39

 

5. Witness and dialogue

The whole concept of 'mutual witness' is an invention of the Dialogue department! It is non-biblical and has nothing to do with the way the New Testament understands Christian witness. In the Acts of the Apostles, for instance, it is the Christians who had something to witness to; there we read the story of the proclamation of the gospel and the invitation to respond to it.

 

A participant at a WCC meeting said that. The occasion was the official approval of the text of the "Ecumenical Consid­erations on Jewish-Christian Dialogue" for study and use in the churches.

 

The view is by no means uncommon. There are many, even among those who understand and affirm the practice of dia­logue, who feels the same way. Once we leave the world of Jesus' dealing with people, we are faced with the story of the early church, as it interprets the significance of Jesus (as in St John's Gospel, for example) and as it goes about its mission (as in the Acts of the Apostles). In both, they claim, we have a non-dialogical stance.

 

It is important, therefore, in a consideration of the Bible and the people of living faiths, that we take a close look at this part of the Bible.

 

We must begin with the affirmation that dialogue does not exclude witness. In fact, where people have no convictions to share, there can be no real dialogue. In a multilateral dialogue meeting in Colombo, one of the Hindu participants rejected any idea of "leveling down" religious convictions, and said that he had no interest in entering into dialogue with Christians who had no convictions about their faith. In any genuine dialogue, authentic witness must take place, for partners will bear tes­timony to why they have this or that conviction.

 

Our discussion, therefore, is not about the appropriateness or the legitimacy of bearing witness; it is about the assumptions one makes about other faiths in witness situations, and the spirit and intention with which the witness is given.

 

A good deal of Christian witness has been modeled on the Acts of the Apostles. The church's mission down the ages has drawn much inspiration from the preaching in the Acts and from the missionary journeys of St Paul. The present missionary activity is seen in some sense as the continuation of the "world outreach" that began with the "acts" of the apostles. The kind of

 

40

 

"straight proclamation of the gospel" that we have in the Acts is often seen as a model for relating to Buddhists, Hindus, Mus­lims, and others. The dialogue enterprise appears to undercut this biblical way in which mission is carried out. Can the Acts of the Apostles serve as a model for my relationship with Hindus, Buddhists and Muslims?

 

To answer that question, we must look at the context in which the mission described in the Acts took place. That is a specific context, which cannot be reproduced. When we take the Acts as a model, without reference to the situation in which the acts took place, we do less than justice to the book does.

 

There are some who see the whole of Acts not so much as a record of the actual preaching and ministry of Peter, Paul and others as Luke's account of the expansion of the church in the early years. We do not wish to enter this particular biblical debate; we shall only look at the sermons and teachings as Luke records them.

 

Most of the characters that appear in the Acts are Jews or people who were familiar with the Jewish tradition and religion. The apostles were all Jews, and they were all directly or indirectly related to Jesus himself and to his ministry among his people.

 

Much of the preaching in the Acts is centered on the internal debate within the Jewish community on who Jesus was. The most outstanding question of course was whether Jesus was the long-expected Messiah (Christ) who would deliver the people from their bondage.

 

The controversy had surfaced even during the time of Jesus. Some of the people recognized him as a rabbi, others as a prophet, and still others as the "one sent by God to save his people". There were different conceptions among them of what the Messiah would do in the process of liberating the people. Some saw him as a political hero who would deliver them from the bondage of Rome, while others expected him to usher in the messianic age that would bring about lasting shalom and the immediate presence of God. To many others the political and the eschatological were two aspects of the same concept.

 

Jesus' ministry was so successful that it threatened to become a mass movement. His entry into Jerusalem, often described as "triumphal", though it was a symbol of humility, to take one

 

41

 

example, was seen as a threat both to the religious and political institutions of the land. Finally, the authorities from both sides got together to put an end to the movement by sending Jesus to the cross. With the death of Jesus, the whole movement appeared to have collapsed.

 

The direct experience of the risen Christ, therefore, had a tremendous impact upon the disciples. Now they were con­vinced that Jesus, whom the authorities rejected and crucified, was the Messiah foretold by the prophets.

 

We should recognize that at a stage there were no "Chris­tians" in the strict sense of the word; there were only Jewish followers of the Jewish prophet Jesus, whom the authorities denounced and, as they thought, had liquidated. The followers of Jesus worshipped in the temple and kept the Mosaic Law, but they had a story to tell their people.

 

The early apostolic preaching, therefore, must be seen within this controversy over who Jesus was. The first sermon preached by Peter and recorded in Acts 2 is a good illustration:

 

Listen to these words, fellow Israelites! Jesus of Nazareth was a man whose divine authority was clearly proven to you by all the miracles and wonders, which God performed through him. You yourselves know this, for it happened here among you. In accor­dance with his own plan, God had already decided that Jesus would be handed over to you; and you killed him by letting sinful men crucify him. But God raised him from death, setting him free from its power, because it was impossible that death should hold him prisoner.... All the people of Israel, then, are to know for sure that this Jesus, whom you crucified, is the one that God has made Lord and Messiah! (2:22-24, 36).

 

Peter is speaking to "fellow Israelites". He claims that the resurrection is the proof that Jesus is indeed the Messiah. In the parts not quoted here, Peter cites Jewish scriptures to authenti­cate the claim.

 

The preaching of course led to a division; people took sides on the question. Eventually it resulted in a more distinct community within the Jewish community, which now bore the name of Christ. The prevalent sign for the members of this community, which later, adopted repentance, baptism, when administered in the name of Jesus, was also to become the mark of belonging to this community.

 

42

 

But the main point to note here is that, since Jesus was rejected and crucified by the authorities, the disciples felt compelled to bear testimony to their experience of the risen Christ. This was how they could prove to their own people that Jesus was indeed the Messiah. And this they did with great courage. If Jesus was the Messiah, then the messianic age is to be ushered in shortly and people had to "save" themselves from the impending judgment by becoming part of this messianic age.

 

Peter gives the same message in the temple after the healing of the lame man:

 

Fellow Israelites, why are you surprised at this and you stare at us... The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our ancestors, has given divine glory to his servant Jesus. But you handed him over to the authorities... but God raised him from death - and we are witness to this... God announced long ago through all the prophets that his Messiah had to suffer... (3:12-13, 15, 18).

 

Apostolic preaching, in other words, was in many ways the continuation of the debate among the Jewish people on who Jesus was. The disciples were convinced that the new factor -Jesus' resurrection - should be witnessed to within this debate.

 

It is interesting that as late as in Acts 18, we read: "When Silas and Timothy arrived from Macedonia, Paul gave his whole time to preaching the message, testifying to the Jews that Jesus was the Messiah." This was in Corinth, and when those who disagreed with him got hold of Paul and brought him before the Governor of Achaia, Gallic, the governor saw this as a problem within the Jewish community. "Since it is an argument about words and names and your own law, you yourselves must settle it," he said, and drove them off from the court! (18:15-16).

 

To the end of the Acts of the Apostles, the narrative is marked by this controversy between those who believed in the resurrec­tion of Jesus, and were therefore convinced that Jesus was the Messiah, and those who refused to believe it. The seeds of dissension were already there, for the Pharisees, including Paul, believed in the resurrection of the dead while the Sadducees did not. The matter was further complicated by the different expec­tations about the Messiah.

 

43

 

In the two fascinating accounts of Paul's defense of himself before Governor Felix (ch.24) and King Agrippa (ch.26), Paul speaks of his standing as a person within the Jewish community, and insists that the difficulties his opponents have with him have to do only with the resurrection faith about Jesus the Christ.

 

This is, however, only one side of the ministry of Paul. An early persecutor of those who "followed the way", once con­verted, Paul became a strong advocate for Jesus and the Way. When life became difficult in Jerusalem, he went to the Jewish communities scattered around Asia Minor. Almost in every in­stance, he began his preaching in the local synagogue where the scattered Jewish communities regularly gathered for worship.

 

From the beginning, he had a better response from the "Genti­les" who attended these synagogues than from the Jews who were divided over the question of messiah ship and resurrection. From the beginning, therefore, there were "Gentiles" who responded to the apostolic preaching. However, in most cases these persons were familiar with and inclined towards the Jewish faith. They were the "god-fearers", and for the most part, they had heard the preaching at the synagogues, which they regularly attended. In Thessalonica, for example, a number of Greeks believed in what Paul preached. Then they already knew something of the Jewish teaching through their regular attendance at the synagogue.

 

According to his usual habit, Paul went to the synagogue (in Thessalonica). There, during three Sabbaths he held discussions with the people, quoting and explaining the (Jewish) scripture and prov­ing from them that the Messiah had to suffer and rise from death. "This Jesus whom I announce to you", Paul said, "is the Messiah." Some of them were convinced and joined Paul and Silas; so did many of the leading women and a large group of Greeks who worshipped God (17:2-4).

 

Because of the increasing number of God-fearers or Gentiles who responded to Paul's preaching, he came to be known as the "Apostle to the Gentiles" and his mission came to be known as the "Gentile mission". But a careful reading of the Acts of the Apostles will show that Paul himself was most comfortable preaching to those who came out of, or were familiar with, the Jewish faith. Most of the Gentiles in Antioch and in Iconium

 

44

 

who became believers, for example, had heard Paul speak to them on the Sabbath day in the synagogue (Acts 13, 14).

 

This is of course not to deny that there were other converts than those who came from a Jewish background. Nor does it in any way discredit the importance of the fact that eventually the church did strike roots and grow in many new cultures.

 

All that we seek to show is that in the Acts of the Apostles there is a very specific Jewish context within which the kind of proclama­tion of the resurrection was seen by the apostles as the most appro­priate form of witness. Most of those who listened to the witness of the Apostles were familiar with the expectations about the Messiah and what it meant to speak of Jesus as the Christ. The kind of passionate preaching and the attendant controversies were only are to be expected. It will be wrong to assume that all this can be trans­lated across other cultures and ages and the same methodology will serve as we relate and witness to Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, etc. Here in the Acts we meet people who have an entirely different background. They see and understand the human predicament in very different ways from contemporary Muslims or Hindus.

 

But before we consider this problem we should stay with Paul for a little longer, and take a look at an aspect of his ministry which is not always highlighted in our reading of the Acts. Even though Paul's ministry led to discussion and controversy within his com­munity, we cannot assume that he was an unsympathetic or uncompromising preacher who gave his message on a "take it or leave it" basis. In many places, he spent a good deal of time in dia­logue.

 

In Ephesus, for example, Paul is said to have led three months of discussions in the synagogue (19:8). Interestingly, the word "dialogue" is used to describe these conversations. And when the dialogue became too difficult in the synagogue, Paul moved to the lecture hall of Tyrannus where he continued to hold daily discussions for two whole years!

 

There is an interesting incident in Acts 17, where Paul is suddenly called upon to preach to a group of people who may be classified in a real sense as persons belonging entirely to another faith. This happens when Paul is waiting in Athens for Silas and Timothy to arrive.

He enters into conversation at the public square with those who are passing by, and almost accidentally gets the attention of

 

45

 

the Epicurean and stoic teachers who think that Paul is “showing off”, talking about some foreign gods (see Acts 17:16-34 for a full account). The interest grows, and Paul finds himself called upon to speak to the city council.

 

It would appear that Paul was somewhat puzzled as to where he should begin. Perhaps for the first time, he is faced with a serious audience for whom the controversy over the Messiah-ship of Jesus has little or no relevance. Paul decides, therefore, to bear testimony to Jesus as the Risen One through whom God will "judge the whole world with justice" (v.31).

 

He has further problems. His audience does not share the Jewish world-view and they are not able to see the significance of Jesus within that framework either.

 

He makes the decision to begin where his listeners were in their own religious quest:

 

I see that in every way you Athenians are very religious. For as I walked through your city and looked at the places where you worship, I found an altar on which is written 'To an Unknown God'. That which you worship, then, even though you do not know it, is what I now proclaim to you (vs. 22-23).

 

Faced with an entirely non-Jewish audience, Paul is obliged to adopt a new method and a new idiom. He becomes theocentric in his approach. Quoting the verse, "We too are his children", from one of their poets, he speaks of himself and his hearers as children of the one God - "In him we live and move and exist" (v.28).

 

When he began to witness to Jesus' resurrection his audience became divided. Some expressed the desire to listen to him again, while to a number of people the whole concept appeared strange and even ridiculous. Some people, however, believed in what he said.

 

It has been said that Paul's attempt at dialogue in Athens was a misadventure. That is to say, the encounter was fruitless. Those who hold this view are convinced that Paul should have stuck to "straight preaching" even though his hearers did not have the background of Judaism.

 

It is of course difficult to imagine what would have happened if Paul had refused to enter into a dialogue with the religion of the people who listened to him, and had instead proclaimed

 

46

 

Jesus as the Christ, as he used to do in the synagogues. But I think that Paul confronted a real difficulty in Athens. It was not a misadventure, for Paul, like many of us today, was faced with a situation that was untypical of the rest of the encounters that he had had. For here, in a real sense, he was faced with people of other faiths. He was aware that neither the message nor the method he used in relating to those with a Jewish background was adequate to deal with this situation.

 

When he goes to the next city, Corinth, he returns to people of his own religious background!

 

The foregoing considerations are not meant to suggest that eventually there were no converts from those outside the Jewish faith perspective. We know there were. We know that soon the church lost its close relationship to the Jewish community and took deep roots in other cultures and became predominantly a "Gentile church". The process by which that happened was also a dialogic one, but that is outside our present scope.

 

The intention here is only to show the special nature of the material in the Acts of the Apostles and how in its both contents and method it related to a very specific situation.

 

When we read the Epistles of Paul, we find that the whole debate over Jesus had taken a fundamental shift. Since the church is now predominantly gentile, the emphasis on Jesus as the Messiah is no longer given prominence in the Epistles. Even though Jesus is called the Christ, a new meaning is given to the concept of Christ. Christ is no longer seen primarily as the Jewish Messiah but as the bearer of the grace of God, by faith in which human persons are justified before God (Rom. 5).

 

Christ is seen as the one in whom God incarnated himself in the world (Phil. 2). Christ is the new man (1 Cor. 15); he reconciles God with human beings, he is the one who has paid the price of human sin (2 Cor. 5). Paul himself struggles in the Epistle to the Romans to carry on an inner dialogue with his own Jewish theology, seeking to find ways to relate his new faith to what he had inherited from his forebears.

 

Many of the exclusive claims made for Jesus must also be seen within this development. Sometimes they are made as part of the polemics against the Jewish community. Sometimes they arose as part of new confessions or understandings with regard to the significance of Christ.

 

47

 

Matthew, for example, quotes the Hebrew scriptures at every important point in his account of the life of Jesus, in order to prove that Jesus' life, death and resurrection were all part of God's overall plan. John interprets the life and teachings of Jesus to argue that Jesus is the true Messiah - the one sent by God to save God's people. Paul argues that the dispensation based on the Law has been brought to an end, and God has chosen in Jesus to save humankind by grace. The Apologetics reaches the peak in the Letter to the Hebrews where Jesus is interpreted as the one who replaces the whole religious institu­tion of Israel!

 

There is no doubt that this growing understanding of the significance of Jesus by his followers is of the utmost impor­tance for us. It is indeed part of the total tradition we have received as Christians. Many aspects of it speak meaningfully and forcefully to us today.

 

It is important, however, as we read the Bible, to recognize the nature of the material we have, and the specific circum­stances that governed much that was said or done. We have seen how within the Bible it there is a readiness to adopt, reinterpret and reject those things that make no sense in new situations. It would be very misleading, for example, to argue that our relationship and witness today with people of other faiths should be modeled on the Acts of the Apostles. The tradition that began in the Acts of the Apostles is a living tradition. We will need to seek the nature of our obedience to Christ in our own times and in our own life with others.