Interreligious Dialogue and the Narrative of Paul in Athens

Acts 17:15-34
Hunn Choi

Introduction

For one of the most important missiological and theological thinkers of the twentieth

century, Bishop Lesslie Newbigin, every theological and missiological discussion must begin

with the gospel with the cross at its center. He believed that the cross event was the clue that we

must follow if we wanted to make any sense of the world.1 Our biblical story is a story of God’s

redemptive deeds and words in history that culminate in Jesus Christ in whom the end and

meaning of cosmic history have been revealed and accomplished. It was the cross at which God

has dealt with the sin and misery of the world; it was the resurrection in which a new world has

dawned; and it was the Pentecost at which the Spirit was given so men and women could begin

to share with the rest of the world.2 As Michael W. Coheen eloquently articulates, “Nothing is

more urgent in our day than a church that believes the gospel and makes it the fundamental

starting point and directing power for its life.”3 How can we effetively share the gospel that

reveals the meaning and goal of world history and provides the clue for understanding and living

in the world?

David Bosch once noted that theology must have missionary character or it has no reason

to exist.4 For him, missiology must consciously pursue its tasks from a faith perspective,5 and the

Christian faith cannot surrender what he calls the ‘inalienable elements of mission:’ “the
1
Lesslie Newbigin, Unfinished Agenda: An Updated Autobiography (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2009),
11.
2
Michael W. Goheen, “The Significance of Lesslie Newbigin for Mission in the New Millenium,” Third
Millennium 7 (2004): 89.
3
Ibid.
4
David J. Bosch, Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission (Maryknoll: Orbis
Books, 1999), 494.
5
Ibid., 497.

1
conviction that God, in sending Jesus Christ into our midst, has taken a definitive and

eschatological course of action and its extending to human beings forgiveness, justification, and

a new life of joy and servanthood, which in turn, calls for a human response in the form of

conversion.”6 In Bosch, there is a basic difference between dialogue and mission, and he is quite

critical of the pluralistic projects of John Hick and Paul Knitter: “If Knitter says that the goal of

mission has been achieved when announcing the gospel has made the Christian a better Christian

and the Buddhist a better Buddhist, he may be describing one of the goals of dialogue, but

certainly not of mission.”7 However, Heikki Räisänen, arguing for a pluralist vision, advocates

for dialogue: “the ultimate goal of dialogue could well be that Christians should become better—

more humane—Christians, Muslims better Muslims, Hindus better Hindus, humanists better

humanists and so one, each trying to help the others to reach this goal.”8

Indeed, as the apostles and disciples first proclaimed the gospel of Jesus Christ

throughout the religiously mixed Mediterranean world with its many gods and temples, Greek

philosophies, and emperor worship, the good news we too proclaim must be proclaimed in

religously pluralistic environments. How must we conduct faithful gospel ministry in a

relgiously diverse context? In a way of response to such a pressing question, on June 28, 2011,

World Council of Churches, Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, and World

Evangelical Alliance together released “Christian Witness in a Multi-religious World,” which

was a landmark document that was five years in the making. It represents the views of

Evangelical, Mainline and Catholic Christians and provides their collective guidance on

Christian evangelism for our day, laying out a frame for missions in a pluralistic society. As

6
Ibid., 488.
7
Ibid., 487. Italics are his.
8
Heikki Räisänen, “A Plea for Pluralism: Reflections on Mission Studies by a Biblical Scholar,” Swedish
Missiological Themes 99 (2011): 396.

2
point four of the Preamble reads, “Christian witness in a pluralistic world includes engaging in

dialogue with people of different religions and cultures.” Amazingly, the scripture passge used to

support the statement was Acts 17:22-28.9 This Areopagus speech is, according to Räisänen,

“probably the biblical text ‘most often quoted by the proponents of a positive view toward other

religions.”10

In this paper, I will attempt to answer the following questions: “Was it a flop? Or is it

rather a model of interreligious dialogue even today?” Was Luke trying to show an example of

how he thought Gentiles should be approached with the gospel, as Martin Dibelius argued, and

consequently, a model for witnessing to people who have limited knowledge of the God of

Israel?11

Pluralistists’ Arguments

A pluralist would say something like this: When Paul as a Jew stood before Stoics and

Epicureans and preached to them the gospel, surely he found idols offensive. He did not rebuke

or chastise those “very religious” people for their idol worship, even though he was grieved by it.

He does not condemn these idol worshippers. Rather he affirms and “praises the religious spirit

of the Greeks.”12

9
Willebrands once asked “whether the church has ever, since the speech of the Apostle Paul on the
Areopagus, approached the non-Christian religions in such a positive way” (J. G. M. Willebrands,
“Ecumenical Aspects and Perspectives of the Second Vatican Council,” Mid-Stream 5 [1966]: 1).
10
Heikki Räisänen, Marcion, Muhammad, and the Mahatma: Exegetical Perspectives on the Encounter
of Cultures and Faiths (London: SCM Press, 1997), 9.
11
Martin Dibelius, “Paul on the Areopagus,” in Studies in the Acts of the Apostles, ed. Heinrich Green
(New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1956), 26-77. Dibelius writes, “In giving only one sermon
addressed to Gentiles by the great apostle to the Gentiles, namely the Areopagus speech in Athens, his
primary purpose is to give an example of how the Christian missionary should approach cultured
Gentiles” (Dibelius, The Book of Acts: Form, Style, and Theology [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2004],
130.
12
Jacques Dupuis, Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1997),
49.

3
 For example, Jacques Dupuis’s conclusion from reading Paul’s Areopagus speech was

“the message surely seems to be that the religions of the nations are not bereft of value but find

in Jesus Christ the fulfillment of their aspirations.”13 Is this the view of Paul? What was the

purpose of Paul’s Areopagus speech?

Furthermore, Orthodox theologian Georges Khodr says,

“The view of the apostle as expressed in his Areopagus speech is that the Athenians
worshipped the true God without recognizing Him as the Creator. His face had not been
unveiled to them. In other words, they were Christians without knowing it. Paul gave
their God a name. The Name, together with its attributes, is he revelation of God. We find
here the germ of a positive attitude to paganism which goes hand in hand with its
complete negation, inherited from Judaism.”14

But is this what Paul meant to say that the Athenians are “Christians without knowing it” or

“Anonymous Christians?” Is Khodr right in that Paul believed these Greeks worshipped the true

God, even though they did not know him by name? These are a few questions I will attempt to

answer in this paper.

Methodological Concern

First, here I want to make a few comments about the speeches in Acts in general.

According to Craig Keener, Luke prefers speeches to extensive dialogue as one of his narrative

devices.15 As Biblical scholarship has argued, the speeches recounted in Acts are Luke’s

compositions. In Hellenistic historiography, recorded speeches do not faithfully represent the

words actually spoken by a historical figure. Greco-Roman historians were allowed to compose

speeches and put them into the mouth of a historical figure, which they thought were appropriate

13
Ibid.
14
Georges Khodr, “The Economy of the Holy Spirit,” in Faith Meets Faith, Gerald H. Anderson and
Thomas F. Stransky, eds. (Grand Rapid: William B. Eerdmans, 1981), 38. Quoted in Terrance L. Tiessen,
Who Can Be Saved? (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 179.
15
Craig Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary. Introduction and 1:1-2:47, (Grand Rapids: Baker
Academic: 2012), 267.

4
for a particular historical occasion. True, Luke did not hear Paul address the Areopagus, but he

knew how Paul was accustomed to adapt his praeparatio evangelica to an audience of this

kind.16 So, the speeches given in Acts are not verbatim representations of the words actually

spoken. They are quite short and give only abstracts of the speeches. Even though the speeches

in Acts are based on sources or even notes from the actual events recounted, their language and

arrangement are Luke’s. Luke was writing what the recipients would expect of Peter and Paul—

not what Peter and Paul actually said word-for-word. Therefore they are helpful for

understanding Luke’s point of view. We can confidently say that the speech of Paul in Athens is

a summary of what was supposed to have been said on a particular occasion. It is not a full

account of what Paul spoke but a summary.17

Secondly, in terms of Paul’s specific intent or goal or purpose in giving this speech, John

J. Kilgallen adds, “Some, basing themselves on certain vocabulary used before and after the

speech, suggest that Paul is defending himself before accusations and before a type of judiciary

(associated at one time with the Areopagus), a law-court setting. Others conclude from the

circumstances which introduce the speech that Paul is simply explaining those things in his

preaching (especially the Resurrection) which are puzzling to his audience.”18 Paul’s speech is

often classified more as deliberative rather than forensic rhetoric, and the Areopagus, seen as an

ambiguous term, refers to a physical site instead of judicial body. However, as for Witherington,

both connotations may be embedded in the meaning: “Paul’s anger establishes a basically

judicial situation when it comes to his speech though Paul also has the deliberative aim of

16
F.F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary (Grand
Rapids:Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990), 65.
17
Christoph Stenschke,”The Biography of Jesus in the Missionary Speech of Acts,” Swedish
Missiological Themes 99 (2011): 267.
18
John J. Kilgallen, “Acts: 17,22-31: An Example of Interreligious Dialogue,” Studia Missionalia 43
(1994): 48.

5
changing his audience’s behavior.”19 Kilgallen offers another understanding regarding the intent

of the speech, that is, “Paul is explaining (if not even defending) his teaching; the overall intent

of the speech is conversion of the pagans.”20 As for Dean Flemming, what Paul is aiming is “not

education but transformation.”21

In this paper, I will read Paul’s Areogapus speech not in isolation from its surrounding

context, by concentrating exclusively on the speech proper, but in light of the narrative of Acts as

a whole, to examine the pluralistic arguments for interreligious dialogue and what dialogue

should entail. In my brief exegesis of Acts 17:22-31, I will also interpret it in context, that is, to

observe the carefully placed and explicit narrative markers in 17:15-21 that shape the reader’s

perception of Paul’s speech.

Brief Overview of the History of Interpretation

Paul's Areopagus speech has caused countless issues to New Testament scholars. James

L. Blevins sums up pretty well:

1) For some the speech is radically different from Paul's other speeches in the Book of
Acts.
2) Some see the speech as reflecting the thoughts of a post-Pauline period of time which
Luke has placed in the mouth of Paul.
3) The difficulties have led other scholars to contend that Paul did give such a speech
but changed his preaching style, having been overwhelmed by all of the knowledge of
the Greeks.
a) They conclude that Paul failed rather miserably at Athens, since he made very few
converts and never founded a church there.

19
Ben Witherington, The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1998), 517.
20
Kilgallen, 49.
21
Dean Flemming, Contextualization in the New Testament: Patterns for Theology and Mission
[(Downers: InterVaristy Press, 2005), 80.

6
 b) Others see the speech as Pauline but do not view it as a failure but somewhat of a
success in trying to clothe the Christian message in language which would appeal
to the Greek world.22

In my personal view, the readers might have easily expected Paul to alter his preaching

style to meet the audience he would address. In fact, such an adjustment by Luke is detected

throughout the Book of Acts. Leo d. Lefebure rightly states, “The most explicit description of the

encounter of early followers of Jesus with the religious of the Hellenistic age is in the Acts of the

Apostles.”23 So, we see in Acts the early disciples seeking to “communicate the gospel within the

intellectual and linguistic framework of their hearers, rather than insisting that the Gentiles

discover Jesus within the existing framework of Judaism.”24 The reason for that is that for the

early Jewish Christians, the most effective and descriptive way to speak of Jesus was as Christ in

Greek, or Messiah in Hebrew, meaning the Anointed One (as Peter called Jesus in Luke 9:20:

“The Christ of God”), and that the Christological title did not carry much meaning for a

Gentile.25 As Timothy C. Tennent rightly notices, “The strategic solution emerges rather subtly…

in the message of those unnamed disciples from Cyprus and Cyrene recorded in Acts 11.”26

These unnamed disciples were the first to address the gospel to Gentiles who had no prior

identity with Judaism. The pivotal moment came in Acts 11:20, when Luke records that they

began speaking27 to Greeks also, preaching not Jesus Christ but the Lord Jesus, being sensitive to

22
James L. Blevins, “Acts 13-19: The Tale of Three Cities,” Review and Expositor 87 (1990): 445.
23
Leo D. Lefebure, “Thinking the Divine in Interreligious Encounter: Biblical Trajectories and Christian
Tradition,” in Thinking the Divine in Interreligious Encounter, ed. Norbert Hintersteiner (Amsterdam:
Rodopi, 2012), 120.
24
Timothy C. Tennent, Invitation to World Missions: A Trinitarian Missiology for the Twenty-first
Century (Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic & Professional, 2010), 328.
25
Ibid.
26
Ibid.
27
The verb ἐλάλουν is an inceptive imperfect.

7
the cultural background of the Antiochenes.28 This was a very important transition, because the

title κύριος was the word Hellenistic pagans gave to their cult deities.29 Andrew Walls notes, “It

opened the way to a truly Hellenistic understanding of Jesus.”30 We see that Paul followed the

example of these early disciples and preached to Jews that Jesus was the Christ (Acts 9:22; 17:3;

18:5), while avoding this title but employing the “Lord Jesus” (Acts 13:48-49; 16:31; 19:5;

20:21) in his preaching to Gentiles.31 This is a distinctive aspect of the witness which Luke

portrays in Acts—willingness and ability to carry on a conversation with culture.32

The audience Luke’s Paul is addressing at the Areopagus is Greek not Jewish. Whereas,

in the earlier narratives of Acts, the sermons of Peter and Stephen draw heavily from the history

of Israel in order to explain who Jesus is, while describing Jesus in terms of Jewish hopes and

expectations, Paul’s Areopagus speech departs from that history, because he is in a totally new

environment. He knows that the claim that Jesus is Christ would arouse almost no emotion.

Furthermore, when Paul spoke in the agora (v. 16), the philosphers already misunderstood him,

thinking that he was preaching two gods to them—the Jesus and the Resurrection, Anastasis in

Greek, which sounded to them like the name of a female consort. As Blevins points out, “Paul

faced the real difficulty of having to put Jewish ideas and backgrounds into thought patterns

which the Greeks could grasp. He faced an audience that had never heard of Abraham and

David. The philosophers were not aware of the Hebrew Bible. Paul, of course, realized that the

28
Tennent, 328. Cf. Witherington, 369: “It has often been noted tha as the Acts narrative begins to focus
more and more on Gentiles, the proclamation becomes pregressively more Hellenistic, or at least less
Jewish, with less emphasis on Jesus as Messiah, the Son of Man, and the like.”
29
Tennent, 328.
30
Andrews F. Walls, “Old Athens and New Jerusalem: Some Signposts for Christian Scholarship in the
Early History of Mission Studies,” International Bulletin of Missionary Research 21 (1997): 146.
31
Tennent, 329.
32
Beverly Roberts Gaventa, “The Eschatology of Luke-Acts Revisited,” Encounter 43 (1982): 41.

8
Greeks had a deep yearning to find divine revelation and played upon that theme in his speech.”33

So he adjusts his gospel message in the language of his hearers. Instead, for example, he quotes

from the Athenians’ own Greek poets. What Paul basically did at the Areopagus was

contextualizing the gospel for his audience without compromise on its content.34

The Structure of Acts 17:15-34

Here, I will examine the structure of Acts 17:15-34, in order to better situate Paul’s

Areopagus speech, framed by narrative remarks. According to Mark D. Given, Acts 17:15-34 is

“a narrative discourse unit.”35 He uses three criteria: 1) transformation of spheres of character,

location, and/or time (Paul is separated from Silas, Timothy, and the brethren in 17:15, and new

characters, unrelated to those found in 17:15-34, appear in 18:2; from Berea to Athens in 17:15,

and from Athens to Corinth in 18:1; temporally, Paul being brought to Athens in 17:15, and

“after these things,” Paul leaving Athens, in 18:1); 2) a change of theme at the beginning and end

of the unit (idolatry); 3) inverted parallelisms between the unit’s introduction and conclusion (the

first inclusion: “what would this babbler say?” (17:18) and “… some mocked…” (17:32a); the

second inclusion: “May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting?” (17:19) and

“We will hear you again about this” (17:32b).”36

In addition, Given sees Acts 17:15-34 as a narrative schematic unit. Borrowing from

Daniel Patte, he quotes: “In brief the narrative schema subdivides a narrative into three parts of

33
Blevins, 445.
34
Craig Keener, “The altar to the unknown god: Paul preaches in Acts 17:22-31,” Bible Background:
Research and Commentary by Dr. Craig Keener, 31 August 2011. See http://www.craigkeener.com/the-
altar-to-the-unknown-god-paul-preaches-in-acts-1722-31/ (assessed on Nevember 12, 2013).
35
Mark D. Given, “Not Either/Or But Both/And in Paul’s Areopagus Speech,” Biblical Interpretation 3
(1995): 357-358.
36
There is a third inclusion, which is not mentioned here: the resurrection. This will be shown in the
outline below.

9
the narrative development: (1) a situation of lack and the establishment of a qualifies subject, (2)

the decisive action(s), (3) a situation of lack is overcome, and the retribution and recognition of

the subjects take place.”37 According to Given, Acts 17:15-34 yields rather well to such a

generalized narrative schematic analysis: (1) Verses 16-18 establish a situation of lack, a lack of

proper understanding of Paul's καταγγελία. The Athenians misunderstand Paul's preaching of

Jesus and the resurrection as the proclamation of foreign deities. In vv. 19-20 Paul is established

as the subject qualified to overcome lack of understanding of his διδαχή; (2) the mandate or

assigned task is the challenge of making his teaching intelligible to the Athenians. Paul, the hero,

accepts the challenge and, by the decisive action of making a speech, struggles to attain victory;

(3) Ironically, victory is intimated by the mocking of some upon hearing of the resurrection of

the dead (v. 32). This shows that the lack of understanding which allowed the Athenians to

interpret τον Ιησουν και την άνάστασιν in a way perfectly understandable and palatable to them,

i.e., as foreign deities, has been overcome, and the real offense is now apparent. Paul also

receives recognition: the willingness of part of the audience to hear Paul again shows that he has

maintained his position as qualified subject and hero.38

These two analyses show that Acts 17:15-34 is a literary unit. Hence, the pericope of

Acts 17:15-34 can be outlined as follows:39

17:15-17 The story is situated: Upon his arrival at Athens, Paul became very upset
when he noticed the many idols in the city, s and while he was waiting for
his companions to catch up, he used the opportunity to talk to various groups
of people, at different venues, about “Jesus and the resurrection.”

37
Given, 359
38
Ibid.
39
This is adapted from Johan du Plessis, “Acts 17:16-34 – The Resurrection of Jesus as a Crucial
Moment in the Encounter Between Gospel and Culture,” paper prepared for South African Missiological
Society (SAMS) Conference, held at the University of Stellenbosch, 16-20 January 2006.

10
 17:18-20 The reaction of the non-Jewish group on the message of the resurrection is
disparaging and aggressive.40 Paul was taken to court (the Areopagus) to
answer for his message.

17:21 Interjection by Luke: The Athenians liked to hear and talk about new things.

17:22-31 Paul’s speech: He uses the inscription on an altar he saw somewhere in the
city, “To an unknown god,” as an introduction (22-23).

Then he spells out the identity of this God, who he himself is serving (24-29).

The climax of the short speech is reached with the message of a new time,
“now” as opposed to the past, in which people are called to repent and thereby
escape the righteous judgement of God. Jesus’ resurrection serves as the
proof that this new message is true (30-31).

17:32 The reaction of Paul’s hearers: They regard the message of the resurrection
of the dead as absolute nonsense and laughable.

17:33-34 End result: Paul dissociated himself but there were a few people who
responded positively to the message and joined the faith community.

As Johan du Plessis rightly observes, “the proclamation of Jesus’ resurrection forms the

framework of Paul’s speech in Athens. The hearers respond specifically to it. The resurrecion is

the main point at issue,”41 which I will discuss next in more details.

“Resurrection”

Now Luke’s readers know—largely through the speeches he records—the message which

the early disciples preached to the Jews and God-fearers, as well as its rejection by the majority

of the Jews and its acceptance by many God-fearing Gentiles. There yet remains the question

regarding the type of message they preached to the Gentiles and its reception. Luke reveals this

40
The context – i.e. persecution and uproar in the previous cities on Paul’s journey as well as the allusion
to Socrates’ fate – explains the use of επιλαμβανω (translated “seize”) which is usually a technical term
for making an arrest. Further, the parallel with Jesus, found throughout the narrative in Acts is verbally
suggested at the end of the episode (17:33 cf. Lk 4:30 - διελθὼν διὰ μέσου αὐτῶν).
41
See du Plessis. This particular narrative framing is often unnoticed by scholars (e.g., Hans Conzelmann,
Ernst Haenchen, F.F. Bruce, Witherington, Luke Timothy Johnson, to name just a few).

11
to his readers in dramatic fashion with Paul’s Areopagus speech in 17:22-31 (which was

previewed in his speech at Lystra in 14:15-17). In Athens, the center of learning for the Gentile

world, Paul faced the real difficulty of having to put Jewish ideas and back- grounds into thought

patterns the Greeks could grasp. He faced an audience that had never heard of Abraham and

David. The philosophers were not aware of the Hebrew Bible. Approprately, Paul alters his

preaching style to meet his audience and reasons not from the Scriptures, but from natural

philosophy and allusions from Greek poetry to illustrate. At Antioch of Pisidia he had spoken

about God being revealed in nature. Here he quoted from Aratus's Phenomena, a well-known

poem read in the philosophical schools of Tarsus. Realized that the Greeks had a deep yearning

to find divine revelation and played upon that theme in his speech, Paul quoted from Aratus but

changed the original intention of the writer to make an appeal for the Greeks to turn to Christ as

the revelation of the true God. Paul testifies to the resurrection of Jesus, as the central point of

her sermon.42 Gerhard Krodel has expressed this truth well, “There comes a point when the

Christian witness must speak of Christ's resurrection and its consequences and take the risk of

being switched off by the partner in dialogue.”43

du Plessis’ argument for the resurrection of Jesus as a crucial moment in the encounter

between gospel and culture is refuted by Jeremy Punt, who argues:

Luke’s insistence is, however, that it was Paul’s reference to the resurrection of Christ
that sparked off resistance. Yet, despite Luke’s earlier remark about Paul having preached
Jesus and the resurrection (Ac 17:18), in this speech Jesus is not even mentioned, and the
resurrection is hardly the focus of the speech. And whereas Paul’s speech referred only to
the resurrection of the “appointed one” (Ac 17:31), his critics’ uneasiness was according
to Luke, due to the mentioning of “the resurrection of the dead (plural)” (Ac 17:32). And
even the Greek poet, Aratus’ claim about the common divine descent of humankind is
taken to refer to the biblical, creator God (Ac 17:28). Something more or something else
seems to be at hand?44

42
Charles Talbert, Acts (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1984), 73-74.
43
Gerhard Krodel, Acts (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981), 53. Quoted from Blevins, 445.

12
For him, “neither the resurrection of Christ nor the resurrection of the dead seems to be singular

concepts of offence for the audience in Ac 17, and despite the ostensible claim (Ac 17:32), these

two topics do not seem to be (solely) responsible for the less than enthusiastic reception of Paul.

More seems to be at stake here, and the broader cultural contexts of different and diverse socio-

cultural, religious, philosophical and other groups, are part of the bigger picture of Ac 17.”45 But

we must remember that there are other references to the resurrection of the dead, particularly

where Luke portrays it as a controversial element in Christian preaching (Acts 4:2; 13:46; 23:6-

8; 24:1, 21; 26:8).46

In addition, we must, as Matthew Sleeman observes, notice that Luke’s presentation of

the resurrection “undergoes a narrative development across Acts. In broad terms, the Acts

narrative moves from a specific narrow focus upon Jesus’ resurrection ‘from the dead’ (typically

ἐκ νεκρῶν; 3.15; 4.2, 10; 10.41; 13.30, 34; 17.3, 31—cf. also 1.22; 2.31; 4.33; 5.30; 10.40;

13.37) to a wider cosmic horizon, the ‘resurrection of the dead’, plural (ἀνάστασιν νεκρῶν;

17.32; 23.6; 24.21; 26.23; cf. 26.8).”47 Interestingly, in our Athens narrative, there is a

progression in thought in the three references to the resurrection: (1) 17:18, “Jesus and the

resurrection”; (2) 17:31, “the resurrection of ‘the man’” as a proof of God’s message; (3) 17:32,

a general “resurrection of the dead,” which is to show how Jesus’ resurrection was reckoned to

44
Jeremy Punt, “Bible (Acts), Culture and the Resurrection of Christ in Religious Dialogue: A Response
to J du Plessis,” prepared for South African Missiological Society (SAMS) conference, to be held at the
University of Stellenbosch, 16-20 January 2006 – in response to the paper of Dr J du Plessis. See
http://academic.sun.ac.za/buvton/Vennote/GOCN/Bible%20(Acts),%20culture%20and%20the
%20resurrection%20of%20Christ%20in%20religious%20dialogue.doc (assessed on November 10, 2013).
45
Ibid.
46
Gaventa, “Eschatology,” 34.
47
Matthew Sleeman, “The Vision of Acts: World Right Way Up,” Journal of the Study of the New
Testament 33 (2011): 329-330.

13
imply/inaugurate a general “resurrection of the dead.48 In an instance of Lukan irony, the shift

comes between 17.31 and 17.32, in the mixed reaction of Paul’s Areopagus audience.49

Paul’s speech ends prematurely. He was interrupted not by authorities but by dissension

within the crowd: “some of them sneered, but others said, ‘We want to hear you again on this

subject’” (v. 32).50 As G. H. R. Horsley has observed, “Paul is clearly leading up to identify the

man raised from death with Jesus” when he is stopped abruptly.51 Paul who was misunderstood

in 17:18 is now sneered, due to “the ‘strangeness’ (cf. vs 20) of the [resurrection] message for

Greek ears, which frames the speech.”52

Since, at that time a great many religions were co-existent at this center of the Hellenisitc

world, many foreign divinities were tolerated, and people brought their gods and goddesses with

them, when they moved to the city, as Robert E. Dunham suggests, “it is small wonder that Paul

generated such consternation with his call to repentance and his reminder about judgment in w.

30-31.”53 Joel Marcus points out, “The Greeks, and later the Romans, rather than telling the

immigrants that they would have to worship the Greek and Roman gods exclusively, adopted the

practical solution of saying, ‘All right, you continue to worship your gods and goddesses, and

we'll worship them, too—and you worship ours.’ That way, no one’s god was slighted, and

48
Plessis.
49
Sleeman, 330.
50
The words “We shall hear you again on this (Ἀκουσόμεθά σου περὶ τούτου καὶ πάλιν)” in 7:32 can be
viewed as a sarcastic remark. However, here, as Witherington rightly suggests, the μὲν... δὲ construction
implies a contrast (Witherington, 532). Also, see N. Clayton Croy, “Hellenistic Philosophies and the
Preaching of the Resurrection (Acts 17:18, 32),” Novum Testamentum 39 (1997): 27. He quotes
Haenchen: “[Luke] is fond of contrasting two groups in the audience, one of which shows an interest
while the other sharply denies the Christian proclamation” (Haenchen, 517).
51
G. H. R. Horsley, “Speeches and Dialogue in Acts,” NTS 32 (1986): 610.
52
Conzelmann, 146.
53
Robert E. Dunham, “Acts 17:16-34,” Interpretation 60 (2006): 202

14
everyone was happy.”54 Dunham rightly concludes: “The Athenian ideal was a realm in which

everyone's god was given space, but Paul spoke of a creator-redeemer God who demanded sole

loyalty. His understanding was viewed as extremely narrow-minded and intolerant.”55

As Kilgallen rightly points out, “It is crucial to decide whether or not Paul’s Areopagus

speech is interrupted by the crowd and thus not completely finished.”56 If interrupted and not

fully finished, Paul wanted to say more about ‘Jesus,’ “but could not. If the speech is complete as

it stands (despite the abrupt departure of the audience), and Luke really wanted Paul to say no

more than Luke has reported, then Jesus was meant to be only obscure and Luke never intended

to remove this obscurity by a fuller speech than what we have.”57 Kilgallen suggests the latter

based on “the literary observation that most all speeches in Acts end with some kind of apparent

interruption, and this is looked upon eventually as a device by which speech is ended

interestingly, not a sign that the speaker actually had more to say, but was prohibited by his

audience’s displeasure.”58 As George A. Kennedy suggests, perhaps, Luke wants to hold

“philosophers in some contempt and wishes to leave a picture of Paul the radical Christian amid

mocking and ignorant philosphers,” or as Witherington notes, Paul “is seeking to force his

audience to a point decision and judgment, and it is the meniotn of resurrection that pushes them

over the edge.”59 In my view, Garroway is right when he concludes, “in Athens, an interruption

54
Joel Marcus, “Paul at the Areopagus: Window on the Hellenistic World,” Biblical Theology Bulletin 18
(1988): 145.
55
Dunham, 203.
56
Kilgallen, 56.
57
Ibid. Haenchen states, “There is no hint that Paul is interrupted… But even if that be assumed, on the
analogy of 22.22, the speech would not become a fragment requiring to be supplemented; it is inherently
quite complete” (Haenchen, 526).
58
Ibid. It is amazing that the orator never mentions the name of Jesus, though in 17:18 we find the rare
use of ‘Jesus’ in the Gentile contexts.
59
George A. Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation Through Rhetorical Criticism (Chapel Hill: The
University of North Carolina Press, 1984), 131. Quoted in Witherington, 531.

15
curbs what would have been universal assent to the message preached, and whoever comes to

faith as a result of these speeches does so in spite of the premature ending.”60 Indeed, in spite of

it, Paul was able to convince some, though not many, Athenians to join him and become

believers.61 Beverly Roberts Gaventa points out,

[T]he eschatological witness of the church is not always successful. This aspect of Luke’s
story can be missed if we concentrate too heavily on the thousands who believe at
Pentecost (2:41) and the summaries, which speak of the growth of the community (e.g.,
6:7, 9:31). Nevertheless, even the early successes in Jerusalem are marred by conflict
(4:1-22, 5:17-42). Later on, the witness receives a divided response (13:48-52, 17:32-34,
26:28-32) and references to great throngs who believe diminish,62 as we find in Acts
28:24” “Some were persuaded; others would not persistently believe.”

“Preaching” and “Repentance”

It is important to note first that the first key verse in Acts that provides a kind of

programme of what Luke intends to describe in the rest of the book is Acts 1:8: “You shall

receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you shall be my witnesses in

Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and to the ends of the earth.” Another programmatic

verse that indicates a new detail about the further contents of the book is Acts 9:15: Paul must

bear the name of Christ “before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel.” According to H.N.

Ridderbos,

The course of the Book of Acts accords with these two statements. It describes the
progress of the witness to Jesus Christ. This witness begins at ‘Jerusalem’ (chapters 2-7),
proceeds further in ‘Judaea and Samaria’ (chapters 8-11) and finally goes on its way to

60
Joshua D. Garroway, “‘Apostolic Irresistibility’ and the Interrupted Speeches in Acts,” Catholic
Biblical Quarterly 74 (2012): 749. According to Garroway, out of 13 speeches in Acts, 6 (Peter at
Pentecost, ch.2, Peter to the circumcision party, ch.11, Paul at Pisidian Antioch, ch.13, Peter at the
Jerusalem conference, ch.15, James at the Jerusalem conference, ch.15, Paul at Miletos, ch.20) are
uninterrupted, and 7 (Peter and John at Solomon’s portico, chs.3-4, Stephen, ch.7, Peter with Cornelius,
ch.10, Paul on the Areopagus, ch.17, Paul at the temple, ch.22, Paul before Felix, ch.24, Paul before
Fetus, ch.26) are interrupted (ibid., 745-746).
61
As observed by Garroway, Luke’s summary comment in 17:34 features an adversative δὲ, to which the
KJV again ascribes concessive force: ‘... howbeit certain men clave unto him, and believed’” (ibid., 749).
62
Gaventa, “The Eschatology of Luke-Acts Revisited,” 41.

16
 the ‘end of the earth ‘ (chapters 13ff.). In this latter stage we find described first Paul’s
activity as a witness among the ‘Gentiles’ (chapters 13-20), then his speaking before
‘kings’ (chapters 24-26) and finally his witness to ‘the sons of Israel’ (chapters 22, 28),
entirely according to the programme sketched for us in 1:8 and 9:15.

Further, it is very remarkable that the position of the great speeches in Acts entirely
accords with this scheme. They are held at exactly those places in the progress of the
witness to Christ which are indicated in Acts 1:8 and 9:15. The first three speeches are
held at Jerusalem where the gospel begins its course, two by Peter (2:14-40; 3:12-26) and
one by Stephen (7:2-53); then one at Caesarea, by Peter (10: 34-43), is recorded as
evidence of the preaching of the gospel in ‘Judaea and Samaria’. Of Paul’s speeches three
are given among the ‘Gentiles’ (13:16-41; 17:22-31; 20:18-35), two before ‘kings’
(24:10-21; 26:2-23) and two before the ‘sons of Israel’ (22:1-21; 28: 25-28). On the basis
of this we may conclude that the speeches in Acts are typical, carefully selected examples
or illustrations of the witness to Christ in its progress from Jerusalem to the ends of the
earth. The typical nature of the speeches is apparent not only from the geographical
progress of the gospel which they represent, but also from the diversity of the persons in
the audiences to which they were addressed.63

Furthermore, in Acts, both εὐαγγελίζω (chapters 5, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17) and

μετανοέω (chapters 2, 3, 8, 17, 26) appear in all of the geographical areas sketched in 1:8. While

Luke does not mention Jesus’ name in the speech proper, he tells us that Paul was in fact

preaching the gospel about Jesus and the resurrection, however misunderstood by the Greeks. As

Horsley suggests, “the Preaching is itself the subject of Acts.”64 Perhaps, Luke was interested in

preaching the gospel message and showing that the apostles had done what they were

commanded by Jesus in Acts 1:8—to be witnesses to the gospel throughout the world: “It is

clearly the purpose of the writer of the book — who in our opinion is none other than Luke — by

means of these speeches to give illustrations of the preaching and progress of the gospel in the

various historical situations which the Book of Acts describes.”65

63
H.N. Ridderbos, “The Speeches of Peter in the Acts of the Apostles,” 6. This was delivered in
Cambridge on July 11th, 1961 at a meeting convened by the Tyndale Fellowship for Biblical Research.
See http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/speeches_ridderbos.pdf (assessed on November 7, 2013)
64
Horsley, 613.
65
Ridderbos, 5.

17
 In addition, Ridderbos notes, “In a certain sense it may be stated that all that has been

said in the speeches… is nothing other than the preparation and great presupposition for the real

purpose of the speeches: to stir up the audience to repentance, to bring them to faith and to

forgiveness of sins.”66 Paul’s Areopagus speech was meant to be a message of the gospel that

calls for repentance, referring to the Athenian cultural history as “the times of ignorance.”

Earlier, Luke accused the Jews of the same type of ignorance first through Peter in Acts 3:17,

because the Jews and their leaders rejected the holy and righteous one and killed the author of

life (3:14-15). Then for a second time Luke accused the Jews of ignorance through Paul at

Pisidian Antioch in Acts 13:27, where the Jews, with their leaders, rejected Jesus Christ and had

him executed, though there was no ground for a death sentence in him (13:28). For Luke, the

ignorance of the Gentiles is of no difference, since in the past God let all Gentile nations to their

own ways (14:16) and did not give them special or direct revelation (14:17). As the Jews were

called to repent from their ignorance (3:19), Paul calls the Athenians to repent of their ignorance

of believing God has a physical form and depends on human temples, rites and images (cf.

14:15: “turn from these worthless things to the living God”).67

Exegesis of Paul’s Speech, Acts 17:22-31

Here, first of all, it is important to notice how Luke prefaces the speech with the

hermeneutically significant remark in 17:16. Whether one transtlates παρωξύνετο as “vexed”

(Barrett), “provoked” (RSV), or “exasperated” (Talbert), the general sense of clear. Paul is not

moved by the city’s rich philosophical or cultural heritage; he is, rather, “deeply distressed”

66
Ridderbos, 27.
67
In Acts 3:19, the verb ‘to turn from (ἐπιστρέφειν)’ occurs together with the verb ‘to repent’
(μετανοήσατε οὖν καὶ ἐπιστρέψατε).

18
(NRSV) by what he sees in Athens.68 Consequently, Paul visited the synagogue and reasoned

(διελέγετο) with both Jews and devout Greeks. The verb διαλέγομαι emphasizes Paul’s use of

logic and rhetoric to persuade his audience (as already seen earlier in 17:2ff).69 Furthermore,

Luke reports that the Stoics and Epicureans took (ἐπιλαβόμενοί) Paul to the Areopagus. It is

possible that Paul had been placed under arrest and put on trial since the Areopagus was well-

known as an Athenian Judicial Council, like elsewhere in Acts, where the verb ἐπιλαμβάνομαι

refers to formal arrests (Acts 16:19; 17:6; 18:17; 21:30, 33; cf. 9:27).70 Rowe consents with this:

“As a result of his preaching, Paul was apprehended and brought before Athenian authorities.”71

Furthermore, I want to make an obvious point “that the main topic of Paul’s Areopagus

speech was God, a not-so-surprising fact, since the speech is well known for its lack of an

explicit Christological formula.”72 This is clearly shown by Mikeal C. Parson’s observation that,

in Paul’s Areopagus speech, “we find in fact that the five occurences of God or θεός are inflected

in four cases within a matter of a few verses: 17:23 (dative); 17:24 (nominative); 17:27

(accusative); 17:29 (genitive); 17:30 (nominative).”73 This demonstrates that Paul’s speech in
68
Paul also exhibits negative emotion in Acts 16:18 where he gets annoyed (διαπονηθεὶς) with the slave
girl.
69
Witherington, 513-514.
70
David M. Reis, “The Areopagus as Echo Chamber: Mimesis and Intertextuality in Acts 17,” Journal of
Higher Criticism 9 (2002): 270.
71
C. K. Rowe, World Upside Down: Reading Acts in the Graeco-Roman Age (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2009), 29. Jerome Neyrey argues against this, saying, “But in Athens, he spoke with whomever
came to the agora (17.17). Athens, a no low-status city, accords him voice, and so Paul gains honor from
speaking in Athens’s agora. But by far the more noble Athenian space was the Areopagus, a place of
colonnades, which housed philosophers such as Stoics and Epicureans. Males assembling here would be
of the elite or retainer class, with philosophical education, and of respected roles and statuses to have
public voice. Thus Paul, who speaks there, is accorded honor from discoursing with worthy people in an
honorable location—at least in Luke’s eyes” [Jerome H. Neyrey, “‘Teaching You in Public and from
House to House’ (Acts 20.20): Unpacking a Cultural Stereotype,” Journal for the Study of the New
Testament 26 (2003): 94].
72
Parsons, 58. Flemming puts it this way: “In Athens, Christology is grounded in theology” (Flemming,
77).
73
Mikeal C. Parsons, “Luke and the Progymnasmata: A Preliminary Investigation into the Preliminary
Exercises,” in Contextualizing Acts: Lukan Narrative and Greco-Roman Discourse, eds. Todd C. Penner

19
Athens shows careful reflection on the problem of approaching Gentiles who do not share the

biblical story nor Judaism’s belief in one God, major premises for other speeches in Acts.74

However, Paul was not merely theological, speaking about God, he began with God, because for

him, in order to perceive salvation in Jesus Christ, one has to first acknowledge the one true God

in the world. As Kilgallen suggests, “While explicit concentration is on God, underlying

common concern is about human destiny,”75 because not can escape the “day when [God] will

judge the world with justice by [Jesus] he has appointed.” In fact, as can be seen in the following

outline, Paul, by subtly adopting the inscription at the altar of the Athenians, skillfully introduces

the true God to his audience, by beginning with the essential nature of God and ending, though

intruption ends his speech prematurally, with God’s plan in Jesus, though ‘Jesus’ is not explicitly

mentioned. The outline for Paul’s highly rhetorical speech can be as follows: 1) opening

exordium, designed to gain a hearing from his audience (17:22-23a); 2) propositio, a thesis,

stating the desired goal of the speech—to make the unknown God known to the Athenians

(17:23b); 3) probatio, the main proof, in which he argues his case (17:24-29); and 4) peroratio, a

concluding exhortation, which attempts to persuade the audience to take the right course of

action, namely to repent (17:30-31).76 The purpose of Paul’s speech is deliberative. He wants to

persuade his audience to change their ways of thinking and living.

and Caroline Vander Stichele (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003), 58.
74
Robert C. Tannehill, Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: The Acts of the Apostles: A Literary Interpretation,
Volume Two: The Acts of the Apostles (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1990), 179.
75
Kilgallen, 56.
76
Flemming, 74. This is adaptation of Witherington’s outline (Witherington, 518). Ling Cheng outlines
the speech as follow: 1) Identification of an Athenian Unknown God (17:22-24a); 2) Elucidation of the
Nature of God the Creator (17:24b- 29); and 3) Explication of the Plan of God in Jesus’ Christ (17:30-31).
See Ling Cheng, The Characterization of God in Acts: The Indirect Portrayal of an Invisible Character
(Milton Kyenes, UK: Paternoster, 2011), 107-118.

20
 First, in verse 22, when Paul opens his speech with “Men of Athens,” this is “a

conventionalized vocative salutio,” a respectful way of addressing the housed philosphers at the

Areopagus, Stoics and Epicureans. Then, Paul employs “an ambiguous word which only occurs

twice in the New Testament, both times in Acts: δεισιδαίμων (v. 22).” Given argues that this

word can “have a positive or negative connotation—either very religious, or very

superstitious.”77 He takes the “not either/or but both/and” approach, and suggests that from the

perspectives of the orator and orates, it is positive since “the oratees can hardly expect the orator

to begin by insulting them,” and “unless [Paul] is a fool or exceedingly arrogant, he must be

complimenting them.”78 However, Given continues, “the narratee is operating in a different

space, that of the entire narrative of Acts to his point. The narratee knows by now who the orator

is and what he represents. Indeed… the narrate, informed at the outset by the narrator, knows

that the orator strongly disapproves of Athenian religion (v. 16) and can hardly be sincerely

commending it.”79 Witherington sees both possibilities, but I think Witherington says the best:

“However it may have been heard, it seems very likely in view of v. 16 that Luke intends for us

to see Paul using it in the negative sense.”80 The ideal or implied readers, or even informed

readers like us or Theophilus, assume Paul’s distaste for idolatry in Athens, though he may be

respectful toward Athenians and speaking with measured restraint.

Even if Paul was complementing them on their religiosity, citing their poets, and

drawing on their insights, he then turns to remind the Athenians of their accountablity to the one

God. I found Kilgallen’s argument very interesting:

77
Given, 364. The same word occurs in 25:19.
78
Given, 365.
79
Given, 365.
80
Witherington, 520.

21
 Verse 23 contains the famous dedicatory phrase, to the Unknown God… It is commplace
now to say that there has never been discovered an altar dedicated to one Unknown God.
Having said that, many will agree, first, that there are many dedications to ‘the Unknown
Gods, and, secondly, Paul could have written the singular for the sake of the argument he
was about to develop. What is of interest is Paul’s concern to start with a phrase easily
(and favorably) understood by his audience.

Yet, of greater interest for me is that the” ὃ” and “τοῦτο” in “ΑΓΝΩΣΤΩ ΘΕΩ. ὃ οὖν

ἀγνοοῦντες εὐσεβεῖτε, τοῦτο ἐγὼ καταγγέλλω ὑμῖν,” antecedent of ΑΓΝΩΣΤΩ ΘΕΩ, is neuter.

What Paul seems to say is that, on one hand, the Athenians worship a (no article) Unknown God

(masculine), but, on the other hand, they do not really know this (neuter) God. So Paul said,

“This [God] I am proclaiming to you.” They have been worshipping a “what” rather than a

“whom;” an impersonal object, not a personal God, the living God revealed as “creator and

judge” (v. 24). They need to seek, reach out for, and find, not it, but him (v. 27) and repent (28).

Paul is very much aware of their present state of ignorance and trying to bring them to a true

knowledge of God through various arguments in verses 24-29.81 As Dean Flemming rightly

points out, “The Athenians are hardly ‘anonymous Christians.’”82

Paul, in his speech, tries hard to find common ground with his audience in his language

and thought, even by omitting ‘Jesus’ altogether in his speech, but only “to transform their

worldview.”83 Many parallels can be adduced from Green and Roman literature. His speech is an

attempt to present the true nature of the true God to the Athenians. Paul boldly proclaims the

reality of this unknown God who commands all people to repent. Paul waits until the very last to

deliver his missionary pitch, after he hast taken great pains to lay the proper groundwork, to

return to the controversial an easily misunderstood topic of Jesus and the resurrection, along with
81
Eckhard J. Schnabel offers a comprehensive list of both the points of agreement with the Greeks and
the points of disagreement, along with the ‘elements of contact’ and the ‘elements of contradiction’ in his
Paul the Missionary: Rrealities, Strategies and Methods (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2008), 171-
179.
82
Flemming, 76
83
Flemming, 79.

22
the subject of the resurrection of the dead, which was alien to Greek thought.84 Paul wanted to

exhort the Athenians to turn away from its idolatrous practices in preparation for God’s future

judgment by Jesus, “the man he has appointed.” In the speech, Paul explicitly calls on the

listeners to abandon their current beliefs and practices and reorient themselves to a new way of

living. For Paul, the true God is neither residing in shrines nor in idols. Furthermore, contrary to

common opinion, God needs nothing from humans but has instead given them places to live as

well as “life and breath and everything.” Although God is transcendent, he cares for humanity

and remains near, so that it is appropriate to think of humans as his “offspring.” Thus, for Paul

humans are responsible for maintaining this proper knowledge of God so that they might exhibit

behavior that will allow them to be saved at the judgment. Paul’s purpose was to interest, to

engage, and to confront them and correct their understanding of God at a fundamental level.”85

As Flemming rightly concludes, “Paul does not water down the gospel in order to make it taste

better to the Greeks. Despite his painstaking efforts to contextualize his message for a Greek

audience, the gospel’s inevitable offense must stand.”86 Furthermore, as Schnabel argues, “Paul

leaves no doubt that he unanimously rejects the plurality of gods and cults and the proliferations

of temples, altars and statutes in the city of Athens.”87

Conclusion

For sure, Paul’s Areopagus speech was not “a misguided failure” or “some kind of

temporary experiment,” but “a model of missionary preaching to educated pagans.”88 Chief

84
Flemming, 81.
85
Flemming, 78. Schnael is right when he views Pau’s response to the religious beliefs and practices of
the Athenians, as, “ultimately, not accommodation but confrontation” (Schnabel, 182).
86
Flemming, 81.
87
Schnabel, 182.
88
Flemming, 81-82.

23
among the tasks of the church from the beginning was witness. Luke introduces this at the end of

the Gospel (24:48) and reiterates it at the outset of Acts (1:8). The witness of the church and the

response to that witness is the dominant feature of Acts. As noted earlier, Paul’s audience being

Greeks could not perceive the eschatological reality to which the church tried to bear witness. So

Paul in his speech began with common ground his listeners could understand, and he interpreted

the Christian message in their familiar language and thought. However, as Gaventa rightly sums

up, “That is not to say that Luke encourages a witness which will adapt itself freely to culture…

Luke converses with Gentile culture and draws from it, but is not absorbed by it.”89 Also, in

another article, “Witnessing to the Gospel in the Acts of the Apostles: Beyond the Conversion or

Conversation Dilemma,” in Acts, she points out that there are both converting and conversing in

the larger Lukan story of God’s initiative in all that is Christian witness.” She notes, “Both

conversionists and conversationalists will find their views confirmed in the book of Acts, with its

engaging stories in which witnesses to the gospel journey from Jerusalem to Rome, encountering

people as diverse as the Ethiopian eunuch in the middle of a deserted road, the businesswoman

Lydia outside the city of Philippi, devotees of Artemis in the goddess’s favored city of Ephesus,

chattering philosophers in Athens, and the scheming Felix in Caesarea.”90 For her, “the question

of conversion or conversation is, at least for Luke, the wrong question.”91 Though she did not say

explicitly, but culture also implies, if not includes, religions.

Once again, returning to “Christian Witness in a Multi-Religious World,” which

addresses the topic of conversation (dialogue) with different religions and culture, “Christian

witness in a pluralistic world includes engaging in dialogue with people of different religions and

89
Gaventa, “The Eschatology,” 41.
90
Gaventa, “Witnessing to the Gospel in the Acts of the Apostles: Beyond the Conversion or
Conversation Dilemma,” Word & World 22 (2002), 239.
91
Gaventa, “Witnessing,” 243.

24
cultures.” Examining the statement itself, we see that the authors of “Christian Witness in a

Multi-Religious World” seem to “assert that dialogue is a legitimate part of contemporary

witness.”92 It seems like “the dialogical mode should be understood as a response to the

contemporary context of religious pluralism. In examing the sentence alone, the reader could be

led to believe that dialogue is a tool of witness rather than an object in its own end. It would

seem that dialogue is a tool of witness…”93 These authors used Paul’s speech at the Areopagus,

to support their conclusion that dialogue is considered to be a tool of evangelization.

However, as Heather Miller Rubens argues, Paul’s speech is not dialogical. In Athens,

Paul is speaking and not listening. He is giving and not receiving, and he is witnessing his own

faith, not being open to that of the Athenians. Instead, he mines the sacred spaces of Athens in

search of a place to insert Jesus. Paul is not looking for what is true and holy in these religions,

but a place to insert the truth of Christ. Paul is not in dialogue but is engaged in evangelization

and proselytization.94 As Rubens also rightly points out, using Acts 17:22-28 to define dialogue’s

relaionship to Christian witness in this ecumenical document is not adequate, because “it

privileges a dialogue of evangelization over and against a dialogue of mutuality… Acts 17:22-28

wll not suffice… It should not be the ‘go to’ biblical text for understanding a Christian view of

dialogue that is defined by mutuality and reciprocity.”95

Quite eloquently, Carl Teichrib writes,

What Paul did in Athens doesn’t reflect today’s pluralistic dialogue. Yes, Paul recognized
the spiritual condition of the city, he engaged people in the marketplace and at the
Areopagus, and he used the Athenian religious worldview – not to enter into multi-faith

92
Heather Miller Rubens, “Interreligious Dialogue in a Post-Nostra Aetate Church: The Tension Between
Mutuality and Evangelization,” in Vision of Hope: Emerging Theologians and the Future of the Church,
ed. Kevin Ahem (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 2013), 105.
93
Ibid.
94
Ibid.
95
Rubens, 106.

25
 ‘dialogue,’ which intentionally refrains from acts of conversion – but as a springboard to
present the unpopular gospel message: The character of the true God, repentance,
judgment, and the resurrection of Jesus Christ.96

This was not “engaging in dialogue with people of different religions,” but proclaiming the

message of the true Redeemer. However, how Paul handled this multi-religious Athenian setting

was exemplary. He tactfully used his knowledge of the cultural and religious mindset as leverage

to present a message that many rejected, and few accepted. There was nothing in this encounter

that remotely comes close to our modern, interfaith idea of “dialogue,” where the proclamation

of personal repentance and judgment is considered politically incorrect.97

This wasn’t “engaging in dialogue with people of different religions,” but proclaiming

the message of the true Redeemer. However, how Paul handled this multi-religious Athenian

setting was exemplary. He tactfully used his knowledge of the cultural and religious mindset as

leverage to present a message that many rejected, and few accepted. There was nothing in this

encounter that remotely comes close to our modern, interfaith idea of “dialogue,” where the

proclamation of personal repentance and judgment is considered politically incorrect.98

There is tension between evangelism and interfaith engagement. It is helpful to examine

the text like Paul’s Areopagus speech and other texts that can provide us with a framework for

how to live in our religiously plural world. When we interact with religious others, if we identify

common knowledge, common ground, and common concern, our hope is, we may find our own

faith strengthened and our witness made more credible as we treat other faith traditions with

respect, even as we share and discuss our differences with one another. But we must not forget

96
Carl Teichrib, “I Promise… To Be Politically Correct: The Great Commission and Religious
Pluralism,” in http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/forcing-change/11/10-commission-pluralism.htm
(assessed on November 11, 2013).
97
Ibid.
98
Ibid.

26
that Paul was unafraid to proclaim the gospel of Jesus and his resurrection to first-century

Athenian philosophers.

Yes, notice what Paul did not do. He did not turn over the altars; rather, he studied them.

He did not take the opportunity to denounce their culture; however, he quoted from their poets.

He could have gone straight to his message: “Repent or perish.” Even if “Men of Athens, I see

that in every way you are very religious” was not meant to be positive, it did not upset them, but

rather sustained their attention, until they heard about the resurrection of which some sneered

and a few men became followers of Paul and believed. Among them was Dionysius, a member

of the Aeropagus; also a woman named Damaris and a member of others (Acts 17:32-34). Paul’s

model was not a predetermined “how to do it model”. Rather, it is heuristic, situational,

pragmatic and spirit inspired creative model with a successful gospel presentation output. The

spirit of God can use us to go and do likewise. 99

Borrowing from Bosch, “Neither dialogue nor mission is moving along a one-way

street… In both, faith commitment goes hand-in-hand with respect for others. Neither

presupposes a ‘completely open mind’—which, in any case, is an impossibility. In both cases we

are witnessing to our deepest convictions whilst listening to those of our neighbors.”100 “It is true

that Christianity has—belatedly—rediscovered its integrally dialogical nature; this rediscovery

should, however, not be at the expense of its fundamentally missionary nature.”101

99
Olusola Owolabi, “Paradigms of Biblical Creativity Culture for Use in Gospel Presentation by the
Church,” Ogbomoso Journal of Theology 17 (2012): 110-11.
100
Bosch, 487.
101
Ibid.

27
Bibliography

Baban, Octavian. On the Road Encounters in Luke-Acts Hellenistic Mimesis and Luke’s
Theology of the Way. Waynesboro, GA: Paternoster, 2006.

Blevins, James L. “Acts 13-19: The Tale of Three Cities.” Review and Expositor 87 (1990): 439-
450.

Bosch, David J. Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission. Maryknoll:

Orbis Books, 1999.

Bruce, F. F. The Acts of the Apostles: Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary. Grand
Rapids: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1990.

Conzelmann, Hans. “The Address of Paul on the Areopagus.” In Studies in Luke-Acts. Eds. L. E.
Keck and J. L. Martyn. Nashville/New York, 1966.

. Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles. Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1987.

Croy, N. Clayton. “Hellenistic Philosophies and the Preaching of the Resurrection (Acts 17:18,
32).” Novum Testamentum 39 (1997): 21-39.

Dibelius, Martin. “Paul on the Areopagus.” In Studies in the Acts of the Apostles. Ed. Heinrich
Green. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1956. 26-77.

. The Book of Acts: Form, Style, and Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2004.

Dunham, Robert E. “Acts 17:16-34.” Interpretation 60 (2006): 202-204.

Dupuis, Jacques. Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism. Maryknoll: Orbis Books,
1997.

Flemming, Dean. Contextualization in the New Testament: Patterns for Theology and Mission.
Downers: InterVaristy Press, 2005.

Garroway, Joshua D. “‘Apostolic Irresistibility’ and the Interrupted Speeches in Acts,” Catholic
Biblical Quarterly 74 (2012): 738-752.

Gaventa, Beverly Roberts. “The Eschatology of Luke-Acts Revisited.” Encounter 43 (1982): 27-
42.

. “Witnessing to the Gospel in the Acts of the Apostles: Beyond the Conversion or
Conversation Dilemma.” Word & World 22 (2002): 238-245.

28
Given, Mark D. “Not Either/Or But Both/And in Paul’s Areopagus Speech.” Biblical
Interpretation 3 (1995): 356-372.

Goheen, Michael W. “The Significance of Lesslie Newbigin for Mission in the New Millenium.”
Third Millennium 7 (2004): 88-99.

Haenchen, Ernst. The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary. Philadelphia: Westminster Press,
1971.

Hemer, Colin J. “The Speeches in Acts. II: The Areopagus Address.” Tyndale Bulletins 40
(1989): 239-259.

Horsley, G. H. R. “Speeches and Dialogue in Acts.” NTS 32 (1986): 609-614.

Keck, Leander E. Mandate to Witness: Studies in the Book of Acts. Valley Forge: Judson Press,
1964.

Keener, Craig. “The altar to the unknown god: Paul preaches in Acts 17:22-31.” Bible
Background: Research and Commentary by Dr. Craig Keener, 31 August 2011. See
http://www.craigkeener.com/the-altar-to-the-unknown-god-paul-preaches-in-acts-1722-
31/

. Acts: An Exegetical Commentary. Introduction and 1:1-2:47. Grand Rapids: Baker

Academic: 2012.

Kilgallen, John J. “Acts: 17,22-31: An Example of Interreligious Dialogue.” Studia Missionalia

43 (1994): 43-60.

Lefebure, Leo D. “Thinking the Divine in Interreligious Encounter: Biblical Trajectories and
Christian Tradition.” In Thinking the Divine in Interreligious Encounter. Ed. Norbert
Hintersteiner. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2012. 110-125.

Marcus, Joel. “Paul at the Areopagus: Window on the Hellenistic World.” Biblical Theology
Bulletin 18 (1988): 143-148.

Newbigin, Lesslie. Unfinished Agenda: An Updated Autobiography. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock,
2009.

Neyrey, Jerome H. “‘Teaching You in Public and from House to House’ (Acts 20.20):
Unpacking a Cultural Stereotype.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 26 (2003):
69-102.

Owolabi, Olusola. “Paradigms of Biblical Creativity Culture for Use in Gospel Presentation by
the Church.” Ogbomoso Journal of Theology 17 (2012): 97-116.

29
Parsons, Mikeal C. “Luke and the Progymnasmata: A Preliminary Investigation into the
Preliminary Exercises.” In Contextualizing Acts: Lukan Narrative and Greco-Roman
Discourse. Eds. Todd C. Penner and Caroline Vander Stichele. Atlanta: Society of
Biblical Literature, 2003.

du Plessis, Johan. “Acts 17:16-34 – The Resurrection of Jesus as a Crucial Moment in the
Encounter Between Gospel and Culture,” paper prepared for South African Missiological
Society (SAMS) Conference, held at the University of Stellenbosch, 16-20 January 2006.

Punt, Jeremy. “Bible (Acts), Culture and the Resurrection of Christ in Religious Dialogue: A
Response to J du Plessis,” prepared for South African Missiological Society (SAMS)
conference, to be held at the University of Stellenbosch, 16-20 January 2006 – in
response to the paper of Dr J du Plessis.

Räisänen, Heikki. “A Plea for Pluralism: Reflections on Mission Studies by a Biblical Scholar.”
Swedish Missiological Themes 99 (2011): 395-417.

. Marcion, Muhammad, and the Mahatma: Exegetical Perspectives on the Encounter of

Cultures and Faiths. London: SCM Press, 1997.

Reis, David M. “The Areopagus as Echo Chamber: Mimesis and Intertextuality in Acts 17.”
Journal of Higher Criticism 9 (2002): 259-277.

Rowe, C. K. World Upside Down: Reading Acts in the Graeco-Roman Age. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2009.

Rubens, Heather Miller. “Interreligious Dialogue in a Post-Nostra Aetate Church: The Tension
Between Mutuality and Evangelization.” In Vision of Hope: Emerging Theologians and
the Future of the Church, ed. Kevin Ahem. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 2013.

Schnabel Eckhard J. Paul the Missionary: Rrealities, Strategies and Methods. Downers Grove:
IVP Academic, 2008.

Sleeman, Matthew. “The Vision of Acs: World Right Way Up.” Journal of the Study of the New
Testament 33 (2011): 327-333.

Stenschke, Christoph. “The Biography of Jesus in the Missionary Speech of Acts.” Swedish
Missiological Themes 99 (2011): 267-294.

Talbert, Charles H. Acts. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1984.

. Reading Acts: A Literary and Theological Commentary. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys
Publishing, 2005.

30
Tannehill, Robert C. Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: The Acts of the Apostles: A Literary
Interpretation, Volume Two: The Acts of the Apostles. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress,
1990.

Teichrib, Carl. “I Promise… To Be Politically Correct: The Great Commission and Religious
Pluralism.” In http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/forcing-change/11/10-commission-
pluralism.htm.

Tennent, Timothy C. Invitation to World Missions: A Trinitarian Missiology for the Twenty-first
Century. Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic & Professional, 2010.

Tiessen, Terrance L. Who Can Be Saved? Reassessing Salvation in Christ and World Religions.
Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004.

Walls, Andrews F. “Old Athens and New Jerusalem: Some Signposts for Christian Scholarship
in the Early History of Mission Studies.” International Bulletin of Missionary Research
21 (1997): 146-153.

Willebrands, J. G. M. “Ecumenical Aspects and Perspectives of the Second Vatican Council.”

Mid-Stream 5 (1966): 1-15.

Witherington, Ben. The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids:
Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1998.

31