaks of the anticipation of the condemnation of sin (ibid.: 159). Jesus who hands himself over to the passion and death for his sisters and brothers anticipates with his love for Go’d and women, men and queer the last judgement, the eschatological liberation from sin (ibid.: 161).

Years before the Second Vatican Council, Stanislas Lyonnet was fighting for an understanding of reconciliation and salvation that corresponds to the word of Go’d, the New Testament, that reveals the power of Go’d for salvation. Over half a century later, there are still Catholic theologians teaching a condemnation of Jesus Christ at the cross for the sins of the whole humanity. It is impossible to maintain this theology of mechanical salvation when following the teachings of the Scriptures. In John 14, 30 Jesus claims that “the prince of this world” who is on his way to get Jesus to his Passion “has no power over me”. The validity condition of this claim to the powerlessness of “the prince of this world”, that is Satan, is the fact that Jesus stays without sin (ibid.: 160). Lyonnet’s argument against any theology that claims Jesus’ representation of sinful humanity, consists in pointing at the power of Satan. If there is sin, Satan has power. If there is no sin, Satan has no power. Therefore, Jesus Christ did not suffer representing sinful humanity, Jesus did not sin (ibid.: 161). Jesus Christ suffered at the cross for love of the Father and all women, men and queer. The acceptance of the cross is the realization of the validity condition of the claim to validity of his love for the Father and the love for the women, men and queer that Christ loves until “he said, ‘It is fulfilled’; and bowing his head he gave up his spirit” (John 19, 30b) (ibid.).

Lyonnet had suggested that Paul’s design of the first eleven chapters of his letter to the Romans is based on the distinction of reconciliation or justification that he treats in chapter one to four and justification as the eschatological hope for salvation that he treats in the chapters five to eleven (Lyonnet 1989, 146). It is true, in chapter three of Romans, Paul uses cult terminology to speak of the faith in justification, reconciliation and liberation. Romans 3, 25a:

“God appointed him as a sacrifice for reconciliation, through faith, by the shedding of his blood, and so showed his justness;”

Paul speaks of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ as Go’d’s justice. This justice is reconciliation, reconciling justice that we receive through faith (Lyonnet 1989, 92). The Greek hilasterios is translated by “means of expiation” or “place of propitiation”, that is a propitiatory sacrifice (ibid.). Against the tradition of the Reform and the Catholic tradition since then we are not allowed to interpret that Go’d was putting his anger over Jesus. The Greek expression endeixis means “proof” and the New Jerusalem Bible translates “showed”. Lyonnet interprets the expression sacrifice as “the showing by realization” of the liberation from enslaving sin (Romans 3, 24) as Go’d’s salvific agency that is by “forgiving the sins” (Romans 3, 25b) (ibid.). Concerning the use of the expression “sacrifice” (in Greek: thusia) with Paul we have to pay attention at the fact that Paul speaks of a “spiritual service” (Greek: logikae latreia) that is the new cult of the Christians is of the order of a spiritual service (ibid.: 37). This new cult we find strongly defended in Hebrews (ibid.). The New American Standard Bible beautifully and correctly translates Hebrews 12, 28: “Therefore, since we receive a kingdom which cannot be shaken, let us show gratitude, by which we may offer to God an acceptable service with reverence and awe”.

If Paul calls his Roman sisters and brothers in Romans 12, 1 “to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice” as a “spiritual service” to Go’d, Paul speaks of apostolic service. In Romans 15, 16 Paul offers the Gentiles as his “priestly service” as “servant of the Gospel” to Go’d for that Go’d may “sanctify them in the Holy Spirit” (ibid.: 39).

In the eighteenth and nineteenth century CE the Catholic exegetes and theologians as those from the Reform did not translate in Romans 3, 25 the expression paresis with “forgiveness” but with “passing over” (ibid.: 90). Lyonnet insists on the actual consensus of the biblical scholars that “forgiveness” is the right translation (ibid.: 90). He investigates the use of the expression paresis in Greek literature; paresis is always used for showing the relief of a debt or a tax, the pardoning of an offence or to let somebody go (ibid.: 97–98).

Plietzsch claims that we must read the Jewish tradition as a discourse on relation, individuality and dignity (Plietzsch 2018, 9). She is not only right concerning the results of her study of rabbinic literature and her reconstruction of a discourse that claimed liberty, freedom, and individual responsibility (Plietzsch, Susanne. 2005. Kontexte der Freiheit. Konzepte der Befreiung bei Paulus und im rabbinischen Judentum. Verlag W. Kohlhammer: Stuttgart). Lyonnet affirms that contemporary Judaism of Paul energetically defended personal responsibility and strongly points at this responsibility of every man and woman before Go’d (Lyonnet 1989, 183). Citing the Apocalypse of Baruch 54, 19 that was written by orthodox Jews in the late first century CE, Lyonnet defends the above affirmation that looks like the negation of the origin of original sin with Adam:

“Adam is therefore not the cause, save only of his own soul, But each of us has been the Adam of his own soul” (http://www.pseudepigrapha.com/pseudepigrapha/2Baruch.html).

What is true for Paul’s contemporary Judaism, Lyonnet affirms of the whole New Testament. There is less interest in the original sin of Adam (Latin: peccatum originale originans), but much interest in assessing the original sin in us (Latin: peccatum originale originatum) (Lyonnet 1989, 178). The New Testament is not so much interested in the social choices of Adam but in our own social choices that are not always very good and sometimes rather bad, the sins we have to take notice of in our daily experience, especially if we contrast our social choices with the love that Christ has revealed to us (ibid.).

In the disputes over the traditional Catholic teaching on original sin there is no Biblical verse that was used more often than Romans 5, 12 (ibid.: 185). Already at the end of the 19th century CE the Roman biblical scholar Francis Xavier Patrizi, son of the Roman count Patrizi and a Jesuit priest, had criticized the false translation of Romans 5, 12 (ibid.). In defense of the dogma, the Council of Trent in the Decree on Original Sin used the following erring translation of Romans 5, 12:

“By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned”.

(https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Canons_and_Decrees_of_the_Council_of_Trent/Session_V/Original_Sin).

“In whom all have sinned” is a wrong translation. The right translation reads “because everyone has sinned” (ibid.: 186). The Greek preposition epi does not say “in” but says “because” (ibid.). Fifty years after Patrizi, scientific biblical criticism was still not accepted by many Catholic theologians. When Lyonnet published his study on Romans 5, 12 (Lyonnet 1989) in 1955, he got denounced by his colleagues and in 1962, the Vatican suspended him from teaching for two years (New Catholic Encyclopedia 2003). In 1962, the Second Vatican Council was not yet ready to accept the consequences of the expertise of biblical scholars like Lyonnet when investigating the traditional Catholic dogma. Tradition was still given the priority over the Sacred Scriptures.

Since the whole pericope Romans 5, 12–21 is based on the parallelism between Adam and Jesus Christ, the interpretation that death came on all humans because they all have personally sinned, would not go well with Paul’s parallelism of Adam and Jesus Christ (Lyonnet 1989, 193). Lyonnet refers to Cyril of Alexandria (380-444 CE), the best Greek exegete, who with all Greek Church fathers - apart from Chrysostom (349-407 CE) - interpreted “everyone has sinned” (Greek: pántes haemarton) as personal sins (ibid.: 194). Cyril of Alexandria comments Romans 5, 18–19 as proclamation of the individual’s responsibility. He refers to Deuteronomy 24, 16: “Parents may not be put to death for their children, nor children for parents, but each must be put to death for his own crime.” In addition, he refers to Ezekiel 18, 20: “The one who has sinned is the one who must die; a son is not to bear his father’s guilt, nor a father his son’s guilt” (ibid.). How is it possible to stay coherent with personal responsibility and the affirmation of Paul that “through one man … sin came into the world”?

For the affirmation in Romans 5, 12 that “it was through one man that sin came into the world, and through sin death” Paul uses The Book of Wisdom 2, 24a “Death came into the world only through the Devil’s envy”. The context Wisdom speaks of death is the separation from Go’d by the Devil, that is of the death by separation from Go’d; such is the interpretation of Cyril (ibid.: 195–96). Jesus Christ is the one man who restores this relation of the individual with Go’d as claims Romans 5, 17:

“It was by one man’s offence that death came to reign over all, but how much greater the reign in life of those who receive the fullness of grace and the gift of saving justice, through the one man, Jesus Christ”.

Paul affirms that “by one man’s offence … death came to reign over all” and he speaks of the offence of Adam and affirms therefore that Adam caused the universality of sin (ibid.: 201). At the same time, Paul affirms the individual’s responsibility for individual sin (ibid.).

Lyonnet speaks of two causalities for sin. The sin of Adam had the effect on all humans that all women, men and queer got susceptible to social choices that constitute individual sins and that their social choices realized these individual sins (ibid.).

What concerns my life, it is a certainty that the physical, psychic, social and spiritual integrity of my body will be destroyed, I will die one day. As a Christian, I confess my faith in Jesus Christ that is in the message of his life, death, and resurrection. I know that my body will decompose one day, and I believe in Jesus Christ and still behave in ways that contradict my faith and belief. The Hebrew Bible and Paul speak of a man Adam, who had experienced death and Adam reminds my consciousness of my own death, of the submission of my life to a finite time and of the submission of my life to the freedom of social choices. Paul affirms that all humans have sinned, he puts the verb “to sin” (Greek: hamartanein) into simple past (Greek: haemarton) assessing that de facto all women, men and queer have personally sinned (ibid.: 202). As a Christian, I must assess that I am another one of these individual sinners and that I believe in the reconciliation offered by Go’d in Jesus Christ.

For women, men and queer of Jewish faith commemorating the salvation from Egypt inspires and prefigures the hopes for salvation at the end of times (Plietzsch 2005, 56). There is no alternative to the confession of the Exodus for Israel at the Passover Festival because this confession ensures that each member of this confessing community accepts her or his obligation to live and live a life with the responsibility for freedom and social choices (ibid.: 59). The free decision amounts to a choice between life and death, realizing God’s Law, the Torah, equals a social choice for life and the social choice against the Torah is choosing death (ibid.: 49). This perspective on the principal social choices of women, men and queer we find in Ecclesiasticus 15, 14–17:

“He himself made human beings in the beginning, and left them free to make their own decisions. If you choose, you will keep the commandments and so be faithful to his will. He has set fire and water before you; put out your hand to whichever you prefer. A human being has life and death before him; whichever he prefers will be given him; for vast is the wisdom of the Lord; he is almighty and all-seeing.”

In the Jewish context, sin can be described as a social choice of women, men and queer not to follow Yahweh’s commandments, not to be faithful to his will and not to live with the Torah. Christians describe the term sin according to their faith in Jesus Christ. Believing in Jesus Christ but not following the way of his life and teachings, Christians call sin.

Following the Jewish and Christian belief system, it is possible to describe the concept of sin according to this belief system. But what about the belief systems of women, men and queer who do not believe in Yahweh’s liberating and reconciling justice or in Jesus Christ?

Paul is very clear, he claims that “all have sinned”, and he speaks to “Greeks as well as barbarians, to the educated as well as the ignorant” (Romans 1, 14). Paul claims and two thousand years later the Second Vatican Council claims with him (Dei Verbum 3):

“For what can be known about God is perfectly plain” to all women, men and queer (Romans 1, 19) and “ever since the creation of the world, the invisible existence of God and his everlasting power have been clearly seen by the mind’s understanding of created things” (Romans 1, 20).

Dei Verbum does not present any proof to the claim that all women, men and queer are given “in created realities” an “enduring witness to” God. Nostra Aetate 2, in the search for “what men have in common and what draws them to fellowship”, assesses that “there is found among various peoples a certain perception of that hidden power which hovers over the course of things and over the events of human history”. The declaration then asks the Catholics to “recognize, preserve and promote the good things, spiritual and moral, as well as the socio-cultural values found among these men” (Nostra Aetate 2).

Paul not only does not bother to give any proof or argument for his claim that all women, men and queer know God, he further claims that there are pagan women, men and queer who “would not consent to acknowledge God” and that “God abandoned them to their unacceptable thoughts and indecent behavior” (Romans 1, 28). Paul presents impressive evidence of “unacceptable thoughts and indecent behavior” in the next verses:

“They steeped in all sorts of injustice, rottenness, greed and malice; full of envy, murder, wrangling, treachery and spite, libelers, slanderers, enemies of God, rude, arrogant and boastful, enterprising in evil, rebellious to parents, without brains, untrustworthy, without love or pity” (Romans 1, 29 – 31).

The possibility condition for being abandoned by God to these “unacceptable thoughts and indecent behavior” according to Paul is the social choice not to “consent to acknowledge God”. How is it possible that women, men and queer who do not know God and who are not conscious of God in their lives can fulfill the possibility condition of deciding against God?

It is one thing to claim that “when gentiles, not having the Law, still through their own innate sense behave as the Law commands, then, even though they have no Law, they are a law for themselves. They can demonstrate the effect of the Law engraved on their hearts, to which their own conscience bears witness; since they are aware of various considerations, some of which accuse them, while others provide them with a defense” (Romans 2, 14–15). It is another thing to claim that all women, men and queer would bear witness in their conscience that the Law of God is engraved on their hearts. Where is the proof of such a claim? It does not help much, speaking instead of “anonymous Christians” because this term eliminates individual choice and presents an external determinism. We do not know when Christian hope for salvation of all women, men and queer gets realized. In the Declaration Nostra Aetate the Second Vatican Council is conscientious of that fact:

“The Church awaits that day, known to God alone, on which all peoples will address the Lord in a single voice and ‘serve him shoulder to shoulder’ (Zephaniah 3:9)” (Nostra Aetate 4).

Rahner is right in encouraging future Catholic theologians to take the above claim as a serious inspiration for a theology of God’s sovereign will for salvation, to take up from the text of Nostra Aetate the elements concerning a history of salvation and a Christian eschatology (Rahner and Vorgrimler 1966, 352).

I am not able to follow Paul’s claim that all women, men and queer have consciousness of God and his commandments. Paul’s observation of “unacceptable thoughts and indecent behavior” (Romans 1, 28) can sadly and easily be verified as a true claim to the description of the world, especially of the contemporary world. Independently of their religions and belief systems, many women, men and queer will consent to the wish and desire for liberating the world from all injustices, especially from war and suppression of Human Rights. The way women, men and queer treat each other as Paul describes them, characterizes Paul’s Umwelt. We must describe our Umwelt too and must assess that in the twenty-first century CE our world still is as a world that violates the equal dignity, liberty and rights of women, men and queer. This situation of injustice, war and violation of Human Rights calls for a liberation, a reconciliation and peace.

My faith as a Christian tells me that God’s justice is a justice of liberation from injustice, a justice of reconciliation and mercy. I cannot follow Paul’s claim that the “unacceptable thoughts and indecent behavior” of the pagans are the consequence of their rejection of Go’d’s mercy, or the consequence of Go’d abandoning the pagans who disobeyed His will and Law (Romans 1, 24–26. 28) and therefore receive Go’d’s anger (Romans 1, 18).

The whole section of Paul’s Letter to the Romans from 1, 18 to 3, 20 serves to persuade his readers that both pagans and Jews, need Go’d’s liberating, reconciling justice of mercy and grace (Lyonnet 1989, 82). Concerning “trouble and distress” as “reconciliation and “peace”, Paul puts Jews and pagans side by side. In Romans 2, 9–10 he claims, “Trouble and distress will come to every human being who does evil - Jews first, but Greeks as well; glory and honor and peace will come to everyone who does good - Jews first, but Greeks as well.” The claim is repeated immediately in Romans 2, 12 and again Jews and pagans are considered side by side in Romans 2, 25–26 and in 3, 9 (ibid.).

We must understand Paul’s argumentation from his starting point that is his belief in Jesus Christ and the gospel of Jesus Christ (Romans 1, 3). Paul wants to persuade pagans and Jews of this revelation of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Paul knows that the Jews reject believing in Jesus Christ and in his gospel. Paul had been a Jew resisting and rejecting the belief in Jesus as Messiah too. He persecuted and killed Jews who had become Christians. Paul changed his mind set and started believing and confessing that Go’d acts in Jesus Christ, his Son, that God’s saving justice is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. We read in Romans 3, 21-24:

“God’s saving justice was witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, but now it has been revealed altogether apart from law: God’s saving justice given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. No distinction is made: all have sinned and lack God’s glory, and all are justified by the free gift of his grace through being set free in Christ Jesus.”

From Romans 1, 18 to 3, 20 Paul as a Christian speaks to Jews but also to pagans. He argues that the “circumcision of the heart” is a circumcision of the Spirit and not of the Law (ibid.: 73). From his faith perspective in Jesus Christ, he argues that the spirit of the Law does not lead to the “circumcision of the heart”. It is Go’d who operates salvation for the world, who justifies, who calls to grace and glory and saves; it is not the Law that justifies. Paul claims that if Jews are not following their revelation of Yahweh’s Spirit as creator of the Law and liberator from injustice and sin, then Jews are not better off than pagans who disobey the Law of Go’d. Greeks and Jews are “being all alike under the dominion of sin” (Romans 3, 9). Paul is not very thoughtful about hurting the feelings of the Jews that are a people chosen and set apart by Go’d. Paul in Romans 2, 14 had already successfully provoked the Jews by telling them that there are effectively gentiles that.

This statement of Paul does not only provoke Jews. Only two thousand years after Paul, the Roman Catholic Church allowed praying in the Fourth Eucharist Prayer for all men, women and queer who seek God “with a sincere heart” (ibid.: 88). Saint Augustine, Luther, and Karl Barth falsely held that Paul in Romans 2, 14–15 and Romans 2, 26–29 was speaking of pagans that had become Christians (ibid.: 70). Paul speaks of pagans, pagans that had not become Christians. Simple pagans “not having the Law, still through their own innate sense behave as the Law commands” (Romans 2, 14). John Calvin (1509–1564 CE) affirmed that Paul was indeed speaking of the natural law of pagans (ibid.). Calvin was not only a theologian of the Reform; he was also an excellent jurist and disposed over a broad knowledge of law systems that had been elaborated during history and he recognized the moral principles they tried to realize (ibid.). For historic, grammatical, and exegetic reasons it is clear today that Paul speaks in Romans 2, 14–15 and Romans 2, 26–29 of pagans and not of Christians that were pagans (ibid.).

According to Paul, this natural law of the gentiles is not capable of procuring reconciliation, liberation, or justification; natural law just as the Jewish Law does not bring justification (ibid.: 80). It is true, Paul claims that in the eyes of Go’d it is the observance of the Law, the realizing of Go’d’s commandments that count, it is not the knowledge about the Law or laws (ibid.: 72). For Lyonnet it is evident that Paul admits the salvation of gentiles who realized the law of their heart and conscience (ibid.: 73). At the last judgement, Go’d will justify all, gentiles, Jews, and Christians. Although Jesus Christ, the Messiah, is central to the message of Paul, Christians must be clear about the fact that Paul never ever substitutes Jesus Christ for Go’d the Father (Lyonnet 1989, 9).

Lyonnet documents the theology of the Second Vatican Council on the salvation of all women, men and queer by Go’d referring to the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation Dei Verbum 3, to the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium 16 and to the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes 22 (ibid.: 88).

Dei Verbum 3 proclaims that Go’d “from the start manifested Himself to our first parents … and from that time on He ceaselessly kept the human race in His care, to give eternal life to those who perseveringly do good in search of salvation (Romans 2, 6–7)”. With Dei Verbum 3 the Catholic Church claims its faith that Go’d “gives eternal life” to all women, men and queer “who perseveringly do good”. In Lumen Gentium 16 the Catholic Church claims "Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel. She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life.” (Lumen Gentium 16).

In the same sense, Gaudium et Spes 22 proclaims that the faith in the paschal mystery, the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ liberates and reconciles not only Christians but “all men of good will in whose hearts grace works in an unseen way. For, since Christ died for all men (Romans 8, 32), and since the ultimate vocation of man is in fact one, and divine, we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery.” (Gaudium et Spes 22).