complete sfm june 2010

Vol 6, No 3|June 2010

..................

ST. FRANCIS

M A G A Z I N E

www.stfrancismagazine.info

..................

By Arab Vision & Interserve

431

i

444

464

471

482

501

517

583

i

FROM THE EDITOR’S DESK Dear friends

As Christians, we believe in one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. When talking about the Trinity with other Christians, I have regularly detected a certain fatigue about the issue - as if it is problematic!

Well, maybe it is problematic, but could that be our own fault? The idea that we might have to think and study in order to comprehend even a fraction of who God is, seems hard to many Christians. In our cultures, we want everything easy, and we want it preferably now. Why would we expect truth about the very being of God to be easy to know and comprehend?

The articles in this issue 6:3 (June 2010) of St Francis Magazine have renewed my enthusiasm for our great God! Most of the articles are related to Trinitarian matters. You will enjoy reading them, I believe. And they might help you communicate this great Gospel to your Muslim friends.

I have often heard and read that we should avoid talking about the Trinity with Muslims as long as possible – as if we have to avoid the most beautiful part of our Christian faith! And as if Muslims do not know we believe in a Trinity.

The next issue, the one of August 2010, will focus on concepts related to community and mission in the Arab World. If you like to submit your article on issues like koinonia and ummah and how they relate to our mission work, please contact me as soon as possible!

May our one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, be with us all. John Stringer [email protected]

TRINITY: DOES IT MATTER? IMPLICATIONS FOR INCARNATIONAL WITNESS

IN THE ARAB WORLD

By Taylor Graeme Smythe, PhD1

“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.” Deuteronomy 6:4

1 Introduction

One of the key theological differences in our understanding of the Godhead is the Christian doctrine of Trinity. However, in an age where people say that all religions are equally valid, it is difficult to adhere to an orthodox Christian faith. Comments like, "There are many ways to God," or "You Christians believe in three gods, not just one," cause believers to consider why they believe this doctrine. Why do we believe in a Triune God? Does it matter? What are the implications of the doctrine of the trinity for the Christian? 2 The witness of Scripture

The OT describes a Godhead that communicates with and relates to each other, one that may manifest itself in various distinct "persons". At creation, God speaks as if in conversation, using the plural form, "Let us make man…" (Gen 1:26) References to the "Angel of the Lord" in the Old Testament are thought to represent the pre-incarnate Jesus Christ who, although visible to people, speaks in terms that are ascribed to God, and accepts worship and allegiance from man. The Spirit of the Lord is likewise mentioned in the Old Testament.

1 Dr. Taylor Graeme Smythe is a missionary with Interserve in the Arab World. His name is pseudonym. The author thanks John P. Ellis, Elder, Church of the Saviour, Wayne, PA, USA for helpful suggestions and input.

St Francis Magazine Vol 6, No 3 | June 2010

St Francis Magazine is published by Interserve and Arab Vision 432

The fullness of the Godhead as three persons in one is only complete in the New Testament revelation. Here the person of Jesus Christ is the full, complete manifestation and incarnation of the second person of the Godhead; "The Word become flesh and dwelt among us", as the apostle John says in his gospel prologue. Several key New Testament texts point out the distinctiveness of three persons of the Godhead, appearing together in space and time. One example is at the baptism of Jesus. The Son is baptized, the Spirit is present as a dove, and the Father speaks (Mat 3:16 and Luke 3:22). The Trinity is also inferred in the language of the Great Commission in Mat 28 that speaks of baptizing disciples in the "name" (singular) of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (three); three persons but one name. 3 Practical implications

But even if Scripture attests to a Triune God and we affirm this belief, does any of this matter? And if so why? Although the term Trinity itself is not explicitly used in Scripture, the teaching was accepted by the early Church, formulated in creeds (usually in response to heresy), as the most accurate understanding of the God of Scripture.

3.1 Trinitarianism matters because it offers the explanation of the complexity of our God and is distinct from other world religions.

Christians are monotheists, but we believe in a God who reveals Himself as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This is unique and in contrast to other faiths: Jesus Christ is unique, the fullness of God dwelling in human flesh. One practical application is that we relate to all persons of the Godhead in our salvation experience. The New Testament talks about the role of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit in regard to Christ’s mediating and saving work through intercession. Heb 7:25 makes very clear, “Therefore he is able to save completely those who



come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.” The Apostle Paul in Romans speaks of a similar role for the Holy Spirit in praying for the saints, “In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express. And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints in accordance with God's will. (Rom 8:26, 27) The apostle Paul's prayer in Eph 3 gives a rich image of how the Triune God saves and sanctifies and fills us. Notice that Paul is very clear who he is praying to (the Father), and what he is expecting of each person of the Godhead in his prayer.

For this reason I kneel before the Father, from whom his whole family in heaven and on earth derives its name. I pray that out of his glorious riches he may strengthen you with power through his Spirit in your inner being, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith. And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, may have power, together with all the saints, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ, and to know this love that surpasses knowledge—that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God. Now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to his power that is at work within us, to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever and ever! Amen. (Eph 3:14-21)

3.2 The Trinity matters also because it speaks to our need for community and connection with other believers. Many churches recognize the role of community and small groups in church life and ministry. To some this is just an effective and pragmatic way to reach post-moderns or other specific groups, and meet people’s needs. Some have said that many theologians in the early 20th century explored the possibilities of Trinitarian doctrine for connecting God more closely to the world and its sufferings, as well as for constructing human models of community. The resulting



forms of what is often called "social Trinitarianism" began to influence evangelicals late in the twentieth century, as western individualism came under ever more intense criticism. The "post-modern" urge to seek community prodded pastoral accounts of divine fellowship as not only the motivation but also the model for such human communion. Forms of the social emphasis vary widely, as do the ways theologians apply it to the church and society, but at times the appeal to relationality itself seems ubiquitous." (Treier and Lauber, page 8) However at the very basic level, it reflects on the fact that we are created in the image of God, with capacity for conversation, relationship, and community. Tim Chester states it succinctly when he says, "We were made in the image of the Triune God. We find our identity through relationships." When we crave for intimacy and community, for relationship, it is because God has made us that way, it reflects the “community” and “oneness” of the Triune God. (Chester) 4 Possible apologetic approaches

Obviously Trinitarianism as a theological construct is a contentious issue in many settings. To the outsider, the postulation of one God revealing Himself in three Persons is difficult to grasp and explain sufficiently and adequately in words. David Shenk has properly noted, "It is impossible to adequately express the mystery of God as Trinity. All examples of what we mean do not seem quite right." (Kateregga and Shenk, page 118). Approaches to elucidate and defend this tenet of faith often rest on rational arguments, possibly extended by analogy. A rational argument would generally require the acceptance of Scripture as an authoritative source and divine revelation. This line of reasoning and defense may be as follows. If we accept the Bible as an authoritative Holy book, then:



1. We come to understand that the God of the Bible reveals Himself progressively over time.

2. This progression culminates in the final Incarnate Word, Jesus, the Son (Heb 1:1).

3. Scriptural evidence points to the manifestation of God in three persons, and we have passages where all three Persons are present (baptism, Great Commission in Mat 28, etc).

Obviously, not only is Trinitarianism a stumbling block, but the deity of Christ as well. Furthermore, differing exegetical assumptions make what appear to be Trinitarian passages "debatable". One example is in John 16 where the other Comforter is the sent Holy Spirit of God, but in Islam would be understood as Mohammed. The rational approach to witness may also highlight the fact that God is much more complex and beyond what the human mind can comprehend. This line of reasoning may try to use analogies that compare the Godhead with a three-dimensional sculpture that one tries to describe using one or two-dimensional media. The complexity of the Godhead becomes limited and constrained by what the mind and words can describe and ascribe. Other analogies such as three forms/states of water (ice-solid, water-liquid, gas), or an egg comprising of shell, yolk and egg white have their limitations. One erudite physicist has used the analogy of light being particle, wave, and energy to describe the Triune God. Most analogies tend to be limited in describing three Persons in relationship, co-existing in time and space, co-equal, yet functionally distinct. Again quoting Shenk, "Christians recognize that it is unwise to attempt to explain God. We need to remember that no analogy concerning God is exactly right. No one has seen God. He remains a mystery. Our attempts to explain God are never adequate. The term Trinity is an example of the inability of human language to adequately express the mystery of God who is one…" (Kateregga and Shenk, page 118). Taken to an extreme, over-reliance on forms that we can comprehend



may be regarded as a subtle way to fashion God in man’s image/imagination, and may be close to violating the spirit of the first commandment although the image is verbal, not stone or wood. Perhaps it is more prudent to accept the mystery, and rely on Biblical descriptions of God, manifest as Father, as Creator, as obedient Son and Savior, as indwelling Spirit, guide and comforter for believers. As a result of the difficulty in communicating this concept through words or word pictures, we may choose not to confront this issue in our witness, but rather to avoid it or to aim for a middle ground, an apologetic detente that accommodates disagreement but does not lead to resolution. 5 An incarnational approach

Is it possible for a new approach to communicate this theological concept - one that goes beyond words or imagery? If one of the tasks of the cross-cultural messenger is an incarnational witness, I would submit that in our Christian living we need to highlight the effect and practical outworking of our Trinitarian beliefs. This could be broadly understood in two main themes/areas: first, in how we relate to a Triune God, and secondly how our lives reflect a Triune God. We will examine these two aspects in some further detail below.

5.1 Relating to a Triune God in our spiritual practice

As noted earlier, the apostle Paul's teaching and prayers often reflect his understanding of the Triune God and how we relate and mature in Him. In the book of Jude we also see that the Triune Godhead is important to our growth and maturity as believers, as the Church. “But you, dear friends, build yourselves up in your most holy faith and pray in the Holy Spirit. Keep yourselves in God's love as you wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring you to eternal life.” (Jude 1:20-21) What would this look like in our lives? How would we communicate this to Arab Muslims? The Father, Son and Spirit work in the life of the Christian believer in stark contrast to



what they have in Islam. They have the prophet and their writings, but we have a living God who still relates to us, working in us, forming Christ in us.

5.1.1 Prayer to a Trinitarian God - how does it look different? Another area is in how we relate to God in/through our prayers. If we believe in Trinity, how does this affect our understanding of prayer? How do we pray to the Father? Why in the Name of the Son? How does the Spirit interact with us in our prayers? I have found that often there is confusion in how we pray, and by this I mean both in public and private settings. If we as Christians cannot keep the Godhead clear in our mind and pray to a one Person God, this is confusing to believers and non-believers. I have witnessed prayers offered to the Father without invoking Jesus Name, and other prayers to Jesus the Son in His own name. Are we able to model this such that it becomes clear to Muslims should they observe our prayer life? I am concerned that if we are not clear in this, perhaps even other Christians will be led to believe that Trinity is a good concept, but practically speaking we believe in one God (a monad), just like other religions, same-same. When Christians pray, we pray to three persons, a Triune God. Sometimes our prayers may be primarily or exclusively to one person of the Godhead (to the Father, or the Son, or the Spirit). I would propose, because we pray to a Triune God, we should be careful in our language and be cognizant of the person of the Godhead to whom we are praying. For example, when we are giving thanks for Christ’s work on the cross on our behalf, we pray to the Son, not the Father. We thank the Father for sending the Son and the Spirit. As Bruce Ware points out, ‘We may encourage our children, especially, to open their prayers with, "Dear Jesus," despite the fact that Jesus said to pray "Our Father in heaven..." Perhaps we do not think about prayer as we should because we do not understand the doctrine of the Trinity. As Jesus taught us, we should pray to the Father through the Son. Jesus Christ is the mediator. He is the one through whom we address the Father. He is the one who brings us



access to the Father. Our prayers bring spiritual benefit only when we pray in his name. And prayers that bring fruit in the kingdom are those offered in the power of the Spirit. We pray as the Spirit prompts and urges us to pray. Scriptural examples for prayers are generally (almost exclusively) addressed to the Father, with some directed to Jesus, like the prayer of martyr Stephen in Acts 7:59. There is no biblical injunction, or instruction, or instance of prayer directed to/at the Holy Spirit; rather we are told to pray in the Spirit (Eph 6:18; Jude 1:20), and that the Spirit intercedes for us in prayer. (Rom 8:26-27) So the pattern of Christian prayer in Scripture is praying to the Father, through the Son, in the (power of the) Spirit. "To pray aright, we need a deep appreciation for the doctrine of the Trinity." (Ware, page 18)

5.1.2 Praying in Jesus' name When we pray, it is critical that we understand the power of the name of Jesus, especially in our Arab world context. Scripture instructs us to pray in Christ's name. (John 14:13, 15:16, 16:23-24) If we offer to pray for others, especially for healing, we must link the request and possible outcome with His Name, the Name of the Son. We have the promise of Christ and it is based in the fact that all authority is given to Him (Mat 28:18). One would not want to be overly dogmatic or legalistic about this practice, but living out Trinitarianism and its implication in our prayer lives is important to our witness among Arab Muslims.

5.1.3 Accepting and living with complexity and diversity Another application would be in how we handle complexity and mystery. In contrast to simplicity and reductionism, Trinitarianism accepts complexity and diversity as a mark of our Creators hand. We do not need to reason, or rationalize away complex and thorny theological problems. We can live with mystery, of not knowing, and within the limitations of our minds. Yet ours should not be a similar fatalism that is characteristic of Islam, but rather awe and



wonder mixed with humility. We understand that God has chosen to reveal Himself, and desires to be known and understood, yet He is beyond our understanding and comprehension. We do not live in fear or apprehension, but in trust, faith, and hope. So, we can live with hope and peace even when our lives are complicated and we cannot figure things out. We know the character of our God, and He is loving, good and can be trusted. As the contemporary song "Trust His Heart" (by Babby Mason) puts it:

God is too wise to be mistaken, God is too good to be unkind, So when you don't understand, When you don't see His plan, When you can't trace His hand, Trust His heart.

5.2 Reflecting a Triune God in our spiritual community

In addition to intentionally and consciously living in relationship to a Triune God, we also pattern our lives according to Trinitarian principles.

5.2.1 Living out Christian community - ours vs. theirs Jesus' high priestly prayer in John 17 talks about the witness of the unity of believers that is clear to the onlooking world. Jesus prayed that the believers would be one, reflecting the unity in the Godhead. The mark of the New Testament church was one of shared life, to which God added to their numbers. In the Arab world context, community and belonging are high values and needs. When Christian community is non-existent or neglected, we disobey and deny the teaching of the New Testament Scripture. But the need to live in community transcends pragmatic, felt needs and Biblical injunction: it also is core to who God is and in whose image we are created. We don't need to live in community because it feels right or good and meets our social needs, as much as we are created with that innate desire. God lives in "community" as three in one. So if and



when Biblical Christian community offers something deeper, richer, and more genuine to those who have imitation "community", it presents an opportunity to talk about the Godhead and our witness. Non-believers often marvel at the depth of relationship and fellowship among Christians who have just been introduced, and will comment that there is a level of interaction that is entirely foreign to them, even among their closest friends. Increasingly, many find that the communities they belong to are wanting, and they long for true unconditional love, belonging, acceptance, and safety. Even when Christian community is marred by our own sin, shortcomings and imperfection, it still can stand in marked contrast to what they have experienced. Tim Chester also points out that Trinitarian community stands in contrast to individualism and collectivism or socialism; "Just as there is both unity and plurality in God, so communal identity should not suppress individual identity and individual identity should not neglect communal identity. Through our union with Christ by faith, Christians are being remade in the image of the Triune God. The Church should be a community with unity without uniformity, and diversity without division." (Chester).

5.2.2 Community with threefold mark of presence, words and action The Trinitarian community manifests itself in many ways, but perhaps one formulation would be presence, words and activity. True community must encompass all these facets of relating. There can be no community without giving of time and one’s presence; no relationship without conversation and words; no koinonia without action and movement. The Godhead does not go about in isolation, each busy about one's tasks and activities. In Scripture we see several instances where all three Persons are present, speaking, active in one place. Is our community characterized by regularly meeting together and doing "life" together? (Acts 2:42; Heb 10:25) Are our times together marked by conversation and words of encouragement,



honoring God, stirring each other up to good works? (Col 3:16; Heb 10:24) Is our fellowship marked by godly action and activism? (John 5:17)

5.2.3 Relationships characterized by equality with submission and interdependence Related to community is the practice of equality and submission within our relationships. Within the Godhead, there is equality yet functional diversity. There is submission of the desire and will of the Son to the Father's purpose. In most of our context of ministry, power and position are desired and grasped. What would happen when leadership in the Christian community is marked by service, humility, and the mind of Christ in Phil 2? Bruce Ware says it this way, "…marvel at the social relationship of joy, fulfillment, love and unity among the members of the Trinity. There is no bickering, no fighting, and no disputing who has the right to do such and such. There is nothing but mutual support for the respective roles that each eternally has. And in those differing job descriptions for the three divine Persons there is unity and harmony of purpose, joy, peace, love, fulfillment, and full satisfaction. We must here resist the lie of our culture that says the only way we can exist happily together is if we always and only acknowledge everyone as exactly the same. Unity is not sameness, and harmony requires differences working together. If we want a wonderful example of this, we need only look at the Trinity. We should be astonished that while there is sameness in terms of the identical divine nature possessed fully by all three, there also is differentiation in terms of individual Person and relationship and role. But in and through both the sameness of nature and the distinction of Person and role, there is joyous harmony, peace and love within the Trinity." (Ware, page 130) These need to be modeled in our marriages, families, our workplace, and our churches. When others see that as Christians our worth is not defined primarily by our roles, our gender, background,



ethnicity, nationality, but because we are all made in the image of God, it is a powerful witness. When the gathered Church is diverse and from varied backgrounds, living and working together, considering others first, it is not something that can be manufactured through human efforts; it needs explanation, and only the Gospel and the power of the Cross can offer an adequate explanation. 6 Conclusion

Our task then should be not only to have intellectual explanations of the Trinity that are accurate and informing, but we need incarnational expression that is attractive and inviting. Our goal is not only for incisive theological constructs that are irrefutable, but also for supernatural relational community that is irresistible. In 1826, Reginald Heber wrote the hymn Holy, Holy, Holy, for Trinity Sunday while he was Vicar of Hodnet, Shropshire, England. Though much of the Arab world today is characterized by verse 3 which says, "Though the eye of sinful man Thy glory may not see," may all the words one day be true of indigenous believers of the Arab World as they worship with all the saints above and below.

Holy, holy, holy! Lord God Almighty! All Thy works shall praise Thy Name, in earth, and sky, and sea; Holy, holy, holy; merciful and mighty! God in three Persons, blessèd Trinity!

References Chester, Tim, The Trinity and Humanity, see on website

www.timchester.files.wordpress.com/2006/12/the-trinity-and-humanity-tim-chester.pdf.

Chester, Tim, Delighting in the Trinity: Just Why Are Father, Son, and Spirit Such Good News? (Kregel: Grand Rapids, 2005)



Kateregga, Badru D. and David W. Shenk, A Muslim and Christian in Dialogue (Herald Press: Scottdale, 1997)

Treier, Daniel, and David Lauber (eds), Trinitarian Theology for the Church: Scripture, Community, Worship (Intervarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL, USA, 2009)

Ware, Bruce, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: Relationships, Roles, and Relevance (Crossway: Wheaton, 2005)

THE TRINITY AND CHRISTIAN MISSION TO MUSLIMS

By Revd Bassam Michael Madany1

Islam has engaged the attention of Christians ever since its rise in Arabia in the seventh century. One obvious reason is the fact that most early Muslim conquests took place within Christian lands. “The People of the Book”, as Jews and Christians were called, faced the choice of adopting the faith of their conquerors, or of remaining in their particular religion. Those who persisted in their Christian commitment gave a reason for this decision. They could not, and would not forsake the Biblical Messiah, their Lord and Savior. By implication, they refused to believe in the “heavenly” mission of Muhammad as God’s final Messenger commissioned to call the world to Islam. From the beginning of the Christian-Muslim encoun-ter, the main debate centered upon these fundamental doctrines: the person and work of Jesus Christ, and the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Some time later, when the irreconcilable differences between the teachings of the Bible and the Qur'an were recognized, the authentic-ity of the Christian Scriptures became another core issue of contro-versy. The Qur’an refers to Jesus as the son of Mary who was sent by God to proclaim a specific message to the people of Israel. The de-tails of the birth of Christ, his teachings, and miracles, as recorded in the Qur’an, are apocryphal. What were Muhammad’s sources for his accounts of the person and mission of the Messiah? In dealing with

1 The Revd Bassam Madany (b. 1928) and his wife Shirley Madany-Dann went as missionaries to Syria in 1953, and they have served in mission to the Arab World since then. In 1958, Revd Bassam became the Arab radio minister of the Back to God Hour (BTGH), and since then no single radio producer has had so much impact with his Christian Arabic radio programs.



this subject, Professor Neal Robinson, a British scholar, wrote in his book, Christ in Islam and Christianity:

Despite our extensive knowledge of Byzantine Orthodoxy and of the principal forms of Christianity which flourished in Syria and Persia, we know all too little about Christianity as practised in Najran [a city in Arabia inhabited by Christian Arabs] and Abyssinia [another name for Ethiopia] in the seventh century and even less about Arab tribal Christi-anity. The external evidence and the evidence of the Qur'an itself both point to a predominantly heterodox influence on the early environment of Islam. Although the external evidence would favour Nestorianism and Monophysitism, the internal evidence is equally indicative of some form of Jewish Christianity. We should probably think in terms of a va-riety of rival sects some of which may have vanished without trace.2

As Islam developed over the centuries, so did its intolerant atti-tude towards Christianity. Its polemics were primarily directed against the Christian doctrine of God as Triune. Muslim theologians ridiculed the doctrine of the Holy Trinity because it had no basis in Allah’s “true” revelation in the Qur’an. Furthermore, it was irra-tional. They also attacked the Christian doctrine of the Messiahship of Jesus, as revealed in the Christian Holy Scriptures and confessed by the Church in the Nicene Creed. Therefore, these words of the Nicene Creed are abhorrent to the ears of Muslims:

We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, begotten from the Father before all ages, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten not made; of the same essence as the Father. Through him all things were made. And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life. He pro-ceeds from the Father and the Son, and with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified.

2 Neal Robinson, Christ in Islam and Christianity (State University of New York Press: Albany, New York, 1991), p. 22.



Denying this Trinitarian affirmation of the Fatherhood of God, the deity of Jesus Christ, and the personality of the Holy Spirit, the Qur’an responds:

Qol hua Allah ahad, Allah assamad, lam yalid, wa-lam youlad, wa-lam yakon lahu kuf’on ahad.

Say: Allah is one, Allah the Eternal One, He begot none, nor was He begotten, and no one is equal to Him.3 [Translation mine]

Basically, Muslims cannot accept the deity of Christ in the Trini-tarian formulation and it inevitably leads to their rejection of the Trinity. Muslims charge Christians with the sin of “shirk”, i.e., as-sociating a mere creature with the Creator. In Islam, this is the un-forgivable sin. When this theological context is fully grasped, the challenge fac-ing Christian missionaries in Muslim lands becomes apparent in all its starkness. How can the saving message of the Gospel break through the obstacle of Islamic theological intransigence toward one of Christianity’s main tenets? When preaching the Word of God to Muslims, should missionaries downplay the importance of the Trin-ity, or the deity of Jesus Christ? Lately, some Western experts on world religions, having adopted theological pluralism, minimize the great gulf separating Christianity from Islam. In his book, “Jesus in the Qur'an”, Geoffrey Parrinder, Professor Emeritus of the Comparative Study of Religions at the University of London, wrote:

The encounter of the world religions is a major fact of our times and it demands a restatement of traditional theological expression. This re-statement must take account of all the new knowledge available.4

3 The Qur’an, Surah 112. 4 Geoffrey Parrinder, Jesus in the Qur’an (Oneworld Publications: Rockport, 1995), p. 14.



His “restatement” of the Christian religion illustrates how some Western scholars have downplayed the sharp differences between Christianity and Islam. Should their views achieve a wide accep-tance among Western Christians, it would mark the end of their mis-sion work among Muslims. It is evident that Parrinder seeks to make inter-faith dialogue a fruitful enterprise and his book concludes with a radical reappraisal of fundamental Christian principles:

It is too easily assumed that all traditional doctrines are firmly based on the Bible. The Semitic view of God may need to be cleared of some Greek theories that have overlaid it. […] Terms like Son of God, Trin-ity and Salvation need to be re-shaped and given new point. Concepts of prophecy, inspiration and revelation must be re-examined in view of the undoubted revelation of God in Muhammad and in the Qur'an.5

At the same time he deplores and denigrates the orthodox Christian view of the Atonement:

There is no doubt that Christians hold firmly to the Cross as a historical fact, but they are not bound to accept theories that would interpret it in terms of legal satisfaction or sacrificial substitution.6

Such examples are cited to emphasize the fact that the consensus that had prevailed among Western Christian missionaries from the days of William Carey (1792) to the early years of the twentieth-century, no longer exists today. In the past, regardless of certain doc-trinal differences that prevailed among Protestant churches, they af-firmed the supreme and final authority of the Bible; the Trinity; and the uniqueness, finality, and superiority of the Lord Jesus Christ and his substitutionary work on the cross. The consensus no longer ex-

5 Ibid., p. 173. 6 Ibid., p. 169.



ists as was well documented by Professor S. Mark Heim, of Ando-ver-Newton Theological School.7 What should be the Christian reaction to these developments? Parrinder’s thinking reflects the mindset of secular, pluralistic West-ern societies. He seeks to bring Christian categories and doctrine into its orbit. But the tenets of the historic Christian faith must never be compromised in any way regardless of how unbendingly doctri-naire it appears to pluralistic secularists. Do the Western modernist theologians ever stop to think that their Islamic counterparts will not bend to such categories either? By suggesting that, Christian theolo-gians would gives Islam victory by default. In the remaining part of this article, I would like to share with the readers of the Journal how I dealt with this, the doctrine of the Onto-logical Trinity, in my radio and literature ministry among Arabic-speaking people over a period that spanned 36 years. I began proclaiming the Gospel in Arabic in 1958 over radio sta-tion ELWA, of Monrovia, Liberia. Later on, the Lord opened other avenues for the broadcasting of the Word on radio stations in Europe, and in the Middle East. Even though I spent most of my active ministerial life in Canada and USA, I kept in touch with my field of endeavor through short wave radio, Arabic language publications, and frequent visits to the Arab world. The potential audience in the Arabic-speaking world is

7 S. Mark Heim, ‘Pluralism and the Otherness of World Religions’, in First Things (August/ September, 1992), pp. 29-35. From the introduction: “We have witnessed in recent years the flowering of various Christian pluralistic theologies calling for unequivocal affirmation of the equal validity of all world faiths. It is argued that Christianity (and to some extent other traditions) has been infected by a virulent exclusivist virus, the disease of imagining its religious truth superior to all others and its path to salvation the only one. Advocates of pluralistic theology maintain that there is no antidote to this virus but a consistent reconstruction of the fundamentals of Christian faith.”



predominantly Islamic. How was I to do the work of an evangelist proclaiming the saving message of the Biblical Gospel? Upon hearing a Christian radio program, most listeners would not have been sympathetic with its contents. Sooner or later, they would discover that the purpose of the broadcast messages was to call them to faith in the Biblical Messiah who was not only the son of Mary, but equally the Son of God. And this God was a triune God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It meant that I was asking them to change their loyalty from Islam to Christianity; from being followers of Muhammad to being believers in Christ and all that it entailed. That was tantamount to asking them to apostatize. In their tradition, apos-tasy is a sin punishable by death. By what authority did I call people to make such a radical decision? Ultimately, it was the Bible that gave me the authority and the boldness to herald the Good News of Jesus the Messiah. As a mem-ber of the community known to Muslims as “The People of the Book”, I proclaimed the Good News that called for “repentance to-ward God, and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ” Acts 20 (AV) Realizing, therefore, the absolute necessity of proclaiming a Bib-lical message every time I recorded a radio program, what specific approach did I use? Both my Christian heritage and my knowledge of Islam led me to adopt the evangelistic system Paul used in his Let-ter to the Romans. Theologically speaking, it meant that I would begin with an emphasis on Biblical anthropology, followed by an exposition of Biblical Christology and soteriology. Then, I would go on to explain that salvation proceeded from the plan and unmerited love of the triune God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I would further explain that the existence of this God, i.e., of the Holy Trinity, pre-dated the formulation of Trinitarian doctrine at Nicea (325 AD). The Trinity was a living reality, before the creation of the cosmos. A fur-ther reference to Ephesians 1 helped expound the role of the three persons of the Trinity in planning, procuring, and securing our re-demption.



Continuing study of Islamic doctrine reinforced my decision to follow such a course of exposition. For notwithstanding the strong criticisms that have been leveled by Muslims against the Bible’s authenticity, the Trinity, and the deity of Jesus Christ, their greatest objection is to Biblical anthropology. Whereas the Christian view of man’s predicament is marked by recognition of the drastic results of the Fall, the Muslim view of man’s present condition is very optimis-tic. It may be described as a thoroughly Pelagian point of view. This was articulated well in a 1959 article appearing in the quar-terly The Muslim World (Volume 49, No. 1, January 1959), in which the Islamic doctrine of man was discussed. It contained a quotation from a paper, read by a Muslim professor in 1957, at a gathering of some Christian and Muslim scholars that was held in Morocco. The Muslim professor said:

The possibility of man’s deliverance and the way to follow have been indicated by the Qur’an in its address to sinners, fathers of the human race: ‘Go forth all of you from hence and if there comes to you guidance from Me then he who follows my guidance shall have nothing to fear, nor shall they know distress.” (Surah 2:38) By this solemn affirmation God Himself takes action for the salvation of man in the path of right. Islamic tradition then has the means to lead man to final perfection, the effect of which is liberation from the fear and from the sadness that pre-vent man from attaining the eternal blessedness which is life in God and for God.

In commenting on the paper, Edwin Calverley, the then editor of The Muslim World wrote:

[This] exposition of Muslim theology and its concepts of man and his salvation raises several deep questions. The Christian must always be perplexed about its ready confidence that ‘to know is to do,’ that man’s salvation happens under purely revelatory auspices and that through the law given in the Divine communication is the path that man will fol-



low once he knows and sees it. The whole mystery of human recalci-trance and ‘hardness of heart’ seems to be overlooked.8 [italics mine]

According to Muslim anthropology, man has no need for a divine Savior; he needs only to know in order to do the will of Allah. By performing the requirements of Allah’s Shari’a (Law,) man achieves the goal of his existence and gains entrance to Paradise. Following is a brief description of the approach used in the radio messages beamed to the Arabic-speaking Muslim world. My starting point, following the order of the Letter to the Romans, was to ex-pound the Biblical anthropology showing the lost condition of man, and his inability to please God by his own efforts. Actually, the Qur’an follows Rabbinical Judaism in teaching that humans, by their own efforts, can achieve righteousness. The critique of Judaism in Rom 9-11 supplies us with a similar critique of Muslim “soteriol-ogy”. Read Rom 10 and imagine Paul addressing a Muslim attempt-ing to establish his own righteousness by works rather than believing in God’s righteousness:

Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God, and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who be-lieves. (Rom 10:1-4, NIV)

In Chapter 2 Paul stressed the fact that a mere knowledge of God’s revealed will was not sufficient to achieve reconciliation with Him. Muslims regard themselves as enlightened, since they believe they possess God’s final revelation of His Law in the Qur’an. They be-lieve the followers of other religions are living in ignorance. The strong words of Paul in unmasking the superficiality of Rabbinical Judaism fit Islam as well. But lest the bearer of the Good News be

8 Edwin Calverley, in The Muslim World Vol 49 No 1 (January 1959).



perceived as exhibiting racial arrogance or superiority, Paul an-nounces the fact that ‘none is righteous’:

What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? No, not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. […] Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced, and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin. (Rom 3: 9, 19-20, NIV)

It must be a shattering experience for a Muslim to hear such words proclaiming man’s inability to justify himself by the “deeds prescribed” in God’s sacred law. When the Holy Spirit opens his heart to receive the teaching in Rom 1-3, then he is ready to welcome the proclamation of the Gospel and its exposition in Rom 3:21-8.

But now, a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement through faith in his blood. (Rom 3:21-25a, NIV)

Once a Muslim accepts the Biblical teaching that the law, far from being a means for man’s justification, manifests his enslavement to sin, he is open to accept the Gospel as expounded in the Letter to the Romans. Patiently and methodically, the Christian messenger must teach the Scriptures. Teach how they witness to Jesus Christ, who was both the son of David, and the Lord of David. Teach how he alone could fulfill the law on our behalf, how he healed the sick and restored some to life, revealing his Messiahship and his primary mis-sion to seek and to save the lost. According to Heb 1, our Lord brought about the completion of God’s revelation; but he did more than that:



After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs. For to which of the angels did God ever say, ‘You are my son; today I have become your Father?’ To which of the angels did God ever say, ‘Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet’? (Heb 1:3b-5, 13, NIV)

Thus far, I have outlined my approach in teaching the Holy Trin-ity, the Fatherhood of God, the deity of Jesus Christ, and the person-ality of the Holy Spirit in my radio ministry to Muslims. I would like to reiterate that the Trinity must be proclaimed from the Scriptures, and by following the way it was gradually revealed within the Bible. During my years of radio broadcasting, one episode remains fresh in my mind. Early in the nineties, I received a letter from a Muslim merchant who was residing in London, England. After commenting on my command of the Arabic language, he wondered how I could believe in the Trinity. The letter did not surprise me; after all, he was sharing with me the classical Islamic critique of the Christian doc-trine of God. The following is roughly a summary of my response to this honest inquirer:

I appreciated very much your letter and its tone. I realize that you, as a Muslim believer, do not accept the Bible’s testimony about God. But let me assure you, at the outset, that what I have been broadcasting over the years is a faithful exposition of the teachings of the Holy Scriptures. There is nothing in my radio and literature work that is contrary to God’s revelation.

I am not surprised that you have a great difficulty in understanding this Biblical teaching about the Trinity. The reason I believe in the triune God is the fact it is part and parcel of God’s revelation. I trust that you will agree with me that when we deal with such doctrines as the attrib-utes of God, and His nature, we cannot fully comprehend them. As be-lievers in God, we are summoned to receive what His revelation



teaches. So, we should not be surprised if in a revealed religion, there are mysteries that transcend the human mind.

May I remind you of a theological controversy that took place in the ninth century in Baghdad regarding the Qur’an? Some Muslim theolo-gians taught that the Qur’an was created at the time of its revelation to Muhammad (610-632 AD) This was necessary to safeguard the unity of Allah. However, an influential theologian and expert in the Shariah Law, Imam Hanbal, refused to accept that formulation and declared that the Qur’an was eternal. He was persecuted and imprisoned by the ca-liph. As you may well know, that event in your history is known as “The Ordeal of the Qur’an”. Several years later, it was the Hanbalite view that prevailed. To this day, it continues to be the official teaching of Sunni Islam.

Muslims believe that Allah is eternal, but they confess that the Qur’an is also eternal. I do know that this is your own belief, but I do not jump to the conclusion that you confess the existence of two gods. I realize that there are mysteries that transcend our capacity to comprehend. Should you not treat me in the same way, and not charge me with believing in three gods?

What I pointed out to the Muslim correspondent was his obliga-tion, as a fellow human being, to deal with me “quid pro quo”. Just as I do not accuse Islam with dualism, Muslims should refrain from regarding Christians as propounding a plurality of gods. When we study the history of Islamic teachings, we become aware of deficiencies inherent in its doctrine of God. For example, Muslims teach that God is the “wholly Other”. He is a transcendent Being. There is no similarity whatsoever between the Creator and man, the crown of creation. Muslim theologians have devised the notion that “Allah huwa bila kayf” i.e. Allah is unlike anyone else. Neither in the Qur’an, nor in the Tradition (Hadith), is there anything close to the teaching of Gen 1:26-27: ‘Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness…” So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he cre-ated them.’ (NIV)



The doctrine of the image of God in man is another fundamental Biblical teaching. In the radio broadcasts I referred to it often, not only when dealing with creation but also when teaching the doctrine of redemption. But I would never mention the fact that man is made in the image of God and after His likeness without saying immedi-ately that I was actually quoting from the Pentateuch, or as the Mus-lims call it, “Tawrat Moussa”. Since Islam propounds the doctrine of a solitary and transcendent God, it follows that no Muslim claims that he or she can know Allah. Muslims study Allah’s Shariah and seek to conform to its demands or prohibitions, but they cannot “know” Him. Nothing in their tradi-tion approximates these words of Paul: “I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection …” (Phil 3:10a, NIV) It was this teaching about an impersonal God in Islam that con-tributed to the rise of the mystical movement known as Sufism. The Sufis played an active role in Islamic history as they tried to fill a spiritual vacuum created by the strict unitarianism of Islam. Over against the teaching that Allah could not be approached except through obedience to the demands of the Shariah, they pointed to a different way of pleasing the Almighty and thus attaining the bliss of Paradise. Sufi leaders taught that through meditation and a strict dis-cipline, a Muslim might arrive at the goal of existence. One such spiritual exercise they advocated was the recitation of the Beautiful or Ninety-nine names of Allah by a group of assembled men. Eventually, Sufism departed further and further from Orthodox Islam. As an Egyptian scholar put it, “Sufis tended to be heretical. They taught that intuition was the way to understanding. Some of them advocated monism, while others went as far as pantheism, and claiming that there was no difference between good and evil.”9

9 Dr. Zaki Naguib Mahmoud, The Rational and the Irrational in Our Cultural Heri-tage (Dar Al-Shurouq, Beirut, Lebanon, n.d. but probably in 1970s). Only available in Arabic.



The basic problem with the Islamic doctrine of God is that He remains an impersonal and remote being. A Muslim’s relation to his creator is that of a slave (‘abd) to his master. This explains the fre-quently given name of ‘Abdallah’ among Muslims. On the other hand, the doctrine of the Trinity reveals the centrality of God’s at-tribute of love, as we notice in Christ’s prayer on the eve of his pas-sion. “Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world.” John 17:24 (NIV) In conclusion, the relevance of the doctrine of the Trinity in Mis-sions to Muslims and to followers of other religions can be appreci-ated by converts who find comfort and power to persist in their new-found faith, by tracing it back to the actions of the three Persons of the Trinity as Paul taught in the opening words of Eph 1:

3Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. 4For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will - 6to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves. 7In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgive-ness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace 8that he lav-ished on us with all wisdom and understanding. 9And he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, 10to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment—to bring all things in heaven and on earth to-gether under one head, even Christ. 11In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, 12in order that we, who were the first to hope in Christ, might be for the praise of his glory. 13And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession—to the praise of his glory. (NIV)



Appendix

MODERN ANTI-TRINITARIANISM AND ISLAM The Moslem World – April 1912 – Vol. II, No. 2

By Nicholas M. Steffens Holland, Mich, U.S.A.

MISSIONARY work among Mohammedans is beset with many dif-ficulties, which are not encountered in other fields. Missionaries among Moslems have to deal with a fanatical opposition to the Chris-tian faith in God as triune. To speak of God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, causes in every bigoted Moslem an outburst of hatred that lies latent in his heart. Taking this into consideration, would it not be better to emphasize the ethical character of Christianity and to leave the obnoxious doctrine of the Trinity severely alone? If the signs of the times do not deceive us, some missionaries are inclined to answer this question in the affirmative. We would be sorry, indeed, if such a policy should ever prevail. This would involve a compromise, which is impossible for a loyal Christian who believes that Christianity is the religion of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. It would be a calamity if anti-Trinitarian leanings ever obtained a foothold in mis-sion fields among Moslems. Of course, missionaries should make use of common sense and pedagogical wisdom in presenting the revelation of the Triune God to fanatical opponents, but as followers of Jesus Christ they must also have the courage of their convictions. There have been many anti-Trinitarian movements in the Church of Christ since she began her course. I prefer to call these move-ments anti-Trinitarian instead of Unitarian, because they are a reac-tion from the Trinitarian development of the Christian faith. It is true, modern Unitarians look upon their conception of God as an ad-vance upon the traditional Trinitarian development; their view, they



maintain, is more in harmony with culture and science, than our Christian faith in the triune God. This is a grave mistake; we also wear a modern dress, although Christianity is old. We believe in progress on the right and safe tracks, but modern Unitarianism is an advance along a wrong road; it is a descent and not an ascent; it does not represent progress but rather retrogression. I also prefer the term anti-Trinitarianism to that of Unitarianism, because Christians are, as far as their relation to polytheism is concerned, Unitarians, Monotheists in the true sense of the word. It may be that the unity of God has been placed now and then in the background, but as a rule the Christian Church has always upheld the unity of God. But we protest on behalf of God’s unity against an abstract uniformity in God’s essence. We adore, as true Theists, the mystery of the Holy Trinity, as revealed to us in the Holy Scriptures, and we also admire the work of the Church in building up the doctrine of the Trinity. Let men criticize as they will the formulation of this doctrine in the works of Systematic Theology, but let them have reverence for the mystery of the triune God. We cannot comprehend this mystery in its height and depth, its length and breadth; we apprehend it, how-ever, by faith, and see so much glory and beauty in it that we rejoice and are glad. Our faith in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, the only true and living God, seems to us so reasonable that no ra-tionalistic attacks upon it can really alarm us. The rationalistic pseudo-Trinity, viz. God, freedom and immortality, shows the bar-renness of any monotheistic view that is not based upon the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. We are rich in our Christian faith; we become poor if we enter into a compromise with anti-Trinitarians in any form. F. C. Bauer, the father of the Tübingen School, who cannot be accused of being a friend of traditional orthodoxy, was correct in his statement that Christianity would have lost its character as the universal religion of mankind if Arianism had been triumphant at Nicea. Let us with



boldness proclaim it everywhere in the face of anti-Trinitarians of every description, that Theism and faith in the triune God are inti-mately joined together. We have real communion with God, because in Jesus Christ we are in blessed relationship with Him. Christ is the way, the truth, and the life, because He is the Son of God. God created man as a religious being, forming him in His like-ness. This endowment gave him an indelible character as God’s off-spring, which even the deepest degradation of his sinful estate cannot efface. This is the reason why savage tribes still possess a craving after God. How can this communion with God, which alone is eter-nal life, but which was lost in Adam’s fall, be restored to man? By a God, perhaps, who in majestic transcendence is enthroned on high, out of the reach of His creatures? Certainly not! Even if it were possible to be admitted to the court of this heavenly monarch and to have audience with Him for a few moments as Mohammed claimed to have enjoyed, would this be communion? The deistic conception of God excludes communion with God most rigidly. Or is it, perhaps, possible by a God, who, without being transcendent, is immanent in the monkey as well and in the same manner as in man, God’s image bearer? Such an immanence, wherein as a rule modern Unitarians delight, does not constitute conscious communion be-tween God and man. Neither Deism nor Pantheism lead us up to God; the former is cold and unattractive, the latter attractive to a certain extent, but un-real. It is a fact, that the anti-Trinitarian conception of God forces Mohammedans as well as modern Unitarians, as a rule, to vacillate between Deism and Pantheism. No wonder these systems are rather philosophical than theological, hence they share the character of most of the philosophical systems, viz. to be either deistical or pan-theistical, either Kantian or Hegelian. In Christian Monotheism alone the transcendence and immanence of God are so intimately joined together that the transcendence of God fills us with awe and reverence, which leads us to adoration,



while the immanence of this transcendent God pursues us to Himself with the cords of love, creating within us filial confidence and devo-tion. The unity of transcendence and immanence, although it is be-yond our comprehension, is more easily understood than the abstract Monotheism of the anti-Trinitarians. When we say that we believe in the triune God, we indicate thereby that we believe in a God who is separated from His creatures, having placed His majesty above the heavens, and who is near them in His Son, who was willing to be His servant, and assumed our nature in order to be obedient unto death. Our God is the living and true God, because there is a divine movement in the eternal inter-relation between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The true nature of this inner divine life we can-not comprehend, but it is a reality, which we apprehend by faith. In the works of God, ad extra, this life of God is clearly manifested. The Father is the source of everything, the Son reveals the Father’s footsteps in creation, and the Holy Spirit changes the chaos into a wonderful cosmos. This life of God, which truly is immutable but by no means immovable, guarantees us our communion with Him, who is the life of His creatures. And applied to the sinful condition of mankind, we have approach to God the Creator through the Son, who not only reveals Him as our Father but who also dies to save us, in the Holy Spirit, who by indwelling in us completes and perfects our communion with the triune God. We repeat that the Holy Trinity is a mystery, but it is a mystery which secures to us not only a pure theology, but also a joyful and active religion, and this is not a speculation or poetical conception, but a positive reality. Rationalism has no place in it, but it is thor-oughly rational. Truly, there is communion with God, because He is triune in His unity. To know this God, who is the only true and liv-ing God, is eternal life, because He unites us to Himself in Jesus Christ, whom He has sent, and who as the Logos became the Son of man and the Lamb of God. Away with that abstract unity which is the unity of a stone. I have often thought that the stone in the Kaaba



at Mecca, which the pilgrims kiss, is a fit symbol of the Moslem Al-lah. How oppressive this abstract unity of God must feel when the soul longs for real communion with its Maker. Some one has said, if the locus de Deo is wrong, then the whole system goes wrong with it. It influences the doctrine of man in his integrity as well as in his sin-ful condition and especially is the doctrine of salvation obscured, when there is no place for a divine Saviour. It sometimes seems that we are not always conscious of how great the treasure is that we have in faith in the triune God. Let us beware of compromises with Mohammedanism. Let us uphold the banner of Christianity, notwithstanding all the enmity of the Moslem world against it. “Let us look to Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who, for the joy that was set before Him, en-dured the cross and despised the shame.” If we are unwilling to preach to the followers of Islam the truth, nothing but the truth and the full truth, it would be better to give up the evangelization of the Moslem world and to leave the field to modern Unitarians, who soon would find out their affinity with the followers of Mohammed in the doctrine of God, and be convinced that they have nothing to give to hungry and thirsty souls who long for righteousness. Cultured Uni-tarianism has a hopeless task to perform in grappling with the fanati-cal Unitarianism of superstitious Moslems. The testimony of history is not at all favorable to Unitarianism as a missionary agency. In Ulfila’s days Arians had succeeded in establishing Unitarianism among the Goths, and it seemed for a time as if Arianism were to gain the day, in a considerable part of Europe at least. But Arianism has vanished as snow and ice in spring. The Unitarian churches es-tablished in those days have left no vestige behind them. They ex-erted no influence on the nations among whom they dwelt, and of missionary enterprises undertaken by them hardly anything is known. And who were the great missionaries during the critical period of the migration of the peoples? They came from Britain, and belonged either to the Catholic or the Chaldean Churches. They had their dif-



ferences and quarrels, yet they were to a man believers in the triune God. By them the continent of Europe was evangelized. Their en-terprises were blessed, and their work was by no means ephemeral. Their methods of work were imperfect, their faith in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, was strong and active. That the Churches of the Middle Ages were not entirely uprooted during all the upheav-als and catastrophes of those dark days, that they were able not only to keep their own faith but also to spread faith in regions beyond the civilized world of that day, they certainly owed to their firm belief in Christ as the Son of God, which virtually is belief in the triune God. Allow me to draw your attention also to the detrimental influence Unitarianism has exercised on missions during the reign of the Ra-tionalism of the eighteenth century. Pietists and Moravian brethren had begun a fine missionary work, the former in India and the latter in West India and other fields. The University of Halle, where Francke taught in the spirit of Spener, was the centre of pietistical missionary enterprises. The beginnings were grand, and promised much for the future. Ziegenbalg, Schwartz and Plütschau were very much blessed in their work. It seemed as if India was to turn to Christ and to surrender to Him. But, alas this was not to be. Pietism, with all its extravagances, yielded to the illumination; and Halle, strange to say, became the citadel of a dry and cold Rationalism, which discarded the revelation of God in the Holy Scriptures and with it the doctrine of the Trinity, in order to establish a kind of deis-tical natural religion. The missionaries, who were then in the field, joined the ranks of the Rationalists, and they soon found out that there was no work for them to do. They left the field, and the prom-ising beginning ended in complete failure. The modern Unitarianism of Rationalism acted as a night frost does upon vegetation. At the same time the missionary efforts of the Moravian brethren continued to grow and flourish. Their theological conception of the doctrine of the Trinity was possibly crude; still their faith in the Godhead of the



Son of God was strong and full of devotion. And this soteriological aspect of the doctrine certainly is the core of the matter. There is really no place for Unitarians in the mission field. Ethics divorced from faith in the triune God is no lever to lift up sinful men from their lost condition. They need the Father in heaven, who sends down from thence His Son as His servant to rescue them from perdi-tion, objectively through His atoning work and subjectively through the application of this work through the Holy Spirit, whereby they learn to apprehend it by faith in Jesus Christ. Trinitarian Christian workmen, full of the Holy Spirit, are the only ones who have reason to expect success in their work anywhere, and especially among Moslems. Unitarians may succeed in extending Western culture, but people are not saved by culture. Cultured Moslems, stripped of their fanati-cism and superstition, remain what they were—enemies of the cross of Christ and of the doctrine of the Trinity. And if their hatred turns into indifference, they are, perhaps, further away from the kingdom of God than their co-religionists were in their former condition.

“SON OF GOD” IN BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVE A CONTRAST TO DAVID ABERNATHY’S ARTICLES

By Bradford Greer, PhD1

I am disappointed with David Abernathy’s article in the February 2010 edition of the St. Francis Magazine (6:1). In his article, David refutes Rick Brown’s thesis that the term “Son of God” indicated Jesus was the chosen, Davidic, messianic king in the early church rather than explicitly denoting Jesus’ divine nature. David Aber-nathy sought to demonstrate through his extensive research that the term “Son of God” has always denoted Jesus’ divine nature through-out all of church history. In addition, David also asserted that con-temporary scholars overwhelmingly agree that this is the case. David’s article appears to be an emotional reaction to Brown’s thesis rather than as a well-developed refutation. I am, however, sympathetic with David’s feelings. This is a highly charged topic because it taps into deeply embedded world-view assumptions. As we all know, when a worldview assumption or value is contradicted then it is natural to respond emotionally and disregard supporting data because “everyone knows it is wrong”. Since this topic is a worldview issue, we all have a responsibility to step back from our natural reaction of rejecting Brown’s thesis and seriously consider the rationale for it. David reacted so strongly to Brown’s thesis that he wrote a sub-sequent article for the St. Francis Magazine 6:2 (April 2010 edition). The length of his two articles may cause my fellow Interserve work-ers without a solid biblical background to think he actually has a strong case. David’s case is not as strong as he makes it appear. His

1 Bradford Greer has a PhD from Fuller Theological Seminary; he has worked in the Muslim world for over 20 years



extensive quoting, along with his numerous polemical statements, is a rhetorical strategy geared to make his position appear strong. David’s analysis ignores the biblical data. In this paper I will iden-tify key aspects of the biblical data. In doing so, I am not saying that I agree with all of Rick Brown’s points. I do not. However, Rick Brown has raised an important issue that with careful reflection can positively impact the way we speak about Jesus in our contexts. Before we proceed further, let me clarify: This discussion does not question the divinity of Jesus. The New Testament documents clearly teach that Jesus is divine. The acceptance of the divinity of Jesus by the strict Jewish monotheists is one of the remarkable as-pects of the Church (see Hurtado 2005). The issue in question is: How did the primitive church (from 33CE to 45CE) conceptualize and speak of the divinity of Jesus? Did the primitive church use the term “Son of God” to do this, or did this title gradually take on this meaning as time passed? By primitive church I refer to the church from the time of Pentecost (30CE) to about 45CE. After 45CE I re-fer to the church as the early church. If this is the case, the Gospels and the Epistles were all written in the early church era. How then do we know what the primitive church was like and how it thought? The clearest data we have of the primitive church is what Luke has given us in the Book of Acts. With Acts and the Old Testament as a guide, we can make inferences from the Synoptic Gospels about the religious and cultural under-standings of Jewish people around the time of Pentecost. As we look into the data of the primitive church from the Book of Acts we find that the term “Son of God” is remarkably absent. It is striking that neither Peter nor Paul ever refers to Jesus as the Son of God in any of their speeches. In fact, the term appears only once in the whole book. If the term is as essential as we assert that it is it in denoting Jesus’ divinity, why is the term completely absent in the Apostles’ speeches?



In the entire book of Acts the term “Son of God” appears only in Acts 9 where Paul called Jesus the “Son of God” as he worked in the synagogues in Damascus after his conversion. Even in this passage the term does not appear to refer to Jesus’ divinity because “Son of God” is paralleled with Jesus’ other title, “Christ”:

And immediately he proclaimed Jesus in the synagogues, saying, “He is the Son of God.” And all who heard him were amazed and said, “Is this not the man who made havoc in Jerusalem of those who called upon this name? And has he not come here for this purpose, to bring them bound before the chief priests?” But Saul increased all the more in strength, and confounded the Jews who lived in Damascus by proving that Jesus was the Christ (Acts 9:20-22).

Due to this parallel in usage, and though this may come as some-what of a shock for those of us who are not biblical theologians, the term “Son of God” in Acts 9:20 is most likely another way of saying that Jesus is the Messiah. Making this parallel seems important to Luke. We also find this parallel in Luke 4:41: ‘And demons also came out of many, crying, “You are the Son of God.” But he rebuked them and would not al-low them to speak, because they knew that he was the Christ.’ These biblical texts, written by the same author, Luke, appear to place dif-ferent parameters on the meaning of the term Son of God than we traditionally have placed. Divine sonship in Luke-Acts appears to denote Jesus’ unique standing as God’s chosen, anointed, Davidic, messianic king. It does not appear to refer to Jesus’ divinity. This parameter in meaning is reinforced by the discourses during the trial and crucifixion of Jesus in Luke 22:66-23:43. Once we begin to look for the parallel between Christ and Son of God, we see it elsewhere in the Gospels. We see this same parallel in Peter’s confession in Mat 16:16: “You are the Christ, the son of the living God.” We also see it in Martha’s confession in John 11:27: “I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who is coming into the world.”



Due to our western Christian heritage we view these terms as in-dependent of each other. We view one as denoting Jesus’ divinity and the other denoting his messianic role. Thus, we automatically read divine nature into divine sonship. However, the biblical texts appear to suggest that we not do this. In Luke’s Gospel we also see that Adam is called the son of God in Luke 3:38. We know that this does not suggest that Adam was divine in nature. It refers to the unique relationship he had with God. However, Adam is not alone in being referred to as a son of God. In Luke 20:36 we read: “For they cannot die anymore, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, sons of the resurrection.” Divine sonship is given to those who attain to the resurrection from the dead. From these verses we see that divine sonship did not denote divinity. From Luke 20:36 we discover that the term denoted being in a special, covenantal relation-ship with God. This harmonizes with the meaning in Luke 3:38. In addition, this denotation harmonizes well with what we read in the Old Testament. In the Old Testament Israel was called God’s firstborn son (Ex 4:22; see also Deut 14:1; Deut 32:6; Isa 43:6; Jer 3:4; Jer 31:9). This did not mean that Israel enjoyed divine status. Divine sonship indicated that the people enjoyed a unique, covenan-tal relationship with God. This unique relationship with God as Fa-ther was also extended in particular to the Davidic (2 Sam 7:14-15; 1 Chr 17:13-14; Ps 2:7; Ps 89:26-27) and messianic king (Isa 9:6-7). With this OT background it becomes easier for us to understand how divine sonship would not necessarily denote divine nature to first century Jews, and the first Jewish followers of Jesus. This dis-tinction between divine sonship and divine nature is what David Ab-ernathy failed to recognize when he quoted David Bauer to support his thesis that the term Son of God referred to Jesus’ divinity (6:1, 185). Bauer was actually writing about Jesus’ divine sonship. In his article Bauer specifically stated that in the Synoptic Gospels ‘Jesus did not speak of his divine sonship in terms of pre-existence or focus on ontological realities (such as his divine “nature”). Rather, Jesus



emphasized the elements of personal relationship and active func-tion’ (1997). Thomas Schreiner, a conservative scholar from Baylor University, recognizes this distinction as well. Schreiner points out that the Old Testament provides the lens for the term “Son of God” in the Synop-tic Gospels and in specific places in John’s Gospel. The term often refers to Jesus being the true Israel and to being the promised, messi-anic, Davidic king (2008, 236). This understanding makes sense of Nathanael’s comment to Jesus: “Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the king of Israel” (John 1:49). In Nathaniel’s mind, “Son of God” and “King of Israel” were synonymous. Drawing attention to Jesus as the true Israel is the reason why Matthew quotes Hos 11:1 in Mat 2:15: “Out of Egypt I will call my son” (see also Holwerda 1995, 40). Noting that the Jewish people would have understood this term to denote divine sonship rather than divinity Schreiner adds:

When Jesus calms the storm, the disciples confess that he is God’s Son (Mat 14:33). Perhaps the disciples received a glimmer of Jesus’ special relation to God, but they likely meant by this acclamation that Jesus was truly the Messiah, the one to whom the covenantal promises given to David pointed. The same conclusion should be drawn from Matt. 16:16, where at a crucial juncture in the Gospel Peter exclaims that Je-sus is “the Christ, the Son of the living God”. It is doubtful that at this stage in his thinking Peter grasped that Jesus was divine. (Schreiner 2008, p. 236)

This bakground offers an explanation as to why the Apostles did not use the term Son of God in their speeches in the book of Acts. They may not have yet used the term to convey divinity, and the term would probably not have conveyed divinity to their audiences. It appears that the primitive church developed the notion of the divinity of Jesus in a different way. C. Kavin Rowe has shown that in the Book of Luke Jesus’ divinity is developed through the usage of the term “kyrios” (Lord) (2005). Luke restricts the use of the term “kyrios” only for God and for Jesus. By parallel usage of this term



Luke narratively teaches about Jesus’ divinity. Jesus the “kyrios” is the only one who does what God the “kyrios” does (contra Brown 2000, 51). As we move into Acts Luke continues to parallel God and Jesus. In Acts 2:21 we read that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved. This is a clear reference to God. In 2:38 this is paralleled with Jesus for everyone is urged to be baptized in the name of Jesus. This parallel also shapes Peter’s statement in Acts 4:12: For there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” In 2:34 Peter quotes Ps 110:1 making a clear parallel between God and Jesus: “The Lord said to my Lord.” In 2:36 we read that God has made Jesus both Lord and Christ and God is called Lord in 2:39. It is interesting to see that the primitive church in Acts did not use the term Son of God to develop the notion of Jesus’ divinity. (This same absence is seen in Phil 2:6-11 which is likely a hymn from the primitive church). In saying this, I do not want to suggest that the term “Son” did not denote divinity at all in the Gospels (contra Brown 2000). It is clear that Jesus’ usage of the term Son in the bap-tismal formula in Mat 28:19 speaks of the Son’s divinity. It is also clear that in the Gospel of John Jesus through the term “Son” not only highlights his unique relationship to the Father as the chosen, Davidic, messianic king but that he is also divine in nature. Yet, what we need to be careful to avoid as we analyze the Scriptures is reading the Apostles’ post-resurrection/post-Pentecost understanding of Jesus as divine in nature, into their pre-resurrection/pre-Pentecost understanding of Jesus as enjoying divine sonship. What this means is that when demons or the disciples referred to Jesus as the Son of God in the Gospels these references likely only referred to Jesus be-ing the chosen, Davidic, messianic king. In conclusion, even though David Abernathy is reluctant to ac-knowledge this, in light of the biblical data, when a translator asserts that the term “Son of God” can be translated in a non-literal fashion



in the Gospels because the term did not necessarily refer to the divin-ity of Jesus, the translator actually has a significant biblical basis upon which to make this assertion. The problem that arises is that the data does not appear to give a carte blanche approval to translate every term “Son” with an alternative as Brown seems to have sug-gested.

References

Abernathy, David, ‘Translating “Son Of God” In Missionary Bible Translation: A Critique of “Muslim-Idiom Bible Translations: Claims and Facts”, by Rick Brown, John Penny and Leith Gray’, in St. Francis Magazine 2010, 6:1, pp. 176-203.

Abernathy, David, ‘Jesus Is The Eternal Son of God’ in St. Francis Magazine 2010, 6:2, pp. 327-394.

Bauer, D. R., ‘Son of God’ in Green, Joel B., Scot McKnight, and I. Howard Marshall (eds), Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2007)

Brown, Rick, ‘The “Son of God”: Understanding the Messianic Ti-tles of Jesus’, in The International Journal of Frontier Missions 17:1 (2000), pp. 41-52.

Holwerda, David E., Jesus and Israel: One Covenant or Two? (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995)

Hurtado, Larry W., Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publish-ing Company, 2005)

Rowe, C. Kavin, Early Narrative Christology: The Lord in the Gos-pel of Luke (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2009)

Schreiner, Thomas, New Testament Theology: Magnifying God in Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008)

REFLECTIONS ON THE TRINITY IN LIGHT OF 1 JOHN 4:8

By David Abernathy1

1 Introduction

In the process of reading various resources on a related topic, a col-league and I came across a considerable amount of material concern-ing the Trinity written in the last two or three decades. One would think that the subject would have been exhausted after two millennia of comment and debate, but such is not the case. One of the conclu-sions my colleague came to was that this is a profoundly rich topic, and he called it “a doctrine that keeps on giving.” I would like to explore just a few aspects of the doctrine of the Trinity and its rele-vance to us. Primarily, I will make use of a single resource, which is the theology textbook recently published by my own professor of systematic theology, Dr. Douglas Kelly of Reformed Theological Seminary. Kelly’s work is a treasure trove of rich insights in that he reviews a very wide range of scholarly thought throughout the centu-ries from all branches of Christendom whether Protestant, Roman Catholic or Orthodox. Roman Catholics and Orthodox theologians have traditionally given considerable attention to study and reflection on the doctrine of the Trinity, as have Protestants, though perhaps less so than the oth-ers. To whatever extent the doctrine is neglected, we can expect at least some degree of impoverishment in our worship and theological thought. We should also expect a similar impoverishment to result in our ministry to non-Christian peoples if we neglect or downplay the

1 David Abernathy has an MA in Biblical Studies from Reformed Theological Semi-nary in Charlotte, NC. He currently works in Biblical research in North Carolina, USA.



significance of this doctrine which, admittedly, is impossible to un-derstand and consequently very difficult to communicate. However, despite the fact that it is a mystery, we must present the mystery in its fullness. For example, in ministry in the Muslim world there is the temptation to present the Trinity as less than it really is, either mini-mizing the full deity of the second and third persons of the Trinity, which leans toward Arianism, or minimizing their full personhood (at least prior to the incarnation of Christ), which is a modified form of modalism. Muslims deserve to know the richness of who God really is, just as we have been privileged to come to know him. 2 The origin of the doctrine

We should not think of the doctrine of the Trinity only as something that was elaborated by church councils after centuries of philosophi-cal and theological reasoning, although that reasoning did happen. Rather, the very first believers reflected on their own encounters with the working in their lives by the three persons of the Trinity to bring about salvation. Lane comments:

In the New Testament the economic Trinity is primary. God is known to be three because of his action for our salvation as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The immanent Trinity (God’s eternal being) follows from this on the ground that God’s revelation of himself is true to his real being. If we know the second person of the Trinity as the “Son” it is because Je-sus as a man enjoyed the relation of Son to the Father. (Lane 1982: 275)

Orthodox theologian Aristeides Papadakis agrees:

God is a Trinity of persons who is first met in Scripture as three agents of salvation and only then acknowledged as one God…For it was in the coming and revelation by Christ of His own person, or hypostasis, that the other two hypostases in turn are revealed and manifested to us. As such, the personal revelation of God in Scripture is the point of depar-ture for all Trinitarian theology. (cited in Kelly 2008: 522)



With this Torrance also concurs, saying, “The incarnational and saving self-revelation of God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit was traced back to what God is enhypostatically and coinherently in him-self, in his own eternal being as Father, Son and Holy Spirit” (Torrance 1991: 199). The gospel message, he says, that was passed on by the apostolic tradition is one in which each of the three persons of the Trinity is at the core of the Church’s essential faith and experi-ence. The Nicene theologians picked up on this apostolic witness to the Triune God, with the result that their Trinitarian theology arose directly out of their exegesis of New Testament passages as well as from the evangelical experience and liturgical life of the Church (Torrance 1991:198-99). Similar sentiment is expressed by the Orthodox theologian Stani-loae:

The revelation of the Trinity, occasioned by the incarnation and earthly activity of the Son, has no other purpose than to draw us after grace, to draw us through the Holy Spirit into the filial relationship the Son has with the Father. The Trinitarian acts of revelation are acts that…raise us up into communion with the persons of the Holy Trinity… A uniper-sonal god would not have within himself that eternal love or communion into which he would wish to introduce us… An incarnated God who was not the Son of a Father would not remain as person through rela-tionship with another person equal to himself. The humanity such a God had assumed would sink down within him as into some impersonal abyss and have no share in the love of the Son for the Father…”(cited in Kelly 2008: 261).

3 A loving community of persons

I have often contemplated what it means for humans to be made in God’s image. In what specific human traits do we find the image of God, such that it sets us apart from the rest of creation? Various as-pects of human personality such as creativity, communication, moral choice, and rational or abstract thought, are no doubt part of the an-



swer. But probably at the heart and core of it is the simple fact of our capacity to live in loving relationships. In fact, one of the harshest forms of legal punishment is solitary confinement, and one of the most difficult emotional conditions to bear is the feeling of having been abandoned. Augustine says in the first paragraph of his Con-fessions, “O God, you have made us for yourself, and our hearts are restless until they find their rest in you.” This is certainly true; but it is also true that God has made us like himself as relational beings, and for that reason we cannot find rest until we find it in relationship with him, a relationship that naturally also involves relationships with others who are in communion with him as well. Donald Fairbairn describes the heart of the Christian faith as a sharing in the eternal relationship between the persons of the Trinity, and particularly the eternal love between the Father and the Son. Human life, he says, was originally intended to be a sharing in the fellowship of the Trinity, drawing from and living out the relation-ship between the Father and the Son; it is that very relationship be-tween the Father and the Son that links God’s life to our own (Fair-bairn 2009: 37, 101). When the divine-human fellowship was breached by the fall, the mediatorial action of God’s eternal Son as a man brought believers back to God. This reversed the effects of the fall such that they could, through adoption, share once again in the eternal fellowship of love the Son had with the Father (Fairbairn 2009: 154, 136). Similarly, Peter Toon describes the communion that believers share with one another as flowing from “the commun-ion of the Father and the Son in the Holy Spirit, the Trinity of Holy Love” (Toon 1996: 193). 1 John 4:8 says, “God is love.” At the very least this should be taken to mean that God is loving. But much more is needed than that; whom does God love – people only? When did God begin lov-ing – when he created people to love? Staniloae points out that if God’s love were directed only toward created beings and not toward something eternal and infinite, his love would have had a beginning



and would therefore be contingent, thus causing an important change in God. That is, it would not be something essential to his being. But we can only explain the creation of beings that God loves on the basis of an eternal and infinite love, one that is bound up with God’s eternal existence (Staniloae 1980: 79). That eternal love can only be the love between the eternal persons of the Trinity, loving and de-lighting in one another. John Piper, following the thought of Puritan theologian Jonathan Edwards, speaks often of how God delights in himself. To say this of a human would remind us of the Greek myth of Narcissus who fell in love with his own reflection. But when we talk about God delight-ing in himself we must remember that we are talking about what Douglas Kelly calls “a loving community of persons.” If we can imagine the persons of the Trinity taking delight in one another, each loving the other in eternal relationship, the picture changes. God did not first begin to love only after he created people, which would be the case under a monistic or Unitarian view in which God is eternally alone prior to creation. As Toon comments, with reference to God, it is unthinkable to speak of an “I” without a “Thou” in God, for al-though God loves humanity with an everlasting love, humanity is not a proper vis-à-vis for God, the proper “Thou” for the “I” that God is. The “Thou” revealed in the New Testament is the Son of God. (Toon 1996: 111) If John’s statement in 1 John 4:8 is taken to mean that God is eternally characterized by loving relations within a community of co-equal persons, then the statement means that love and relationship have always been at the heart and core of all that exists (Kelly 2008: 273). Millard Erickson expresses agreement with this when he says that the Trinity must be considered as a society of persons, each bound so closely to the others in love that they are actually one. And this love is more than just an attribute, he notes, for as 1 John 4:8 tells us, love is a very basic characterization of who God is. It also means there has to be a multiplicity of persons, otherwise God could not have



been love prior to the creation of other subjects (Erickson 1995: 222-23). As John Frame has said, eternal love is a characteristic of God’s Trinitarian being. Since God does not exist without the three per-sons, love is therefore necessary to his nature. But this divine self-love is in fact self-giving, each of the members of the Trinity em-bracing and glorifying the others (Frame 2002: 416). Richard of St.Victor, a Scotsman who lived in twelfth century France, also observed that since love cannot be love unless it is di-rected toward another, charity cannot exist where a plurality of per-sons is lacking (De Trinitate 3.2). Elaborating on Richard’s thought in the light of 1 John 4:8, Kelly says that since God is love, and “the nature of love is overflowing and outgoing, it requires more than one person for such love to be expressed and returned. Thus, the one God has always existed in three persons – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit – One and Three; the ultimate community of love; the fount of life, light and blessing” (Kelly 2008:175). He further elaborates:

In the realm of persons, one does not have an ‘I’ without a ‘Thou’. That is to say, personhood is inherently relational. A strictly solitary, indi-vidualistic ‘person’ has never existed and could never exist on its own. It is the infinite, Triune God, an undivided community of Persons within Himself, who reveals Himself in creation and conscience to finite per-sons, who derive their personhood from his image. (Kelly 2008:175)

In fact, it is the meaning of divine Trinitarian personhood that is the basis for our own created personhood, bestowing on us signifi-cance not only for earthly life but also for the life to come (Kelly 2008: 485). What this means is that a purely monistic deity would have no basis within it for creating relational human beings, and human be-ings would have no solid basis for defining personhood other than their own finite experience, and certainly no transcendent basis for doing so. As relational beings, humans would be something that God is not, namely, persons, and they would experience something God



does not know apart from his creatures, namely, relationships. Again commenting on the thought of Richard of St. Victor, Kelly notes:

The true God has never existed as a single, solitary individual, ‘cut-off’ as it were, in lonely isolation within Himself. But rather, the inner being of the one true God has always consisted in a rich, personal diversity within that profound unit: for God ‘to be’ is ‘to be in relationship’ within Himself, an eternal relationship of three co-equal Persons within the one divine reality. (Kelly 2008: 274)

Torrance also reflects on how Richard of St. Victor understood the connection between Trinity and personality:

It was from a theological understanding of God’s personal and personal-izing self-communication, creating personal reciprocity between us and himself, that the Christian concept of the person arose, which is applica-ble in a creaturely way to persons in relation to one another, but which reflects the transcendent way in which the three divine Persons are inter-related in the Holy Trinity. (T..F. Torrance, 1982: 43-44)

Staniloae comments on the eternally perfect love that the divine persons have shared one to another such that the communion be-tween them could not possibly be any greater:

Were this not the case, the origin of all things would have begun from utmost separation, from absence of love. Love, however, presupposes a common being in three persons, as Christian teaching tells us… This unperfected love [i.e., of humans] between us presupposes, however, the perfect love between divine persons with a common being. Our love finds its explanation in the fact that we are created in the image of the Holy Trinity, the origin of our love. (cited in Kelly 2008: 322)

So we see that there is a strong logical and theological justifica-tion for concluding that God exists in eternal relationship, which also means that in the divine unity there are persons. But could this not be seen as tritheism? If each of the persons is truly and fully per-sonal, each having faculties of consciousness and communication, would that not mean that there are three gods? The answer to this challenge is found in the doctrine of perichoresis, also known as cir-



cumincession or coinherence, which states that the persons of the Trinity mutually indwell one another and coinhere in one another, as three distinct persons in full and complete harmony and unity. That is, there are three distinct centers of consciousness in one divine unity. Kelly comments on the preservation of individuality within the divine unity:

Although relationship with other persons is inherent in being a person, still there is something ‘irreducible’ or ‘incommunicable’ about oneself that is not dissolved, lost or merged in relationship with others. Hence, although Father, Son and Holy Spirit coinhere in one another, their dis-tinct conscious subjectivity is not lost in one another or merged into an impersonal unity” (Kelly 2008: 494).

Kelly concludes that Christian monotheism does not require an understanding of God as a monad, an indissoluble single subject (Kelly 2008: 504). We may conclude with Staniloae that the most meaningful unity is a unity in love between persons who retain their own individual identities, which is what we find in the Trinity (Staniloae 1980: 76). Another difference between understanding God as a monad and understanding him as a triune community of persons is that with the monistic view of Islam, God’s sovereignty means that he can change his mind at any moment about anything he has previously said, whereas within the biblical and Trinitarian conception of God, he can make a covenant with people and keep it. To be unpredictable would not be surprising for a God who had eternally existed all alone prior to creating the world and its inhabitants. But to be a covenant-making and covenant-keeping God makes sense if we understand him to be an infinite-personal and triune God who has eternally been in relationship, three co-equal persons knowing and loving one an-other within the eternal divine unity. The triune God can make promises and covenants with his creatures and be counted on to keep them because loving relationship is the normal mode within which he has always existed, and when he created humanity an integral aspect



of the plan by which and for which he made them was to live in lov-ing relationship with himself. Such a relationship inherently in-volves the making and keeping of commitments, and hence, predict-ability regarding his actions. Some twentieth century theologians have tended to minimize the full personhood of the members of the Trinity. In this regard Kelly mentions Karl Barth, and also Karl Rahner, who denied any distinct center of consciousness and will in each of the divine Persons. Kelly comments that Rahner’s reinterpretation of the Trinity as subsis-tences instead of objective persons weakens the Christian under-standing of being in “direct communion with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as real persons whom we can know personally in the ex-perience of salvation” (Kelly 2008: 506, emphasis in the original). Torrance likewise sees Rahner’s conception of the Trinity as lacking. He argues that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share in common a con-sciousness of divinity that is proper to the divine nature, but with each of the divine persons sharing in that consciousness differently and distinctively such that, in constituting “one indivisible God, they do so as three conscious Subjects in mutual love and life and activ-ity” (Torrance 1994: 97). Even human enjoyment of aesthetic pleasures has its roots in the mutual love of the three persons of the Trinity (Kelly 2008: 332-33). The capacity to delight oneself in what is good ultimately comes from the ultimate good, which is the triune God. Prior to creation, God’s eternal delight was in his own perfections, since nothing else existed, but that delight was a communally shared delight of mutual love between the persons of the Trinity. As Richard of St. Victor observed, because the sweetest delights are those drawn from the heart of another and not merely from one’s own heart, supreme hap-piness therefore requires at least a pair of persons (De Trinitate 3.27). It would seem, then, that in creating human beings in his own image, the triune God was graciously extending to new beings the ability to delight in who he is and in what he has made and done. God was



under no obligation to create, and when he did create, he was under no obligation to fill this world with an abundance of beauty, along with the aesthetic sense in humankind that could appreciate and be thrilled by that beauty. But he did in fact do both of those things. And why? True to his eternal nature, God created because of love, just as he redeemed because of love. The result of his creating and redeeming work is the thrill of loving worship by his human crea-tures who can turn their thoughts gratefully toward God, not only when they reflect on the gift of salvation but also whenever a beauti-ful sunset or anything else of beauty is seen, for God is the author of it all. So we see the logical necessity of the Trinity for our basic under-standing of human beings as persons in relationship, since relation-ship is not only our origin – in the holy Trinity – but also our destiny as believers in Christ. It is also a doctrine that is central to the his-toric Christian faith. As Monsignor Michael Magee says, “A thor-oughly relational understanding of the Trinity is nothing less than the specific difference that sets Christianity apart from all other religions as the one that uniquely invites human beings not simply to contem-plate God’s life but to partake of it.”2 As difficult as it is to commu-nicate, it is important that in our outreach to non-Christian people we not diminish or water down the doctrine of the Trinity by communi-cating it in terms that would be understood modalistically or in an Arian sense by people with little or no background in Christian thought. We must communicate the mystery of the full divine per-sonhood of all three members of the Trinity, the one true God. If we do not, we are undermining part of the foundation for the understand-ing of salvation itself, which is the work of not one but of all three persons of the blessed Trinity. Knowing God as he truly is will al-ways be the foundation and basis for all true worship. 2 Personal correspondence. Dr. Magee, formerly of the Vatican’s Congregation for Divine Worship, is chairman of the department of systematic theology at St. Charles Borromeo Seminary in Philadelphia, Pa., USA.



References

Erickson, Millard, God in three persons: A contemporary statement of the doctrine of the Trinity (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1995)

Fairbairn, Donald, Life in the Trinity: An introduction to theology with the help of the Church fathers (Downers Grove: InterVar-sity Press, 2009)

Frame, John M., The doctrine of God (Phillipsburg NJ: P and R Pub-lishing, 2002)

Kelly, Douglas, Systematic theology Vol 1: Grounded in holy Scrip-ture and understood in the light of the Church (Fearn, Ross-shire, Scotland: Mentor, 2008)

Lane, A. N. S., ‘Christology beyond Chalcedon’, in Rowdon, Harold H. (ed), Christ the Lord; Studies in Christology presented to Donald Guthrie (Downer’s Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1982)

Staniloae, Dumitru, Theology and the Church (New York: St. Vla-dimir’s Seminary Press, 1980)

Toon, Peter, Our triune God: A biblical portrayal of the Trinity (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1996)

Torrance, T. F., The Trinitarian faith (London: T and T Clark, 1991)

Torrance, T. F., Trinitarian perspectives: Toward doctrinal agree-ment (Edinburgh: T and T Clark, 1994)

Torrance, T. F., Reality and evangelical theology (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1982)

EXPLAINING THE TRINITY TO MUSLIMS

By n.n.1

1 Introduction

Mention the Trinity to a Muslim, and immediately conflict begins. ‘Do not say: “Trinity,”’ warns the Qur’an. “Stop saying that, it is better for you. Allah is only One Deity.”2 “If numerous gods ruled over the world,” explains Islamic Scholar, Musavi Lari, “and each of these gods acted and gave commands in accordance with his own will, the order of the universe would dissolve into anarchy.”3 Christians are often tempted to downplay the doctrine of the Trinity when with their Muslim friends. Yet, the task of explaining the Trin-ity to Muslims cannot be perpetually avoided. Muslims themselves frequently raise the topic in spiritual conversations with Christians. When they do so, it is our duty to give the reason for the hope that we have, with gentleness and respect.4 How, then, should we best prepare ourselves for this task? In, appropriately enough, three ways. Firstly, we must be personally convinced of the doctrine of the Trinity, as clearly taught in Scrip-ture. Secondly, we must recognise that the Trinity is foundational to the entire message of Good News that we hope to share. Thirdly, we must familiarise ourselves with practical ways of explaining the Trin-ity helpfully and accessibly to our Muslim friends. The three main sections of this paper correspond to these three needs.

1Writer prefers not to be acknowledged.2 An-Nisã’ 4:171. 3 Sayyid Mujtaba Musavi Lari, God and His Attributes: Lessons on Islamic Doctri-ne (trans. Hamid Algar; Potomac, Md.: IEC, 1989), p. 116. 4 1 Pet 3:15.



2 What is the Trinity?

Christian: take heart! You almost certainly understand the doctrine of the Trinity far better than you realise. For the doctrine of Trinity is simply the sum of three Biblical “building blocks”.

2.1 There is only one God

The Bible is consistently monotheistic. “Hear O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.”5 “You believe there is only one God. Good! Even the demons believe that – and shudder.”6 “For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”7 Theologians discuss the exact point at which this Biblical oneness is to be located.8 But all agree that, to remain faithful to the Biblical testimony, there must be no denial of oneness.

2.2 The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God

The Father is God: “... at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”9

The Son is God: “Thomas said to him, ‘My Lord and my God!’ Then Jesus told him, ‘Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen me and yet have believed.’”10

The Holy Spirit is God: “... you have lied to the Holy Spirit. […] You have not lied to men but to God.”11

5 Deuteronomy 6:4; see also Mark 12:29. 6 James 2:19. 7 1 Timothy 2:5. 8 See e.g. Ulrich Mauser, “One God Alone: A Pillar of Biblical Theology”, in Prin-ceton Seminary Bulletin 12:3 (1991), pp. 255-265. 9 Philippians 2:10-11. 10 John 20:28-29. 11 Acts 5:3-4.



Philosophers ponder how each Person of the Trinity can be in themselves fully God.12 But all agree that, to remain faithful to the Biblical testimony, there must be no denial of deity.

2.3 The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Spirit, the Spirit is not the Father

The Father is not the Son: “... the Father is greater than I.”13

The Son is not the Spirit: “Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear.”14

The Spirit is not the Father: “And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counsellor to be with you for ever – the Spirit of truth.”15 Scholars debate the precise nature of the relationships between the Persons of the Trinity.16 But all agree that, to remain faithful to the Biblical testimony, there must be no denial of difference.

2.4 Synthesis

Any Christian who is familiar with the Bible will have little difficulty affirming these three “building blocks” individually. When we begin putting these “building blocks” together in a way that remains faith-ful to each of them, we are attempting to construct the doctrine of the Trinity.

12 See e.g. Lewis Ayres, “The Fundamental Grammar of Augustine’s Trinitarian Theology,” in Robert Dodaro and George Lawless (eds), Augustine and his Critics (London: Routledge, 2000), pp. 51-76. 13 John 14:28. 14 Acts 2:33. 15 John 14:16-17. 16 See e.g. Michael Rene Barnes, “Augustine in Contemporary Trinitarian Theolo-gy”, in Theological Studies 56 (1995), pp. 237-250.



There is nothing suspicious in such a syntheses. Indeed, the pages of the Bible reveal that this process had already begun within the first century! The Lord Jesus commanded His disciples to “go and make disci-ples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,”17 hereby revealing that the three dis-tinct divine Persons share the single divine Name. The Apostle Paul taught the Corinthians that the divine Persons work inseparably, both in gifting and in blessing the church: “There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit. There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. There are different kinds of working, but the same God works all of them in all men.”18 “May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fel-lowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.”19 The Apostle Peter wrote to those “who have been chosen accord-ing to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood,” showing that the work of salvation is achieved through the joint activity of the three divine Persons. The Apostle John carefully worded his account of the Gospel, from the very first verse, to clearly communicate to his original Greek readers that, “although the person of Christ is not the person of the Father, their essence is identical.”20 “Here, then,” agrees theolo-gian Don Carson, “are some of the crucial constituents of a full-blown doctrine of the Trinity.”21

17 Matthew 28:19. 18 1 Corinthians 12:4-6. 19 1 Corinthians 13:14. 20 Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), p. 269 (emphasis original). 21 D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Pillar New Testament Commentary; Nottingham: Apollos, 1991), p. 117.



2.5 Summary

Trinitarian theology originates within, and is shaped by, the Bible itself. The early church councils of Nicaea, Constantinople and Chalcedon, far from attempting anything innovative, merely restated the Scriptural data in a contextualised way.22 This stood against those who, in constructing their own philosophically pleasing synthe-ses, implicitly or explicitly denied Biblical oneness,23 deity,24 or dif-ference.25 There is a mystery to the doctrine of the Trinity. How could it be otherwise, when we are considering the very nature of God? Yet this mystery comes at the level of “fitting the building blocks together”, not at the level of identifying the “building blocks” themselves. These three “building blocks” are clearly taught in Scripture. The doctrine of the Trinity can therefore be used as a helpful tool for spiritual diagnosis. “This is the one I esteem,” declares the LORD: “he who is humble and contrite in spirit, and trembles at my word.”26 A genuine believer will accept everything the Bible teaches, confessing that their sinful, finite mind may be unable to comprehend exactly how it all fits together, yet trusting that, in God’s mind, there is no inconsistency.27 3 Why is the Trinity important?

Anecdotally, accepting or rejecting the Trinity has sometimes been the turning point for people who are deciding between Christianity and Islam. I know of one Indonesian Muslim who converted to Christianity through reading the Athanasian Creed! Conversely, a 22 Richard Bauckham, God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Tes-tament (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1998), pp. 78-79. 23 E.g. Tritheism. 24 E.g. Arianism. 25 E.g. Sabellianism. 26 Isaiah 66:2. 27 Deuteronomy 29:29.



friend of mine in Egypt became a Muslim because she found the Trinity confusing. Such stories challenge us to reconsider the theo-logical significance of the Trinity. In doing so, we will discover that the Trinity is not a separate, self-contained theological package, but is integrally related to the entire Biblical worldview, outside of which the Good News is incoherent.

3.1 The Biblical Trinitarian worldview

God, existing from eternity as a relational, Trinitarian being, is thus, by nature, personal.28 Indeed, love is His very essence,29 and love longs to express itself.30 Consquently, it is natural for God to speak,31 that others might come to know Him.32 God therefore spoke to create a world that would disclose some-thing of His character.33 God displayed His personal nature in creat-ing and relating to men and women made in His image.34 God’s unity-in-diversity may also be seen in the development of richly var-ied cultures around the world.35 God further revealed Himself through His commandments. These are not an end in themselves: love is both the summary,36 and the fulfilment,37 of the law. Obedience is not about legalism, but “seek-ing God”.38

28 See Francis A. Schaeffer, He is there and He is not silent (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1972). 29 1 John 4:8. 30 Proverbs 27:5. 31 Schaeffer, He is there and He is not silent, p. 118. Cf. John 1:1. 32 John 1:18. 33 Romans 1:20. 34 Genesis 1:27. 35 Cf. Acts 17:26-28. 36 Mark 12:29-31. 37 Romans 13:8-10. 38 Psalm 119:10; cf. Joshua 22:5.



Sin, conversely, is no mere breach of an arbitrary and impersonal code. Rather, it is a personal rejection of God Himself,39 defaming His character and tacitly endorsing Satan’s slander.40 In this respect, then, those who break only a single commandment are as guilty as those who break many: all have personally offended the one divine Lawgiver.41 The just punishment for sin is appropriately framed relationally: banishment from God’s loving presence,42 to suffer His personal hostility forever.43 Once sin is understood relationally, the need for reconciliation becomes evident.44 It is the prerogative, however, not of the offend-ing party, but of the offended party, to determine the terms for re-stored fellowship.45 The sinner discovers, tragically, that his sin is so offensive to God that the possibility of reconciliation is now beyond his own reach.46 The Gospel is the good news that God has revealed His love for the world in a new way: by taking the initiative and acting on our behalf to restore fellowship with sinful man.47 In order to save us,48 God the Son became a man, the Lord Jesus Christ.49 As our human representative, the Son obeyed His Father vicariously in a perfect relationship of love.50 On Good Friday, Jesus also suffered the rela-

39 Deuteronomy 28:20; Jeremiah 2:13. 40 Genesis 3:1-5. 41 James 2:10-11. 42 Matthew 25:11-12. 43 2 Thessalonians 1:8-10; Revelation 14:10-11. 44 2 Corinthians 5:18-19. 45 Proverbs 18:19. 46 Romans 5:6; cf. Genesis 3:24. 47 John 3:16; Romans 5:10. 48 Matthew 1:21-24. 49 John 1:14. 50 John 10:17.



tional exclusion and death due to sinners.51 Then, on Easter Sunday, He was raised to life again, victorious over sin and death.52 The way back to God is now open for all who will believe.53 The Holy Spirit sovereignly regenerates our sin-hardened hearts that we might put our trust in Jesus,54 with the result that there is now no condemnation for those in faith-union with Christ Jesus.55 Baptism symbolises how Christ has died our death,56 and in relationship with Him we are now risen to newness of life, clothed in His perfect righteousness.57 We eagerly await the regenerated creation, in which we have been promised the blessing of unhindered relationship with God Himself,58 to know and love Him perfectly forever.59

3.2 The Qur’anic anti-Trinitarian worldview

By contrast, consider a worldview where the Trinity is vehemently denied. Allah exists from eternity as an undifferentiated monad.60 It follows, therefore, that his eternal nature is impersonal and unrela-tional. He cannot be known personally.61 Surprisingly, Allah speaks.62 Yet when he does so, he reveals not himself, but his law,63 through prophets whom he sends only to explain and to model it.64

51 Matthew 27:46. 52 1 Corinthians 15. 53 Mark 15:38. 54 John 3:6-8. 55 Romans 8:1. 56 Romans 6:4. 57 2 Corinthians 5:21. 58 Revelation 21:3-4. 59 1 Corinthians 13:12. 60 Al-Mã’idah 5:73. 61 Al-An‘ãm 6:103. Cf. Lari, God and His Attributes, p. 114: “[mental] concepts cannot, therefore, be used to gain knowledge of that Most Transcendent Reality. He is exalted above the possibility of being known by description, and whoever limits God with a given attribute has failed to gain any knowledge of Him.” 62 Www.answering-islam.org/authors/khoury/quran_impossible.html [11-04-2010].



These commandments, never intended to give any insight into an unchangeable divine nature, are not themselves of eternal signifi-cance. Allah may annul them at at any time,65 and when humans disobey them Allah is not personally offended: sin is simply weak-ness, and we are weak because Allah created us weak.66 It follows that forgiveness and atonement are of minimal impor-tance: there never was a loving relationship between Allah and hu-mankind in the first place, so it is meaningless to speak of a costly reconciliation. Humans appear to be of little consequence to Allah: he misleads whom he wills and guides whom he wills.67 He may choose to pun-ish humans for their weakness, or he may choose not to:68 to him, it seems to matter little either way. However, those who do enough good deeds might be able to win his favour and rescue themselves from damnation,69 for the ultimate human goal: a paradise of carnal pleasures.70 Either way, the imper-sonal god remains eternally distant and unknowable. In practice, many Muslims would disagree at varying points with the description of the Qur’anic faith as just presented. Such a re-sponse would evidence the work of God’s gracious hand that, in common grace, restrains our friends from the full logic of their posi-tion, and mercifully preserves in their hearts some knowledge of the true worldview.71 Those elements of truth not yet extinguished by sin will find their fulfilment only in the Gospel of Christ. 63 John L. Esposito, Islam: The Straight Path (Oxford: OUP, 1991), p. 24: “The Qur’an does not reveal God, but God's will or law for all creation.” 64 Al-Ahzãb 33:21. 65 Al-Baqarah 2:106. 66 An-Nisã’ 4:28. 67 Fãtir 35:8; Az-Zumar 39:23. 68 Al-Mã’idah 5:18. 69 Al-Mu‘minün 23:102-103. 70 Ar-Rahmãn 55:56, 70, 74; Al Wãqi‘ah 56:17-38. 71 Romans 1:20-28.



3.3 Summary

Christianity and Islam are fundamentally different religious systems, rising out of antithetical perceptions of God. A helpful analogy might be that of two trees growing side-by-side in a forest. In some places, the leaves of one tree may overlap those of the other, giving the impression to an observer from above that the two trees are really one. But, on closer inspection, every leaf will be found to stem from one or the other of two entirely separate structures. As Bavinck says: “There is no direct uninterrupted path from the darkness of paganism to the light of the gospel.”72 Apart from the “infinite-personal”73 Trinitarian God, there is no Gospel. This is exactly what the Bible would lead us to expect. The heart of false religions is the substitution of man-made idols in God’s place.74 Thereafter, we progressively suppress the truth and become like the gods we serve.75 The importance of explaining the Trinity to our Muslim friends is clear. The Gospel calls all people to turn “to God from idols to serve the living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead – Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath.”76 “How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?”77

72 J.H. Bavinck, An Introduction to the Science of Missions (trans. David H. Free-man; Phillipsburg, N.J.: P&R, 1960), p. 136. 73 See Schaeffer, He is there and He is not silent. 74 Romans 1:18-32. 75 Cf. 2 Corinthians 3:18. 76 1 Thessalonians 1:9-10. 77 Romans 10:14.



4 How should we explain the trinity?

As mentioned in the introduction, Muslims are often more willing than Christians to initiate discussions about the Trinity. In this sec-tion, then, we shall adopt the perspective of a Christian responding to questions raised by a Muslim friend. Obviously, the broad range of possible questions, combined with the fact that every person is dif-ferent, rules out any “one-size-fits-all” approach to explaining the Trinity. However, the Bible does give us general principles that will be of relevance in every case. Firstly, then, we shall consider the general Biblical principles that should guide the way a Christian answers any question. Then, we shall offer practical examples of how these principles may be applied in specifically Trinity-related conversations with “insincere” and “sincere” questioners.

4.1 The Christian approach to answering questions

The moment we are asked a difficult question, we feel the pressure to defend ourselves. Immediately, we have entered a dangerous spiri-tual position. Our sinful nature will tell us that the questioner is an opponent to be crushed: if we have a good answer ready, we will be tempted to exalt in our superior knowledge; if we don’t, we will be tempted to lash out in anger, or to belittle our opponent. Both re-sponses dishonour God,78 and also our Muslim friend – especially so if operating in an honour-shame culture. The passage, then, we must have ringing in our ears as we answer any question, is Eph 4:29: “Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen.” We who are righteous in God’s eyes have no business defending our-selves before men. Rather, we shall resolve to answer for the sole benefit of the person to whom we are speaking.

78 Proverbs 25:28.



But what will most benefit our non-Christian friend? 1 Cor 2 re-minds us of the futility of mere “eloquence” and “superior wis-dom.”79 “The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.”80 It is pointless to pursue our friend down philosophical rabbit-holes. Even if we could answer their questions perfectly, they would still remain spiritually blind.81 Their greatest need is faith. And “faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ.”82 The best way, then, to help our friend, is to prayerfully and gra-ciously keep relating the conversation back to the Gospel. Given the centrality of the Trinity to the entire Biblical worldview, as outlined above, this will prove easier than might have been expected. On the one hand, we may answer our friend “according to folly”,83 high-lighting how particular beliefs or actions of theirs are inconsistent with the Qur’anic anti-Trinitarian worldview they profess to hold; on the other, we may answer “according to wisdom,”84 showing how these same inconsistencies find their rightful place only within the Biblical, Trinitarian worldview, fulfilled in the Gospel. “Be wise in the way you act toward outsiders; make the most of every opportunity. Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer every-one.”85 Keep a smile on your face, and remember that sometimes the prudent answer will be an indirect answer or an illustration.86 But 79 1 Corinthians 2:1. 80 1 Corinthians 2:14. 81 Mark 8:18. 82 Romans 10:17. 83 Proverbs 26:5. See also www.germanreformationproject.org/apologetics.html (11-04-2010) 84 Proverbs 26:4. 85 Colossians 4:5-6. 86 Proverbs 26:16. Cf. Mark 11:27-12:12.



always “in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord.”87 Our goal is to win, not merely an argument, but a hearing for the Gospel: the truth spo-ken in love.

4.2 The insincere questioner

The insincere questioner is not ready to process detailed answers:88 he asks questions only to confirm his prejudices and to excuse him-self from having to think. He will not give you time to research your response and get back to him and, if you cannot reply instantly, he will feel vindicated in his own eyes, his heart hardening yet further to the Gospel. For the sake of the insincere questioner, then, we must be ready with brief responses prepared in advance that will disarm his most common objections and perhaps cause him to stop and think.89 Mar-tin Goldsmith wisely observes: “Right at the start of our witness to Muslims we may well find it necessary to show that we are not poly-theistic or carnal in our faith, so that the Muslim may feel free to ex-plore Christian truth with an open mind.”90

Q: “How can you worship Father, Mother and Son?”91 A1. Who told you that horrible idea?! No Christian has ever be-lieved such a thing – please, never mention such blasphemies in my presence again!

Q: “How can you believe in the Trinity – do you believe in three gods?” A1. Not at all – “belief in the unity of God is fundamental to Chris-tianity and the doctrine of the Trinity.”92 The Prophet Musa (Deuter-

87 1 Peter 3:15. 88 Proverbs 23:9. 89 Proverbs 26:4-5. 90 Martin Goldsmith, Islam and Christian Witness (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1982), p. 64. 91 Al-Mã’idah 5:116.



onomy 6:4) and the Lord Jesus Christ (Mark 12:29) both taught monotheism long before Muhammad.

Q: “How can you believe in the Trinity – it doesn’t make sense?” A1. Do you believe all of the Qur’an, or only the parts you under-stand? When I read the Bible, I believe everything God tells me, whether I understand Him or not. A2. Do you believe that God is great? Christians believe that God is greater than our minds can comprehend. “We cannot understand our own nature so it is not surprising that we cannot understand God’s.”93 A3. Do you believe that God is all-loving and free from need? This can only be true if God is Himself a community of Persons: if God were just one Person, He would have to depend on created beings in order to be able to express His love!

Q: “How can you believe in the Trinity – the word ‘Trinity’ isn’t even in the Bible?” A1. The doctrine of the Trinity is clearly taught in the Bible even though the word “Trinity” isn’t used. What do you make of this Bi-ble passage, for example?94 A2. How can you believe that Allah is “tawHid” (Islam’s concept of monotheism)? The word “tawHid” is never mentioned in the Qur’an.95

Q: “How can you believe in the Trinity – the Qur’an denounces it!” A1. “What the Qur’an denounces is the worship of three separate gods. The doctrine of the Trinity does not teach that.”96

92 Carey College, Christian Replies to Muslim Objections (2d ed.; Doncaster: Carey College, 1991), p. 32. 93 Carey College, Christian Replies to Muslim Objections, p. 32. 94 Then turn to a Bible passage that reveals Jesus’ divine identity, e.g. Mark 2:1-12; John 1:1; 10:30. 95 William J. Saal, Reaching Muslims for Christ (Chicago: Moody Press, 1993), p. 106. 96 Carey College, Christian Replies to Muslim Objections, p. 32.



A2. The Qur’an misrepresents the Trinity. Christians do not wor-ship Mary, “and to call Jesus a different god besides God is also he-retical.”97 A3. How can you believe the Qur’an when it misunderstands what Christians believe about the Trinity? The Qur’an’s erroneous view of the Trinity merely confirms the conclusion of critical scholars that the Qur’an is a human book, derived substantially from the teachings of unbelievers who had been exiled to Arabia for heresy.98

4.3 The sincere questioner

If the questioner sincerely wishes to know the answer to his question, he will be ready to consider a more comprehensive answer. There is no need here to resort to material analogies of the Trinity (ice-water-steam; 3-dimensional space; 3-leafed shamrock, etc). Not only are material analogies always flawed, they are also irrelevant: your Mus-lim friend is not yet at the stage of synthesising the doctrine of the Trinity. His confusion lies at the more fundamental level of accept-ing the “building blocks” themselves. Be sure, therefore, to explain that your belief in the Trinity rests firmly on what the Bible says. Then, look together at some of the relevant Bible verses. The sincere questioner will be happy to give you time to prepare in advance if necessary. Another possibility would be to pass this paper on to your Muslim friend and use it as a basis for discussion. Best of all, you could arrange to meet together regularly to study through an entire Gospel narrative in detail. If your friend is ready for this, and is particularly interested in the Trinity, the Gospel ac-cording to John would be an excellent place to begin, for throughout it has much to teach us about the Trinity, even from the very first

97 Carey College, Christian Replies to Muslim Objections, p. 32. 98 See e.g. St Clair-Tisdall, “The Sources of Islam,” in Ibn Warraq (ed), The Origins of the Koran: Classic Essays on Islam’s Holy Book (New York: Prometheus, 1998), p. 258.



verse. John chapter 5 may prove particularly fascinating for your Muslim friend, for there we see Jesus defending His own claims to divine identity from the Jewish blasphemy charge. The following notes, supplemented by a good commentary,99 may aid your study of this complex passage. 5 John 5:17-30100

The immediate context of this passage is Jesus’ healing of a crippled man on the Sabbath, as recorded in 5:1-16. When the religious lead-ers accuse Jesus of working on the Sabbath, Jesus defends Himself with a claim to divine sonship: “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working.”101 Jesus’ argument is that God works lawfully on the Sabbath, and a son can rightly do what his father does. The Jews, a fiercely monotheistic people, judge Jesus’ claim blas-phemous, and accuse Him of “making himself equal with God.”102 More precisely, their charge, echoing the sin of Eden,103 is that Jesus is proclaiming Himself a rival god, in direct breach of Biblical monotheism.104 In verses 19-23, however, Jesus corrects their misunderstanding. He is in no way a rival to God, for the very notion of sonship co-ordinates His relationship to the Father in such a way as to uphold Biblical monotheism.

99 I heartily commend Don Carson’s commentary in the Pillar New Testament Commentary Series. 100 These notes are based on lecture material delivered by Michael J. Ovey, Intro-duction to Christian Doctrine (CD 2.2), September-December 2009. 101 John 5:17. 102 John 5:18. 103 Genesis 3:5. 104 Daniel 4:35. Consider also Ayatullah Musavi Lari’s fear of polytheism, as ex-pressed in the quotation in the Introduction to this paper, that polytheism necessarily introduces conflict into the divine will.



Firstly, from Jesus’ point of view, the Son cannot be a rival, be-cause He is not independent from the Father: “The Son can do noth-ing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, be-cause whatever the Father does the Son also does.”105 Notice here, and again in verse 30, that this relationship is both harmonious and asymmetrical – priority always rests with the Father. Secondly, from the Father’s point of view, God loves His Son,106 and He has therefore entrusted to Him the prerogative powers of life-giving107 and judgment,108 desiring that “all may honour the Son just as they honour the Father. He who does not honour the Son does not honour the Father, who sent him.”109 Again, Jesus is no rival, but merely performs obediently the functions that His Father has en-trusted to Him. Verses 24-30 outline the salvific implications of this relationship: believing gives eternal life, but this believing is believing in both the Father and the Son – you cannot believe in one without believing in the other.110 The final judgment is similarly integrated – the Son judges only as He hears.111 There can be no “appeal” away from the Son to the Father. In sum: Jesus, in John 5, outlines an integrated, yet asymmetrical, Father-Son relationship, in which the two Persons are not independ-ent of one another, yet the priority of the Father is upheld. Jesus is no rival God, and Biblical monotheism is maintained. You cannot honour the Father whilst simultaneously dishonouring His Son.

105 John 5:19, cf. John 5:30. 106 John 5:20. 107 John 5:21. 108 John 5:22. 109 John 5:23. 110 John 5:24. 111 John 5:30.



6 Conclusion

‘Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”’112 The doctrine of the Trinity, being foundational to the Christian worldview, is essential to Christian discipleship, and so also to Chris-tian mission. May Christ, who sends us to the nations, give us the power of His Spirit to faithfully proclaim His saving Gospel, to the glory of God the Father. Amen. Bibliography

Ayres, Lewis, “The Fundamental Grammar of Augustine’s Trinitar-ian Theology”, in Robert Dodaro and George Lawless (eds), Augustine and his Critics (London and New York: Routledge, 2000), pp. 51-76.

Barnes, Michael Rene, “Augustine in Contemporary Trinitarian The-ology”, in Theological Studies 56 (1995), pp. 237-250.

Bauckham, Richard, God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1998)

Bavinck, J.H., An Introduction to the Science of Missions (Trans-lated by David H. Freeman; Phillipsburg, N.J.: P&R, 1960)

Carey College, Christian Replies to Muslim Objections (Rev. 2d ed. Doncaster: Carey College, 1991)

Carson, D. A., The Gospel According to John (Pillar New Testament Commentary. Nottingham: Apollos, 1991)

112 Matthew 28:18-20.



Esposito, John L., Islam: The Straight Path (Oxford: Oxford Univer-sity Press, 1991)

Goldsmith, Martin, Islam and Christian Witness (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1982)

Malik, Muhammad Farooq-i-Azam, The Meaning of Al-Qur’an: The Guidance for Mankind (Houston, Tex.: Institute of Islamic Knowledge, 2005)

Mauser, Ulrich, “One God Alone: A Pillar of Biblical Theology”, in Princeton Seminary Bulletin 12.3 (1991), pp. 255-265.

Nicole, Roger, “The Meaning of the Trinity”, in Peter Toon and James D. Spiceland (eds), One God in Trinity: An Analysis of the Primary Dogma of Christianity (London: Samuel Bagster & Sons, 1980), pp. 1-10.

Ovey, Michael J., Introduction to Christian Doctrine (CD 2.2), Sep-tember-December 2009.

Saal, William J., Reaching Muslims for Christ (Chicago: Moody Press, 1993)

Sayyid, Mujtaba Musavi Lar, God and His Attributes: Lessons on Islamic Doctrine (Translated by Hamid Algar. Potomac, Md.: Islamic Education Centre, 1989)

Schaeffer, Francis A, He is there and He is not silent (London: Hod-der and Stoughton, 1972)

St. Clair-Tisdall, W., “The Sources of Islam”, in Ibn Warraq (ed),_ The Origins of the Koran: Classic Essays on Islam’s Holy Book. (New York: Prometheus, 1998), pp. 227-292.

Wallace, Daniel B., Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegeti-cal Syntax of the New Testament with Scripture, Subject, and Greek Word Indexes (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996)

NARRATIVE AND METANARRATIVE IN CHRISTIANITY AND ISLAM1

By Duane Alexander Miller2

1 Metanarratives

A man goes to his doctor complaining about some stomach pains. The doctor runs tests and asks some questions, and he comes to the conclusion that his patient is suffering from indigestion, and must change his diet and take some medicine. Wanting a second opinion the man visits another doctor who, after a careful evaluation, breaks the bad news to him: his patient has an untreatable form of stomach cancer. Now even if both of these doctors have excellent staff, labs and training, only one of them will be successful in his attempt at a treatment, the one who diagnosed the patient correctly. If you begin with an incorrect diagnosis, no matter what you have going for you, you will not be able to end up with a successful treatment. I suggest that Islam and Christianity each have coherent metanar-ratives, and that in investigating the similarities and differences of these metanarratives we can gain important insights into the nature of both of these great diins.3

1 This paper is partially based on a series of three lectures I gave at Christ Church (San Antonio, Texas) in the winter of 2007-08, and mostly on a later, condensed version given at Nazareth Evangelical Theological Seminary (Nazareth, Israel) in May of 2009. At the behest of my colleague and friend, J. Scott Bridger, I have decided to put down on paper some of the main material from these lectures. 2Duane A. Miller teaches at Nazareth Evangelical Theological Seminary.3 I generally try to avoid using the word ‘religion’ in referring to Islam. Islam is certainly religious, but it is as political and juridical as it is religious. The concept of ‘religions’ is too tied to the context of Western secularism to be of much good to us. I prefer the Arabic diin, a gerund of the verb daan which means he judged. The con-cept of tying Islam and Christianity to this concept of judgment or discernment,



So what is a metanarratives? The prefix meta is Greek and means ‘after’. Thus Aristotle’s Metaphysics came after his Physics in one convention of ordering the philosopher’s volume. Similarly the metacarpal bones are in your hand, but after your wrist (carpus). So a metanarrative is a story that comes after every other story; it en-compasses, relativizes and situates every other story that came before it, whether that be a history of the State of Israel or the biography of St Thomas Aquinas or the conversion narrative of Paul. So this is the nature of the metanarrative, and I suggest that the little example I gave above about the two different diagnoses describes very well how Christianity and Islam qua metanarratives differ. In the second part of this paper, I will go a little into the topic of how the normative religious narratives (Scriptures) of these two diins relate to their metanarratives. Protology is not a very well known branch of theology, but if we are investigating metanarratives this is our place to start. Protology is the study of beginnings or first things and is every bit as important as its better known cousin eschatology (study of last things). Christianity and Islam both draw on variations of the Jewish crea-tion story, but in their own ways add their own variations. Creation ex nihilo is a strong tradition in both diins and would generally be considered orthodoxy. Where we start to find significant divergence then is not so much in the area of cosmology, but in the area of an-thropology: what is the human being? What is the relation of the human being to his creator? Here is the creation narrative as related in sura Ta Ha:4

We had already beforehand, taken the covenant of Adam, but he forgot: and We found on his part no firm resolve. (115) When We said to the angels, "Prostrate yourselves to Adam" they prostrated themselves, but not Iblis: he refused. (116) Then We said: "O Adam! Verily, this is an

reward and punishment, justice and injustice, good and evil, seems realistic and fair to me. 4 Ta Ha being the 20th Sura. The translation is that of Yusuf Ali.



enemy to thee and thy wife: so let him not get you both out of the Gar-den so that thou art landed in misery. (117) "There is therein (enough provision) for thee not to go hungry nor to go naked" (118) "Nor to suf-fer from thirst nor from the sun's heat." (119) But Satan whispered evil to him: he said "O Adam! Shall I lead thee to Tree of Eternity and to a kingdom that never decays?" (120) In the result, they both ate of the tree, and so their nakedness appeared to them: they began to sew to-gether, for their covering, leaves from the Garden: thus did Adam dis-obey his Lord, and allow himself to be seduced. (121) But his Lord chose him (for His Grace): He turned to him, and gave him guidance. (122) He said: "Get ye down both of you - all together from the Garden, with enmity one to another; but if, as is sure there comes to you guid-ance from Me, whosoever follows My guidance, will not lose his way nor fall into misery. (123) "But whosoever turns away from My Mes-sage, verily for him is a life narrowed down, and We shall raise him up blind on the Day of Judgment." (124)

Let us note a few things about Adam from this passage and oth-ers. One is that the language regarding Adam’s sin is much weaker than what we find in Genesis. Secondly, the results of Adam’s sin is nothing close to the devastating raft of curses levied on man, woman, the snake and the earth that Jews and Christians know. Thirdly, in this Adam narrative the focus is more on the sin of the angel Iblis. The fall is not so much the fall of mankind itself, but rather the be-ginning of a contest between God and Iblis. Fourthly, we find here two key terms that in many ways dominate the entire Islamic metanarrative: guidance and slavery. The fundamental difference between Islam and Christianity is then anthropological—or more precisely, hamartiological. Adam did sin, he was indeed punished, but in no way did his guilt develop into what Christians have variously called original sin or original stain. In the Adam narrative, as in Gen 3:15 and 3:21, we already have in-timations of how this narrative will play out. In the Qur’anic narra-tive God appears to simply forgive Adam, and then warns him to fol-low his guidance and not turn from his message. In the Genesis nar-



rative, however, we have hints that God will somehow conquer the serpent through Eve, and furthermore God himself sacrifices an ani-mal to provide garments for Adam and Eve indicating that their gar-ment of fig leaves was not sufficient for covering their nakedness. Both of these would become important images for the early Chris-tians as they struggled towards the formulation of the orthodox tradi-tion. The concept of guidance is a metatheme in Islam, just as redemp-tion is for Christianity, and they are both revealed in the respective Adam narratives. At least in terms of reading these diins as metanar-ratives this is the key difference, and everything else flows from it. It is the problem that sets the scene for everything that comes after. In Islam man is ignorant. Like Adam, he allows himself to be deceived. In Christianity, the very of icon of God has been marred to the point where there is no hope of self-repair: God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions (Ecc 7:29). In Islam Allah responds, as he said to Adam, by sending guidance, by sending messengers. Man does not know how to follow God; he is ignorant (jaahil), and so the period of Arab history before the Mes-senger is appropriately called ‘the ignorance’ or in Arabic al jaahili-yya. Sometimes God sends warners to a few extraordinary prophets (Moses, David, and Jesus). He actually sent down books. While the Qur’an never claims that the text of these books (The Torah, Psalms, and Gospels) were ever corrupted, that has become a basic teaching of Islam and is commonly accepted today. Thus something different must happen—an uncorruptable book must be sent down, and that is the Qur’an. This is indeed what we read at the beginning of the Surah Ta Ha: ‘We have not sent down the Qur’an to thee to be an (occasion) for thy distress, But only as an admonition to those who fear (Allah)…’ (vss 2-3). Here then is the apogee of the Islamic metanarrative and both the themes of guidance and slavery are pre-dominant: Some men will choose guidance as it is embodied in the Qur’an, and others will not. Their eternal fate rests on this obedi-



ence, this submission (islam) to the benevolent guidance of his crea-tor. They are slaves of God, not his friends or children. Thus sub-mission to God touches every part of life from diet to dress to speak-ing habits to banking laws to regulations on sex, brushing your teeth, and what to say before and after you urinate. To paraphrase the great Islamic thinker Sayyid Qutb, these laws are as much part of the fab-ric of the universe as are the laws of gravity or planetary motion. In the eschaton Islam will rule over the whole world, ignorance will be expunged from humanity, and the resurrected righteous will live for-ever. The Christian metanarrative, having started out with a much more damning diagnosis, cannot simply dismiss the source of evil in the world as ignorance. Even an exalted saint like Paul confesses with heartfelt grief his own inability to follow God’s law in Rom 7:

21So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22For in my inner being I delight in God's law; 23but I see an-other law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. 24What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I mysyelf in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.

In the Biblical metanarrative we find a couple of false starts. Maybe the children will do better than the parents? But then Cain’s fratricide disproves that. Maybe the correct way to redeem humanity is simply by destroying all sinners, as in the Flood? Again, it does not work. Perhaps God’s action of humbling the haughty nations at Babel will bring them to repentance? Again, there is no success. It is not until we reach the election of Abraham that we have more than a hint (as in Genesis 3) at the very lengthy path to the climax of this metanarrative. Abraham is elect of God not for his own sake, but for the sake of others. ‘Whom you bless I will bless, whom you curse, I



will curse,’ God tells him. He goes to the land that God shows him and dies there. God continues his mysterious work of election in calling Israel to be a people for him. But, as with Abraham, Israel is not elect for Israel’s sake but for the sake of the whole world. Indeed, there is in the preaching of John the Forerunner a sense of disgust at the self-importance of some Jews at being ‘sons of Abraham’. The hope of what Israel could have been and should have been (and eventually, in Christ, the new Israel actually became) is described in Isa 2:

1 This is what Isaiah son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem: 2 In the last days the mountain of the LORD's temple will be established as chief among the mountains; it will be raised above the hills, and all nations will stream to it. 3 Many peoples will come and say, "Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob. He will teach us his ways, so that we may walk in his paths." The law will go out from Zion, the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. 4 He will judge between the nations and will settle disputes for many peoples. They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore. 5 Come, O house of Jacob, let us walk in the light of the LORD.

This eschatological vision is different from what we find in Islam because here there is an actual meeting point with God. But Isaiah, at least in this passage, does not address the larger brokenness of man. His vision for Israel will not be accomplished, at least not in



terms of the geo-political categories with which he was familiar. The flaw and brokenness of the human being is such that no system of government or law is good enough so that the genuine shalom of God can be established. On the other hand, that is indeed what Islam claims of the shari’a: that it can establish the perfect law and perfect society here and now. The fulfillment of all the images we have seen comes in God’s Messiah: he is at once priest, king, and prophet. His teaching on the Kingdom and his unwillingness to establish a political order serve as a further indictment against the concept of Islamic shari’a. Is it too much to say that Jesus might see in a system like the shari’a a genu-ine idol? All the plans and designs of man are nullified in his cross. “Against the Word the unstilled world whirled.”5 This is the climax of the narrative: it is in the multi-parted movement of conception, birth, exile, ministry, death, resurrection, ascension and Pentecost that we find God’s full response to hamartiological problem of Gene-sis. The early church was aware of this dynamic. At first, every week, and then later, every year, it lived out all these events, writing the life of Jesus onto its time, and thus writing its own life into these movements of Messiah’s Advent. This liturgical practice gave the early church, which of course had its flaws, a certain dynamis that made it able to witness to God’s restoration of the broken icon, wrought in a way that Christians, by and large, are not able to. Could there be a connection between the sacrilization of the year and the ability to articulate the Gospel in terms other than only the cross, as is the way of evangelicals today? I would argue in the affirmative. But to get back to Islam: Because Islam starts with a different problem, the solution offered by Christians is, at best naïve, and at worse blasphemous. The sort of intimacy entailed in the period be-tween the Annunciation and the Nativity is outrageous—God’s own Son being carried inside this Jewish teenager’s body for nine

5 T.S. Eliot, ‘Ash Wednesday’, V.



months? When faced with persecution Muhammad fled to Yathrib. When faced with persecution Jesus did not flee, but went willingly with his captors. The Islamic year starts with Muhammad’s acquisi-tion of what would become plenipotentiary authority in Yathrib, the Christian calendar with (an approximation) of the birth of Jesus in poverty and scarcity. Here is what I would regard as very a fundamental disjunct be-tween Islam and Christianity: The Cross is itself the revelation of the absolute incapability of Empire and Temple to address the deepest needs of the broken icon. The cross reveals to us how the Temple and the Empire, when given free reign, actually kill God. How dif-ferent is this from Islam, where the proof of God’s choice of Muhammad was his ability to harness both Empire and Temple to his aims? We should not be surprised by this though: the polis is made up of people, and if our anthropology is different, then so will be our politic. “He has brought down rulers from their thrones, but has lifted up the humble.” This good news about God’s restorative work on his broken icon through Messiah is to be spread around the world. Here is a path to peace and forgiveness like the Islamic shari’a, but it is redolent with images foreign to the Islamic vocabulary. If the metatheme of Is-lam’s concept of the relation between man and God is that of slavery, then in Christianity it is that of filiation. Now the vocabulary of slavery is not foreign to Christianity, as we find with Paul’s language of being ‘slaves to righteousness’ or with Mary’s memorable accep-tance of Gabriel’s message—Behold the bondslave of the Lord (Lk 1:38 NAS).6 So here we do have, of sorts, a narrative bridge, a point of contact between Biblical narratives and Qur’anic narratives. But this must be qualified, because the slavery image is far from domi-nant in the NT. Flowing from Jesus’ unconventional insistence on

6 The most popular Arabic translation also uses the word slave: Ha ana 3abdat ur-rabb.



always referring to God as ‘my Father’ and reinforced in the prayer he taught his disciples, we find the language of filiation flourishing in both Pauline and Johannine material. Perhaps Muhammad’s lack of a father figure during his life, and the fact that all three of his sons died in their infancy, are important things to remember here. Jesus on the other hand, in addition to his growing awareness that his rela-tionship with God was uniquely close and intimate, appeared to have largely functional family, at least from the very little we know of his childhood. So that is another case of narrative influencing metanar-rative. And now for some notes on eschatology, which I will touch on only briefly because it is not my forte. Christianity and Islam both have diverse traditions on the eschaton but there is, in general, the vision that history is moving to a defined end where good will tri-umph over evil, all humanity will be resurrected and judged, and God’s sovereignty will be fully established over the world. One point of similarity here is resurrection. The common Western idea today is that people die and their souls go to be with God in heaven, and that is salvation. That sort of thinking represents a drastic and tragic departure from the very Semitic nature of the Bible (and the Qur’an for that matter) as well as the emphasis of the early church on the bodily resurrection. So fundamental was this concept that it made itself into the single most wide-spread, oft-used and pan-ethnic summary of the Christian faith ever: the Apostles’ Creed. The use of this creed is baptistic: when one wants to be baptized, this is the summary of the non-negotiables. There’s nothing in there about the Tribulation or the Rapture or whether Job is an allegorical or histori-cal figure or what have you. It does contain, in all its brevity, a statement about the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Furthermore, souls don’t go floating around in heaven forever, rather the body is resurrected and the City of God descends from heaven to earth:



1Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. 2I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. 3And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God him-self will be with them and be their God. 4He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away." (Rev 21)

Islam also foresees a resurrection and a paradise for those who have been granted entry. But is there the same closeness entailed in any Islamic eschatological view? I don’t know, but we do see in the famous Throne Verse (2:255) the sort of mysterious unknown that Christians think of when they quote Paul (who was quoting Isaiah): “No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him.” (1 Cor 2:9) And here is the Throne Verse (Pickthall):

Allah! There is no God save Him, the Alive, the Eternal. Neither slumber nor sleep overtaketh Him. Unto Him belongeth whatso-ever is in the heavens and whatsoever is in the earth. Who is he that intercedeth with Him save by His leave? He knoweth that which is in front of them and that which is behind them, while they encompass nothing of His knowledge save what He will. His throne includeth the heavens and the earth, and He is never weary of preserving them. He is the Sublime, the Tremendous.

Perhaps there is a connection here in the eschaton. How much work has been done on comparing the concept of everlasting life be-tween the two diins? Famously, Islam has a doctrine of the return of Jesus, son of Mary, and some have suggested that in this we have fertile ground for deeper conversations. I am a little suspicious about this though - the eschatological traditions regarding Jesus (and Al Dajal, the antichrist) in the various ahadiith and Islamic jurists are all over the place. The idea of the everlasting life and possibility of



some sort of immanence of God seems more like fertile ground. Let us also remember that both the Orthodox soteriology of Theosis and the Sufi tradition of merging or becoming lost in God’s being seem close enough to warrant further research and conversation. 2 Narrative

Now I want to turn a little to the topic of specific narratives: not the overarching metanarratives, but specific texts and episodes of both diins. The supreme text for both is their Scripture, but there are his-torical documents and events that forever influenced them as well: what if Arius had been acquitted of heresy; what if Revelation and Hebrews had not been included in the New Testament; what if the Mu’atazila had triumphed over the Asharites? What if… I have already mentioned a few narratives that have influenced and helped to shape the metanarrative of the two: regarding Islam, for example, the family situation of the Prophet and his flight from Mecca; regarding Christianity we could mention how it incorporated, very quickly, numerous ethnic and linguistic groups. This, in turn, meant that while it would retain elements of its Greco-Roman-Judaic birth milieu, it would also prove to be extraordinarily malleable in terms of its ability to make itself at home in different cultures. I would like to suggest here two narratives that, in my mind, over-lap quite significantly. If someone wants to build common ground with Muslims, focusing on what is agreed on ab initio rather than stressing differences (and I have mentioned numerous such differ-ences), then I would suggest talking about Mary and natural revela-tion. Mary is the only woman mentioned by name in the Qur’an. In-deed she has an entire sura named after her. She is also one of the few people in the Qur’an whose character has any depth. The char-acters in the Qur’an are often marshaled out, not for the sake of tell-ing their story but as an example of divine wrath and thus a warning for people to listen to God and his Prophet; or, as an example of



steadfastness and perseverance and faith in God, which is an occa-sion for encouragement to Muhammad or the Muslims. It is not common to see much in the way of character development, certainly nothing like what we have with the detailed if sometimes baffling personalities of Abraham, Moses, Joshua, Ruth, Samuel, David, Je-sus, and Paul. Even lesser characters like Hosea and Habakkuk have their lives laid open before us in the Bible. In any case, Mary actu-ally has a bit of depth in Qur’an, with her surprised reaction to the angel, her later despair as she gives birth (apparently alone), her re-jection by her own people who doubt her purity, and the unexpected vindication from the Prophet Jesus who speaks as a baby and defends his mother. This is the account according to Sura 19 (Maryam, Yu-suf-Ali translation):

Relate in the Book (the story) of Mary, when she withdrew from her family to a place in the East. (16) She placed a screen (to screen herself) from them: then We sent to her Our angel, and he appeared before her as a man in all respects. (17) She said: "I seek refuge from thee to (Allah) Most Gracious: (come not near) if thou dost fear Allah." (18) He said: "Nay, I am only a messenger from thy Lord (to announce) to thee the gift of a holy son." (19) She said: "How shall I have a son, seeing that no man has touched me, and I am not unchaste?" (20) He said: "So (it will be): thy Lord saith `That is easy for Me: and (We wish) to appoint him as a Sign unto men and a Mercy from Us': it is a matter (so) decreed." (21) So she conceived him, and she retired with him to a remote place. (22) And the pains of childbirth drove her to the trunk of a palm-tree: she cried (in her anguish): "Ah! Would that I had died before this! Would that I had been a thing forgotten and out of sight!" (23) But (a voice) cried to her from beneath the (palm-tree): "Grieve not! For thy Lord hath provided a rivulet beneath thee; (24) "And shake towards thy-self the trunk of the palm-tree: it will let fall fresh ripe dates upon thee. (25) ‘So eat and drink and cool (thine) eye. And if thou dost see any man say “I have vowed a fast to (Allah) Most Gracious, and this day will I enter into no talk with any human being.”’ (26) At length she brought the (babe) to her people, carrying him (in her arms). They said: "O Mary! Truly an amazing thing hast thou brought! (27) "O sister of



Aaron! Thy father was not a man of evil, nor thy mother a woman un-chaste!" (28) But she pointed to the babe. They said: "How can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle?" (29) He said: "I am indeed a servant of Allah: He hath given me revelation and made me a prophet; (30)" And He hath made me Blessed wheresoever I be, and hath enjoined on me Prayer and Charity as long as I live; (31)" (He) hath made me kind to my mother, and not overbearing or miserable; (32)" So Peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die and the day that I shall be raised up to life (again)"! (33) Such (was) Jesus the son of Mary: (it is) a statement of truth, about which they (vainly) dispute. (34) It is not befit-ting to (the majesty of) Allah that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! When He determines a matter, He only says to it "Be", and it is. (35)

I have included the last section because, again, as is often the case in the Qur’an, the purpose of the inclusion of this narrative is to vin-dicate the Prophet Muhammad against his adversaries, in this case Christians of some sort. This leads to a further question though—why stop with Mary and not go on to Jesus in terms of a narrative bridge between the two di-ins? Certainly, that is an option down the road, but in my experience Jesus is ab initio recognized as contested ground between Muslims and Christians; Mary is not. You mention Jesus and right away you have to choose to use either his Islamic name or his Christian name. Unfortunately, the very name, and which one you choose, can lead to all sorts of barriers being put up. Mary has one name—Maryam, just like the Hebrew. When speaking with Muslimaat especially I feel this is a possible starting place, and certainly here in Nazareth where we live. The other thing about Jesus is that ultimately one has to compare him with Muhammad. That can be very sensitive and hard for a relationship. That is not to say don’t ever go there, but rather beware and be sensitive to the worldview of your Muslim interlocu-tor. The second bridge is natural revelation. The Qur’an is replete with references to the ayat or signs of God. Mary and Jesus are two



ayats (unique among humanity—not even Muhammad is called an ayat). But also, nature is filled with signs that demonstrate the power and authority of God. Indeed, one’s eternal fate is tied to her reac-tions to these signs: "But those who reject Faith and belie Our Signs, they shall be Companions of the Fire; they shall abide therein” (2:39). Muhammad explained to Jews and Christians, who requested a miracle to verify his prophetic claims, that each verse in Qur’an was a sign; indeed, as we would say “verse 23:6”, in Arabic we say, “aya 23:6”. The Shi’a title ‘ayatollah’ literally means, sign of God. But there is a special place in nature for the signs of God:

Behold! In the creation of the heavens and the earth; in the alternation of the Night and the Day; in the sailing of the ships through the Ocean for the profit of mankind; in the rain which Allah sends down from the skies, and the life which He gives therewith to an earth that is dead; in the beasts of all kinds that He scatters through the earth; in the change of the winds, and the clouds which they trail like their slaves between the sky and the earth; (here) indeed are signs for a people that are wise. (2:164, Yusuf-Ali)

Compare this with Psalm 19:1-6:

1 The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. 2 Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. 3 There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. 4 Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world. In the heavens he has pitched a tent for the sun, 5 which is like a bridegroom coming forth from his pavilion, like a champion rejoicing to run his course. 6 It rises at one end of the heavens and makes its circuit to the other; nothing is hidden from its heat.



God’s power to resurrect is also a sign:

Or (take) the similitude of one who passed by a hamlet, all in ruins to its roofs. He said: "Oh! How shall Allah bring it (ever) to life, after (this) its death?" But Allah caused him to die for a hundred years, then raised him up (again). He said: "How long didst thou tarry (thus)?" He said: "(perhaps) a day or part of a day." He said: "Nay, thou hast tarried thus a hundred years; but look at thy food and thy drink; they show no signs of age; and look at thy donkey: and that We may make of thee a Sign unto the people Look further at the bones, how We bring them together and clothe them with flesh! When this was shown clearly to him he said: "I know that Allah hath power over all things." (2:259 Yusuf-Ali)

This, curiously, is not that different from the point that Paul made to the Athenians regarding Jesus’ resurrection, except that he con-nected the resurrection to the soon-to-come judgment: “In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead” (Acts 17:30, 31). The topic of the nature of God’s signs in the Qur’an could be ex-tended at length, but I have tried to establish that the concept of natu-ral revelation, God revealing his glory and power to the world through what he has done and made, is a strong commonality in both metanarratives. 3 Conclusion

When we examine the metanarratives of Islam and Christianity we find that the fundamental difference, at least in terms of chronologi-cal story telling, is anthropological. The Creating God is similar if not the same, but when we arrive at the topic of man and the nature of man, we end up with two opinions: original sin or original inno-cence. And that choice means everything. The commitment to one of the two paths will lead to a diagnosis of ignorance and a solution



of religio-political empire; the other commitment will lead to the scandalous doctrines of the incarnation, Trinity and atonement. Notwithstanding that, there are commonalities in the discrete nar-ratives that resist the temptation to totally label someone as Other. I have suggested briefly that Mary and the natural revelation/the Signs of God are reasonable arenas for conversation and fellowship.

THE AREOPAGUS: A STUDY IN CONTINUITY AND DISCONTNUITY

By John Span1

1 Introduction

Acts 17:16-34 provides us with a story that can be read in two min-utes, and for which scholars have used copious quantities of ink and saliva for the last two millennia. Adolph Deissmann, a noted NT scholar, called it "the greatest missionary document in the New Tes-tament…a manifesto of worldwide importance in the history of relig-ions and of religion”.2 Following the tradition of another German scholar named Dibelius (1939), some see this as the text-book exam-ple of relating to non-Chrisitan religions by what they see as Paul’s focus on bridge-building, seeking common ground, cultural accom-modation and building on their foundations. On a continuum this might be encapsulated by the word “continuity”. More recently, what some have perceived as a skewed emphasis on continuity has come under considerable scrutiny. One author entitled this trend as “a bridge too far”. This has resulted in studies to show that the set-ting and unfolding of the Areopagus scene was much more confron-tational than previously thought. This might be encapsulated as “dis-continuity”.

1 John Span is a missionary in West Africa with Christian Reformed World Mis-sions.2 Adolph Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East: The New Testament Illustrated by Recently Discovered Texts of the Graeco-Roman World (2nd ed., trans. Lionel R. M. Strachan, Twin Brooks. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1978; orig. 1927), p. 384, cited in J. Daryl Charles, "Engaging the (Neo-)Pagan Mind: Paul's Encounter with Athe-nian Culture as a Model for Cultural Apologetics (Acts 17:16-34)", in Trinity Jour-nal 16 NS (1995), p. 47.



Examples of books originating in the Arabic world that stress ‘continuity’ might include those by the Lebanese-born Fouad Accad, author of Building Bridges: Christianity and Islam, and the life of the Syrian, Mazhar Mallouhi by Paul Gordon Chandler entitled Pilgrims of Christ on the Muslim Road: Exploring a New Path Between Two Faiths. Note the stress on convergence. On the other hand books like those of the Turkish-born Emet and Emir Caner’s Unveiling Islam: An Insider's Look at Muslim Life and Beliefs, the Egyptian-born Mark Gabriel’s book, Jesus and Moham-med, the Palestinian-born Mosab Hassan Yousef’s Son of Hamas and the Lebanese Georges Houssney’s site www.biblicalmissiology.org much more strongly emphasize discontinuity. In fairness to all, the accent should be on the weight given to either tendency, and not to see this in completely black or white categories. The purpose of this paper is to explore the continuum of continu-ity and discontinuity, and to show that in his apologetic strategy at the Areopagus Paul actually used both. Recent studies which inves-tigate the themes of idolatry and a theology of religions in the pas-sage will be considered while giving adequate attention to its narra-tive genre. The paper will illustrate the truth of 1 Cor 1:21 at the Areopagus: "For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe." Finally, this paper will draw the same conclusion that Mark Shaw drew, namely, "religion represents a rebellious response to God whose glory is arrayed before them in nature, history and con-science."3

3 Mark Shaw, "Is There Salvation outside the Christian Faith?", in East Africa Jour-nal of Evangelical Theology Vol 2 No 2 (1983), p. 55, cited by William J. Larkin Jr., "Mission in Acts", in Mission in the New Testament: An Evangelical Approach, American Society of Missiology series, 27 (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1998), p. 183.



2 The setting in Acts

As much as the book has been termed the Acts of the Apostles, it is in essence the Acts of the Triune God, and this is a story attesting to that. The book details the unstoppable - in spite of increasing oppo-sition - advance of the gospel, the Word of salvation empowered by the Holy Spirit in ever widening circles, starting from Jerusalem and reaching, in this particular story, to Athens.4 In a word we see the accomplishment of Isa 45:22 which reads: "Turn to me and you will be saved, you who are from the end of the earth (LXX version); for I am God, there is not another" Acts had a human author, namely Luke the physician. He is all at once an historian, a theologian, and a littérateur or a skilled writer. He is steeped in OT scripture, knows local culture, and is creative and most of all inspired by a Divine Author. We will find contribu-tions of each of these woven together in the Areopagus passage. As the second part of the Luke-Acts duo, we would expect to find theological themes prominent in Luke in Acts as well. Two major themes emerge in recent studies by David Pao and Kavin Rowe. Pao shows that Luke depends heavily on Isaiah for his theology and drawing from Isa 44-55 develops an “anti-idol polemic”. He shows that in the first Exodus YHWH showed his sovereignty over the gods of Egypt and subsequently delivered his people from bondage. Simi-larly Isaiah picks up the same theme of God delivering his people from the bondage of idolatry, idol makers, foreign gods and foreign rulers. This is the theme that Luke picks up to show the power of the Word of the risen Christ to deliver in an Exodus-like manner those held in spiritual bondage to Satan, encapsulated by the image of idols.5 We will define idolatry as G.K. Beale does, as “anything the heart clings to as ultimate security”.6

4 Cf. Isa 49:6 and its allusion in Acts 1:8, and direct quotation in Acts 13:46-47. 5 David W. Pao, Acts and the Isaianic New Exodus. Wissenschaftliche Unter-suchungen zum Neuen Testament, 130 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000). Also,



In his investigation of the Christology of Luke and also in his subsequent analysis of Acts, entitled World Upside Down, Kavin Rowe helps to give a deeper understanding of Luke-Acts. In re-sponse to the question, “Who is God in Luke?”, he shows that Jesus as Lord and Master is at the center of the answer. This sets the stage to see that Paul will not just be preaching something about a god out there and what he has in common with all the gods out there, and then call it a day. Christ the Lord (kurios) sets the stage.7 In his second Templeton prize-winning work, Rowe shows that “Luke aims at nothing less than the construction of a new culture - a total pattern of life - that inherently runs counter to the constitutive aspects of Graeco-Roman society.” He thus prepares the reader for the fact that the Areopagus speech must and will “turn the world upside down”.8 Luke’s description of foreign religions in the book of Acts follows that of a posture dramatically illustrated in the Exodus. Isaiah mir-rors this attitude. Lacking are the ideas that all religions lead to the same God, or even that Christianity has its antecedents in other relig-ions. In his “Jesus Against the Idols” Dennis Johnson points out that “the stance of the Lord’s witnesses toward other religious options is one of antithesis, not syncretism, or compromise.”9 The Christians and Jews thus were known as “atheists” in the pantheistic, polytheis-tic Graeco-Roman world, because they refused to acknowledge the

G.K. Beale, We Become What we Worship (Downer’s Grove, Ill: IVP Academic, 2008). 6 Beale, We Become What we Worship , p. 279. 7 Christopher K. Rowe, Early Narrative Christology: The Lord in the Gospel of Luke [reprint of deGruyter, 2006] (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic, 2009), p. 201. 8 Christopher Kavin Rowe, World Upside Down: Reading Acts in the Graeco-Roman Age (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009). 9 Dennis E. Johnson, “Jesus against the idols : the use of Isaianic servant songs in the missiology of Acts”, in Westminster Theological Journal, 52 No 2 (Fall 1990), p. 352.



existence of other gods.10 That said, it will be observed that in this speech there was also judicious use of communication tools even to promote the scandal of the cross. This has a precedent in the Exodus story where Moses used a common Egyptian term “the deity says” and radically changed its content by saying “YHWH says”, to prove it showed that “YHWH does.” Paul, in other biographical descriptions in Acts, shows how God took him from being a persecutor of Christians to one of its primary advocates. He serves as a living and breathing witness, one might say legal representative of the ascended King Jesus (Acts 26:16).11 In the parallel passage Acts 9:15, Paul also describes his conversion and calling in ways that are reminiscent of the Old Testament proph-ets, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and Isaiah.12 Echoes of OT prophetic procla-mation should be expected through the apostle Paul who, once blind in sin himself and in fulfillment of the words of Isaiah, was to “go and open the eyes of the gentiles” (Isaiah 49:6). In the words of Fla-vien Pardigon, the Areopagus sermon “depicts the Apostle Paul as the Isaianic Servant of the Lord who serves as witness in Yahweh’s eschatological lawsuit against the idols and their worshippers.”13 Paul and his band were known as “these men who have turned the world upside down […] are all acting against the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another King, Jesus” (17:6ff). At times they were thus seen as potential political subversives, and at others in confor-mity with the law; they were both, and were always seen as change 10 Joel Marcus, “Paul at the Areopagus : window on the Hellenistic world”, in Bibli-cal Theology Bulletin, 18 No 4 (O 1988), p. 145. 11 Edward Fudge, "Paul's Apostolic Self-Consciousness at Athens", in Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 14 (1971). 12 Kenneth D. Litwak, “Israel's prophets meet Athens' philosophers: scriptural echoes in Acts 17: 22-31”, in Biblica Vol 85 No 2 (2004), pp. 199-216. 13 Flavien Pardigon, ‘Paul Against the Idols: The Areopagus Speech and Religious Inclusivism’, in Westminster Theological Journal. Volume 70, No 2, (Fall 2008) p. 374 (Abstract doctoral dissertation. See fn. 28.



agents. This included the sphere of religion, as no place was the same after they arrived. Paul and his companions go so far as to tear their clothes at the blasphemy of being objects of false worship (Acts 14:14), to incite a major book burning in Ephesus, and to get thrown out of multiple synagogues even as they are casting out demons along the way. In this passage Paul will be found in the city named after Athena, the Greek goddess of wisdom. The Areopagus passage is one of a number of speeches by Paul in Acts which have been classified as “mission speeches” to Jews (Acts 13) and to Gentiles (Acts 14, 17), and “defense speeches” (Acts 22-28). They were designed, as Walter Hansen points out, to show that they were proclamation of “the word of God and to make the resur-rection of Christ their focal point.”14 It has been called a “missionary sermon in the Judaeo-Christian tradition”15 or a piece of “subversive storytelling.”16 It is also one of three notable pieces which engages with the idea of general revelation or natural theology, namely Acts 14: 15-17 with the Lycaonians, Rom 1:18-23 and the present one. Since the letter was written to “the most excellent Theophilus”, likely an actual person also known as a ‘lover of God,’ we would likely find clues in the story of how believers reading this story in the early church would find a source of encouragement for the validity of their faith in the context of a pluralistic culture, “…so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught” (Luke 1:3-4). This audience, likely converted Jews and Gentiles, would have been 14 G. Walter Hansen "The Preaching and Defense of Paul", in I. Howard, Marshall and David Peterson (eds), Witness to the Gospel: The Theology of Acts (Grand Ra-pids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998), p. 295. Others have noted that there are three major speeches, notably one to a Jewish audience (13:16–41), one to a Christian audience (20:17–35), and one to a pagan audience (17:16–34). 15 Gary Thomas Meadors, “The Areopagus Address: A Judaeo-Christian Missionary Sermon” (Diss. MTth: Grace Theological Seminary, 1979). 16 Brian Godawa, “Storytelling as Subversive Apologetics: A New View from the Hill in Acts 17”, in Christian Research Journal Vol 30 No (2007). http://journal.equip.org/articles/storytelling-as-subversive-apologetics (2010/4/7).



versed in the Hebrew Scriptures and would be sensitive to echoes and allusions to the Old Testament. Finally this story was written by the Divine author for the edifica-tion of the universal and apostolic church throughout history, and one would anticipate that it would be instructive for “teaching, for re-proof, for correction, and for training in righteousness” (2 Tim 3:16).

3 The Geographical Setting

Athens was the city where, according to Petronius, it was easier to find a statue of a god than a person. It was a center of Greek culture with no shortage of philosophers, authors, temples and statues. F. F. Bruce described it:

The sculpture, literature and oratory of Athens in the fifth and fourth Centuries…remain unsurpassed. In philosophy, too, she took the lead-ing place, being the native city of Socrates and Plato and the adopted home of Aristotle, Epicurus, and Zeno. Her cultural influence in the Greek world is also seen in the fact that it was the Attic dialect of Greek, spoken at first over a very restricted area as compared with Ionic and Doric, that formed the base of the later Hellenistic speech (Koine). It was at this time a leading center of learning; in modern idiom we might describe it as a great university city.17

Centuries earlier Cicero had described Athens as the city “whence derive education and science, belief in the gods and agriculture, jus-tice and law, a city so highly respected that the faded name of Greece, now well nigh extinguished, is held aloft only by the fame of Athens.”18 In modern day words we might describe Athens as a uni-

17 Frederick Fyvie (FF) Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1990), pp. 375-376. 18 Hans-Josef Klauck, Magic and Paganism in Early Christianity: The World of the Acts of the Apostles (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2003), p. 74, citing Cicero’s Pro Flacco (‘On behalf of Flaccus’), p. 62.



versity city with a good dose of “government sponsored/enforced religious pluralism.”19 Thus the monotheistic, Trinitarian Paul is coming to a place where he will likely collide with the civic intolerance of his religion. Unlike them, he is zealously intolerant of many gods and proposes one only. From a Biblical viewpoint, then, Athens is a place of darkness, where the light of Acts 13:47 (=Isa 49:6) needs to set the Gentiles free, for its philosophical ideas are called “foolishness” when compared with God's wisdom (1 Cor 1:17-25; 3:19).

4 The dramatic setting

Since we are dealing with a narrative passage, rules for interpreting this genre must come into play.20 Kenneth Litwak has provided a helpful study by showing that Luke used a tool called “framing in discourse” to set the stage for the story. He compares this to a child hearing two different story introductions. The first reads, "It was a dark and stormy night…"; the second, “Once upon a time…” Obvi-ously the reader will not anticipate a fairly tale in the first, nor a de-tective/mystery story in the second; quite the inverse.21

While Paul was waiting for them in Athens, Paul's spirit was provoked in him as he saw (theo-réō-) that the city was full of idols (17:16)… For as I passed along and observed (anatheo-reo-) the objects of your wor-ship, I found… (vs. 23)

Paul reported to the Areopagus that he had made careful observa-tion and paid attention to the details (anatheo-reo-) of the city and its 19 D.A. Carson, “Athens Revisited”, in D. A. Carson (ed), Telling the Truth: Evange-lizing Postmoderns (Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2000), p. 389. 20 Beverly Roberts Gaventa suggests, “An attempt to do justice to the theology of Acts must struggle to reclaim the character of Acts as narrative.” See “Towards a Theology of Acts”, in Interpretation, 42 No 2 (Ap 1988), p. 150, cited by Hansen, p. 296. 21 Litwak, “Israel's prophets meet Athens' philosophers: scriptural echoes in Acts 17: 22-31”, p. 210.



objects of veneration (sébasma).22 This follows the form of classical travel accounts known as periēgēsis where according to Hans-Joseph Klauck,“A foreigner enters a city or a sanctuary and wanders around looking at statues, altars and images. He asks passers-by what these mean, providing an opportunity to insert anecdotes and excursus.”23 The key word that frames this discourse then is the word, paroxúnetō. When Paul saw that the city was ‘submerged in its idols’ kateídōlon (so Stott)24, ‘overgrown with idols’ or a ‘veritable forest of idols (so Barrett), he had a paroxysm.25 Literally, his guts

22 Anatheōreō BAGD: to examine something carefully, look carefully at ; EDNT: to look at again and again . Sébasma BAGD: something that relates to devotional activity, devotional object. The same, commenting on vs. 23, “The pl. together with the verb anatheōreō refers to the total visual impact of a city full of cultic monu-ments.” In Jewish writings this word carries a negative connotation. The Wisdom of Solomon (15.16-17) reads, “For no man succeeds in fashioning a god like him-self; being mortal, he makes a dead thing with his lawless hands. For he is better than the things he worships; he at least lives, but never they.” BAGD = William Arndt, Frederick W. Danker and Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, "Based on Walter Bauer's Grie-chisch-Deutsches Worterbuch Zu Den Schriften Des Neuen Testaments Und Der Frhchristlichen [Sic] Literatur, Sixth Edition, Ed. Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, With Viktor Reichmann and on Previous English Editions by W.F. Arndt, F.W. Gingrich, and F.W. Danker", 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000). 23Klauck, p. 75. 24 John R. W. Stott, The Message of Acts: The Spirit, the Church, and the World, The Bible Speaks Today (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990.), p. 278. Charles Kingsley Barrett, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles. Vol. II, Introduction and Commentary on Acts XV-XXVIII, Corrected ed. The International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2002), pp. 827-28. A few commentators note that. R. E. Wycherley, "St Paul at Athens", in Journal of Theological Studies 19 (1968), pp. 619-20, coined the term “a forest of idols”. 25 The word for idol', eídōlon, was not normally employed by the Greeks for their statues of the gods and votive gifts. In classical usage it already denotes a lack of genuine existence, since it is employed for lifeless souls, for shadowy and deceptive images. The Septuagint and Diaspora Judaism adapted it not only to designate the gods and their images in the Gentile world that surrounded them, but also to attack these as pagan idols. Klauck, pp. 75-76. In its 96 occurrences in LXX, eídōlon is



churned inside of him with holy anger. Translators render this as "vexed" (Barrett), "provoked" (RSV), "exasperated" (Talbert), or "deeply distressed" (NRSV). Paul shows himself to be thoroughly steeped in the OT view of idolatry. This was the same word that the LXX translators used for YHWH’s revulsion of idolatry.26 Note how the same word is used in the Song of Moses in Deut 32 which has been suggested as one of the “templates” of Paul’s speech.27

They provoked me (paroxunan me) with foreign gods; with their abominations they infuriated me. They sacrificed to demons (daimonia) not to God; to gods whom they did not know. New (kainoi) and fresh ones came in, whom their fathers did not know. You have abandoned the God who begot you and forgotten the God who feeds you (vss. 16-19).

The imperfect tense of the verb demonstrates ‘not a sudden loss of temper but rather a continuous settled reaction to what Paul saw.’28 Paul was revolted. Along with the Deuteronomy passage he likely recalled The Wisdom of Solomon, a Jewish document written 100 BC. It speaks of idols as an "abomination, to make men stumble and to catch the feet of fools" (Wisdom 14:11-12). John Calvin’s com-ments take the verb one step farther, and suggest that Paul would use this irritation and convert it to zeal with knowledge. He states:

used to translate 15 Hebrew words for cultic images, Terry Michael Griffith, Keep Yourselves from Idols: A New Look at 1 John. Journal for the study of the New Tes-tament, 233 (London [u.a.]: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), p. 33. 26 Forty-nine times in the LXX, with 90% used to express divine displeasure at un-belief, disobedience and idolatry. cf. Deut 9:7, 18, 22; 1 Kgs 16:13, 16:26; 2 Kgs 17:16-17; Ps 106 [LXX 105]: 28-29; Isa 65:2-3; Jer 8:19; Hos 8:5. 27 So, Mark Douglas Given. Paul's True Rhetoric: Ambiguity, Cunning, and Decep-tion in Greece and Rome. Emory studies in early Christianity, 7 (Harrisburg, Pa: Trinity Press International, 2001), pp. 49-50. 28 David Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids, Mich: William B. Eerd-mans Pub. Co, 2009), p. 489, quoting Stott, p. 278.



Where he doth not attribute unto him indignation only, neither doth he only say that he was offended with that spectacle, but he expresseth the unwonted heat of holy anger, which sharpened his zeal, so that he did address himself more fervently unto the work.29

Litwak suggests that, ‘Luke's audiences will naturally interpret Paul's speech, based on this “prophetic” discursive framing as anti-idol polemic in the mold of the prophets of old.’30 Since idolatry is a form of perverted worship, the likelihood of worship being a domi-nant theme in Paul’s speech will be strong. Additionally, the audi-ence is prepared that the Athenians will interpret anything and every-thing that Paul will say through their own grid based on their prevail-ing worldview. In keeping with the anti-idol polemic of the prophets we might expect some elements like:

• A Moses-like borrowing of pagan terms and practices, and then turning them on their head to demonstrate a polemical confrontation of the true God YHWH and, in this case, the false and vacuous Greek gods.

• A confrontation of the gods, perhaps in Elijah-like style be-tween Baal, the god of thunder and the storm and the true God. The “stage effects” prove to be much less dramatic, yet this is a meeting between the representative of YHWH the Divine Warrior and others on the hill of Ares, the Greek god of war.31

29 John Calvin, Commentary Upon the Acts of the Apostles, Vol 2, ed. Henry Beveridge, trans. Christopher Fetherstone, Calvin's Commentaries XIX (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1999; orig. 1844) p.147, cited by Flavien Pardigon, ‘Paul Against the Idols: The Areopagus Speech and Religious Inclusivism’ (Diss: PhD. Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia, 2008), p. 217. 30 Litwak, “Israel's prophets meet Athens' philosophers: scriptural echoes in Acts 17: 22-31”, p. 211. 31 It goes without saying that YHWH, the divine warrior, defeated all of the other gods of war, namely Assur (Assyrians), Chemosh (Moabites), Nergal (Assyrians and Babylonians). At Golgotha, Jesus the divine warrior/suffering servant defeated Sa-tan.



• Some of the following characteristics of idols as they are de-scribed in the OT, or contrasts to them in the Living God. Ex-amples might include:

a. made with human hands (Ps 115:4) b. made of items like silver, gold or wood (Ps 135.15) c. lacking the breath of life (Jer 10:14, 51.17) d. they have no speech in them (Hab 2:8 cf. 1 Cor 12:2) e. cannot see or hear or walk (Ps. 115: 4-8; Jer 10:5, cf. Rev

9:20) f. they are temporal and cannot create in contrast to YHWH

(1 Chr 16:26; Isa 2:18) g. unable to do good (Jer 10:5) h. their owners put their trust in them (Hab 2:18) i. their fabricators resemble them (Ps 115:8; Ps 135:18; Isa

6:9-13) j. renders their owners “worthless”; “stupid and without

knowledge” ( 2 Kgs 17:15; Jer 10:8) k. their owners exchange the glorious reflection of the true

God for the inglorious reflection of a false god (Ps 106:20; Hosea 4:7)

l. God who made the heavens is contrasted with them (Ps 96:5)

The stance of the Hebrew Scriptures with respect to images and idols is summarized by Edward Curtis who analyses each of the He-brew words used for them. He concludes that such were seen by Yahweh as thoroughly repulsive as:

…they make the people and nation using them unclean, and so they are likened to other sources of impurity: dung, detested things, dead bodies. They are useless and ineffective, they have no life in them, they are wood and stone, they are vapor and vanity. They are deceptive; they



cannot do what their worshipers ask of them; they only disappoint and embarrass those who trust them.32

It would be logical, then, to see how Paul would compare and contrast the Athenian creation of gods of their own making with the nature and person of the Living God. Just prior to the Mars Hill ad-dress Paul and Barnabas ordered the people of Lystra to turn away from the vain (mataios) objects of their religion. By extension, the religion of the Lystrans was said to be “futile, worthless, and use-less”.33 The Thessalonians, who had received the gospel just prior to Paul’s visit to Athens (Acts 17: 1-9), were affirmed by him in a let-ter, namely that they had “turned to God from idols (eídōlon) to serve the living and true God” (1 Thes 1:9-10). If it is true that 1 Thess 1:9-10 is “a compendium of early Chris-tian beliefs” then we might find a number of parallels with the Are-opagus speech. First, it is based on Jewish [turned from dead idols, living and true God, heaven, wrath to come] and Christian [Jesus raised from the dead, Son which delivers us, hope in his coming] and not Graeco/Roman beliefs. It has all the elements of Jewish prosely-tism which we will discuss later, namely, monotheism, rejection of idolatry and repentance based on an eschatological event. Lastly, it includes the resurrection.34 Just as 1 Thes 1:9-10 is a statement of a response to the kerygma or “the proclamation of the good news in the [New Testament] and later”,35 we would expect to find the same in Acts 17. This kerygma 32 Edward M Curtis, “The theological basis for the prohibition of images in the Old Testament”, in Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 28 No 3 (S 1985), p. 280. 33 Mataois: BAGD to being of no use, idle, empty, fruitless, useless, powerless, lac-king truth. In the LXX it is used of idols, 1 Kgs 16:13; 2 Kgs 17:15; Jer 2:5, 8:19). 34 F. C. Burkitt, "The Debt of Christianity to Judaism", in I. Abrahams, E. Bevan and Ch. Singer (eds), The Legacy of Israel, (Oxford: University Press, 1948), p 73, cited by Meadors, p. 73. 35 John A. Freedman, Allen C. Myers and Astrid B. Beck, "Kerygma" in Eerdmans Dictionary Of The Bible (Grand Rapids: W.B. Eerdmans 2000), p. 764. Freedman



is received, in a way however, that is antithetical to the rational at-tempt by the philosophers to reach the gods. Paul said, “I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ" (Gal 1:11-12). This contrast figures weightily in the speech and its contents.

In the synagogue, he used to hold discussions with the Jews and their Gentile worshippers; and each and every day in the in the marketplace every day with those who happened to be there (Acts 17:17).36

Paul continued to do what the Holy Spirit had commissioned Je-sus’ followers to do, namely to preach "repentance and the forgive-ness of sins” (Luke 24:47). Paul’s action of teaching publicly, presenting intelligent arguments, engaging the minds and hearts of his audience was referred to as dialégomai, from which the English dialogue has its roots.37 This verb and cognate words are used 10 times in Acts 17-24 and always refer to a public presentation of the gospel in the form of, "This Jesus, whom I proclaim to you, is the Christ" (Acts 17:2-3). He touched all strata of society in his proclamation. Thus, the content of his teaching, which would have been done in not only words but “in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction” likely became well known (1 Thes 1:5). The continues, ‘The word has become a quasi-technical term for the content of the early Christian polemic, the “gospel” par excellence.’, Mounce elaborates on the meaning of kērygma: “A proclamation of his death, resurrection and exaltation of Jesus that led to an evaluation of His person as both Lord and Christ, confronted man with the necessity of repentance, and promised the forgiveness of sins,” cited in Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin and Daniel G. Reid eds, Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 1993), p. 736. Original quote in R.H. Mounce, Essential Nature of NT Preaching (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960), p. 84. 36 Translation indebted to Mikeal C. Parsons and Martin M. Culy. Acts: A Hand-book on the Greek Text (Waco, Tex: Baylor University Press, 2003) and also Joseph A. Fitzmeyer, The Acts Of The Apostles (Anchor Bible Commentary Series. New York: Doubleday, 1998) 37 Cf. Acts 18:4; 19:8, 9; 20:9; 24:25; 17:2, 17; 18:19; 20:7 and 24:12.



tion” likely became well known (1 Thes 1:5). The parallels of Socra-tes engaging people in the marketplace in the same way have been noted by some.

Also some Epicurean38 and Stoic39 philosophers debated (sumbállō) with him. Some said, "What would this one, the babbler, say if he could say anything that made sense!” 40 Others said, He seems to be a proclaimer (kataggeleús) of foreign divinities. This was because he was telling the good news (euangelizeto) about Jesus and the resurrection. (17:18)

This encounter between Paul and the philosophers described as ‘debated’ (sumbállō) is usually a neutral term meaning ‘to meet; to

38 “The Epicureans took their name from Epicurus (341-270 B.C.) whose philosop-hical and ethical worldview was based on the materialistic atomic theory of Demoe-ritus. Even the gods were viewed as in-essence material in this system. Pleasure was seen as the chief end in life, and the highest pleasures were seen not as the sen-sual ones but as the pleasures of the mind, in particular, tranquility — being free from both passions and superstitious fears. The gods were seen as modeling this quality, being far removed from the lives of human beings and taking no real interest in them. A motto, written by Diogenes, an Epicurean, in about AD 200, sums up this belief system: "Nothing to fear in God; Nothing to feel in death; Good [pleasu-re] can be attained; Evil [pain] can be endured," Ben Witherington, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentar. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), p. 514. 39 The Stoics, who seem to have been somewhat more popular at this time, recogni-zed Zeno of Cyprus (ca. 340-265 B.C.) as their founder, but they got their name from their meeting place, the Stoa Poikile or painted portico on the northwest side of the Athenian agora. The Stoics were basically panentheists, believing there was a divine rational ordering principle that was in all things and beings. God's relations-hip to the world was seen as analogous to that between the soul and the body. Like the Epicureans, the Stoics were essentially materialists, for even the essence of God and of soul was seen as made up of highly refined matter. The goal of the Stoic system was to live in accord with the rational principle that indwelt all things, and so to live according to nature. Like the Epicureans, the Stoics emphasized the preemi-nence of the rational over the emotions, believing in self-sufficiency or autonomy as the highest good. They were also highly principled in regard to ethical and civic duties. Witherington, The Acts of the Apostles,,p. 514. 40 Darrell L. Bock, Acts. BECNT Baker exegetical commentary on the New Testa-ment (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007), p. 562.



come together.’ Juhana Torkki, however, shows that the word in the dative can also have the sense of ‘to come to blows with someone, to join in a fight,’ and the audience might have understood the double ‘entendre’41 as a dramatic foreshadowing. We will see this in the dismissive comments made about the herald and his message. The audience then hears a not-so-subtle slur against Paul by Athenians who label him with the generic “this one” and then as de-viant - a spermológos.42 Elsewhere this slur was used for a ‘market-place loafer’, someone who strings together ‘title-tattle’, not unlike the little gutter sparrow that looked for crumbs on the floor of the marketplace, from which the word originated. The slur could not be more clear; Paul is an amateur, a wannabe, a ‘plagiarizing incompe-tent’ (Robinson), a superficial thinker,43 or as Bruce Winter points out, an unsystematic "ragbag collector of scraps of learning."44 Rowe points out that Luke’s audience would have “an immediate distrust” for the philosophers, as they seemed to be part of the crowd who were quick to insult Paul.45 It would also prepare Luke’s audi-ence for the fact that Paul’s quotes of other philosophers would likely

41 Juhana Torkki, The Dramatic Account of Paul's Encounter with Philosophy : An Analysis of Acts 17:16-34 with Regard to Contemporary Philosophical Debates, 2004 (Dissertation University of Helsinki, Faculty of Theology), p. 30 quoting Herodotus 1:80:6, while recognizing the “peaceful” use of term in Acts 4:15, 18:27, 20:14. https:/ /oa.doria.fi/dspace/bitstream/10024/3013/1/thedrama.pdf. 42 Clayton N. Croy, ”Hellenistic Philosophies and the Preaching of the Resurrection (Acts 17:18,32)” Novum Testamentum 39 No 1 (1997), p. 23. Fn 5 states that “the demonstrative ούτος is contemptuous.” 43 Torkki, p. 30. 44 Bruce Winter, "On Introducing Gods to Athens: An Alternative Reading of Acts 17:19-20", Tyndale Bulletin 47 (Winter, 1996), p. 80 fn 37. 45 Rowe, World, p. 28. See his pp. 28-29 as well for descriptions of how this slur was used to denigrate people. Hansen (p. 311, fn 620) shows how Dio Chrysostom (Discourse 32.9) uses this term to describe those who stand 'at street-corners, in alleyways, and at temple-gates, pass around the hat, and play upon the credulity of lads and sailors and crowds of that sort, stringing together rough jokes and much babbling and that rubbish of the marketplace.'



be used strategically, and not some throw out information to simply try to connect with his audience. True to form, the Athenians do interpret Paul’s proclamation (euangelizeto) of Jesus and the resurrection through their own grid. They are thought to be some foreign (xenos) deities, which was a term used according to Joseph Alexander, by the Athenians to char-acterize something as ‘barbarous’ or ‘outlandish.’46 Thus they likely saw Jesus (a masculine name in Greek) and his consort, the goddess Resurrection or Anastasis (feminine in Greek)47 in this way. They might have even considered these ‘the personified and deified pow-ers of “healing” and "restoration”.’48 This is not to say that they would not be willing to incorporate them into their mixing-pot of religions. It is this very grid that Paul will challenge. Later in the story we will see that this same Jesus whom the Athenians are trivializing as a “foreign deity” will be the very One that Paul proclaims has demon-strated his power over death via the resurrection, and so He is the One who will judge their “foreign deities”. The echoes of Socrates (469-399 BC) are not far from the readers. At his trial it was said, “Socrates does evil, for he does not acknowl-edge the gods whom the state acknowledges, while introducing other, novel divine beings.”49 It is no coincidence that Socrates also started his defense with the words, “Men of…” The fact that Socrates’ “in-terview” ended in death, adds a touch of suspense to the story.

46 Joseph Addison Alexander. The Acts of the Apostles, Vol 2 (New York, Scribner, 1862), p. 148. 47 Bock, p. 562 thinks the goddess is unlikely, but gives no adequate reason. Croy suggests that they could have even heard the name Jesus as the “daughter of Aescu-lapius. .. [or] the goddess of healing.” 48 Bruce, p. 351. 49 Klauck, p. 76.



It is certainly an ironic touch that Paul’s proclamation is described by Luke as euangelizeto,50 when that very word was linked in Acts 14:5-19 to the gospel which called the Lycaonians to “turn away from vain things to the living God who made all things.” This will prove to be much of the content of Paul’s speech. The introduction of foreign deities was not uncommon in Athens, but certain protocols had to be carried out. Paul was likely seen as a herald of these foreign deities who might introduce them, and per-haps would come bearing a request for a temple, or a source of funds for an annual feast day or for the maintenance of its priests. This, too, was not a neutral proposition as Athenian history showed that on more than one occasion the introducer of a “foreign deity” had lost his life for not respecting protocol.51 There is a touch of irony here, as the philosophers acknowledged that Paul was ‘proclaiming’ (kataggeleús52), as a herald was seen to do, yet later Paul turns the table and tells them that he will authorita-tively proclaim (kataggéllō) (vs. 23) to them what they ignorantly “know” as “unknown”. Additionally, although it was perceived that Paul was in Athens to ask for all the accouterments that came with introducing a new deity, the one thing he asked of his audience was repentance (vs. 30).

50 This is the last of 14 occurrences in Acts of this verb for evangelistic preaching about Jesus. Cf. Acts 5:42; 8:4, 12, 25, 35, 40; 10:36; 11:20; 13:32; 14:7,15, 21; 15:35; 16:10; 17:18 51 Torkki suggests that this phrase insinuates that “Paul is not within the established religious traditions of antiquity; the philosophers probably believe he subscribes to one of the eastern mystery religions that were common in those days.” p. 31. Eck-hard J Schnabel quotes Josephus who related that Ninos, a priestess of the Phrygian god Sabazios, was put to death by the Athenians "because someone accused her of initiating people into mysteries of foreign gods; this was forbidden by their law, and the penalty decreed for any who introduced a foreign god was death.” Paul the Mis-sionary: Realities, Strategies and Methods (Downers Grove, Ill: IVP Academic, 2008), p. 100. See the same, pp. 101-103, for these protocols. 52 Cf. verb form in Acts 3:24; 4:2; 13:5; 15:36; 16:17, 21; 17:3, 13, 23; 26:23.



To add insult to injury, it is the narrator of the setting who has to add the fact that Paul was “preaching the resurrection” as the audi-ence misunderstood him, deliberately misconstrued him, or simply could not care enough to pay close attention to his words. This illus-trates what Paul said in Ephesians 4:8 that, “They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart” (cf. 1 Cor 1:22-24).

. 5 The invitation

Paul is summoned to the Areopagus. In Athens this is the hill (pagos) of Ares, the god of war. Just whether this is the physical hill or the city council that took its name from the same, is a subject of debate. Rowe, citing Barnes states, ‘The obvious meaning of the words in Acts should be accepted: Paul was taken before the Areopagus, i.e. before the council sitting on the hill.’53

So they took him and brought him to the Areopagus and asked him, May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? You are bringing up subjects unfamiliar to our ears, so we would like to know what it means (17:19-20)

Erkhard Schnabel states that the invitation to come and explain his reasons for his presence and his activity of proclamation in the marketplace to the Areopagus “was polite”.54 Pardigon questions that conclusion and suggests that the excessive politeness borders on dis-dain.55 Torkki suggests that the repetition of the words “new” and 53Rowe, World, p. 30 citing Timothy David Barnes, "An Apostle on Trial”, in Jour-nal of Theological Studies, Vol 20 No 2 (O 1969), p. 410. Paul was told he would appear before ‘kings’ or ruling authorities (Acts 9.15). Here it is the Areopagus council as well as the stratēgoi at Philippi, the politarches at Thessalonica and the anthupatos at Corinth. 54 Schnabel, p. 102. 55 Flavien Pardigon, ‘Paul Against the Idols: The Areopagus Speech and Religious Inclusivism’ (Diss: PhD. Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia, 2008), p.



strange” convey that they do not recognize his teaching.56 It has been shown that the phrase “certain strange things” communicates that the philosophers did not want to commit to accepting that Paul was preaching about a certain person or deity [i.e. Jesus] but pre-ferred to keep the discussion neutral by referring to impersonal ob-jects, i.e. things.57 Winter also suggests that the seemingly innocuous question “may we know” should actually be rendered with a more directive and, we would add, potentially hostile, “We possess the legal right to judge what this new teaching is that is being spoken by you.”58 It has been suggested as well that the word translated, “so they took him”, was likely more than ‘a well-intentioned attachment”.59 Elsewhere (Luke 23:26; Acts 16:19; 17:6; 18:17; 21:30, 33) Luke used the same verb (epilambanomai ) with the sense of “to seize” or “to lay hold of.” In 16:19 we read, “Having seized Paul and Silas they dragged them before the Agora.” The verb and preceding prepo-sition are the same in 16:19 and 17:19 with the sense that a person is compelled to go to the political authorities. Rowe suggests that this is not “simply a peaceful philosophical dialogue with his curious op-ponents” but rather another case where Christian proclamation has drawn the attention of the political authorities.60 225 [all following references from this thesis]. Compare this with Richard Longe-necker who suggested “that the followers of Epicurus and Zeno brought Paul, pro-bably half in jest and half in derision, but certainly not seeking an impartial inquiry after truth." Richard N. Longenecker, The Ministry and Message of Paul. (Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan , 1971), p. 65. 56 Torkki, pp. 31-32. BAGD translates xenízō: to cause a strong psychological reac-tion through introduction of something new or strange, astonish, surprise. 57 Winter, p. 82. 58 Ibid, pp. 81-83. 59 Rowe, World, p. 29. 60 Using the words of Barnes, Rowe describes the power of the Areopagus: "the Areopagus seems to be the effective government of Roman Athens and its chief court. As such, like the imperial Senate in Rome, it could interfere in any aspect of corporate life—education, philosophical lectures, public morality, foreign cults Its



In one of the many ironic twists that are to follow, Paul, who was commissioned to bring (bastázō) the name of Jesus to the Gentiles (Acts 9.15), is asked to justify why he is bringing (eisphérō) strange things to the ears of the philosophers.61 The word “new” also prepares the audience for a description of the Athenians in verse 21. It communicates less than an ideal view of Athens. I shows that they are ready to investigate Paul for bring-ing in something new (kainós), and yet they are described as having an inordinate preoccupation with those things that are novel (kainós). Theirs is an idle curiosity wanting to know something newer than the last news heard before: they are dilettantes. The hypocrisy is obvi-ous.

Now, all the Athenians and the foreigners living among them spent their time in nothing other than (trying) either to say or to hear something novel (vs. 21).

The Greek historian Thucydides (c. 460 BC-395 BC) has Cleon tell the Athenians in a speech, “You are slaves of the newest sensa-tion to turn up, so you have no difficulty in welcoming a novel idea. You are addicted to the pleasure of hearing novelties.”62 In his Con-fessions, Augustine suggested that “curiosity about religious matters is one of the primary forms that the displaced desire for God can take: it is false desire.”63 Klauck observes that this Athenian disposi-tion of novelty and superficiality does not bode well for the procla-mation of the gospel.64 Likely Luke is using it to show the power of the gospel in contrary circumstances and to show who the real “relig-ious fakes” actually were. general constitutional position enabled it to control religion no less than any other part of the life of Athens”. See Barnes, “An Apostle on Trial”, p. 413. 61 Given, p. 66 suggests that the two verbs belong to the same semantic field. 62 Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, 3.38, 4, quoted by Klauck, pp. 79-80. 63 Augustine, Confessions 10.35. 64 Klauck, p. 80.



6 Synopsis

Luke uses more than one-third of the Areopagus story to set the stage. He focuses on the rampant idolatry of the city of Athens and Paul’s resultant vexation, forgetting all the cultural achievements that could so easily distract. Paul, true to his apostolic commission, ad-dresses Jews, God-fearing Greeks, the public in the marketplace and the philosophers of the day. His authoritative proclamation engages the mind, and centers on the person of the risen Christ. The audience of philosophers, whom Luke casts in a less than appreciative light, uses its worldview to critique what Paul is doing and interprets his actions as desirous to introduce a new deity to Athens. Paul’s reaction to idolatry sets the stage for his using “his scraps of knowledge” -likely encyclopedic as they were - to confront the worldview of the philosophers in a manner not unlike the prophets. With echoes of another who spoke boldly in the manner of a gadfly to the Athenians, namely Socrates who lost his life for his convic-tions, we also are prepared for the dialogue which is to follow. 7 Continuities and Discontinuities.

7.1 Conclusions, conclusions, conclusions???

Eckhard Schnabel in his Paul the Missionary: Realities, Strategies and Methods, came to the conclusion after examining the continuities and discontinuities in the approach of Paul with the philosophers, that Paul stressed “not accommodation, but confrontation”.65 D.A. Carson summarizes the Epicurean and Stoic worldviews and com-pares and contrasts them with Paul’s Biblical Christian worldview, and suggests “a massive clash of worldviews”.66 Todd Miles suggests that Paul “began by confronting and denying the most basic aspect of the Epicurean and Stoic worldviews by positing the essential truth

65 Schnabel, p. 182. 66 Carson, p. 390.



that God is God and all this He created is not.”67 Ben Witherington shows that Paul had popular idolatry and the philosophies of the Sto-ics and Epicureans in his sights. Against the Stoics, “God is said to be near and caring a good deal about human beliefs and behavior.” Against the Epicureans, “God is distinguishable from his creation and true knowledge of God is not simply gained by evaluating na-ture. There must be proclamation of what God has revealed and is now doing. Against both of these philosophies the speech affirms resurrection, future judgment, and a teleological character to human history."68 In a similar vein, Malcolm B. Yarnell III in his white paper entitled, Shall We “Build Bridges” or “Pull Down Strong-holds”? which examines the emergent church and Acts 17 states:

Acts 17:16-34, which contains Paul’s famous Areopagus or Mars Hill speech, is neither an excuse to find general revelation in other religions, nor is it a paradigm for finding relevancy in culture rather than Scrip-ture. [We] must build bridges of honest communication through proper translation of Scripture; however, like Paul we must also burn bridges of deception resident within all human cultures.69

At the same time Dean Fleming suggests that, “Although dis-tressed about the idolatry he finds in Athens, Paul refuses to flatly condemn the pagans or their religious and philosophical systems. Instead, he recognizes that the Athenians, their past, and even their religious yearnings, have been touched by the grace of God.”70 This echoes the words Lightfoot said that, when it came to pagans, Paul had "a clear appreciation of the elements of truth contained in their

67 Todd Miles, A God of Many Understandings? The Gospel and Theology of Reli-gions (Nashville, Tenn., B & H Academic, 2010), p. 91. 68 Witherington, pp. 534-5. 69 Malcolm B. Yarnell III, ‘Shall We “Build Bridges” or “Pull Down Strong-holds?”’ The Center for Theological Research White Paper 20, (March 2008), pp. 2, 16. See www.BaptistTheology.org. 70 It would be wise to tease apart what exactly is meant by “flatly condemn” “reli-gious yearnings” and “touched by the grace of God.”



philosophy".71 Fleming continues and asserts that it is important “to recognize the signs of grace wherever they are found.”72 It will be-come evident as the passage continues, however, to see that the per-vasive effects of sin have touched every area of Athenian life. In many ways Fleming stands on the shoulders of a number of German scholars, namely Martin Dibelius, Hans Conzelmann, and Ernst Haenchen whose influence has also touched the likes of Clark Pinnock, all with a very positive and inclusivistic view of other relig-ions. They all assert that the Areopagus speech was a synthesis of Greek and Biblical ideas. The word convergence, after all, implies a movement towards union or uniformity. Fleming agrees. Earlier he had written:

He [Paul] takes advantage of the convergences between the Jewish Scriptures and Hellenistic thought in order to construct apologetic bridges to his listeners. Paul views Greek philosophy as an appropriate conversation partner in his attempt to contextualize the Jewish Christian gospel for his educated contemporaries.73

At first glance it seems that Flemming might be right. What about Cicero’s standard outline for Stoic arguments on the nature of God? Didn’t Paul use the exact same line of argumentation of his De natura deorum which stated:

71 Greg Bahnsen, “The Encounter of Jerusalem With Athens”, in Ashland Theologi-cal Bulletin XIII:1 (Spring, 1980), quoting J. B. Lightfoot, "St. Paul and Seneca," in St. Paul's Epistle to the Philippians (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1953), p. 304. 72 Dean Flemming, Contextualization in the New Testament: Patterns for Theology and Mission (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press 2005), p. 83. 73 Dean Flemming, “Contextualizing the Gospel in Athens: Paul’s Areopagus Ad-dress as a Paradigm for Missionary Communication,” Missiology: An International Review 30.2 (2002), p. 203.



First they prove that the gods exist; next they explain their nature; then they show that the world is governed by them; and lastly, they care for the fortunes of mankind.74

And then what about the fact that Cleanthes’ Hymn to Zeus, a well known summary of Stoic doctrine has an outline almost identical to Paul’s outline? The case seems closed. The notion of “conver-gence” calls for further examination.

7.2 Moses, Pharaoh, Jewish proselytizing and subversive storytelling

In a lecture series which responds to Peter Enns’ Inspiration and In-carnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament, John Currid demonstrates that Enns is incorrect to state that the Biblical writers used “crass plagiarism” to borrow stories like the creation, flood and the Moses story.75 Like Flemming, Enns is arguing for a convergence of ideas found in the local culture and that of the Bible. Currid, however, shows that, for example, the Exodus accounts “plunder the Egyptians” for their own ideas and stories and then radically re-define them. In Egypt, the deified Pharaoh was said to be the voice of the gods. Many Egyptian documents contained a formula that said, “Thus says god…xyz”. In a direct challenge, Moses comes along and says, “YHWH says”. Not only is it, “YHWH says”, it is “YHWH does” with a powerful arm - again an Egyptian symbol that is taken captive. It is no little coincidence that each and every plague is a direct confrontation with the Egyptian

74Cicero, De Natura Deorum 11.4., cited by Hansen, p. 312. 75 John D. Currid, “Crass Plagiarism? The Problem of the Relationship of the Old Testament to the Ancient Near Eastern Literature”, http://old.thirdmill.org/sermons/compile_speaker.asp/speaker/RTS%20Virtual/site/iiim/category/speakers#Crass%20Plagiarism (2010/4/4). Also, G.K. Beale, “Myth, History, and Inspiration: A Review Article of Inspiration and Incarnation by Peter Enns”, in Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 49/2 (June 2006), pp. 287-312.



gods. “You think you have a fertility god,” says YHWH, “I will show you fertility”, and stinking frogs multiply to high heaven. Jacques Ellul referred to this activity as the “subversion of cul-ture”. He notes for instance, that the Hebrews are “set in the midst of cultures: they do not shut themselves off from them, they know and use them.” Then Ellul shows how they “reoriented” phrases and say-ings and in so doing [their] meaning is radically broken”, and they are made to “say other things”.76 Another author, Brian Godawa might have called Moses’ actions “subversive storytelling”. He defines this method as “the strategy of engaging oneself in an opponent’s story, retelling the story through a new paradigm and, in the end, taking the opponent’s story captive”.77 Thus Currid shows that each and any borrowing was used for strate-gic purposes, and to affirm the notion of YHWH’s sovereignty in the face of the declared and false rulership of the Egyptian gods. No wonder then, that the Egyptians are destroyed at daybreak by YHWH, when Ra the sun-god should have been rising to help them. Currid’s work is solidly supported as well by detailed research of Daniel Block on "Other Religions in Old Testament Theology".78 He documents, for example, how the OT “exploited” the name of the Supreme Being ‘El’ and completely re-defined it. He shows how the OT took the Ancient Near Eastern idea of a three-story universe, par-alleled it, and then showed how YHWH, the re-defined EL, was the Supreme Ruler over it. Block’s work is summarized as showing those areas where Old Testament theology “parallels certain pagan religious ideas and prac-tices… appropriates others, using them in certain ways without giv-

76 Jacques Ellul, The subversion of Christianity (Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, 1986), p. 16. 77 Godawa, n.p. (internet resource). 78 Daniel Block, “Other Religions in Old Testament Theology”, in David W Baker ed,. Biblical Faith and Other Religions: An Evangelical Assessment (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic & Professional, 2004).



ing assent to their veracity…and explicitly repudiates still others as completely antithetical to genuine belief.”79 We can be sure that the relationship between Ancient Near East-ern ideas and the theology of the Old Testament was etched into the mind of Rabbi Paul. The Exodus story would have been “the story” of Paul as a Jewish-raised child. Undoubtedly the linkage between the prohibition of idolatry and the Exodus deliverance in the De-calogue figured strongly in his thinking. This does raise a vital point about an affirmation of Islamic texts, assuming that they are somehow benign. It also raises some ques-tions about the so-called “dynamic equivalence” of Allah of Islam and YHWH of the Bible. It would cause one to seriously question the assertion of Nabeel Jabbour who is quoted as stating that, “Islam as a religion started down the right track but jumped off the rails.”80 Gary Meadors has also shown that Paul was standing not on the methods of Greek philosophy, but on a method of Jewish proselytiz-ing. In its preparatory stages it expounded four fundamental doc-trines: (1) Monotheism; (2) Divine providence guided by justice and benevolence; (3) Reasonable morality; and (4) A future eschatologi-cal crisis.81 Flemming might still argue for a level of convergence of Cicero’s method of presentation and that of Jewish proselytizing. Yet we are still two steps away from what Paul was actually doing. “Part ” of the process of the Jewish methods of proselytizing” shows that the following were insisted on by the Jewish religion:

(1) it was eminently a religion of authority; (2) it was a revealed religion, without man's consultation or ap-

proval; 79 Ibid, p. 14. 80 Georges Houssney, “Position Paper on the Insider Movement,” (Feb 16, 2010), p. 7, on http://biblicalmissiology.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Position-on-Insider-Movement.pdf (2010/5/12). 81 George F. Moore, "Conversion of Gentiles", in Judaism, Voll 1 (3 Vols.; Cam-bridge: Harvard University Press, 1962), p. 324, cited by Meadors, p. 28.



(3) it was an exclusive religion which tolerated no divided alle-giance;

(4) it was a religion which made a man's eternal destiny depend on his submission of his whole life to God's law.82

All of these four would have been stumbling blocks to the Athe-nian audience. To this Paul added the scandal of the cross, and the resurrection. Divergence, rather than convergence would necessarily result.

7.3 Different conclusions, different Biblical interpretations?

With what seems to be a difference in opinion on the observations of the Areopagus story, one must ask how does Flemming arrive at “convergence”, and the likes of Schnabel arrive at “divergence”? Both are observing the same text. It would appear to come down to a theology of religions.83 If one’s theology of religion stems from a largely liberal interpretation of scripture that espouses “natural theology”, then aspects of human-ity’s rebellion against God might be de-emphasized while cultural connections are accented. Stephen Spencer gives a concrete example of how this is done by those holding this view. They would say:

Paul attempted to establish the truth of Christianity by starting from propositions affirmed by the Athenian philosophers […] drawn from the natural order. [They] had already begun the elaboration of a truthful natural theology. Paul's goal was to lead them on further in that task and then to connect this theology.84

82 Ibid, pp. 324-325, cited in in Meadors, p. 28. 83 Pardigon defines religion as “a complex human phenomenon concerned with ul-timate realities; it is built around three main axes (their relative importance varying from one religion to another): dogmatic/doxological (doctrines, traditions, world- and life-view, etc.), existential (personal experience, moral directions etc.) and insti-tutional/organizational (community, clergy, organized worship; etc.), p. 1. 84 Stephen R. Spencer, “Is Natural Theology Biblical?”, in Grace Theological Jour-nal 9 (Spr 1988), pp. 63- 64.



The following statements almost repeat verbatim the schema that Spencer has outlined. The first three are voices from the Arabic world:

a. Fouad Accad, in “Qur’an A Bridge to Faith” states, “We can start by appreciating devotion where we find it.”85

b. The Syrian, Mazhar Mallouhi stated, "If people do not have the revelation of God in Christ, this of course does not mean that they do not know God."86 Paul Gordon Chandler who authored the Mazhar’s biography elsewhere gives approval to a quote by Ambrose of Milan who stated, “All truth no matter where it comes from comes from God's Spirit. The challenge is to build on the truth in the other.”87

c. Nabeel Jabbour who was born in Syria, raised in Lebanon and spent time in Egypt states: “Islam as a religion started down the right track but jumped off the rails.”88

d. Still others like to use phrases like, “building on the truths of the Qur’an”, “affirming the foundation of Islam”. For exam-ple: “Careful study of the Qur'an reveals that most of the ele-ments of salvation, Jesus, the gospel, are indeed laying there ready to be used and exploited. Regardless of whatever Satan was trying to do, God insured that there is a lot of truth em-bedded in the Qur'an. To be sure there are some problem verses, but the gospel is there….”89

85 “The Qur'an: A Bridge to Christian Faith”, in Missiology: An International Re-view (July, 1976) p. 342. 86 Paul Gordon-Chandler, Pilgrims of Christ on the Muslim Road: Exploring a New Path Between Two Faiths (Lanham, MD: Cowley Publications, 2007), p. 91. 87 Timothy C. Morgan (ed), “Egypt’s Identity Impasse”, in Christianity Today Vol. 52 No 4 (April 2008), n.p. see http://www.ctlibrary.com/ct/2008/april/23.60.html (2010/4/6). 88 Georges Houssney, “Position Paper on the Insider Movement”, p. 7. 89 Private correspondence with “A.A.”



One wonders if the sense of the word “exploited” in item “d” is the same as what Block was suggesting. One wonders if “appreciat-ing devotion” in item “a” is what Paul was doing. One cannot help but wonder if “they do not know God” in item “b” has any relation-ship to that term in the Old Testament. One wonders how item “d” would square away with the statement of Prov 15:8 which states, “The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord. Thus the title of Spencer’s article is provocative: “Is Natural Theology Bibli-cal?” Yarnell describes how he believes this convergence process oc-curs in Flemming’s and others’ thinking. He suggests that this oc-curs as one tries to remain orthodox on one hand, and yet espouse liberal Biblical interpretation on the other. He sees Flemming’s con-clusions as evidence of Flemming’s own philosophy of convergence, i.e. trying to combine the two streams. Yarnell takes his analysis from a continuum that was presented by David Hesselgrave and Ed-ward Rommen in their Contextualization: Meanings, Methods, and Models. They explain placement on the continuum as the amount of “weight” or emphasis given to a Biblical interpretation tradition. In their words:

[T]he closer one gets to classical orthodoxy the greater the weight given to the biblical revelation, and the closer one gets to classical liberalism the greater the weight given to human reason and culture.90

Continuing with the themes that we have explored, we will con-tinue to examine the Areopagus speech for continuities and disconti-nuities, while maintaining a classical orthodox hermeneutic, being sensitive to Luke as historian, theologian and skilled writer.

90 David J. Hesselgrave and Edward Rommen, Contextualization: Meanings, Me-thods, and Models (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989), p. 148.



8 The Speech: Acts 17:22-31

8.1 Introductions (vss. 22-23)

Then Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, “Men of Ath-ens, I perceive (theōréō) that in all things you are very religious (deis-idaimonesterous); for as I was passing through and giving careful con-sideration to the objects of your worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN (agnosto) GOD. That which you con-tinually worship, acknowledging openly your ignorance (agnoountes), I proclaim (katangelo) to you” (vs. 22-23).91

Paul starts his speech with “Men of Athens” which recalls his and Barnabas’ “Sirs” at Lystra (Acts 14) and Socrates’ and Demosthenes’ defenses. It might also be seen as the fact that Paul is actually stress-ing his common humanity with his audience. It is wise to find com-mon ground as a fellow human with others, but not for Christians to find common ground as co-religionists. Cornelius Van Til who penned the important work, Paul and Athens, stressed that one should find metaphysical common ground with other human beings, but not philosophical common ground. Others prefer the word “point of contact” to avoid the inclusivistic sense that common ground car-ries.92 Paul knew that he needed to start his address in a way that was neither too friendly, nor overly critical. He likely adopted the stance in 1 Pet 3:16 of defending the faith with “gentleness and respect".

91 Rendition dependant on Bahnsen. Conrad Gempf translates, “What I proclaim to you is only that which you yourselves, while openly admitting your ignorance, claim to reverence.” Conrad Gempf, "Paul at Athens", in Gerald F. Hawthorne and Ralph P. Martin (eds), Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (Downers Grove, Ill. InterVarsi-ty Press, 1999), p. 52.92 Missiologists use the terms “bridges, human universals of culture, eye-openers, points of entry, starting points, contact points, and keys of common ground” inter-changeably. Van E. Sanders, “A Theological Study of Point of Contact Theory”, on Global Missiology, Contemporary Practice, July 2004, www.globalmissiology.net. (2010/03/27)



He also knew “that all men are by virtue of creation by God very re-ligious, and that all men are by virtue of sin very superstitious.”93 So then, with something of a double entendre, Paul tells them that they have a comprehensive worldview (“all things”) and that they are very religious (deisidaimonesterous). With Luke’s characteristic dramatic irony, he employs a word that could be read in one way by Paul’s audience, and in another way by the readers of Acts.94 Perhaps Paul is winking at this point. He is affirming the religiosity that character-ized Athens, but is using a word that has a range of meanings from “one who fears demons”, “slavishly afraid of divine wrath” (Alexan-der), “greatly superstitious”, to “religious”, “very religious”, to “re-ligiously exact” (Fitzmeyer), “uncommonly religious”, to “deeply pious”, to “having a fear of the gods”. Perhaps he said with tongue in cheek, “I see that you make a great display of piety.”95 A latter reader of Acts might hear the echo of Rom 10:2, “Zeal without knowledge”. Likely, however, the Mars Hill audience congratulated themselves on their great devotion to the gods. Joel Marcus shows that there is likely more of a confrontation than meets the eye, as the Greek system of gods was in the shape of a pyramid. The greater gods like Zeus were found at the top, and in the middle of the pyramid there were spirits that mediated relations between the great gods and people. These were referred to as ‘dai-mon’ and are roughly comparable to ‘jinn’ in Islam. To the Greeks the ‘daimon’ could be good or they could be malicious, unlike the Biblical view of demons that is always negative. Surely Paul had in his mind that there is only “One Mediator between God and men, the

93 Cornelius Van Til, Paul at Athens (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1956), p. 5. 94 He does this also with the words bōmós and sébasma. 95 Dean Zweck suggests that the "Epicurean auditors may have picked up an ironical intent in the epithet (at the same time approving the speaker for it), since in their literature the word has the connotation of 'superstitions,' "The Exordium of the Areopagus Speech, Acts 17.22,23", in New Testament Studies 35 (1989), p. 102.



man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim 2:5). It is because of the bridge-building effort of this Mediator that Paul will show that the Biblical God is not as distant as the Greeks think he is.96 By referring to his studied and careful observation (anatheōreō) Paul demonstrated that he had more than a cursory knowledge of Athenian culture. Whereas the guest demonstrates “studied curios-ity,” the Athenians knew only “idle curiosity.” Knowledgeably and skillfully Paul seized the opportunity to communicate with fellow human beings and bring them to the question, ‘Who is the true God?’ Paul’s paroxysm at Athenian idolatry remained, and yet he could in-form them that he would proclaim to them, as the herald of the Liv-ing God (kataggéllō 97), that of which they were ignorant. Like Jesus who told the Samaritan woman who “worshipped what she did not know” (John 4: 22), Paul will do the same. He will show that they have culpably twisted their God-given religious impulses and created a god who is a figment of their own imagination - an idol. Paul uses a Greek word (bōmós) that the OT and Jewish writings always used for pagan altars to describe one of the Athenian objects of veneration: the altar to AN UNKNOWN GOD. Likely the Jealous God’s words to Israel reverberated through Paul. In Ex 34:13-14 the Israelites are instructed to “tear down their altars (bōmós-LXX) and break their pillars and cut down their Asherim, for you shall worship no other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.” The Athenians wanted to cover their bases with a god for every rea-son and every season. This pagan altar likely was their insurance policy in case they had forgotten one of the deities out there. It has been called a “wild card” theology.98 This was more of an affirma-tion of paranoid self-centeredness than their love of the true God.

96 Marcus, p. 146. 97 To preach, set forth, inculcate. See Acts 4:2; 13:5; 15:36; 16:17, 21; 17:3, 13, 23; 26:23; 1 Cor. 2:1; 9:14; Phil 1:16, 18; Col 1:28. Luke uses this verb exclusively for the proclamation of the gospel of the risen Jesus. 98 BAGD, p. 413.



Pardigon puts it well: “Idolatry is always about controlling the gods so as to obtain one's wishes.”99 Litwak proposes at least three OT echoes that may have guided Paul in choosing his “script” from the altar. Both the Psalmist and Jeremiah ask God, “Pour out your wrath upon the nations that do not know you and the peoples who do not call upon your name” (Jer 10: 25 cf. Ps 78:6).100 This likely is the lead-in to Paul’s reference to impending judgment in verse 30. He also holds out the hope that Isaiah 45:14 promises, where YHWH says that the nations that cur-rently do not know Him will come to Him. In a fashion similar to Isaiah, Paul compares the sham of idolatry to worship of the true God. Some see an allusion to the Septuagint version of Isa 45:15, where the nations say, “For you are God, we did not know the God of Israel.” Pharaoh says almost the same in Ex 5:2 with the words, “Who is the LORD that I should obey him… I do not know the LORD….” Purposefully Paul refers to the “what” and not the “who” that the Athenians worship. John Polhill states, ‘Their worship object was a thing, a “what,” and not a personal God at all.’101 This lack of cer-tainty of who this God is also posed a problem for John Calvin. In his commentary on Acts he states, "Furthermore, whosoever doth worship God without any certainty, he worshippeth his own inven-tions instead of God."102 In a word, Calvin is saying that religion or

99 Pardigon, p. 212, fn 81. 100 These passages resonate with the words of GC. Berkhouwer who notes that Ro-mans 1 points to the anger of God (vs. 18): “It ever remains impossible to speak of the general revelation of God without considering also the anger of God (vs. 18), which condemns man's suppression of the truth in unrighteousness.” G.C. Berkou-wer. "General and Special Divine Revelation" in Carl F.H. Henry (ed) Revelation and the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1958), p. 16. 101 John B. Polhill, Vol 26, Acts, electronic ed., Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001, c1992), p. 272. 102 Calvin, p. 155, cited by Pardigon, p. 243, fn 14.



faith without an object of worship is pointless. Compare Calvin’s statement with that of Kevin Higgins who adds, "A Jewish monothe-ist (Paul) is using a pagan altar as a sign that the people he addresses are religious and that they have in fact been worshipping the true God without knowing it."103 He continues, “Before Paul’s sermon, who would have guessed that the altar to the unknown god was really an altar to the God of the Old Testament?” Many disagree with Higgins’s observation. William Larkin would reply with another question, “If Paul's audience has been wor-shiping the one true God all along, why is their ignorance culpable, something they must repent of (v 30; compare vss. 27, 29)?”104 Chrys Caragounis is a bit more direct: “The existence of an altar to the honour of an Unknown God can under no circumstances be a guarantee that the Athenian populace had received authentic revela-tion from the living God.”105 Paul, Howard Marshall asserts, “hardly meant that his audience were unconscious worshippers of the true God… Rather he is drawing their attention to the true God who was ultimately responsible for the phenomena which they attributed to the unknown god.”106 Even Flemming agrees and states, ‘The Athenians

103 Kevin Higgins, The Key to Insider Movements: The “devoteds” of Acts” Interna-tional Journal of Frontier Missions 21:4 (Winter 2004), p. 161. http://www.ijfm.org/PDFs_IJFM/21_4_PDFs/Key_Insider_Higgins.pdf (2010/3/18). Similarly Pieter Willem van der Horst states, “It is clear that Luke wants to present Paul as claiming that he is proclaiming to the Greeks the God of Israel whom they honour without knowing him”. Pieter Willem van der Horst, “ Unknown God” in K. van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter Willem van der Horst eds. Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (DDD) (Leiden: Brill, 1998), p. 885. 104 William J. Larkin, D. Stuart Briscoe and Haddon W. Robinson (ed), Acts. The IVP New Testament commentary series 5 (Downers, Ill., USA: InterVarsity Press, 1995), p. 256. Pardigon agrees with Larkin and states contra Higgins, “Paul is therefore not equating the one true God, Yahweh, with an idolatrous and polytheistic "unknown god”, p. 244. 105 Chrys C. Caragounis, “Divine revelation”, in Evangelical Review of Theology, Vol 12 No 3 (Jl 1988), p. 228. 106 Marshall, Acts of the Apostles: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale New



are hardly “anonymous Christians”.’107 Pardigon expresses the same sentiment as Marshall with the words, ‘The meaning of the phrase is not that the Athenians worship “him” (the one whom Paul proclaims) without knowing they do, but that they revere that which they do not know.’ Additionally, he points out that the word for “revere” (eusebéō) is never used in the NT or OT for worship of the true God.108 Simon Kistemaker is even more direct:

They worship without knowledge, which in Athens, the bastion of learn-ing, was a contradiction in terms. They concede that this unknown god exists, but they have no knowledge of him. And they must acknowl-edge that their approach to proper worship is deficient because of their ignorance. Paul, however, does not equate the unknown god of the Athenians with the true God. Notice that he says 'what you worship', not 'whom you worship'. Paul calls attention only to their lack of know-ledge and thus takes the opportunity to introduce God as Creator and Judge of the universe. Paul intimates that the Athenians' ignorance of God is blameworthy and this ignorance demands swift emendation.109

Testament Commentaries (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1980), p. 286. Also Bock, p. 564, observes, “Paul is not equating the god worshipped here by the Greeks and the God he will preach, but the altar is a segue into discussing the one true God." See also van der Horst, pp. 882-885. 107 Flemming, (2002) p. 203. See footnote 17 for further elaboration. 108 Pardigon, p. 245,fn 28. It should be mentioned that at times Christians are refer-red to the noun form of the verb eusebéō 109 Simon Kistemaker, Exposition of the Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990), p. 632, cited by Adam Sparks, “Salvation History, Chronology, and Crisis: A Problem with Inclusivist Theology of Religions, Part 2 of 2”, in Themelios Vol 33 No 3 (December 2008). Compare Kistemaker’s statement with one made at the 2nd Vatican council in 1964: “But if some men do not know the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, yet acknowledge the Creator, or seek the unknown God in shadows or im-ages, then God himself is not far from such men… Those who, while guiltlessly ignorant of Christ’s gospel and of his Church, sincerely seek God and are brought by the influence of grace to perform his will as known by the dictates of conscience, can achieve eternal salvation.” Dogmatic Constitution on The Church ii. 16 (The Documents of Vatican II, ed. by Walter M. Abbott and trans. ed. by Joseph Galla-gher [London, 1966], p. 35) cited by J.I. Packer, “The Way of Salvation — Part IV:



Both Conrad Gempf and Fredric Howe demonstrate that the word order in the phrase place the accent on the ignorance of the Atheni-ans, rather then on the word worship.110 Howe writes, “The vital principle here is that the point of contact for Paul's statement of clari-fication was not a common knowledge of the true God of Scripture that these hearers were encouraged to discover, as if to say that they all along had really worshiped the true God. Far from it! Paul's real principle is that their acknowledged ignorance is to be met with accu-rate information! Their ignorance rather than their worship is stressed.” Given the double-tongued quality of Paul’s speech, it is helpful to note, as Given did, that the audience is likely kept guessing if Paul is accusing of culpable ignorance or excusing them for blissful igno-rance. Just as the word “deeply religious” could do double duty, so could the word “agnosto”. Given suggests that Paul might be saying both “What you worship unknowingly," and "What you worship im-properly/shamefully."111 The audience does not know whether to sa-lute or to stone Paul. Thus the altar inscription with its motif of ignorance (agnosto) acts as a bookend to the rest of the speech. The same word is picked up in vs. 30 which acts as the other bookend or inclusio. Pardigon diagrams the entire speech as a chiasm in the following way:

A Athenians' unknowing of God (vss. 22-23: "unknown God," "worship in ignorance" etc.)

B Idolatry: pagan temple and ceremonies (vss. 24-25: contrasted with God's nature)

C Man's double creational mandate (vss. 26-27: dwell and seek)

Are Non-Christian Faiths Ways of Salvation?”, in Bibliotheca Sacra 130:518 (Apr 1973), p. 112. 110 Gempf , Dictionary, p. 52 and Frederic R Howe, Challenge and Response (Grand Rapids, Mi. Zondervan, 1982), p. 42. 111 Given, p. 71.



B Idolatry: crafting of lifeless idols (vss. 28-29: contrasted with life-giving God)

A All nations' unknowing of God (vss. 30-31: "times of igno-rance")112

At this point, those looking for commonality will have a hard time finding it. Paul is stressing divergence or at best ambiguity, rather than convergence. He did not use the words “establish” or “verify”; instead, he used the authoritative word “proclaim”. Not only that, he suggested that he knew truth, and that his audience did not. Paul es-sentially says, “As much as you have a great deal of religious prac-tice, you are quite uninstructed. Right now I am going to proclaim to you what you need to know, and that is the person of the true God revealed in Jesus Christ, if you are to have an informed religion.”113 Put more simply: “I am here today to enlighten your accumulated ignorance concerning God.”114 Like all humans outside of Christ, the Athenians know of God, but they do not know Him. This leads us to the next part of Paul’s speech in which he covers the doctrine of God along with a theology of creation, providence and history, up to the consummation. He reinforces his argument with the resurrection, and insists on human responses of proper wor-ship and repentance. This is all couched in terms that his audience can relate to, while being totally uncompromising with the scandal of the gospel. This is no small feat in 7 verses.

112 Pardigon, p. 296, fn 261. 113 Compare this with Joseph Alexander who suggested that Paul might have been saying, “I perceive from one of your neglected altars, that you recognize another god (or other gods) besides the many which you worship formally by name, and I an-nounce to you that under this indefinite description falls the very Being whom you ought to serve to the exclusion of all others. What yourselves acknowledge to exist and to be worthy of religious reverence, although you cannot even name it, I make known to you this day, in the person of the only true and living God.' Alexander, p. 153. 114 Meadors, p. 110.



By means of repetition, Paul structures his speech. He uses the word “God” five times, and the word “all” or “everything” eight times. In a nutshell, he is arguing for God’s sovereignty.115

8.2 What is the true God like? (vss. 24-25): World Creator vs. pagan temple worship

The God who made the universe and all the things in it, this God being the Lord of heaven and earth, does not take up His residence in sanctuar-ies made by human hands, neither is He served by human hands as if he needs something, since he himself is constantly giving life and breath and everything else to all (people) (vss. 24-25).

Paul seems to take as a starting point where his audience is at. Wouldn’t the Athenian philosophers resonate with a statement that came close to Epictetus (4.76) who said, "God has made all things in the universe?" Wouldn’t a Hellenistic Jew resonate with the sem-blance to a line from Bel and the Dragon where Daniel says that he cannot worship Bel because, “I do not revere man-made idols, but the living God, who created heaven and earth and has dominion over all flesh."116 Paul uses words that, as Howard Marshall says, "could also have been accepted by the Greek philosopher Plato."117 How-ever, the ideas of “subversive storytelling” and the example of Moses plundering the Egyptian thought constructs should inform one’s con-siderations. It is also important to distinguish between words that could have communicated an idea, and the idea itself. Lightfoot, for example is very careful to distinguish verbal paral-lels and philosophical parallels. This seems to be the Achilles heel for those who look for convergence. They see a verbal parallel and

115 See “The Rhetoric of the Areopagus Speech”, in Mikeal Parsons, Acts (Paideia: Commentaries on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Academic, 2008), p. 249. 116 Charles H. Talbert, Reading Acts: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles (Macon, Ga: Smyth & Helwys Pub, 2005), p. 153. 117 Marshall, p. 286.



assume a philosophical parallel. Take for instance the phrase, “hu-mans err”. What that means to a Muslim and a Christian is very dif-ferent. Yet the words are alike. Lightfoot states his case concerning what seems, on the surface, to be an adaptation of philosophical categories by Paul:

Nevertheless a nearer examination very materially diminishes the force of this impression. In many cases, where the parallels are most close, the theory of a direct historical connexion is impossible; in many others it can be shown to be quite unnecessary; while in not a few instances the resemblance, however striking, must be condemned as illusory and fal-lacious.118

Strategically, F.F. Bruce notes that "Paul starts with his hearers' belief in an impersonal divine essence, pantheistically conceived, and leads them to the living God revealed as creator and judge."119 Note the pronouns that Bruce uses: “an impersonal” finishing with “the” and, we might add, personal “living God”. This comment accurately reflects the altar’s inscription, “to an unknown god”, which could be one of any or many, and not “to the unknown god”. To defnd himself against the charge of introducing some kind of a “foreign” deity, Paul goes right back to the source: the origin of the universe. He describes the God who created the very place they were standing on, and who gives them the breath they need to live. He ties into their value of tolerance for other people’s gods, especially with

118 Lightfoot, p. 291, quoted by Meadors, p. 96. 119 Bruce, p. 381. Compare this quote by Roland F. Ziegler who goes on to say that Paul’s doctrine of God “then is neither identical with the sense as used by the popu-lar culture, which is polytheistic, nor is it identical with the Stoic concept of a pantheistic deity nor with the remote gods of the Epicureans nor with the unmoved mover in “Natural knowledge of God and the Trinity”, in Concordia Theological Quarterly Vol 69 No 2 (Ap 2005), p. 149.



consideration of their antiquity. Yet he uses a phrase for the uni-verse, “heavens and earth” which is distinctly Biblical. Paul’s logic is as follows: Since the singular God (compare this with the speech at Lystra in Acts 14), as opposed to one of the pan-theon, has once and for all created everything, it follows that he is also the rightful Sovereign over everything, namely the heaven and the earth. Since He started everything in existence, He is the One who gives the breath of life to his creatures. Since He encompasses everything, He does not want to be reduced to size or pinned down to a certain location in a human-made shrine or temple. To think that one can appease Him with a gift is an insult to Him, because He is the giver and wants to be acknowledged as such. Because of God’s universal lordship, it is He who can dictate how he would be wor-shipped. Rather than starting at the point of creation and working up to God, as the Stoics did, Paul reversed the flow and started with who God is, and then defined creation as such. He is thus working from Biblical premises and not the premises of his audience. Echoes of Gen 1:1, Ex 20:11, 1 Kgs 8:27 and Isa 42:5, “This is what God the LORD says - he who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread out the earth and all that comes out of it, who gives breath to its people and life to those who walk on it” are obvious. Equal are the words that might have still rung in Paul’s ears, namely those of Stephen, “The Most High does not live in houses made by men….” (Acts 7:48 cf. Isa 66: 1-2). Hebr 11:3 completes the picture with the words, "By faith we understand that the universe was cre-ated by the word of God." Note how much of Paul’s speech echoes Jewish sentiments that were voiced still a century later even by the Roman historian Tacitus:

The Jews conceive of one god only, and that with the mind only; they regard as impious those who make from perishable materials representa-tions of gods in man's image; that supreme and eternal being is to them incapable of representation and without end. Therefore they set up no



statues in their cities, still less in their temples; this flattery is not paid their kings, nor this honour given to the Caesars. (Hist. 5.5.4)120

The Athenians had a “this for that” relationship with the gods. If I will scratch your back, i.e. of the gods, then you must scratch mine. Put in another way, "I give in order that you may give." In other words, I, the human worshiper, give in order that you, the god, may give to me.”121 Paul’s reference to YHWH not needing anything cuts right to the heart of this notion. Likely he was thinking of Psalm 50: 9-12 where YHWH begins, “I have no need of a bull from your stall.” The idea of human provision is both irrelevant and irreverent. Thus Paul is engaging in presuppositional apologetics, namely he is confronting their false assumptions. Robert Tannehill shows the wisdom of such an approach. He states:

The Areopagus speech may provide a helpful model of the delicate task of speaking outside the religious community through critical engage-ment with the larger world. A mission that does not engage the presup-positions and dominant concerns of those being approached leaves these presuppositions and concerns untouched, with the result that the mes-sage, even if accepted does not transform its hearers. The fundamental structures of the old life remain standing, and the gospel loses its cul-ture-transforming power.122

R. K. McGregor Wright further elaborates on how Paul engaged with the presuppositions of his audience. Paul was guided by his standard operational procedure of taking “every thought captive to obey Christ” and destroying “arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God” (2 Cor 10:5). Thus he corrects a number of their mistaken notions about the nature of God. In doing

120 Cited by James Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids, Mi: Eerdmans, 2006), p. 36. 121 Marcus, p. 145. 122 Robert C. Tannehill, The Acts of the Apostles. The narrative unity of Luke-Acts: a literary interpretation (Minneapolis, Minn: Fortress Press, 1994), p. 215.



so he is more confrontational than meets the eye, and than some might care to admit. Specifically, Paul showed that:

God is not an unknowable Theion (an indefinite divine Being) back be-hind the appearance of the world, as the Stoics thought, but contrary also to the Epicureans, he is the sovereign Lord, the maker of "the Cos-mos and everything in it." This shoots down Greek polytheism, in which various phases of the world are made and ruled by various finite deities. And contrary to the Stoics, God is not merely the rational principle im-manent in an otherwise impersonal universe. On the contrary, he is the one infinite-personal character behind the very meaning of the word "being". This offsets Greek pantheism, with its ultimately monistic pre-supposition that "All is One".123

Paul continues his anti-idol polemic. We keep in mind Pao’s sug-gestion that in Luke-Acts sin is defined as idolatry, which is the “failure or refusal to recognize Yahweh to be the one and only God, as defined in the first two commandments of the Decalogue.”124 Paul uses the same word that Stephen used to say that God does not live in man-made (cheiropoíētos) places. This term in the LXX is always used in the context of idolatry in the OT. Seven out its nine occur-rences are found in Isaiah. Isa 46:6 reads, “They hire a goldsmith, who makes it into an idol (cheiropoíētos-LXX) then they fall down and worship.”125 It shows an attempt on behalf of humans to control the gods. They can put them where they want, make them appear how they want, and give them as much space and control as they want. The creature-Creator relationship is inverted and the god who should be the master is now the slave, and the human who should be the slave now becomes the master.

123 R.K. McGregor Wright, ‘Paul’s Purpose at Athens and The Problem Of "Com-mon Ground” Parts One –Three.’ www.dtl.org/apologetics/wright/athens-1.htm (2010/04/02) 124 Pardigon, p. 257 fn 80. 125 Pao, p. 195. Lev 26:1.30; Is 2,18, 10:11, 16:12, 19:1, 21:9, 31:7, 46:6.



Earlier we noted that characteristically idols are made with human hands (Ps 115:4) and lack the breath of life (Jer 10:14, 51:17). Like Isaiah’s parodies on the idol manufacturing of his day, so Paul in a polemic turn says that it is God who provides the breath of life (Gen 2:7).126 Conclusion: Athenian idols are quite useless, demonstrate culpable ignorance, and actually invoke the wrath of God.

8.3 Athenian ethnic idolatry and God’s kindness to humans which adds to their guilt (vss. 26-27)

And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us. (ESV)

In a single sentence in vss. 26 and 27 Paul addresses Greek idola-trous ethnic superiority; demonstrates God’s common kindness to humanity, his definite plans for humans in the course of history, and their distance from their Creator. The verses start and end with God as the subject. Paul moves from the concept of general creation (vss. 24-25) to God’s original design for humans along with a Biblical view of his-tory which is directed by a personal God. The word “determined” (horízō) shows this personal control. This same word will be used for the appointment of the Judge of all people (vs. 31). Paul refers to “one man” in a generic and unstated sense, namely Adam, as the start

126 See the insightful analysis of Robert B. Chisholm, Jr, ‘A worker overlays (Heb. rāqa˓) an idol with metal (Isa 40:19) and stretches a measuring line over his work (44:13); Yahweh "spreads out" (Heb. rāqa˓) the earth (42:5; 44:24) and stretches out the heavens (40:22). “To Whom Shall you Compare Me?” Yahweh’s Polemic against Baal and the Babylonian Idol-Gods in Prophetic Literature’, in Edward Rommen, Harold Netland (eds), Christianity and the religions: a biblical theology of world religions Evangelical missiological society series, No 2 (Pasadena, CA: Willi-am Carey Library, 1995), p. 65.



of all the nations. This will link in with the other generic and un-stated man, namely Jesus, in verse 31. It is Jesus, the new Adam, that Paul asserts is making a new people (cf. Rom 5 and 1 Cor 15). Nowhere does Paul condone the Greek idea of a “first principle" such as the Logos of Zeno who founded Stoicism, or Plato’s Good. The text stands in comparison to Greek thought which called all races other than themselves barbarians.127 Not only had they con-structed boxes to put God in, via their temples, they felt that they were the epitome of his creation because they were “sprung from the soil of their native Attica” or “autochthonous.”. Whereas God had designed their “dwelling place” they were trying to make “dwelling places” for Him. They said humans could only inhabit 2/5 of the earth, i.e. the temperate zones, but God created the entire world for humans. The fact that the ethne exist is a testimony to the fragmentation of humans after the fall. This is especially true after Babel which was the epitome of an idolatrous attempt to reach God’s abode on hu-mankind’s terms. In contrast, the covenant people of Israel were known as a “people” and not as an ethne. Israel, as the “people of God”, were chosen by God’s sovereign election from among “all the nations upon the face of the earth” (Deut 7:6). Block points out that the nations of the Ancient Near East were known first and foremost by their gods.128 That is why YHWH was so jealous to have a people for his own. The pagan nations had perverted their “sense of the di-vine” with which they were created, with religious drive for “seek-ing” the true God. Similarly the Athenians wanted to find their own kind of god on their own terms. Thus Paul says elsewhere, “Greeks seek after wisdom” (1 Cor 1:22).

127 Tannehill, p. 496. 128 Daniel Block, The Gods of the Nations: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern National Theology, 2nd ed., ETS Studies (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2000) cited by Pardigon, p. 275.



Calvin summarizes these verses: “Therefore, after that Paul hath intreated of the nature of God, he putteth in this admonition in due season, that men must be very careful to know God, because they be created for the same end, and born for that purpose; for he doth briefly assign unto them this cause of life, to seek God."129 God’s original design is that humans would enjoy fellowship with him as they would enjoy his presence. Thus the seeking is part and parcel of creation design. Yet, this has been marred by the fall. Ned Stonehouse in his timeless lecture on Acts 17 states:

Paul is not describing contemporaneous pagan religion but rather is dis-closing the divine purpose regarding man's religious response which was grounded in the creation of man and the divine rule over him. To man was appointed the privilege of religious fellowship with his Crea-tor, and this was to be attained by way of a conscious seeking after God in response to the divine revelation. That goal had always remained, but in "the times of ignorance" it evidently remained distant and had not been reached."130

The term “seeking” might at first glance be thought to condone the philosophical speculations of the audience. Certainly it would have echoes of Homer’s Odyssey and the blind Cyclops groping around trying to find his cave entrance. It would echo with Plato’s Phaedo and humanity’s search for God. However, Paul changes its meaning. Gartner comments, “Any philosophical interpretation of the term is hampered” by what he sees as the very rare “personal con-struction” translated [seeking God].131 Pardigon also shows that the OT phrase “seeking God” is usually found in a covenantal context. Frequently prophetic calls to “seek God” are in the context of Israel’s

129 Calvin, quoted by Pardigon, p. 164. 130 Ned B. Stonehouse, The Areopagus Address (London: The Tyndale Press, 1949), p. 27. 131 Meadors, p. 121, citing Bertil Gartner, The Areopagus Speech and Natural Revelation (Acta Seminarii Neotestamentici Upsaliensis, p. 21. Translated by Carolyn H. King. Uppsala: C7 W. K. Gleerup, 1955), p. 156.



spiritual adultery with foreign gods, and a call to return to YHWH as their husband from the consequences of actions. Thus the call comes in the context of exile away from God, and a turnaround to the point of original departure (Hebrew shub). The NT concept of repentance leans heavily on the OT term shub. This anticipates vs. 30. Rather than a commendation that the possibility exists that hu-mans seek and find God, the opposite is quite true. Rather than sub-mitting to the true God, humans create gods of their own imagination and, as Calvin states, “The human heart is a perpetual idol-factory.” In vs. 27 Luke uses a verb form called the optative and to his readers the rarity of this verb form, compounded with it being used twice, would send the message: there is a very high degree of uncertainty - almost to the point of impossibility - that the seeking will result in finding.132 Alexander comments that this is “a vivid and expressive exhibition of the state in which the Gentile world was placed, with-out a written revelation or direct communication with their Maker, yet with light enough to make their ignorance of God inexcus-able.”133 The words, “might feel their way (psēlapháō) towards him” add to the tentativeness of the search. This is a verb used in the LXX to describe the groping of a blind man, e.g. Jacob in Gen 27:12, 21, 22 and Samson in Judg 16:26. The judgment on Israel results in their saying, “We grope for the wall like the blind; we grope like those who have no eyes; we stumble at noon as in the twilight; among those in full vigor we are like dead men” (Isaiah 59:10). Idols have exactly the same sight problem. They cannot see or hear or walk (Jer 10:5, cf. Rev 9:20). The idol worshipper and the idols have a famil-ial resemblance. Still a number of modern missiologists suggest that in the seeking people will actually find God. Some appeal even to the Qur’anic

132 Pardigon, pp. 292-293, see also pp. 147-149. 133 Alexander, p. 156.



statement in Surah 50:60 that describes Allah as being nearer to mankind than his own jugular vein. This translates into strategies that are “seeker friendly” based on the underlying assumption that it is within fallen human nature to find this God. Compare this with Barrett who observed, “From nature the Greeks have evolved not natural theology but natural idolatry.”134 As hopeless as the situation sounds, Paul is fulfilling his commis-sion to the Gentiles. He is executing the words of Isa 42:6-7 which concern the Servant of the Lord, first of all Jesus, and then Jesus’ authorized representative, namely,

I am the LORD; I have called you in righteousness; I will take you by the hand and keep you; I will give you as a covenant for the people, a light for the nations, to open the eyes that are blind, to bring out the prisoners from the dungeon, from the prison those who sit in darkness.

The epoch of ignorance can come to an end, despite all odds, through the Spirit empowered preaching of the gospel. ‘Yet he is actually not far from each one of us…’ expresses God’s original design at creation which he extended in a unique way to Is-rael. Deut 4:5-8 recounts Moses exhorting the people based on the fact that they serve a living and nearby God. “For what other great nation has a god so near to it as Yahweh our God is whenever we call to him?” Yet it is a situation of “so close and yet so far”. Porter elaborates and calls this “a picture of perpetual frustration”. He describes it as an image of humans who have eyes but cannot see and are “strug-gling to make contact with the divine, but not being successful, de-spite the proximity of the creator-God”.135 This echoes the lot of hu-manity described in Rom 1:18-32. It also puts the blame squarely on

134 Barrett, pp. 850-51. 135 Pardigon, p. 295, fn 259 citing Stanley E Porter, The Paul of Acts: Essays in Li-terary Criticism, Rhetoric, and Theology Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 115 (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999), p. 168.



humans, as the problem is not God’s distance, but it is human willful rejection which in the next verses will be called the “times of igno-rance”.

8.4 Giver of life vs. lifeless representations (vss. 28-29)

For “In him we live and move and have our being”, as even some of your own poets have said, “For we are indeed his offspring”. Being then God’s offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination (enthúmēsis) of man.

‘Paul quoted a Greek poet, likely Aratus. […] He must have agreed with him. Thus we can and should use writings of other relig-ions to persuade their adherents that God has already been working in their religion.’ So it has been said. But is the conclusion drawn from the cursory observation true? We would suggest definitely not. We would agree with Pardigon who says, “Though the language is thoroughly Hellenistic, the con-tent and the argument are strictly biblical.”136 Paul continues his line of thought that was seen especially in vs. 25, namely that human existence and sustenance depend absolutely on God’s benevolent care. The echoes of his statement made in I Cor 8:4-6 are evident: “For there is [only] one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist.” In that classical state-ment of New Testament monotheism, Paul also qualifies, “one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through Him.” Thus Paul will be arguing not from categories of Greek philosophy, but from the uniquely Biblical and Christian God as the God and Fa-ther of our Lord Jesus Christ. The terms, “live”, “move” and “have being” are clear contrasts with the idols. Jeremiah describes such as:

136 Pardigon, p. 298.



Like a scarecrow in a melon patch, they cannot speak; they must be car-ried because they cannot walk. Do not fear them; they can do no harm nor can they do any good.” (Jer 10.5)

Instead of living, and moving, and having being, idols have no breath, are immobile, and inert. Paul employs a phrase from the Stoic philosopher Aratus (c. 315-240 BC) [or Cleanthes] to illustrate his argument and to connect with their thought world. Some have gone as far as saying that this usage gives ample justification for other “Christianizing” of non-Christian texts. A number of objections must be raised. First, Paul distances himself from a carte blanche acceptance of the quote by saying, “one of your poets”. He does not give it the meaning that they do. Here Cornelius Van Til remarked, “By this time the men that heard him knew that Paul did not mean the same thing that their poets had meant when they too said that men live and move and have their be-ing in God and that they are the offspring of God.”137 To atomisti-cally take a phrase from a poet who demonstrated his paganism in the rest of his writings, and then to “sprinkle holy water on it” is to wrench it out of its larger context. The professor of classics, Reimer Faber, suggests that Paul’s purpose in using the quote was “to preach that God abhors idolatrous worship.”138 Essentially, Paul was using Athenian culture, in this case Aratus, to show them the inconsistency of their worldview. Litwak proposes the following line of logic in Paul’s argument: “Humans are God's offspring. Since humans are the works of God, nothing that humans can make can represent God. If this is so, then nothing that such lesser beings can make can equal the superior God who made them. Since humans are like God, and humans are not like any material thing, God is not like any material representation, be it stone, silver

137 Van Til, p. 11. 138 Riemer Faber, “The Apostle and the Poet: Paul and Aratus”, originally in Clarion Vol 42 No 13 (1993). See online www.spindleworks.com/library/rfaber/aratus.htm.



or gold, all of which are lesser than humans.”139 Following this, Han-sen shows that Paul is affirming that the Athenians, while claiming to be orthodox in their beliefs, were actually guilty of the “sin” of nov-elty with which they were charging him. He quotes Abraham Mal-herbe who said, “The pagan philosophers who question the apostle do not themselves hold to the legitimating tradition; it is Paul who does.”140 They have a poet who in effect condemned idols, and yet are surrounded by them. This is “subversive storytelling”. Due to the echoes of Gen 1-2, Deut 32 and Isa 42, this passage is much more than a simple affirmation of omnipresence, which could even be attributed to Zeus. It is an affirmation of God’s salvation plan through history, so that the “knowledge of the glory of the Lord will fill the whole earth as the waters fill the sea” (Hab 2:14). The original design was that this would be done through his offspring, his vice-regents, namely Adam and his offspring. This was his noble calling as exercising rulership over creation. To say then, “We are his offspring”, is a painful reminder of the noble calling that was lost due to Adam and Eve’s treason, and it demonstrates the need for a new Adam to have “offspring” that will radiate God’s glory through-out the earth once more. Since the fall and his rebellion against his true Creator, human-kind has made God-replacements as artifices of their own imagina-tion (enthúmēsis).141 With the very creativity that God gave them, humans reduce God to objects which can be manipulated, whether creations of their hands or of their mind. This recalls an anti-idol 139 Litwak, p. 209 . Compare William Larkin, "If like begets like, it is illogical to suppose that the divine nature who created living human beings is like an image made of an inanimate substance." W.J. Larkin, Acts, IVPNTC (Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity, 1995), p. 259. 140 Abraham J. Malherbe, Paul and the Popular Philosophers (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1989), p. 152 cited by Hansen, p. 310, 141 BAGD: the process of considering something, thought, reflection, idea cf. Mt 9:4; 12:25. EDNT - characterized by godless evil and foolishness.



passage which reads: “The idols of the nations are silver and gold, made by the hands of men” (Ps 135.15). A question must be raised at this point. Is Allah of Islam and his surrounding religion a creation of someone’s imagination? If so, could it be classified as idolatry? Might it be a legend, as the ANE legends, which took original Biblical truth and twisted it into their own design? (cf. Rom 1:18) With sympathy for his fellow humans, Paul uses the phrase “we ought not” instead of “you ought not.” He includes himself in the injunction and does not wag his finger at his audience.142 Using the Athenians’ own words, whether from an altar inscrip-tion in vs. 23 or the saying of a poet, Paul continues to make his case. He demonstrates that they have incriminated themselves. He sug-gests that Aratus claimed that a god of human imagination could give the essence of true life to the Athenians. This, according to Paul, was the height of hubris as the God he knew would “share his glory with none other, nor his praise with carved idols” (Isa 42:8). What Aratus was proposing, in effect, was the crediting of a divine attrib-ute to a pagan god, as Beale suggested, that was “true only of the God of the Old Testament and of Jesus Christ”.143 Paul and Isaiah’s “lawsuits” against idolatry have a similar ring. In both cases the law-suits would lead to judgment.

8.5 Call to repentance (vss. 30-31)

Indeed, the times of ignorance, God having overlooked (or despised), now He is commanding people—everyone, everywhere—to repent.144 For He has set the day on which he is going to judge the world accord-ing to the standard of righteousness by the man he has appointed, and he has provided proof (of this) for all by raising him from the dead.

142 Tannehill, p. 218. 143 G.K. Beale, "Other Religions in New Testament Theology", in David Baker (ed), Biblical Faith and Other Religions: An Evangelical Assessment (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2004), p. 97. 144 See Given, pp. 72-73 for a comparison of translations.



“Now is the day of salvation” (2 Cor 6:2); “Now he com-mands…”(paraggéllō145). This is the language of the King’s mes-senger, spoken with authority and urgency so that the rebels will rec-ognize their treasonous god-replacement activities. It is the same verb used to describe the apostle’s marching orders in Acts 10.42, “And he commanded (paraggéllō) us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one appointed by God to be judge of the living and the dead.” This is not an invitation; it is a directive. This is not a call to complement or supplement one’s existing knowledge as the dilettantes at Athens were prone to do; it is a call for a complete break with the past, which Luke implies by the word “repentance.”146 O’Neill suggests a background of Jewish prosytelism informs Luke’s use of the word and for him it is “the great step a Gentile takes when he leaves behind his old religious or philosophical beliefs and turns to the living God.”147 The alternative on the horizon of redemptive history as Paul sees it is judgment. Paul has been building his lawsuit, if you will, by calling in the witnesses of the altar inscription - the poet Aratus, evidences from nature, who the true God is, and what He has done. In contrast to Greek concepts of time and history, Paul shows that God is person-ally moving history “by his own authority” (cf Acts 1:7) to its final goal.148 A definite trial date has been set/fixed for each and every person and a Judge of highest qualification has been appointed. (horízō) Cf. Acts 10:42; 2 Tim 4:1; Ps 9:7-8; Ps 94:2. He will ren-der his just verdict. Since it is God himself who has taken the initia-tive in Christ to end the epoch of “ignorance”, Paul sets before his

145 BAGD - to make an announcement about something that must be done, give or-ders, command, instruct, direct - of all kinds of persons in authority, worldly rulers, Jesus, the apostles. 146 See Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 8:22; 11:18; 13:24. 147 J. C. O'Neill, The Theology of Acts in its Historical Setting (London: S.P.C.K., 2nd ed. 1970), p. 151 cited by Meadors, p. 45. 148 Carson, p. 394.



audience the urgency of the era of “now.” He thus calls for immedi-ate and unconditional surrender from everyone, everywhere. In his grace, God has suspended or “overlooked” immediate judgment prior to Christ, but now that Christ has taken the brunt of that execution of justice, only those who flee to him have any hope.149 F.F. Bruce suggests that, "Greek thought had no room for such an eschatological judgment as the Biblical revelation announces."150 It is likely that the introduction of this idea and that of the resurrection, together, would prove to be too much for the superficially tolerant philosophers. The Judge who will take the bench, ironically, is the very one the Athenians had attempted to judge. As the “second Adam” and likely as the Son of Man of Dan 7:13, he carries a full divine appoint-ment/designation for the task. The attestation does not lie in the per-suasiveness of Paul’s proclamation but in the fact or proof of the death and resurrection of Jesus.151 Stonehouse elaborates: 149 A. C. McGiffert gives a helpful definition. ‘The “overlooking” of ignorance which is here referred to does not imply that in pre-Christian days God regarded the idolatry of the heathen with indifference or saved them from the consequences of their sins, denounced so vigorously in Rom 1, but simply that the time for the final judgement had not come until now, and that they were, therefore, summoned now to prepare for it as they had not before.” History of Christianity in the Apostolic Age (Edinburgh: Edinburgh Printing Company, 1897), p. 260, quoted in Adam Sparks, “Salvation History, Chronology, and Crisis: A Problem with Inclusivist Theology of Religions, Part 2 of 2”, in Themelios (December 2008), n.p. Compare this with Matthew Henry who states: “These times of ignorance God winked at. Understand it [1] As an act of divine justice. God despised or neglected these times of ignorance, and did not send them his gospel, as now he does. It was very provo-king to him to see his glory thus given to another; and he detested and hated these times. So some take it.” [Matthew Henry's Commentary, 6:186) quoted by Given, p. 73 fn 141. 150 Bruce, p. 361. Contrast this with Parsons who quotes Justin saying, "When we assert that the souls of the wicked living after death will be sensibly punished . . . we believe the same things as your priests and philosophers." Acts, p. 249. 151 Compare this James Hamilton Jr. who asserts, “The glory of God in the salvation through judgment accomplished by Jesus and offered to those who repent and belie-



For in raising Christ from the dead God had revealed with sufficient clearness that the age to come had begun to be realized and that the One who had gained preeminence by the divine power which raised Him from the dead was One with whom men were compelled to reckon as a unique servant of God.152

Paul is moving his speech from the Judeo-monotheistic idea of God to a Trinitarian concept of God. The resurrection is a Trinitarian affair. Although primarily the work of God the Father (Acts 13:30, 34; Rom 6:4; 10:9; Gal 1:1; Eph 1:20; Col 2:12; 1 Thes 1:10) it is also the work of the Holy Spirit (Rom 1:4; 8:11). Jesus also ascribes the ability of resurrection to himself (John 2:19; 10:17-18; 11:25). In a way similar to Moses confronting the vacuous gods of Egypt, Paul is contrasting the ‘legends’ of the Athenians and the so-called power of their gods with the ‘fact’ of the power of the resurrection. The sham of the Athenians has been unmasked. In contrast to the impotent gods of the Greek pantheon, Paul shows by the resurrection that the Triune God is the one “who delivers the goods.”153 Here on the hill commemorating Ares, the god of war, Paul refers to Jesus who also was “commemorated” on a hill and shows that he was the greatest warrior of all, triumphing over death. Ares has been beaten at his own game. The Greeks said that "the body is a tomb" and for good reason many tombstones in the region had an inscription which was a varia-tion on the theme of “I was not [prior to birth]; I was [lived my life]; I am not [after death]; I do not care.” Aeschylus [c. 525-455 BC]

ve is the center of the theology of Acts (and Luke and the whole Bible)”, in “The Center of Biblical Theology in Acts: Deliverance and Damnation Display the Divi-ne,” in Themelios, Vol 33 No. 3 (December 2008), n.p. 152 Stonehouse, p. 39. 153 Given observes that the word (pistin) or ‘proof’ can also be translated ‘faith’ and logically one might ask the question, ‘Does the orator proclaim that God is "supply-ing proof by raising him from the dead" or “supplying faith by raising him from the dead"’? Given suggests that a both/and response is correct (p. 74).



said, "When the dust has soaked up a man's blood, once he is dead, there is no resurrection."154 For the Athenian audience, and nearly all the audiences in the book of Acts, the concept of a physical resurrec-tion from the dead was just too much. Paul had brought them to the point of crossroads. They had to reckon with the Risen King, “Jesus Christ our Lord,” who “was appointed (horízō) to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead” (Romans 1:4), and not just a curiosity with some self-imagined divine attributes. Two framing devices are characteristic of the speech. The first is the use of the word “ignorance” (vss. 23, 30) and the second is “pro-claim/command”(vss. 23, 30).155 In a word, there is a resonance throughout between the ignorance of sin and its manifestation in Athens, and the fact that truth is proclaimed by Paul buttressed by the fact that God commands. More simply put: divine authority meets human rebellion. That is the very same theme that Litwak pointed out in his framing in discourse, namely an anti-idol polemic.

8.6 Reactions to the speech (vss. 32-34)

When they heard about the resurrection from the dead some sneered at him, but others said, “We would like to hear (you speak) about this mat-ter again!” So Paul left them. But some men joined him and believed, among whom was Dionysius the Areopagite. There was also a woman named Damaris, and others with them.

154 Eumenides, p. 647f. 155 Gartner comments: “Two verbs, one at the beginning and one at the end of the speech, further confirm that we are dealing here with a God Whose distinguishing feature is that He reveals Himself, and not a God Whose existence emerges from human reasoning... In the New Testament idiom, both verbs indicate that a procla-mation of worldwide significance is being made. They are common missionary terms, used to denote the apostolic message.” Gartner, p. 152, quoted by Meadors, p. 127.



In spite of confusion/ignorance at the outset of the story as to what this gospel stood for, encapsulated by “Jesus and the resurrec-tion”, the narrative ends with some who come to understand and re-spond to its call. They were a fulfillment of the mandate of the Ser-vant of Isaiah, now embodied in Paul, “To open the eyes that are blind, to bring the prisoners from the dungeon, from the prison those who sit in darkness. I am the Lord; that is my name; my glory I give to no others, nor my praise to carved idols” (Isa 42:7-8; cf Acts 13:47; 26:23). The truth of 1 Cor 1:21, "For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe," was evidenced at the Areopagus. Georges Houssney points out that the movement of those who believed is towards Paul, and not Paul towards them, i.e. “They joined him”. Houssney finds this instructive for those who advocate that believers should stay inside their former religious system, nota-bly the insider movement in Islam.156 True to form, some trivialized the very message that could save them from the guilty verdict of the Judge, and yet others asked for a further audience. Those who sneered at the ultimate proof of qualifi-cation for judgment and of the Father’s stamp of approval are them-selves proof that “those who worship worthless idols, have them-selves become worthless” (2 Kings 17:15). As G.K. Beale summa-rized, “What people revere, they resemble, either for ruin or for res-toration.”157

9 Observations

9.1 Continuity

1. Paul showed continuity with his audience as a human, "We too are only men, human like you" (14:15). He uses words like “we ought”, 156 Houssney, p. 9. 157 Beale, p. 16.



“us”, to make human connections.158 That said, he did not shy away from his apostolic/prophetic role to speak as one commissioned by God to “open the eyes,” all the while recalling the spiritual and physical blindness that had been his.

2. Paul showed restraint from the intense anger that idolatry pro-voked in him, and showed a level of respect for his “people/men of Athens”159 This was even in light of the fact that comments that were made were intended to label and trivialize him. He did not return insult for insult. He separated himself from the disdain that most of the audience had for the gospel and consequently himself as its mes-senger. This was done without taking this as a personal offense.

3. Paul used words and concepts that his audience could compre-hend. J. Daryl Charles comments, "While Paul utilizes the utmost in skill and erudition to ensure that the packaging of his message does not offend his audience, the content of the Christian apostolic keryg-ma inevitably is scandalous.”

160

4. Paul used his physical and spiritual observation skills to see the possible “points of contact” with his audience. The “subversive sto-ryteller”, like Moses, needs to get ‘inside the head’ of his audience.

158 Ajith Fernando describes this stance as: "On the one hand there is firm belief in the wrongness of life apart from Christ. On the other hand there is a respect for all individuals because they are intelligent human beings endowed by God with the privilege and responsibility of choosing to accept or reject the gospel. This caused Paul to reason with them about the truth of God." The Christian's Attitude Toward World Religions (Wheaton: Tyndale House, 1987), p. 26, cited by Miles, p. 90. 159 Matthew Henry states: ‘He did not, as Witsius observes, in the heat of his zeal break into the temples, pull down their images, demolish their altars, or fly in the face of their priests; nor did he run about the streets crying, “You are all the bond-slaves of the devil,” though it was true; but he observed decorum, and kept himself within due bounds, doing that only which became a prudent man.” Matthew Henry, Acts to Revelation Vol 6 of Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (Pea-body, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1996), p. 181 cited by Given, p. 72 fn 137. 160 Charles, p. 59.



He challenged the Athenians at their own game, and in effect told them that they did not live up to their own highest ideals. That said, one still must recognize culpable ignorance for what it is.

5. Paul connected with the sense of the divine in humans. As Luke Timothy Johnson observed, Luke ‘simply shows Paul picking up the inchoate longings of this “exceptionally religious” people and direct-ing them to their proper object.’ That said, Johnson also observed, ‘Luke does not construct or canonize a “natural theology”. The grop-ing search is not itself the finding.’161

6. Paul used communication tools to logically and methodically pre-sent his argument for a Biblical-Christian worldview. Carson calls this presenting the metanarrative or the big story that “makes all the little stories coherent” first.162

7. The request for further information (vs. 32) likely demonstrates that a door for further conversation was still open. Likely this was an evidence of God’s grace working through Paul’s speech and disposi-tion.

Seeming Ambiguity Paul used words and phrases that could be interpreted variously de-pending on who the audience was. To the Greek audience he may have re-enforced their religious pride for a moment with the word “deeply pious”, but to his Christian audience another sense would have been conveyed.

9.2 Discontinuity

1. A sense of the divine in every human does not translate into obe-dience to the Trinity. In fact, the converse is true for as Barrett sug-gested, “From nature the Greeks have evolved not natural theology

161 L. Timothy Johnson, p. 319. 162 Carson, p. 394.



but natural idolatry.” Paul was willing to confront the pervasive ef-fects of the fall on human nature.

2. "God's Word (whether oral or written) interprets God's world", and not vice-versa. Paul was consistent here with the Biblical world-view.163 As Meadors noted: “The Areopagus address is not an assimi-lation or adaptation of Greek philosophy with a view to winning the Athenian intellectuals, but it is rather a model of a Judaeo-Christian missionary sermon to pagan Gentiles.”164

3. Paul did not have a “hopeful” estimation of the non-Christian re-ligions of his audience. Rather than seeing them as "accurate yet partial" knowers of God, he sees them as "knowledgeable suppres-sors of truth”.165 Conrad Gempf illustrates: “The Athenians imagine two new gods while the Lystrans think they are seeing two old ones!”166 He concludes that in both cases their sense of objective truth was warped.

4. Judgment day and resurrection were sure to offend. Paul did not shy away from bringing his audience to the crossroads of decision. It is as William Larkin observed, that Paul’s “contextualized construc-tive engagement and correction necessarily lead to a call for conver-sion”. 167

5. Paul’s speech was informed by thoroughly Biblical categories of creation, fall, redemption and consummation. He started with crea-tion which is found in Gen 1, and ends up with the final Judgment, found in Revelation. His speech spans the entire Biblical revelation. It is the God who thus reveals himself in word and deed that con-fronts the mute and inactive idols of Athens.

163 Spencer, p. 62. 164 Meadors, p. 7. 165 Spencer, p. 71. 166 Bruce, p. 282, fn 25. 167 Larkin, p. 86.



6. His views on general and special revelation are identical to those found in his writings. Undoubtedly, Paul knew that it was God who would open people’s hearts to what he had to say, due to his thor-oughly Biblical anthropology. This stems, as Todd Miles points out, from the fact that Paul's understanding of humanity in his gospel is "theocentric rather than cultural, sociological or anthropological"168. This would limit any manipulative methodology to gain his audi-ence’s consent to faith.

7. Contra Flemming, Paul did not see the “truths” of the pagan phi-losophers as “an equal conversation partner” with that of the gospel. He did not waver from his stance of “destroying every argument”. He employed the tools of “subversive storytelling” to maximum ad-vantage to deconstruct their worldview. In this story, as in a similar fashion to the OT, “one does not need to read far in the biblical text before encountering pagan notions that have been adopted and ex-ploited for Yahwistic purposes, but without the process giving assent to the veracity of those notions."169

8. It was God’s command (vs. 30) and Paul’s proclamation (vs. 23) that were to unmask religious rebellion, also known as “ignorance” or “idolatry”.

9. Ethnic and religious pride was not a taboo that Paul could not touch in the aim of “never offending at all costs”. He tackled it head-on.

10. Considerable risks were taken in presenting the gospel. They included questioning the “this for that” arrangement that the Atheni-ans had with their gods; the suggestion that this intelligentsia were actually ignorant; the questioning of any and all of the religious prac-tices of the Athenians, especially the construction of temples. While the Stoics looked for impersonal resignation, Paul called for personal

168 Miles, p. 92. 169 Block, p. 49.



repentance. This self-introspection and self-critique were anathema to a novelty addicted, curiosity seeking audience. 10 Conclusion

Paul’s presentation starts and ends with YHWH, the Creator, Sus-tainer, Sovereign and Judge revealed through the risen Christ and Lord Jesus. It ties its ideas together by the use of time. In the past it stresses creation; in the present, God’s dominion and providential care; and in the future, judgment. It is a thoroughly God-centered summons to created humans, especially Athenians, to recognize their rightful place before Him. By means of presenting a Biblical Chris-tian worldview in words they can comprehend, Paul offers an alter-nate worldview for his pagan audience. Paul uses the anti-idol pro-gram found in Isa 40-55 and throughout the OT to drive home his point. He “plunders the Egyptians” if you will, and even re-interprets their own material for them using his worldview. This groundwork allows his audience to see their need for Christ and act on it. It is also a strong affirmation to the first Christian readers of God’s control of history and his commitment to those with whom he is related by covenant, like the Israel of old. “A text without a context is a pretext” so goes the line. The Are-opagus speech can only be interpreted in its broader Biblical context. The same must be said about the two widely-cited and often ap-pealed-to “Greek” texts, namely the inscription of the pagan altar and the words of the pagan poet that are found within the speech. Both illustrate the “so close and yet so far” dilemma of fallen humanity, with respect to God. What might have appeared on the surface to be continuities, fre-quently turned out to be discontinuities when the larger context is considered. That said, any attempt to isolate methodologies based on pulling ideas out of the text in an atomistic fashion will necessarily lead to a confused message. Paul avoided this at all costs. Should we?



Our investigation of the nature of idolatry presented in this pas-sage confirms the stance of Shaw who stated that "religion represents a rebellious response to God whose glory is arrayed before them in nature, history and conscience."170 The challenge is to measure one’s love for God, as evidenced by hatred of God-replacements. Vincent Cheung has the last word:

To the extent that we are not distressed and indignant about non-Christian beliefs, we probably do not have a corresponding love toward the true God. Indifference toward and appreciation for anti-biblical re-ligions, philosophies, beliefs, and cultures constitute treachery against the kingdom of God.171

For further reflection

In light of the above exegesis of the Areopagus text, how should one analyze the following statements?

A. Michael Youssef, an Egyptian Christian associated with the Hag-gai Institute for Advanced Leadership Training, Atlanta, Georgia, claimed, "Just as the Apostle Paul found it legitimate to use the un-known god on Mars Hill to introduce the Athenians to the true and living God, I, too, through the pages of the Qur'an, try to point my Muslim friends to the Savior of the World.”172

B. Adam Sparks, in analyzing Clark Pinnock’s work, shows that the latter suggests, “Paul's Lystran sermon represents a gracious and un-derstanding appreciation of their past and their culture. In a later vi-

170 Shaw, p. 55 cited by Larkin, “Mission”, p. 183. 171 Vincent Cheung, Presuppositional Confrontations (Boston, Ma: Reformation Ministries International, 2003), p. 16. 172 Michael Youssef, Making Christ Known to Muslims (Atlanta, GA, Haggai Insti-tute, 1980), p. 4 quoted by Sam Schlorff, “The Translational Model for Mission in Resistant Muslim Society: A Critique and an Alternative”, in Missiology An Interna-tional Review, Vol XXVIII, No 3 (July 2000), p. 307.



gnette, Paul is described in Athens as acknowledging the good inten-tions of the Greeks in worshipping the unknown God. Evidently Paul thought of these people as believers in a certain sense, in a way that could be and should be fulfilled in Jesus Christ.” Pinnock con-tinues in the same book to state that because Paul quoted a pagan poet in vs. 28, one should see this as a celebration of the "fact that such people as this have insight into the truth of God and his ways”.172

C. Ergun and Emir Caner suggest that a number of missiologists are following the subsequent line of argument:

• Paul shows that these philosophers were ignorantly worship-ping the true God of Christianity (Acts 17:23).

• He used their false gods to preach the true God to them. • In their worship they had established a place in their hearts

for the true Creator. • Therefore, we can, on the mission field, speak of Allah as

God, because Muslims simply do not know His nature.173

D. Abd-al Masih writes, “Allah is the unique, unexplorable, and in-explicable one - the remote, vast and unknown God. Everything we think about him is incomplete, if not wrong. Allah cannot be com-prehended.”174

172 Sparks, - n.p. Internet resource. http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/publications/33-3/salvation-history-chronology-and-crisis-a-problem-with-inclusivist-theology-of-religions-part-2-of-2/ citing Clark H. Pinnock, A Wideness in God's Mercy: The Finality of Jesus Christ in a World of Religions (Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 1992), pp. 32, 96. 174 Ergun Mehmet Caner and Emir Fethi Caner, Unveiling Islam: An Insider's Look at Muslim Life and Beliefs (Grand Rapids, Mich: Kregel Publications, 2009), pp. 105-106.174 Abd-al Masih, “Who Is Allah in Islam?”, on www.light-of-life.com/eng/gospel/g4105efm.htm (2010/4/2). 176 Samuel Marinus Zwemer, The Moslem Doctrine of God (New York: American Tract Society, 1905), pp. 118-119.



E. Raymond Lull wrote a book in the Middle Ages entitled, De Deo ignoto et de mundo ignoto (The Unknown God and the Unknown World). In 1905, Samuel Zwemer wrote, “Islam is proud to write on its banner, the Unity of God; but it is, after all, a banner to the Un-known God. Christianity enters every land under the standard of the Holy Trinity - the Godhead of Revelation. These two banners repre-sent two armies.”176

F. The Southern Baptist International Mission Board “principles of contextualization” read:

#2 “We affirm that there is a biblical precedent for using “bridges” to reach out to others with the Gospel (Acts 17:22-23). The fact that Paul mentioned an aspect of the Athenians’ idolatrous worship was not a tacit approval of their entire religious system. He was merely utilizing a re-ligious element of their setting (an altar to an unknown god) to connect with his hearers and bridge to the truth. Similarly, our personnel may use elements of their host culture’s worldview to bridge to the Gospel. This need not be construed as an embracing of that worldview. It should be noted that Paul not only used their system to connect, he also con-trasted elements of it with the truth. Our evangelism must go beyond bridges to present the whole unvarnished truth of the Gospel (1 Cor 15:1-4).175

G. Bill Nikkides stated: “In contrast to much literature by or in sup-port of C5, the goal of contextualization is not to make the gospel as Islamic as possible. It is […] to communicate the unchanging truth to an Islamic audience so that it makes sense to them. In other words, it is a bridge from Islam not toward it. Paul mentioned Greek poets in Athens so that he could build a bridge from philosophy to Christ.”176

175 Wes Kenney [posted by] “Principles of Contextualization”, Southern Baptist Today (Nov 10, 2007) http://sbctoday.com/2007/11/10/principles-of-contextualization/ (2010/1/5) 176 Bill Nikkides, ‘Evaluating “Insider Movements”: C5 (Messianic Muslims),’ St Francis Magazine Nr 4 (March 2006), p. 12.



H. Christopher Wright in his The Mission of God wrote: “Since God’s mission is to restore creation to its full original purpose of bringing all glory to God himself and thereby to enable all creation to enjoy the fullness of blessings that he desires for it, God battles against all forms of idolatry and calls us to join him in that con-flict.”177

177 Christopher J. H. Wright, The Mission of God (Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 2006), p. 188.

OF STRAW MEN AND STEREOTYPES REACTING TO RICK WOOD OF MISSION FRONTIERS

By Revd Dr John Stringer1

1 Introduction

In its March-April 2010 issue of Mission Frontiers, the U.S. Center for World Mission published an Editorial Comment by Rick Wood which, in my opinion, undermines the mission of the Church of our Lord Jesus Christ.2 Mission Frontiers has a circulation of 92.000 copies per issue, and a website that, I am sure, has high traffic. The magazine and the organization to which it belongs, are mouthpieces of those who propagate the need for so-called insider movements in Islam. In case the term insider movements is new to you, suffice to say here that it is a rather diffuse concept, but what Rick Wood writes in his editorial is a fair description of it. In very brief and simplified terms, the propagators of this concept say: Mission to Muslims has always made the mistake of trying to extract Muslims from Islam; what we should do is not to get Muslims out of their religious con-text, but we have to bring Jesus into that contex. Without further in-terference, we have to simply witness how the Holy Spirit will lead the process of what happens further. In other words, what is needed in every culture is a movement of Muslims who follow Jesus, an in-sider movement.

1 John Stringer has had a very fulfilling ministry in the Arab World since the 1980s until now and, through this, large numbers of Arab Muslims have turned to Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. He holds a PhD in missiology from a reputable univer-sity. He is also the editor-in-chief of www.stfrancismagazine.info. 2 Rick Wood, ‘Editorial Comment’, in Mission Frontiers Vol 32 No 2 (Pasadena, March-April 2010), pp. 4-5. This magazine is the bulletin of the U.S. Center for World Mission.



Many evangelical, mission-minded churches in the Western world seem to forget to seriously question what is being presented to them. The questions we should ask concerning those who propagate the new missiological dogmas of insider movements, are: 1. Is the meth-odology presented to us biblical and sound, both from a theological and a missiological viewpoint? 2. Are the stories that they tell actu-ally true? In order to give you some clues as to why I think we are being given stones for bread by those who propagate the mission method of insider movements, let me first give you a brief (but literal) version of what Wood writes, and then comment on this. 2 Editorial Comment in Mission Frontiers

This is what Rick Wood wrote in his Editorial Comment in the March-April 2010 issue of Mission Frontiers:

[…] God has already placed a deep level of respect and honor for Jesus in the hearts of many Muslims. In their travels, [some writers] found no opposition to their talking about the person of Jesus. In fact, talking about Jesus opened doors and broke down barriers of mistrust and fear. With this as a starting point, we can seek to lead Muslims to focus on Je-sus, learn about Him from the Scriptures, and encourage them to follow Him. Imagine what could happen if Muslims actually started to study the Bible in search of Jesus?

Jesus is welcome, but our Christianity is not. What [the two writers] heard repeatedly was that Muslims like Jesus but not our Christianity. We must come to terms with the fact that our job is not to go around the world and force our versions of Christianity on people and “convert” them to our side. This is not a contest to see how many people we can get to become like us and join our “team”. Our job is to introduce them to Jesus and His love for them and let the Holy Spirit guide them into following Jesus in their own unique way as they learn about Him from the Scriptures.



It is also time for us to stop calling ourselves Christians. Does that shock you? At best the term has become meaningless, and at worst it has become an obstacle to sharing Jesus with the unreached. In our Western culture there is almost no statistical difference between those that call themselves Christians and those that don’t. Rates for divorce, pregnancies outside of marriage, abortion and more are all virtually the same. People who believe the Bible and those that don’t both call them-selves Christians. In the Muslim world the term comes with much nega-tive baggage. […] Much better, more meaningful terms would be “fol-lower of Jesus,” “disciple of Jesus” and “believer in the one true God.” These are not offensive to most Muslims, and they are actually more de-scriptive. If we insist on calling ourselves Christians, then we are insist-ing on miscommunicating to Muslims and causing unnecessary offense. […]

Bashing Islam and Muhammad is not an effective strategy. Over the years I have run into many books, emails and broadcasts from people who seem to think that running down Islam and Muhammad will con-vince Muslims to “convert” to their side. They seem to think that if they just have a good enough argument, then Muslims will see the light and dump their deeply held beliefs. Yet note, by comparison, if someone comes to my home and says many ugly things about my mother, I am not likely to agree with him even if some of what he says is true. I am also not likely to want him as a friend or to listen to anything else he has to say. If we want Muslims to follow Jesus, then we must come to them with love and respect and not try to argue them into the Kingdom. Peo-ple generally do not move instantaneously from one belief system to an-other based on the best of arguments or evidence. God meets us where we are and often moves us gradually to where He wants us to be.

I have talked with enough missionaries to know that there are still many who believe that any believer in Jesus from a Muslim background must convert to our culture and traditions and reject their own in order to have a genuine salvation experience. This has been the prevailing method for the last 1300 years, with few Muslims coming to faith in Christ. Missi-ologists call this the “extraction” method because the Muslim is being removed from his culture and community. But as missionaries have be-gun to rethink their approach and reach out to Muslims with love and re-



spect, a new day is dawning in Muslim ministry with growing numbers of Muslims beginning to follow Jesus within their own cultural contexts. A renewed focus on Jesus in both the Muslim and Christian worlds is what we need to finally find the love and peace we all seek with God and each other.3

3 Unpacking the text

Mission Frontiers creates images of Islam and of missionaries that are, in my view, one-sided. After reading these images, we are pre-sented with their alternative, namely the approach of the insider movements. Consider, however, how inaccurately and unrealistically Islam’s view of Jesus and traditional missionary methods are de-scribed.

3.1 Respect and honor for Jesus, ‘no’ to Christianity

Mission Frontiers writes: ‘God has already placed a deep level of respect and honor for Jesus in the hearts of many Muslims. In their travels, [some writers] found no opposition to their talking about the person of Jesus. In fact, talking about Jesus opened doors and broke down barriers of mistrust and fear.’ Do Muslims indeed have a deep level of respect and honor for Jesus? Well, that is what Muslims always say, and that is consistent with some verses in the Qur’an. Islam’s theology speaks respectfully about Jesus, as he is one of its major prophets. But this respect is not for the incarnate Son of God who died and rose again for the salva-tion of the world and who now sits at the right hand of the Father. It is respect for the Islamic view of Jesus. He is seen as a prophet, but not more than that. It is the same respect some Jews, liberal Chris-tians, Marxists and atheists often have for Jesus. It is true that many Muslims have an interest in finding out more about the Jesus of the Christian faith. But for Muslims to appreciate the Jesus of the Christian faith, there is a theological chasm to bridge. 3 Rick Wood, ‘Editorial Comment’, pp. 4-5.



We thank God that there are Muslims with an interest to study our Christian Scriptures, and we should pray that the Holy Spirit will help them see the truth. It does not happen naturally, because Mus-lims approach the Bible as having been contaminated and altered. When the stories of Jesus in the Bible contradict the Islamic view of Jesus, Muslims tend to reject the Gospel descriptions as a Christian lie. We have a concrete problem here; it is not unfair to say that Christianity and Islam are defined by their opposing views of Jesus. When Muslims say to us that they deeply respect Jesus, they usu-ally do so in the context of their efforts to challenge us: they want us to likewise respect their prophet and accept their general understand-ing of the relationship between the two. Muslims who speak of their respect for Jesus usually do so in the context of an affirmation of their Islamic faith. It does not mean that they are close to the Chris-tian position at all. So, for Mission Frontiers to say, ‘Jesus is welcome, but our Christianity is not’, there is a serious misunderstanding. In fact, both Christianity and the Jesus of the Gospels and of the Pauline letters are equally unwelcome. I will not inundate you here with Qur’anic quotes and Islamic theology that reject the Christian view of Jesus. However, I must conclude, on the basis of overwhelming evidence from Muslim theology, that to say, 'Jesus is welcome,' is really un-true. The fact that Muslims reject Christianity is, at its base, not differ-ent from the reason why many North Americans and Europeans re-ject Christianity. They do not want the Jesus of the Christian faith. How many Buddhists, Jews, Hindus, atheists, have you ever heard saying, ‘I like Christianity’? I am fully aware that Christianity has it dark sides and that it is often confused with Western politics. But for a Muslim to say, ‘I like Jesus but I do not like Christianity,’ does not show any interest in the Jesus of the Gospel. It is an affirmation of his Islamic faith.



3.2 Those bad traditional missionaries

Mission Frontiers paints a distorted picture of the style of mission work it does not condone. This is what the Editorial Comment says: ‘We must come to terms with the fact that our job is not to go around the world and force our versions of Christianity on people and “con-vert” them to our side. This is not a contest to see how many people we can get to become like us and join our “team”.’ The language used here can easily be seen as demeaning by those who do not agree with the principles of the insider movement. I have seldom met with missionaries who have an interest in ‘forcing our versions of Christi-anity’ on anyone. I do not know of missionaries who see their minis-try as ‘a contest to see how many people we can get to become like us.’ With this pejorative language, Mission Frontiers is purposely demeaning the many great mission workers who are leading Muslims to Christ in a Biblical, humble manner of servanthood; these mis-sionaries have no intent whatsoever to make small Americans or Europeans of these converts to the Christian faith. Most pray that they will be a catalyst for the growth of indigenous and contextual forms of communities of followers of Jesus Christ. In common Eng-lish we call those communities ‘Church’. Missionaries must also not involve themselves in ‘bashing Islam and Muhammad’, according to Mission Frontiers. By saying this, the magazine suggests that missionaries ‘other’ than those of the in-sider movements involve themselves in this ‘bashing’ of Islam. Let me assure you, most do not. Some do involve themselves in serious apologetic discussions, and they see some promising results. And by the way, the Coptic-Orthodox priest Zakaria, who speaks every day on satellite television in the Arab World and who is actually reveal-ing very unflattering aspects of Muhammad’s life from Islamic sources, has led uncountable numbers of Arab Muslims to Jesus Christ through his programs. The broadcasters of those programs can give us detailed information about this. So, to categorically state that this ‘is not an effective strategy’ is untrue.



The article tries to prove that the use of argument in Muslim evangelism is not effective. Again, a straw man argument is used: ‘They seem to think that if they just have a good enough argument, then Muslims will see the light and dump their deeply held beliefs.’ I have never met missionaries with this approach. We are all aware that ‘if someone comes to my home and says many ugly things about my mother, I am not likely to agree with him even if some of what he says is true. I am also not likely to want him as a friend or to listen to anything else he has to say.’ Another false contrast is created: ‘If we want Muslims to follow Jesus, then we must come to them with love and respect and not try to argue them into the Kingdom.’ Our own Lord and his Apostles showed love and empathy, while at the same time arguing and dis-cussing, even attacking prevailing Jewish or pagan religions. As if friends do not argue about the most important things in life! As if love and respect are the opposites from arguing about the Gospel! Earlier I mentioned that the two religions define themselves to a large extent by their opposing views of Jesus. As soon as we ask Muslims to read the Gospel we ask them to do something that their theologians advise them not to do. An honest argument for the Gos-pel is automatically an argument against Islam’s view of Jesus, humankind, God, and salvation. This cannot be avoided. In this context, the Editorial Comment again uses negative lan-guage toward missionaries. It suggests that people involved in apologetics ‘seem to think that running down Islam and Muhammad will convince Muslims to “convert” to their side.’ The many mis-sionaries I know pray that the Lord will use them to help Muslims find Jesus Christ, not ‘their side’. Of course I cannot deny the claim by the writer of the article that he has ‘talked with enough missionaries to know that there are still many who believe that any believer in Jesus from a Muslim back-ground must convert to our culture and traditions and reject their own in order to have a genuine salvation experience.’ There are ‘still



many’, that is, the overwhelming majority of missionaries with their feet in the soil who disagree with the concepts of Mission Frontiers. They will challenge the manner in which they are being tarnished by this article. I still have to meet the first missionary who thinks that a Muslim has to convert to ‘our culture and traditions and reject their own.’ Again, we are presented with a straw man argument. Let me spell out my appreciation for the fact that as cross-cultural communicators we are often hardly aware of how we bring our own cultural ideas into the equation of our mission work. People support-ing the insider movements concept are right in calling our attention to this matter. It is interesting, however, that they show no awareness that their own views may also be inspired by their own cultural background. It is striking, for instance, how similar insider move-ments talk is to the emerging church ideas. I appreciate that an editorial must be short and cannot attempt to spell out everything. But I would be interested to know what is actu-ally meant by the terms ‘culture’ and ‘traditions’. The missionaries I know all agree that Arab Muslims can fully be Arab followers of Je-sus Christ, but they have to leave the Islamic religion. Islam is de-fined by its own holy books, shari’a and theologians, and does not accept a Muslim who believes in the Trinity, in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, in the cross and resurrection of Jesus Christ. A follower of Jesus therefore cannot say with integrity that he is a Muslim or that Muhammad is the seal of the prophets. Mission Frontiers says that the effort to get Muslims out of their own culture is called ‘extraction’ by missiologists. Maybe that term is used by missiologists supporting insider movements but I have never heard contemporary missionaries use it, for the simple reason that they do not want to extract converts to Christ from their own original culture, only from their former religion. Just as in the USA or Europe we do not want converts to continue being Mormons or Hindus or atheists after they have become followers of Jesus Christ, we also cannot leave them in Islam. Insider movements supporters



seem to assume that Islam and the culture of the Islamic world are totally one and the same. I strongly challenge this presupposition; it is factually untrue, and it can never be the basis for saying to those who want to follow Jesus Christ that they should ‘stay in Islam’. This brings me to my final point of the critique. Salvation in the New Testament means becoming attached to Jesus Christ and be-coming involved in his transformative salvation by participating in the renewed community of believers, the Body of Christ. Salvation is described in terms of coming out of darkness and entering into the light. It entails a clean break with the past and a new beginning. There must be a change and that change becomes visible in an alle-giance to Jesus Christ and his followers. There is no Jesus without His body, the one new people of God. It is crucial that Mission Frontiers does not mention the Church, except in the context of the Western world and then only in negative terms. 3.3 Christianity is wrong?

‘It is also time for us to stop calling ourselves Christians’, according to Mission Frontiers. Interestingly, the vast majority of the tens of thousands of Arabic converts from Islam to the Christian faith proudly call themselves Masihiyin, which is the normal Arabic word for Christians. They do not have a problem at all with using the term. They became followers of Jesus Christ and wanted to leave the darkness behind in order to join the new community of God. I appreciate that the term Christianity is very broad and, certainly in the Arab World, for many it does not mean much more than ‘any-thing pertaining to Western culture’. In the Muslim world many con-fuse the Western world with Christianity. For me, this means that I try to avoid the term. I prefer to speak of the Christian faith, or the Church. I have never heard a missionary say to me that he wants to convert Muslims to Christianity. I do not adhere to Christianity, but I follow Jesus Christ and I am part of his community, the Church.



As a follower of Jesus Christ, I am proud to be called a Christian. In Arabic: a Masihi. That means: someone who belongs to Jesus Christ. Why is that term meaningless? I find the argument that is used an example of linguistic juggling. ‘At best the term has become meaningless, and at worst it has become an obstacle to sharing Jesus with the unreached.’ That last point is untrue in the Arab World; no Muslim considers it an obstacle if I call myself a Christian. The first argument, that the term Christian is meaningless, is interesting. Shall we also abolish the following words: sausage, church, chair, house, meat, lamp, car, Muslim, Jew, God, love? Each of those terms is broadly descriptive, but completely unable to bring to your mind the concrete sausage or church I have in mind. Do they therefore be-come meaningless? Beside this, part of any educational role, and of mission as well, is to explain to people the content of our faith, in-cluding the meaning of words. As far as I am concerned, the term Christianity is fine, and to be called a Christian is great. It is my honor. Yes, but ‘[in] the Muslim world the term comes with much nega-tive baggage’, Mission Frontiers argues. This is true. Part of this is due to Christians who have not always lived a Christian life, and part is due to Islamic theology. However, the idea of starting to call our-selves ‘followers of Jesus’ is simplistic and does not fool any Mus-lim. It is just as simplistic as how Atlanta got rid of a major crime problem on Steward Avenue, as a friend recently told me:

In Atlanta there was a street called Steward Avenue; at one time it was one of the main thoroughfares, and during the 1940s and 1950s it had many good hotels. But Steward Avenue slowly became a problematic area with much crime of drugs, prostitution, gambling, murders and rob-beries. The solution to the problem? Atlanta’s city council changed the name to Metropolitan Boulevard, and proudly announced that they no longer had a problem with crime on Steward Avenue.



Muslims are not easily fooled. They ask us, ‘Are you a Chris-tian?’ and we answer, ‘No, I am a follower of Jesus.’ How can we even take this verbal juggling seriously? It dodges the real issue, namely that Muslims do not like Christians because Islam teaches them that Christians have a corrupt theology; they are against the Christian faith because of what it believes about Jesus Christ. I find the suggestion to call us just ‘followers of Christ’ painful as well, because it is a purposeful effort to create a barrier between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ Christians. The article argues that ‘[In] our West-ern culture there is almost no statistical difference between those that call themselves Christians and those that don’t. Rates for divorce, pregnancies outside of marriage, abortion and more are all virtually the same. People who believe the Bible and those that don’t both call themselves Christians.’ This is very painful indeed. We suffer from this image problem in our mission work, and our Lord himself suffers most. But, in the end, the concrete, tangible, less-than-perfect Christians are the Church of God. Any missiology that wants to create a dis-tance between missionaries and Christians who sit in the pews in the churches in the Western world, is unacceptable. Who am I to judge those who say that they belong to the Master? The idea of calling us ‘followers of Christ’ in order to separate us from those we do not consider good enough to be part of the body of Christ is, in my view, a dangerous fallacy that reveals a faulty ecclesiology. The propaga-tors of insider movements export this lack of a proper ecclesiology to the mission field. Also, this faulty ecclesiology seems to me to be an important reason why propagators of insider movements are usually not too disturbed about the fact that the existent Churches in the lands where they work do not agree with their methods whatsoever. In order to try to be effective missionaries, we should never develop methodologies at the expense of the unity of the Church of God. ‘Our job is to introduce [Muslims] to Jesus and His love for them’, writes Mission Frontiers. Indeed! But I do not agree with



what it says next: We must then ‘let the Holy Spirit guide them into following Jesus in their own unique way as they learn about Him from the Scriptures.’ St Paul proclaimed the ‘whole counsel of God’ to the Ephesian Church (Acts 20:27), and I think we are not doing our work as missionaries if we think that we can proclaim a Christ who is separate from the rest of the will of God. What sort of indi-vidualist Jesus are we proclaiming then? Since when is Jesus Christ all we speak about with Muslims? And why assume that missionar-ies play no role in helping Muslims, for instance, understand the Bi-ble? In this effort to communicate the ‘whole counsel of God’, we can never ignore local Church leadership. Missionaries are not truly ministering Christ if they ignore those who are named after him in their land of labor. Yes, we must do our work in a manner that is contextually suitable and missionaries must be careful not to be too prescriptive so that national believers can develop their own ethical applications and theological understanding. However, some things are not negotiable. The notion that new believers in Jesus Christ unite with existent Christians is part of the whole counsel of God; and the idea of keeping distant from other Christians in the same land is disobedience to the prayer of Jesus that his followers be one (John 17:21). Jesus prays for his followers to be one in order for the world to realize that He was sent to the world by His Father. This means that mission to Muslims is undermined by those who advise new fol-lowers of Jesus Christ to not visibly unite with all fellow Christians. Jesus cannot be received without receiving his Church, with all its warts and wrinkles.