Unknown God is Not Universal Christ

For me, the central message of this excellent scholarly paper, The Missionary Significance of the Areopagus Speech by Fr. Legrand, S.J. [in Gispert-Sauch, S.J. ed. God’s Word Among Men, papers in honour of Fr. Joseph Putz, S.J., Delhi, Vidyajoti, 1973, pp. 59–71], is that the Unknown God¹ that Sevanand talks about in the Areopagus Speech is not the ‘Cosmic Christ.’ This paper again showed me how one should remain true to the text and carefully read it to understand the main point. Particularly, the minute detail that Fr. Legrand provides, taking us step by step, is a remarkable scholarly exegesis. After reading this paper, I learned how a student of any scripture should engage with the text properly rather than superficially imposing their own message on it. Of course, this paper itself is not for the faint-hearted but only for those who have the time, aptitude, and patience to learn to do theology.

After quoting Harnack, who considered Sevanand’s discourse to the Athenians in Acts 17 as “the most wonderful passage in the book of Acts”², he says, “Acts 17 presents a great missionary interest” (p. 59). In the next section, Legrand discusses whether the Areopagus speech is a ‘success or failure’ (pp. 60–63), then moves to ‘Philosophy versus Kerygma’ (pp. 63–67), and points out that “in the Early Church, there was a double type of Christian preaching: the one Christological, the other Theological” (p. 63).

But the climax of this paper is ‘Theology of Challenge or a Theology of Fulfilment?’³ (pp. 67–71), as Legrand states:

“Acts 17 and Rom 1 remain at the level of the Judeo-Hellenistic Christology which is that of the early kerygma: Christ is the judge to come; the resurrection is the guarantee of his return; meanwhile, man has to repent (cf. Acts 10, 42f). This is still far away from the Christological insights of Col 1 and Jn 1. There is no cosmic Christ in Acts 17. Ideologically, it is much closer to 1 Thes 1,9–10 than to the epistle to the Colossians” (p. 71).

And the highlight of this paper for me is the way he mentions R. Panikkar directly, as he indirectly hints at his famous term, ‘cosmic Christ’:

“…In other terms, Rom 1 and Acts 17 would give us already the opposition between Barthian missiology and a missiology inspired by Teilhard de Chardin.⁴ Paul would be H. Kraemer⁵ and Luke R. Panikkar.⁶” (p. 67)

Already we saw how Fr. Luke, S.J., in his paper, The Rgvedic Conception of Dharma (pp. 25–37)⁷, warned us that “a simple identification of the Hindu idea of dharma with Judaeo-Christian concepts will be a sheer absurdity” (notes, 65, p. 37).

But a brief review by me won’t bring out the depth of this paper. To truly appreciate it, one should read it carefully, paying attention to each and every point. Though certain Latin words and terms are given without proper English translation, I can now get those from AI. Such scholarly papers, written exclusively for scholars, might also help every student of scripture like me.

The differences alone make any scripture or faith unique, not any similarity with other scriptures or terms. Though Legrand also talks about the ‘theology of dialogue’ in this Areopagus speech, still, in the name of dialogue, one does not have to superimpose their own personal interpretation on any text—be it literature or scripture.

Particularly those who promote some kind of fulfilment theology by creating an unknown, cosmic, universal, and hidden Christ—particularly in Hinduism, more so through the so-called Christ-Advaita—should remain more alert when doing this. Personally, I think Muktiveda could come closer to Vishishtadvaita than to Advaita. Indian philosophies are centered on three important categories: Brahman (God), Jagat (world), and Atman. And Muktivedic theology adds a fourth: ‘history.’ It is worth noting what Prof. Sharma says in the context of the ‘Sense of History’ in Hinduism:

“…that Visistadvaita Vedanta acknowledges five forms of God, one of which is vibhava. These ‘incarnated (vibhava) forms of Visnu are the Avataras’ {R. C. Majumdar, ‘The Foundation of the Gupta Empire,’ in R. C. Majumdar, ed., The Classical Age (Bombay: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 1970 [1954]), p. 7}, or Incarnations.
The concept of an avatara clearly implies the idea of God’s intervention in history. In Judaism, God’s intervention is personal, in the sense that God is personally involved in the fate of his people; it is not personal in the sense that God himself personally descends among them. In Christianity, however, God is incarnated as man—as full man (and full God). But such an incarnation occurred only once—this is where a difference emerges on the question of God’s incarnatory intervention in history within Christianity and Hinduism.
It is clear, therefore, that at least in the form of Hinduism represented by Sri Vaisnavism, there is a clear concept of God’s intervention in history. To be sure, it is not identical with that in Christianity. But while they may not be twins, can there be any doubt that they belong to the same family?”⁸

Those who propagate Christ-Advaita might say, “Prof. Sharma himself acknowledges that this is the Hinduism [only] represented by Sri Vaishnavism.” True. Similarly, Hinduism is not completely represented by Advaita. And the absence of a Personal God, the transitory nature of the world (maya), and the ultimate oneness of atman with Brahman could never come closer to Muktivedic theology.

So, while engaging in any textual exegesis, what scholars like Legrand show must be kept in mind while interpreting any scripture.

Gurukulam,

8–12–2024

NB: Plenty of other scholarly papers by Fr. Legrand, S.J., are available on the internet.

Notes

1.  It is interesting to know the historical background for this title ‘Unknown God’. See Appendix

2 A. Harnack, The Mission and Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries, New York, 1962, p. 383

3 ‘Now that the Areopagus speech has been shown to be a valid and complete form of the Christian proclamation, we may raise the basic question: what is its orientation? Which stand does it take towards Hellenistic religion? The missiological implications of the question are obvious.

Acts 17 is often quoted as an example of “integration” of the Christian message and human wisdom. Greek religious thought is taken into account. Greek poets are quoted and, according to E. Schweizer, they are even taken as a kind of Gentile Scripture. A certain amount of popular Stoicism is assumed in the argument. There is no challenge, no agressivity. The outlook is not that of Rom 1. All this would make Acts 17 a kind of prototype of the “fulfilment theology” that does not only see positive elements in the non-Christian religions but views their whole system as a praeparatio evangelica, equivalent to what the Old Testament was for the Jews. For Bornkamm, this constitutes a radical contrast with Paul’s genuine theology, which is a theology of confrontation26. In other terms, Rom 1 and Acts 17 would give us already the opposition between Barthian missiology and a missiology inspired by Teilhard de Chardin. Paul would be H. Kraemer and Luke R. Panikkar.’—p. 67

26. E. Schwizer, “Concerning the Speeches the Acts” in Studies in Luke-Acts, edited by L.E. Keck and J.L. Martyn, Nashvile, 1966),  p. 202.

4 See Appendix for Barthian and Chardin missiology accessed from ChatGBT, 8-12-2024, 8.55 am.

5. Regarding Kraemer see Appendix

6 Already we met R. Panikkar in Square Round and other book by him. 

7 See the paper: Square Round in the blog: https://dayanandbharati.in/square-round/

8 Arvind Sharma, Hinduism and Its Sense of History, New Delhi, Oxford, 2003, —p. 72

Appendix

Unknow God:

…Paul does not say that Artemis, Herakles, Zeus are in fact the God he worships, “The god of whom Paul says ‘What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you is the God whom the Athenians refused to personify; he would never have said with the author of the Letter of of Aristeas (15) that Gentiles really know Yahweh even when they call him Zeus or Dis”.29 The pantheon is not integrated. Greek religion is not  assumed. Acts 17 supposes an anima naturaliter christiana but not a religio naturaliter christiana. {‘a soul naturally Christian but not a religion naturally Christian.’}

[…]

In his commentary of the text, Theodore of Mopsuestia, quoted by Ishobad, tells a story which, even if apocryphal, shows how ancient commentators understood the “unknown god”:”

The Athenians were once upon a time at war with their enemies and the Athenians retreated from them in defeat. Then a certain demon appeared and said unto them: I have never been honoured by you as I ought; and because I am angry with you, therefore you have had a defeat from your enemies. Then the Athenians were afraid and raised to him the well-known altar; and because they dreaded lest this very thing should happen to them, having secretly neglected one who was unknown to them, they erected for themselves one altar more and wrote upon it: Of the Un- known and Hidden God. And by this they wished to say this that, though there is a God in whom we do not believe, we raise this altar to his honour that he may be reconciled to us although he is not honoured as known: therefore Paul did well to take a reason from this, and said before them: This hidden God to whom you have raised an altar without knowing him I have come to declare unto you.31

St Jerome, as usual, is closer to sensible reality but he follows a similar line of interpretation:

The real inscription was not “To the unknown God” but to all the gods of Asia, Europe and Africa, to all the unknown and foreign gods. And because Paul did not need many gods but one unknown god only, he used the singular.32—p. 68

29. H.P. Owen, “The Scope of Natural Revelation in Rom I and Acts XVII”, in New Testament Studies 5 (1959), p. 139.

31. Quoted in H. Cadbury, “The Speeches in Acts”, in The Beginnings of Christianity, ed. By F. J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake, London, 1932,The Beginnings of Christianity, V. p. 244.

32. Comm. in Tit., 1, 12 (Patrologia Latina 26, 572-3).

Barthian Missiology

Barthian missiology refers to the missiological implications of the theology of Karl Barth (1886–1968), a Swiss Reformed theologian. Barth emphasized the sovereignty of God, the centrality of Christ, and the self-revelation of God through the Word. His missiology rejects a human-centered approach to mission, focusing instead on God’s initiative in redemption. Barth’s theology underscores the church’s role in proclaiming the gospel as a response to God’s prior action, rather than seeing mission as a human task to convert others. Key aspects include:

• Christocentrism: Mission flows from the incarnate Word and focuses on bearing witness to Christ.
• Theocentrism: Mission is grounded in God’s work, with humanity as participants in God’s mission.
• Rejection of Natural Theology: Barth critiqued approaches that sought to build bridges to other religions through common ground, emphasizing the unique revelation in Christ.

Reference: Barth’s “Church Dogmatics,” particularly volume IV, provides foundational insights into his theological understanding of mission.

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881–1955)

Teilhard de Chardin was a French Jesuit priest, paleontologist, and theologian who sought to integrate Christian theology with evolutionary science. His work presents a vision of the universe as a dynamic process of becoming, culminating in the “Omega Point,” a state of ultimate unity and fulfillment in Christ. Key ideas include:

• Evolutionary Theology: Teilhard viewed evolution as a divinely guided process, with Christ as the unifying center of creation.
• The Omega Point: A concept describing the ultimate goal of cosmic evolution where all creation converges in God.
• Cosmic Christology: Christ is not only the Redeemer but also the driving force behind the evolutionary process, drawing all things toward divine fulfillment.
• Integration of Science and Faith: Teilhard aimed to reconcile religious faith with scientific understanding, particularly through his writings such as The Phenomenon of Man.

Reference: Teilhard’s works, notably The Phenomenon of Man (1955), offer comprehensive insights into his vision of the universe and humanity’s spiritual evolution.

Kraemer:

H. Kraemer refers to Hendrik Kraemer, a Dutch missiologist and theologian known for his work in the field of Christian missions and his reflections on the relationship between Christianity and other religions. He is often associated with a more confrontational and exclusive approach to mission, emphasizing the uniqueness and centrality of the Christian message.

Kraemer is particularly famous for his book The Christian Message in a Non-Christian World (1938), where he argued that Christianity could not be synthesized with other religions but rather had to stand in confrontation to them. This approach contrasts with more inclusive or syncretistic views that might see elements of truth or salvation in other religious systems, a position often attributed to thinkers like Teilhard de Chardin.

In the context of the Legrand quote, Kraemer’s missiology, which emphasizes the necessity of proclaiming the uniqueness of Christ in a world with multiple religious beliefs, is presented as being in opposition to the more inclusive or integrative missiology of thinkers like Teilhard de Chardin. The mention of Luke R. Panikkar likely points to his views on interfaith dialogue and religious pluralism.

So, in short, Kraemer represents a particular view of mission focused on the uniqueness of Christianity and its confrontation with other belief systems, which contrasts with more inclusive approaches like those of Barth or Chardin.