Acts 17:16-34
While Paul was waiting for them in Athens, he was greatly distressed to see that the city was full of idols. So he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there. A group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to dispute with him. Some of them asked, "What is this babbler trying to say?" Others remarked, "He seems to be advocating foreign gods." They said this because Paul was preaching the good news about Jesus and the resurrection. Then they took him and brought him to a meeting of the Areopagus, where they said to him, "May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? You are bringing some strange ideas to our ears, and we want to know what they mean." (All the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there spent their time doing nothing but talking about and listening to the latest ideas.)
Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: "Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you.
"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. ’For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ’We are his offspring.’
"Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone - an image made by man’s design and skill. In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead." When they heard about the resurrection of the dead, some of them sneered, but others said, "We want to hear you again on this subject." At that, Paul left the Council. A few men became followers of Paul and believed. Among them was Dionysius, a member of the Areopagus, also a woman named Damaris, and a number of others.
v. 16-17
According to one account, over a third of the twenty Christian speeches in Acts qualify as defenses, and half of the ten speeches by Paul are of this kind.1 This chapter studies Paul's Areopagus address in which the apostle speaks to the philosophers and population of Athens about the Christian faith (Acts 17:16-34). We will try to notice some significant points about this speech as seen from its historical setting, and to consider how the apostolic example should inform and dictate our approach to contemporary apologetics.
The Jews in Thessalonica had caused much trouble for Paul, and the believers there had to send him away to Berea (17:5, 10). The Bereans were more receptive to the gospel message (v. 11-12), but the Jews of Thessalonica followed Paul to Berea and incited the crowds against him (v. 13), so that the believers there had to send him away again while Silas and Timothy stayed a little longer (v. 14). This time, Paul went to Athens, and those who were with Paul returned to Thessalonica with instructions that Silas and Timothy were to join him there as soon as possible (v. 15).
Athens was a city given to idolatry. More than a few writers had marveled at the sheer number of religious statues there. Pausanias wrote that Athens had more images than the rest of Greece combined. Accordingly, Petronius remarked that it was easier to find a god than to find a man in Athens. As Paul walked through Athens, he would have seen altars to and statues of various gods, including Ares, Bacchus, Eumenides, Neptune, and of course, the mother goddess of the city, Athena, after which the city was named. On one street there stood in front of every house a pillar with a bust of Hermes. Pliny testified that there were over thirty thousand public statues in Athens, and many more private ones in the homes.
Paul was surrounded by expressions of pagan worship; the streets were lined up with idols. Although Athens was admired for its rich artistic culture, so that "it was also the repository of some of the finest treasures of art and architecture,"2 the apostle did not show any respect for the aesthetic qualities of the buildings and sculptures. He was not positively impressed with the people's culture and crafts; rather, he was "greatly distressed" (v. 16) by their rampant idolatry as he was waiting for his companions to arrive.
Some tourists today who call themselves Christians do not hesitate to visit pagan temples and even bow to their statues. They contend that this is not to worship pagan deities, but merely to show respect for the beliefs of other cultures. Also, they claim to admire the temples and sculptures as works of art and historical artifacts, and not as representations of pagan gods. But these professing Christians are liars. In the first place, the Christian has no right to respect or admire non-Christian beliefs and cultures. Paul was thoroughly disgusted by them. Do these so-called Christians believe that God himself approves of these "works of art," and their preservation and exhibition?
Even if some statues are void of religious implications for the contemporary person, they are still remnants of idolatry and traces of sinful rebellion against the true God. Thus we are not to admire them as works of art, but condemn them as works of the devil. Surely the apostle was much more accustomed to seeing expressions of pagan worship, but he was not desensitized to them as many of us are today; rather, he continued to see them as expressions of sinful rebellion, and accordingly he reacted with disgust and distress. To the extent that we are not distressed and indignant about non-Christian beliefs, we probably do not have a corresponding love toward the true God.
Domestic paganism is just as blatant and sinful, and many who call themselves Christians, who would strongly react against traditional idol worship, nevertheless tolerate and even respect contemporary non-Christian thought and conduct. They are horrified by accounts of serial murder and child molestation, but relatively nonchalant when it comes to non-Christian religions and philosophies. They are greatly distressed over acts of racism and fraud, and some even weep over deaths caused by diseases and accidents as reported by the news, but they display no such reaction when someone introduces himself as a Mormon, when someone announces that she will marry a Muslim, or when someone uses the name of God with irreverence. Their morality is man-centered instead of God-centered, but biblical morality is of the latter kind, with right worship toward God as the foundation and prerequisite for right treatment toward man. Of course, many people care for neither God nor man.
How do you react toward non-Christian religions and philosophies? Do you respond as you should with complete revulsion and unqualified condemnation, or are you so molded by unbiblical influences so that you actually show admiration and respect toward them? If the latter, on what basis do you call yourself a Christian? Are you more horrified by murder and rape, or do not consider it even worse to use the name of Christ as a swearword? Alas, you probably use the divine name as a swearword yourself. Of course, you would never commit the external acts of murder and adultery, or at least that is what you think, but you harbor no special antagonism against a person who denounces Christianity, or one who abuses the name of Christ, or one who affirms heretical doctrines.3 Your primary concern is not God's honor but man's welfare. If this describes you, then your fundamental commitment is not biblical but humanistic.
The biblical reaction to non-Christian religions and philosophies, thought and conduct, beliefs and cultures, is not indifference or appreciation, but extreme indignation. Here I am not opposing merely non-western beliefs and cultures, but non-Christian or anti-biblical cultures, which can and do exist within western society. Sometimes people neglect to recognize this distinction. I am saying that Christians should strongly react
There are different ways that one can express his indignation against anti-biblical beliefs, but not all of them are legitimate. For example, it is possible to silence the opposition by violence, but it is in such a context that Jesus says, "All who draw the sword will die by the sword" (Matthew 26:52).4 Some people have misconstrued these words to endorse pacifism or to forbid all uses of physical force. However, Romans 13:4 says that the civil servant "does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer." This indicates that some uses of physical force are legitimate. It appears that what Jesus says is a proverb that simply restates Genesis 9:6, which says, "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man." In no way does the statement denounce the military or other uses of physical force where sanctioned by Scripture.
Although I maintain that Christianity forbids the use of violence in promoting its ideas, it is irrational to reject a religion simply because it advocates the use of violence, whether or not for the purpose of promoting the religion. One who says that a religion is wrong because it promotes violence presupposes a standard of ethics by which he judges this religion, and it is the truth of this presupposed standard that we need to argue about in the first place. Whether the use of violence is acceptable depends on whether its basis is correct. If a given religion is true, and it allows or commands the use of violence for a given purpose, then its endorsement of violence is acceptable.
For example, we should not argue that Islam is false because it allows or commands the use of violence in promoting its ideas; rather, we should argue that it is wrong to promote one's religion through the use of violence because Islam is wrong and some other standard is correct that happens to forbid violence for such a purpose. Thus the matter of whether violence is acceptable (for the promotion of religion or some other purpose) must be settled on the presuppositional level.
One may, of course, take as his first principle that all uses of violence or some designated uses of violence are wrong, and then evaluate different worldviews and religions by such a standard. However, what is the justification for such a standard? The principle may be arbitrary, self-authenticating, or it must ultimately be based on some principle that is self-authenticating. If it is arbitrary, then it is irrational and cannot be imposed on everyone. If it is self-authenticating, then one must show that it is self-authenticating. Even if it is self-authenticating, and I do not believe it is, it is too narrow to answer necessary questions in the areas of knowledge, reality, and others. In fact, it cannot even provide guidance to many questions within its own category of ethics. If one claims that it is based on something that is self-authenticating, then we return to my point that we must first argue about this ultimate principle, rather than the subsidiary principle of whether violence is acceptable in various contexts.
Likewise, many people denounce Christianity because it is an exclusive religion; that is, they believe that if a religion claims to be the only truth, then it must be wrong or unacceptable. But what is the justification for such an assumption, and by what ultimate standard do they make this judgment? In contrast, we may maintain that if Christianity is true, and it claims to be the only truth, then its claim to being the only truth must also be true. We must first settle whether Christianity is true before judging its claim to be the exclusive truth. Of course, in presuppositional argumentation, the premise that Christianity is the exclusive truth is inherent in its first principle.
One may take as his first principle – or, if there are more than one, one of his axioms by which he deduces subsidiary theorems – that there is no exclusive truth, and then uses it to evaluate every religion. But such a principle is self-refuting, since it claims to be exclusively true that there is no exclusive truth. "There is no exclusive truth" is a proposition that precludes all exclusive claims, but it is in itself an exclusive claim about the very nature of truth, so that it excludes the proposition, "There is exclusive truth." Thus the rejection of exclusive truth cannot be self-authenticating, since it is self-refuting. It cannot be legitimately based on something that is self-authenticating, since the process of deduction merely draws out the necessary implications of a premise, so that it is impossible to derive a self-refuting conclusion from a self-authenticating premise. We must conclude that the rejection of exclusive truth is arbitrary and irrational. It cannot function as the first principle of a coherent worldview, nor can it be used to make any rational judgment about a religion.
When it comes to defending and advancing the Christian religion, Paul writes, "For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds" (2 Corinthians 10:3-4). Our relationship with this world should indeed be characterized by one of warfare, but since the war is spiritual in nature, it is not a contest of physical or military might. Rather, God has given us weapons appropriate for the nature of this conflict, having "divine power to demolish strongholds." What are these "strongholds" that we are to "demolish" with our divine weapons? Verse 5 says that we are to "demolish arguments," and instead of physically subduing our enemies, we "take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ."
Accordingly, Paul reacted to non-Christian beliefs in general, and the rampant idolatry of Athens in particular, by engaging their adherents in rational argumentation: "So he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there" (Acts 17:17).
I. Howard Marshall alleges that the word translated "reasoned" means to "preach" rather than to "argue" or "debate."5 He references Acts 20:7 and 20:9, in which the same word is translated "spoke" ("preached" in KJV) and "talked on and on" ("was long preaching" in KJV). It is unclear whether Marshall intends to eliminate the idea that Paul employed argumentation in promoting the gospel, or whether he intends to eliminate only the idea of interaction between Paul and his audience as implied by the words "reasoned," "argue," or "debate."
If it is the former, that is, if Marshall intends to say that Paul did not employ argumentation in promoting the gospel, or that Paul avoided an intellectually combative stance, then he is mistaken. The word in question can explicitly denote the meaning of argumentation. For example, Acts 17:2 says, "As his custom was, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures." Does this mean that Paul preached to them or argued with them? Was it a presentation or a debate? Whatever the case may be, scriptural preaching involves rigorous arguments. The next verse tells us that when Paul "reasoned with them from the Scriptures," he was "explaining and proving that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead." Therefore, whether or not he interacted with them, he was both presenting the gospel and arguing for it. Then in Acts 18:4, Luke writes that Paul "reasoned in the synagogue, trying to persuade Jews and Greeks." The attempt to persuade necessarily implies the element of argumentation. Paul "spoke boldly" for the gospel at Ephesus, and that means he was "reasoning and persuading" (Acts 19:8, NASB) people about the kingdom of God.
However, there is an indication that Marshall means the latter, because he contrasts what Paul does against the approach of Socrates: "The description is reminiscent of the activity of Socrates who argued with anybody who would listen to him, although for Luke 'argue' means 'preach' rather than 'debate.'"6 That is, it appears as if he is saying that to translate the word as "argue" or "debate" falsely suggests that Paul sometimes assumed an interactive format when introducing the gospel to his audience. If this is what Marshall means, then he is still mistaken, since both in Acts 17 and other passages, Paul appears to engage his opponents at times in dialogical fashion, arguing and debating with them. Nevertheless, the most important element of the present point is to show that Paul reacted against non-Christian beliefs by rational argumentation, whether in the form of presentation ("preaching") or interaction ("debate").
Thayer indicates that although the word in question can mean to "ponder," "argue," "discourse," or "discuss," when it is used in Acts 17:17, which is the verse we are examining, it is used "with the idea of disputing prominent."7 In addition, A. T. Robertson writes that whether the word is used to denote the act of pondering, conversing, discoursing, or teaching by the dialectical method, it always carries "the idea of intellectual stimulus."8
Therefore, whatever is Marshall's exact meaning, he is wrong when he writes, "For Luke 'argue' means 'preach' rather than 'debate.'"9 That is, if Marshall means, "For Luke 'argue' means 'to present an argument' rather than 'to engage in argument,'" he is still mistaken, but at least he would escape the charge of anti-intellectualism. However, if he means, "For Luke 'argue' means 'to assert without argument' rather than 'to engage in argument,'" then he is not only wrong, but since the error is too obvious, we may also suspect him of having an anti-intellectual bias. But he does not seem to mean the latter.10
In any case, the word does not mean to preach rather than debate. The word can mean to preach (a monologue), to debate (a dialogue), or both, and we discern which meaning is intended from the context. But since there is a particular word for preaching that Luke freely uses throughout the Book of Acts, it appears that the word we are presently examining more often than not means an argumentative exchange or dialogue rather than preaching in the sense of a monologue.
The word always signifies the use of rational argumentation. For example, although the two verses may be describing a presentation or discussion among friendly believers, even Acts 20:7 and 20:9 give no indication that the situation excludes the use of arguments. The apostles arrived at their conclusions through rational deductions from scriptural and special revelation even in their presentations to believers, as seen from their sermons and letters. The conclusion is that the word can signify either a presentation or a debate, with the emphasis determined by the context of the passage, and even when mere presentation is in view, rational argumentation is a necessary element of what is conveyed. Our verse, Acts 17:17, appears to describe or include a debate.
We cannot be sure if Marshall's exegetical error results at least partly from an anti-intellectual bias, but this is a possibility. "Preaching," at least as defined and practiced by many people, sounds pious and harmless, but to "argue" and "debate" sound intellectual and offensive. Many Christians have been indoctrinated by the world on how Christians should behave in a non-Christian world, and assume that we are not supposed to argue with anyone. But Christ and the apostles often argued with people in defense of biblical truth, and they left instructions for us to do the same.
Perhaps some people imagine that every argument involves members of the opposing parties boisterously screaming at one another, but that does not need to be the case. Winning an argument should largely depend on the superiority of what we affirm rather than a domineering personality, so that we may be gentle and polite throughout the entire process; however, scriptural instructions and examples dictate that sometimes regular standards of social etiquette are put aside. In any case, because the biblical strategies for the evangelism of unbelievers and the edification of believers are heavily intellectual, an anti-intellectual attitude runs counter to the spirit of Scripture and renders one an unfaithful and ineffective Christian worker. Now, if someone disagrees with all this, he must give me an argument.
v. 18, 21
Although Athens had lost its earlier political eminence by the time of Paul's visit, it remained the intellectual center of the ancient world. Four major philosophical schools had flourished there. They were the Academy of Plato (287 B.C.), the Lyceum of Aristotle (335 B.C.), the Garden of Epicurus (306 B.C.), and the Porch of Zeno (300 B.C.). Although we may assume that various philosophical viewpoints were represented, Luke explicitly mentions the "Epicurean and Stoic philosophers" (v. 18), who disputed with Paul. I will take time to summarize Epicurean and Stoic philosophies because they are mentioned here in Acts 17. Lamentably, we cannot also devote the space to explain the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle, as well as other philosophical traditions such as Skepticism.
Epicurus (340-270 B.C.) had adopted the atomic theory of the earlier Democritus (460-360 B.C.). The theory asserts that reality consists of indivisible material entities called atoms, moving through infinite empty space. Although the atoms themselves have no inherent properties, they combine in various ways to form objects that have differing properties.
One major motivation for Epicurus' philosophy is to deliver man from his fear of death and of gods. Although the Epicureans formally affirm the traditional Greek deities, they are seen as part of the materialistic and atomic universe, and irrelevant to human affairs. Because the gods were not interested in human affairs, belief in divine providence is considered superstitious, and religious rituals are worthless. We may call them deists; the Stoics considered them atheists, and indeed they were such in the practical sense.
Democritus had taught that the atoms move in all directions through empty space, and it is easy to conceive of how they may collide with and cling to one another to form different combinations of atoms. However, Epicurus introduced the property of weight to the atoms, and asserted that they are constantly falling downward through empty space. But this generated the problem of how the atoms will ever collide with one another. Epicurus answered that while falling, the atoms would at times swerve out of their straight downward path and collide with other atoms. He considered this theory successful in maintaining the metaphysical indeterminism, and thus the human freedom, that he desired in his philosophy.
Since everything consists of atoms, even the mind consists of atoms, and there is no soul that transcends physical reality. The atoms that formed the person are dispersed at death, and this committed Epicurus to a denial of immortality, so that he wrote in his Letter to Menoeceus, "When death is, we are not, and when we are, death is not." Since there is no immortality, neither can there be a resurrection or judgment; therefore, it is irrational for man to fear death. Although the gods themselves were made up of atoms, because they "live in less turbulent regions,"11 they are not subject to dissolution.
Since there is no afterlife, man should desire only the things of this life. For the Epicureans, pleasure is the highest good, and thus we may categorize their ethical theory as a form of hedonism. Nevertheless, Epicurus himself opposed the crude sensual hedonism of Aristippus (435-356 B.C.), who led a movement called Cyrenaicism and advocated the pursuit of bodily pleasures, living by the motto, "Let us eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we may die."
Although Epicurus agreed that pleasure is man's highest good, he made distinctions between various kinds of pleasures. Pleasurable experiences may be of differing intensity and duration. Although bodily pleasures may carry greater intensity, they often bring a measure of pain. For example, the pleasure that one obtains from gorging food is canceled out by the negative short-term and long-term effects that may result. The same may be said of the pleasure that one may derive from sexual promiscuity.
Therefore, Epicurus promoted the less intense but the safe and long-lived pleasures of the mind, such as having a conversation with a friend or admiring great art and literature. The general aim is to live a tranquil life. However, since the mind is not distinguished from the body, we are merely referring to different types of sensations, and not mental pleasures as distinct from physical ones. In any case, scholars suggest that by the time Paul visited Athens, the followers of Epicurus had adopted the crude sensual hedonism that the founder of their philosophy had taken great pains to avoid.
Contrary to Democritus, Epicurus affirmed the reliability of sensations. According to him, the bodies of the objects being observed throw off films of atoms that exactly conform to the shapes of the objects and make contact with the atoms of the soul of the observer. Since the films of atoms coming from the observed objects exactly correspond to the objects, sensations never convey false information, although he allowed that one might make false judgments on the basis of such sensations.
To summarize the philosophy of the Epicureans, in epistemology they were empiricists, in metaphysics they were deists, atomists, and indeterminists, in ethics they were hedonists, and they denied immortality, resurrection, and judgment.
Since Epicureanism is not our main topic, I will not take the space to offer a detailed refutation of this philosophy in particular, but we may mention several points. In epistemology, I have presented numerous arguments and examples against empiricism elsewhere; in metaphysics, the Epicurean atomic theory and indeterminism is thoroughly arbitrary, and also unsustainable by their epistemology; in ethics, their theory cannot be formulated on the basis of their epistemology, and there is no authoritative reason to think that pleasure is the highest good. And if the Epicureans failed to establish their view of metaphysics, then their rejection of immortality, resurrection, and judgment are also arbitrary and without foundation.
Other arguments against the details of Epicureanism are more involved, and therefore must be passed over at this time. In any case, it is especially relevant to this study to note that, as with other non-Christian worldviews, Epicureanism is ultimately founded on pure human speculation. Also, it is relevant to note that many points in Epicureanism are strikingly similar in principle to some of the widely held beliefs of contemporary secularists, who are still unable to justify these beliefs.
The philosophical tradition of Zeno (340-265 B.C.) was named Stoicism because he had taught in the Porch, or the Stoa. Reading a book about Socrates had ignited Zeno's passion for philosophy, and this led him to move to Athens. On his first arrival, he came under the tutelage of the Cynic Crates. His own philosophy would evidence the influence of Cynicism through his emphasis on self-sufficiency. Early successors of Zeno included Cleanthes and Chrysippus. Panaetius of Rhodes (180-110 B.C.) and Posidonius (130-50 B.C.; Cicero's instructor) contributed to the establishment of Stoicism in Rome, and Roman Stoicism were given expression by Seneca (4 B.C. – A.D. 65), Epictetus (50-130), and the emperor Marcus Aurelius (121-180). To adequately summarize Stoic philosophy in several paragraphs is unrealistic, but we must make such an attempt without claiming to be exhaustive.
Probably inspired by Heraclitus (about 530-470 B.C.), the Stoics taught that at first there was nothing but eternal fire, from which emerged the elements that made up the universe. The world would eventually be consumed in an universal conflagration and return to fire, and the cycle of history will repeat over and over again. The Stoic view of history appears to preclude individual immortality, even if there seemed to be slightly different views on this issue: "They denied the universal and perpetual immortality of the soul; some supposing that it was swallowed up in deity; others, that it survived only till the final conflagration; others, that immortality was restricted to the wise and good."12
The divine fire that permeates the whole world is a rational fire, and the logos or Reason that determines the course of the universe. Some people have the misconception that because Stoicism affirms that every event is determined by Fate, it therefore denies that there is purpose in history. However, since its logos is an intelligent fire, Stoicism can indeed affirm a teleological view of the universe. But then people confuse such a view with the biblical teaching on divine sovereignty. This is unfortunate and unnecessary. The Stoics were pantheists, so that their logos is not transcendent but immanent. In fact, "man's reason [is] seen as being of a piece with the ever-living fire which permeates the world order,"13 leading Epictetus to assert that there is a "spark of divinity" within every man. The universe, men, and even animals are all parts of God, and thus the Stoics were pantheists. God is the universe, and the universe is God. This is completely opposed to the biblical position.14
Since man is subject to the immanent forces of the world, he ought to live in harmony with nature. Since Reason permeates and governs the world, to live in harmony with nature is to live in conformity to rationality, and rationality is superior to the emotions. Everything outside of reason should be viewed with indifference, be it pleasure, suffering, or even death. Epictetus wrote that although man cannot control events, he can control his attitude toward events:
Since our bodies are not under our control, pleasure is not a good and pain is not an evil. There is the famous story about Epictetus, the slave. As his master was torturing his leg, he said with great composure, "You will certainly break my leg." When the bone broke, he continued in the same tone of voice, "Did I not tell you that you would break it?" The good life, therefore, does not consist of externalities, but it is an inward state, a strength of will, and self-control.15
"Stoicism gave rise to a serious attitude, resignation in suffering, stern individualism, and social self-sufficiency."16 We are to demonstrate self-control, self-sufficiency, and emotional indifference amidst life's situations. But if life gets too rough, Stoicism permits suicide.
Critics sometimes attempt to undermine the uniqueness of Christianity by pointing out its apparent similarities with Stoicism. For example, both worldviews emphasize "indifference" and control over the emotions. The typical reply against this is often that Christianity does not share such an emphasis at all, not even on the surface, so that some would deny that Christianity teaches emotional indifference and control. However, such attacks and replies are both misguided, and often betray a lack of understanding of both Stoicism and Christianity.
One example comes from Philippians 4:12, where Paul writes, "I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want." On the surface, the Stoics may have agreed with this statement, and the word "content" is indeed the Stoic word for indifference. Scripture does not allow the emotionalism encouraged by many contemporary believers, whose opinions on this issue are formed more by modern psychology than by biblical theology, so that they advocate the free expression of one's emotions without consideration of the biblical teaching on self-control and inner transformation.
However, verse 13 makes all the difference: "I can do everything through him who gives me strength." Christianity indeed teaches spiritual, emotional, and social self-sufficiency, without rejecting the legitimacy of community; however, this self-sufficiency is only relative to other human beings, but not to God, so that we are always in need of him. This verse indicates that the Christian's inner power is directly linked to a conscious affirmation of Christianity and dependence on God. This God is not a pantheistic immanent rational fire that is part of the universe, but a transcendent rational mind that is distinct from and the creator of the universe. God is not in the universe; God made the universe. He is immanent in the sense that he chooses to exercise his power in human and natural affairs, but he is not part of this creation, nor is he bound to it. And contrary to Stoic philosophy, no matter how difficult our lives get, there is no justification to commit suicide.
This difference is not superficial but fundamental and essential, since it is based on a view of metaphysics that contradicts the Stoic view of metaphysics. Christianity teaches a God who is both transcendent and immanent – metaphysically aloof but makes himself near by what he does – who makes distinctions between individuals, who regenerates some and not others, who makes decisions and effects communications, and who strengthens his people so that they may overcome the world. The Christian's inner resources come from God, who is distinct from the Christian himself, while the Stoic sought to achieve absolute self-sufficiency, and not the relative self-sufficiency of the Christian. We overcome the world and fulfill our purpose not by ourselves, but by the power of God, which so powerfully works in us (Colossians 1:29). Therefore, although they may be superficial similarities between Stoicism and Christianity, in reality these similarities have behind them fundamental and irreconcilable differences between the two worldviews.
Besides what has been stated above concerning their metaphysics and ethics, the Stoics had developed detailed theories on epistemology, logic, linguistics, and other subjects. Concerning epistemology, I will say nothing more than that the Stoics held to a form of empiricism, but nevertheless not the Epicureans' naïve acceptance of sensation. In any case, both Epicureanism and Stoicism failed to provide a constructive epistemology that makes knowledge possible, yet skepticism is not an option because of its own self-referential incoherence.
Despite superficial and apparent similarities that may confuse the uninformed, Stoicism and Christianity are irreconcilably opposed to each other concerning every ultimate question on a fundamental level. In epistemology the Stoics were empiricists, in metaphysics they were pantheists, in ethics they held to a view of reason and virtue very different from Christianity, and they denied immortality, resurrection, and judgment.
Like the Epicureans, their philosophy is arbitrary, inconsistent, and ultimately founded on pure human speculation. One writer thinks that the Stoics have their counterparts in contemporary New Age followers and pantheists.17 Although I can understand why it may appear to be so, and it may be true in some sense, I would not venture to push this assertion too far. Present-day adherents of New Age philosophy and pantheism often do not have developed theories of logic and ethics from which we may make comparisons with Stoicism. Nevertheless, there are philosophers today who claim to have inherited from the Stoic tradition.18
Bringing our attention back to Acts 17, it is important to keep in mind that Paul's audience consists not only of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers, although these two groups are referred to by name (v. 18), but the crowd also includes other people, probably of various philosophical persuasions. Verse 17 says that Paul speaks about the gospel "in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there," and verse 21 indicates that the audience includes "the Athenians and the foreigners."
Judging from the intellectual background of Athens, it would not be surprising to find representatives of Platonism, Aristotelianism, Skepticism, and other perspectives in the audience. Even among the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers, we may be certain that there are differences of opinion between them. Adherents to the various philosophical schools have often made major modifications to the philosophies of their founders, so that Frederic Howe is justified in saying that there is a "rather broad spectrum of vantage points on hand."19
Because the audience consists of people representing different philosophical traditions, not every point in Paul's speech will equally apply to each hearer. For example, although Paul appeals to the Athenians' rampant idolatry and an altar to an unknown god as a point of departure for his speech, the Epicurean philosophers themselves had wanted to remove from human thinking what they perceived to be superstitious devotion to the gods. Accordingly, Lucretius rejected the Athenians' appeal to the "unknown gods." Nevertheless, Paul's choice of this point of departure for his speech is appropriate. As Howe writes, "Doubtless the predominant group of hearers included bystanders and those who enjoyed hearing the exchange of ideas often presented there."20
Therefore, we must keep in mind that Paul is addressing a diverse group of people with diverse philosophies and perspectives. It follows that we should not expect every detail of his speech to equally apply to every person in the audience. However, a major point of this study, and with it comes a major insight for apologetics, is that before he is done, Paul would have offended and contradicted every non-Christian present – not with merely superficial disagreements, but on the most fundamental level and on every major philosophical subject.
Verse 18 says that the philosophers disputed with Paul. Contrary to what this implies, some scholars interpret the Areopagus episode as illustrating Paul's use of a philosophical "common ground" that his Christian faith had with the philosophers. John Sanders writes as follows:
Interestingly, Paul does not refer to the Old Testament in his speech. He quotes only from pagan poets and uses the ideas and vocabulary of Greek philosophy in his attempt to reach these people. Yet all of Paul's points can be found in the Old Testament, because there are affinities between general and special revelation.21
This comment by Sanders betrays his dismal grasp of both Greek philosophy and Christian theology, a misunderstanding of Luke's intention in this passage, and astonishingly inferior reasoning skills.
Although it is true that Paul quotes from Greek poets in his speech (v. 28), this does not mean that he necessarily agrees with what they say. Right now I am quoting from Sanders, but I am doing so only to declare his error, making him an example of inferior scholarship. Likewise, Paul quotes the poets not to express his agreement, but for another purpose. We will have more to say about this when we discuss verse 28, where he quotes the Greek poets. Neither does using the "vocabulary of Greek philosophy" demonstrate agreement with Greek philosophy, just as I can use the vocabulary of evolutionary science to illustrate how Christian theology opposes evolution. Or, I can address the thought categories that interest the secular psychologist, only to illustrate the biblical opposition against non-Christian psychology by filling them with Christian content.
As for using the "ideas…of Greek philosophy," I agree that Paul addresses the thought categories and ultimate questions that interested the philosophers, but he fills them with Christian content in opposition to their philosophies. The Bible itself directly discusses these ultimate questions, so that when Paul uses philosophical terms and fills them with biblical content, he is doing the opposite of what Sanders alleges. Who says that those ideas and categories originated with and belong to the Greek philosophers in the first place? My position is that non-Christian scholarship hijacks and distorts ideas and categories that originated from and belong to God, revealed to us through our innate knowledge and biblical revelation. That non-Christians share some of these ideas and categories illustrate only their culpability, that they have distorted and suppressed the true knowledge of God, so that all of them are without excuse and come under divine condemnation.
Sanders writes, "Paul does not refer to the Old Testament in his speech….Yet all of Paul's points can be found in the Old Testament." His thinking appears to be that instead of quoting from the Old Testament, Paul quotes from the Greek poets (which reflect Greek philosophy), yet his points are found in the Old Testament; therefore, Greek philosophy agrees with the Old Testament (at least on some essential points). However, reasoning this way begs the question.
From reading the same speech, I would say the following instead: All of Paul's points are found in the Old Testament, therefore he is speaking from the Old Testament even without directly quoting it, showing that he confronts human speculation with biblical revelation. All of Paul's points are found in the Old Testament because all of his points are taken from the Old Testament. As for the Greek poets, he quotes them to show how they could not suppress the innate knowledge of the true God, even though they have distorted his general revelation to the point that such knowledge only serves to condemn them without leading them closer to God. Further, this inescapable knowledge of God contradicts their explicit philosophies in every major thought category, thus illustrating that conversion will demand a thorough repentance from them, so that they must turn from their futile thinking and speculation. Another possibility is that the quotations do not agree with the Old Testament at all, but Paul is citing them only to expose how Greek philosophy contradicts itself. In this particular speech, we will see exactly for what reason he quotes the Greek poets when we come to verse 28.
This general understanding of Paul's speech is in agreement with what the apostle himself writes in Romans 1:18-32; therefore, we have a biblical basis for such an interpretation. On the other hand, on what basis does Sanders assert his interpretation? Lacking a biblical justification, it seems that his basis consists of little more than his desire to make Christian and non-Christian thought appear less disagreeable. But according to the Scripture, this is an ignoble and sinful desire. In fact, some scholars are so biased that they claim Acts 17 contradicts Romans 1! This is sufficient ground for their excommunication. For those who affirm biblical infallibility, that these scholars believe that Acts 17 can contradict Romans 1, or any other part of the Bible, is in itself a refutation of their position. The two passages only appear to contradict once we force Acts 17 to say what it does not say, and of course, if you do this you can make any two passages contradict each other.
On the other hand, the correct interpretation recognizes that Acts 17 illustrates Romans 1. Of course it is true that, in the words of Sanders, "there are affinities between general and special revelation," but Sanders draws a different conclusion from this than the apostle Paul. Sanders thinks that because "there are affinities between general and special revelation," therefore Christian and non-Christian thought contain substantial agreement. However, this is the opposite point that Paul makes in Romans 1, where the apostle states that since God has made himself plain to everyone through general revelation (v. 19), therefore those who suppress the inescapable truth about God does so in wickedness (v. 18), and are left without excuse (v. 20). That is, pagan philosophies do not agree with general revelation, and that is one reason why God condemns them.
It is because non-Christian philosophies disagree with special revelation, while they ought to agree with special revelation if they were to accurately reflect general revelation, that God charges them with culpable "ignorance." In other words, God has presented enough information about himself through man's innate knowledge and the created world so that non-Christians ought to agree with special revelation (the Scripture), but non-Christians in fact do not agree with special revelation, and therefore none of them can escape condemnation. Sanders affirms a position that subverts the intent of Romans 1 and Acts 17; that is, if he is right about Acts 17, he would have made nonsense of Romans 1. On the other hand, we can affirm that Romans 1 helps us make sense of Acts 17.
Another important issue is to find out whose interpretation Luke himself favors. Throughout the passage we find an emphasis on the disagreements between Paul and the Athenians instead of a merely incomplete agreement between them. Luke and Paul nowhere give any indication that the philosophers are "on the right track."22 Instead, Luke introduces the philosophers by having them "dispute with [Paul]," and emphasizing how they misunderstand and insult the apostle. Frederic Howe correctly observes that Paul's speech stressed the ignorance of the Athenians rather than what Paul thinks they were doing right.23
We will be pointing out additional disagreements between Paul and the philosophers as we continue this study, but the above is sufficient to discredit the interpretation of the Areopagus speech as an illustration of how there is substantial "common ground" between Christian and non-Christian thinking. The sermons and letters of the apostles in general, and this passage in particular, do not support this "common ground" perspective. The philosophers themselves disputed with Paul, and Paul in turn stressed their ignorance. It appears that it is the interpreters themselves who want to discover and emphasize this non-existent common ground with unbelievers, and neglecting proper scholarship, they have imposed such a view upon this and other relevant biblical passages.24
Misunderstanding and disparagement characterized the philosophers' reaction to Paul's initial presentation of the gospel. Although it is likely that they made other comments, Luke specifically recorded two. One statement implies that they had misunderstood key elements in the apostle's presentation, and the other statement is meant as an insult against his intellectual competence (v. 18).
Some of the philosophers remark that Paul appears to be "advocating foreign gods" – that is, more than one. Luke explains, "They said this because Paul was preaching the good news about Jesus and the resurrection." They may have understood "Jesus" as the personified power of Healing, since the name means something like this in the Greek, and "resurrection" (anastasis) as the goddess of Restoration. The Greeks had raised altars to abstract principles such as Modesty and Piety, and so it is not surprising that they could have misunderstood the apostle in this manner. Since "Jesus" is in the masculine and "resurrection" is in the feminine, they could have also misconstrued Paul as introducing a new divine couple.
Right away we can see how the presuppositions of non-Christians distort how they interpret information about the true God when it is presented to them. According to the Bible, unregenerate men adopt non-Christian presuppositions as an act of sinful rebellion against God, and these presuppositions in turn reinforce their habitual denial of God in their thoughts by distorting and suppressing the information about God presented to them through general revelation (created world and innate ideas) and special revelation (Scripture).
The Athenians' non-Christian presuppositions, and the resulting misunderstanding toward the gospel message, afforded the hearers a temporary delay in having to confront the truth about God, even when directly presented to them. The same problem exists when preaching to non-Christians today. Their unbelieving intellectual backgrounds have conditioned their minds to distort and reject the Christian message, so that even in societies where biblical information appears to be relatively pervasive, there remains widespread misconceptions about what Scripture really teaches and what Christianity really affirms.
We must not allow the non-Christians to get away with hearing or assuming a false representation of the Christian faith, and then consider themselves justified in rejecting Christianity by finding fault with this false representation. Therefore, we must strive to present the faith with accuracy, and continue to correct misconceptions in others regarding what we believe. Although misconceptions can be formed very quickly, they are often stubborn and hard to change. As an apostle, Paul no doubt presented the gospel clearly and accurately, but it remains that the philosophers' initial reaction betrays their failure to grasp some basic points in his message. How much more, then, are we to share the desire of the apostle, who writes to the Colossians, "Pray that I may proclaim it clearly, as I should" (Colossians 4:4).
While some philosophers fail to understand Paul's message, other philosophers make an insulting remark about him, asking, "What is this babbler trying to say?" The word "babbler" comes from spermologos in the Greek. Since sperma means seed and legō means to collect, the word literally means "seed-picker" or "gutter-sparrow." It had been used to describe loafers who picked up scraps of food in the market, and then became an Athenian slang referring to those "who had acquired mere scraps of learning."25 It is in this last sense that the philosophers use this word to speak about Paul – an insult that conveys "supreme ridicule."26 There is a parallel from Shakespeare:
This fellow picks up wit as pigeons peas,
And utters it again when Jove doth please.
He is wit's peddler, and retails his wares
At wakes, and wassails, meetings, markets, fairs.27
No matter what the critics say, it is not really Paul's learning that is at issue, but the content of his message. Although on this occasion the philosophers belittle Paul's learning on account of what he says, on another occasion Festus blames the apostle's great learning to account for what he says! Festus says, "Your great learning is driving you insane" (Acts 26:24). So which is it? Paul indeed had an extensive education, but unbelievers will find things to criticize no matter what credentials we have. The root of their hostility is sinful rebellion against God.
They call the apostle a collector of scraps of learning, but Luke observes, "All the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there spent their time doing nothing but talking about and listening to the latest ideas" (Acts 17:21). Paul's beliefs come from God, who reveals himself through the prophets and the apostles. On the basis of revelation, Paul speaks from a position of knowledge, and he is not looking to hear something new. On the other hand, with all of their speculation, the philosophers could not settle upon the truth, and it is they who ended up being collectors of scraps of learning. As with the unbelievers of today, the Athenians were "open-minded" because they were ignorant of the truth, but of course, many of them very quickly became close-minded when confronted with the exclusive truth of Christianity.
A. T. Robertson writes, "[Paul] was the real master philosopher and these Epicureans and Stoics were quacks. Paul had the only true philosophy of the universe and life with Jesus Christ as the centre (Col. 1:21-20), the greatest of all philosophers as Ramsay justly terms him."28 I am very glad that Robertson includes this remark, since many Christians today would not even consider Paul an intellectual, let alone a "master philosopher." But Paul was a different kind of philosopher, because his philosophy was not founded on human speculation but divine revelation, so that Christ was the center or foundation of his philosophy. This is an excellent perspective on Paul, although it is very unusual, and many Christians today are resistant to it. Anti-intellectual Christians would insist that Paul was not a philosopher, nor was he interested in philosophical debate. They would rather make Paul a mystic than an intellectual.
Christians today are too quickly embarrassed by the intellectual challenges thrown at them by the unbelievers. Although we are not divinely inspired like the prophets and the apostles, if we will wholly depend on the revelation of Scripture, we will indeed be the master philosophers of this world. Because we have revelation as the foundation of our philosophy, unbelievers are not in fact competing against our own wisdom, but the very wisdom of God. Thus if we will only learn to apply divine revelation with skill when answering their challenges, there can be no real contest, but we will be able to destroy every unbelieving argument, and embarrass the gainsayers.
Non-Christians prize the idea that they are wise, and they find security in the idea that Christians are irrational. The biblical apologist shatters their illusion, and shows them their true condition, that they are sinful and ignorant, and that they are the intellectual quacks of this world. Their only hope is in Christ, but since their alleged autonomy is non-existent, even their having faith in Christ is ultimately not up to them, but rests on the sovereign mercy of God alone.
v. 19-20
Verses 19 and 20 say that Paul is then taken to the Areopagus, where he is asked to elaborate on his beliefs: "Then they took him and brought him to a meeting of the Areopagus, where they said to him, 'May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? You are bringing some strange ideas to our ears, and we want to know what they mean.'"
The Areopagus, or the Hill of Mars, received its name from the mythological account of the trial of Mars for the murder of Neptune's son. The Court of Areopagus (or "the Areopagus") was a council consisting of probably around thirty aristocratic Athenians, and exercised jurisdiction over matters of religion and education. By the time of Paul, the Areopagus probably met on the hill itself only to hear cases of homicides. Ordinary meetings were held in the Royal Portico (stoa basileios), located in the northwest corner of the Agora, the marketplace in Athens.
Socrates (470-399 B.C.) was arraigned and condemned by this council several hundred years before. Although by the time of Roman dominance, the authority of the council had been greatly reduced, it was still the chief judicial institution, and had the power either to censor and silence new speakers, or to grant them freedom to teach. Cicero once induced the Areopagus to invite a philosopher to lecture in Athens. So the council exercised some control over the circulation of ideas within the city, and had authority to grant or withhold teaching licenses.
One important theme Luke pursues in the Book of Acts is that Paul was often brought before a court, but that this had never resulted in a guilty verdict against him. Here Paul is once again brought before a court to come under examination, and it is likely that Luke intends for the Areopagus episode to be another example of Paul appearing before a court without resulting in a guilty verdict. Although for Luke the word translated "they took him" (v. 19) is more often than not meant in the sense of seizing and arresting someone (16:19; 18:17; 21:30), it is not always used this way (9:27; 23:19).
The context seems to show that Paul was not under arrest in Athens, but he was asked to appear before the Areopagus either to give him an opportunity to expound on his philosophy, or it was for the purpose of determining whether he would be permitted to propagate his ideas in the city: "'May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? You are bringing some strange ideas to our ears, and we want to know what they mean.' All the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there spent their time doing nothing but talking about and listening to the latest ideas" (Acts 17:19-21). Formal charges probably could have been brought against Paul, but in the end the council took no legal action against him (v. 33).
v. 22-23
Paul does not begin his speech by establishing what many consider to be "common ground" with the unbelievers; rather, he begins by underscoring their ignorance. He says, "Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you" (Acts 17:22-23). It is important to correctly understand Paul's intention here, since it will affect how we will interpret the rest of the speech. Nevertheless, the rest of the verses in this speech have their necessary meanings, so that the usual false understanding of these two verses will prove to be inconsistent with some crucial points in the subsequent verses.
The word translated "religious" can be meant either in a good sense, as in "pious," or in a bad sense, as in "superstitious." One commentary says, "Some suggest that Paul's statement was derogatory rather than complimentary, but the latter is most likely the case."29 Then it continues, "He chose a starting point, a place where they could agree, rather than starting with their differences." If this is given as a reason why we should believe that the word "religious" is used in a positive sense here, then it begs the question, since if the word is used in a negative sense, then Paul is in fact beginning his speech by emphasizing their differences.
The same commentary then contradicts itself by saying, "The term translated 'very religious,' however, is a combination of Greek words deido (to fear or revere) and daimon (evil spirits), which may contain a subtle rebuke concerning the spiritual realities behind their religion." But if it is a rebuke (subtle or not) directed against the very "realities behind their religion," then Paul is not choosing "a place where they could agree" as his starting point. So is Paul starting with his agreement with them (if he agrees with them on anything at all), or is he starting with a rebuke about their religion? Which one is it?
The commentary contradicts itself when it says that Paul begins his speech from a place of agreement with his hearers, and then turns around and says that Paul begins with a rebuke about the very realities of their religion. But it commits a factual error on the latter point, since although daimon is the word from which we derived the English demons, it does not necessarily mean the evil spirits referred to often in the Gospels. Rather, Robertson is correct when he says that deisidaimon itself can be "a neutral word," with daimon signifying the idea of "deity."30
But then Robertson commits his own error, and says, "It seems unlikely that Paul should give this audience a slap in the face at the very start."31 This again begs the question. If the word is used in a negative sense, then this is evidence that Paul would indeed "give this audience a slap in the face at the very start." Why could he not begin with an insult, or by emphasizing the differences? Marvin Vincent writes, "Paul would have been unlikely to begin his address with a charge which would have awakened the anger of his audience."32 "Unlikely" according to whom? They are saying that this statement cannot be an insult because Paul could not have started with an insult. But why not?
If this statement is an insult, then we know that Paul indeed could have started with an insult. But the commentaries rule out this possibility without deriving their interpretation from this statement or other verses. It is very disappointing and frustrating to read such an arbitrary assertion in the commentaries without anyone giving a reason as to why Paul could not begin with an insult. Unless these scholars give us a reason for this assertion, they are imposing on the verse their arbitrary view of what Paul could or could not have done.
I. Howard Marshall likewise asserts, "Paul begins by commending the Athenians for being very religious….It is most likely that Paul meant it in a good sense, to provide a way in to his address that would engage the attention of the audience."33 Nonsense! Does he mean to say that Paul would have lost the audience's attention if he had started with an insult? If the apostle had started with an unambiguous insult or rebuke, the audience probably would have paid much closer attention to what he was saying. Either way, we have no right to simply assume. Then, Marshall undermines his own case with the following admission: "Nevertheless, Luke also uses the corresponding noun in what is perhaps a slightly derogatory sense in 25:19, and it is likely that he intended his readers to perceive the irony of the situation (cf. verse 16). For all their religiosity, the Athenians were in reality thoroughly superstitious and lacking in knowledge of the true God." So is Paul's statement still a compliment? When Marshall says that Paul is "commending the Athenians," he gives a non-biblical reason, one that is based on Marshall's own assumption about the best rhetorical strategy for the situation. But when he says that Paul's statement may in fact be saying that the Athenians are "thoroughly superstitious and lacking in knowledge," he uses a biblical argument. Marshall is suppressing biblical evidence that he knows to give way to his own prejudice about what Paul should do in this situation.
David J. Williams, on the other hand, may be closer to the truth than the above commentators: "Perhaps Paul deliberately chose the word with kindly ambiguity so as not to offend his hearers while, at the same time, expressing to his own satisfaction what he thought of their religion. They would learn soon enough what his opinion really was."34 To assert without good reason that Paul is trying not to offend his hearers would again be begging the question, since if Paul intends for the word to express an insult, then he also intends to offend his hearers. However, Williams is wise to add "perhaps" before his comment. Even if Paul intends to preserve the ambiguity inherent in the term, if Paul is at least truthful and competent, so that he uses the right words to express his thoughts, we can be sure that the word in question is at least effective in "expressing to his own satisfaction what he thought of their religion."
Since Paul would soon contradict his hearers' religions and philosophies at every major point, or as Williams states, "They would learn soon enough what his opinion really was," this suggests that Paul uses the term in a negative sense, so that it truly expresses his opinion, although he is aware that it would be sufficiently ambiguous, so that his hearers could not be sure that it is intended as an insult or rebuke. Conrad Gempf agrees: "Paul used very guarded and ambiguous phrases, and on reflection even his introduction becomes a veiled attack."35 It is possible that Paul is saying that his hearers are very involved in religious matters, without stating whether this is good or bad. Of course, whether it is good or bad depends on whether their religious beliefs are true or false, and we will see that Paul thinks they are false. In any case, an exposition of verse 23 will illustrate that Paul does not intend for "very religious" to be a compliment, even if he does not mean something as clearly negative as "very superstitious."
To illustrate what he has just said, Paul continues, "For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you" (v. 23). Right away Paul contrasts their ignorance with his knowledge. In philosophical terms, he begins his speech by claiming a superior epistemology. Since what is recorded in Acts 17 is likely to be a condensed version of what Paul delivered in Athens, as is the case with other speeches in the Bible, we may look to what Paul has written elsewhere to inform our understanding of his speech to the Areopagus.
As mentioned earlier, there were many statues and altars in Athens, but Paul finds one altar especially appropriate to use as his point of departure for his speech. That is, there was an altar dedicated to "an unknown god." The Jerusalem Bible translates Paul's statement as follows: "Well, the God whom I proclaim is in fact the one whom you already worship without knowing it." But it is a grave error to understand what Paul says in this manner and to translate the verse this way.
The Athenians had erected altars to "unknown gods" to ensure that no deities were left out in their worship. They did not have any definite idea as to who or what these deities may be, nor did they have any definite information about them. Now, if one were to say, "I am a worshiper of Zeus, but just in case there are any other gods, I will acknowledge them too," the true God of Christianity would not accept that as worship. Thus neither can Paul be conceding that the Athenians were worshiping the God of Christianity, and that they merely needed to know more about him.
Rather, the point is that they did not know the true God at all. They may realize that there may be a divine existence beyond and other than what they were worshiping, and so constructed altars to these "unknown gods" just as a safety measure. One cannot conclude from this that they were already worshiping the God of Christianity. In fact, the point is that they were not worshiping the God of Christianity. Their altars to "unknown gods" merely constitute a confession of ignorance, and Paul's statement intends to exploit this confession without conceding anything positive about their present way of worship.
This understanding agrees with what Paul says in Romans 1, where he teaches that although pagan worshipers already possess an innate knowledge of the true God, they suppress and distort the truth about him in their explicit philosophy, resulting in all kinds of idol worship and sinful practices. An altar to an "unknown god" is just one more example. Sin has blinded the spiritual eyes of every human being, so that unless God reveals himself through special revelation, man cannot rightly know him.
We obtain additional confirmation from 1 Corinthians 1:21, which says, "For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe." Paul says, "the world through its wisdom did not know him." The true God is as the Scripture reveals him, but the non-Christians fail to obtain explicit knowledge about this true God by their non-Christian epistemology.
Gordon Fee puts it this way: "As he will elaborate in Rom. 1:18-31, left to themselves mere creatures cannot find out the living God. The best they can do is to create gods in the likeness of created things, or, as so often happens, in their own distorted likeness."36 Since both 1 Corinthians 1 and Romans 1 begin by stressing the failure of non-Christian philosophy to arrive at the truth about God, the most natural interpretation of the beginning of Paul's Areopagus speech is that there he is also stressing the intellectual impotence of non-Christian philosophy. To say that Paul acknowledges that the Athenians were already worshiping the true God without knowing it would make the apostle contradict his own stated position in 1 Corinthians 1 and Romans 1.
Therefore, we may agree with the following comments about the beginning of the Areopagus speech:
Of course there was no connection between this god and the God whom he would proclaim. He was not suggesting for one moment that they were unconscious worshipers of the true God, but was simply looking for a way of raising with them the basic question of theology: Who is God? (David J. Williams)37
Under these circumstances an allusion to one of these altars by the apostle would be equivalent to his saying to the Athenians thus: "You are correct in acknowledging a divine existence beyond which the ordinary rites of your worship recognize; there is such an existence. You are correct in confessing that this Being is unknown to you; you have no just conceptions of his nature and perfections." (Marvin R. Vincent)38
It appears to some readers he was saying that these pagans were doing well – that, in their ignorance, they were worshiping the right God all along and didn't know it. This is, however, far from the intent…Secondly, the translation is misleading. The emphasis in the sentence is not on the identity of the "unknown god" but on the ignorance of the worship. Paul, in the city of "the lovers of wisdom," focused on the ignorance they admitted about the identity of God. (Conrad Gempf)39
The vital principle here is that the point of contact for Paul's statement of clarification was not a common knowledge of the true God of Scripture that these hearers were encouraged to discover, as if to say that they all along had really worshiped the true God. Far from it! Paul's real principle is that their acknowledged ignorance is to be met with accurate information! Their ignorance rather than their worship is stressed. (Frederic R. Howe)40
In other words, about the only thing that Paul concedes to the Athenians is their admitted ignorance. An altar to an "unknown god" is not evidence that they are already worshiping the true God without knowing it, but it is a confession of ignorance. Paul accepts this confession of ignorance as true, and claims that he is able to supply the information about God that they lacked.
However, if non-Christian philosophy has failed to reach God, on what epistemological foundation does Paul so confidently proclaim this God to them? In other words, if man cannot know God by his own unaided wisdom, how did Paul obtain his knowledge about God? We may return to 1 Corinthians 1:21 for the answer: "For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe."
Although the KJV has, "the foolishness of preaching," the word kērygma here refers to the content of preaching rather than the act of preaching. It is by means of the content of apostolic preaching, the content of the Christian faith, that God saves "those who believe." Since faith is a gift from God (Ephesians 2:8), we may say that God saves those whom he has chosen by generating faith in them by the content of the Christian faith, whether conveyed by speaking or writing. What was being preached is here called "foolishness" because this is how it is regarded from the perspective of worldly "wisdom": "For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing" (1 Corinthians 1:18). But it is through what this world regards as "foolishness" that men are saved, while what the world regards as "wisdom" keeps men in spiritual blindness, resulting in their damnation.
Contrary to non-Christian religions and philosophies, the Christian worldview has as its foundation not human "wisdom" or speculation, but divine revelation, delivered to us through the prophets, the Lord himself, and the apostles: "In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe….This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him" (Hebrews 1:1-2, 2:3). Paul testifies that what he preaches came to him not by human wisdom, tradition, or speculation, but by divine revelation: "I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ" (Galatians 1:11-12).
Paul announces that whereas his hearers are ignorant, he will "proclaim to them" the truth. Paul does not operate on the same intellectual level as his opponents; he does not try to construct a better system than theirs while standing on the same foundation of human speculation. Instead, Paul declares the truth to his hearers from a position of final knowledge and ultimate authority, and he is able to do this because he stands on the intellectual foundation of divine revelation. He speaks and functions as one who clearly perceives reality by the grace of God, and not as one who gropes around in epistemological darkness.
Commenting on our passage, F. F. Bruce writes, "[Paul] does not argue from the sort of 'first principles' which formed the basis of the various schools of Greek philosophy; his exposition and defense of his message are founded on the biblical revelation of God."41 Every system of thought must begin with certain first principles on which the rest of the system is based. If the first principle of a system is self-contradictory, too narrow, or otherwise inadequate, then the system fails at the starting point, and the rest of the system crumbles. Paul has been converted by the sovereign grace of God, and thus he has adopted biblical revelation as the foundation or first principle of his thought system. Compared to those of the non-Christian philosophers, Paul's first principle is not merely a different one of the same kind, but it is of a different kind altogether.
Instead of having a man-centered foundation, upon which sinful man builds his system of thought with the assumption that he can obtain knowledge of the truth by his own power, Paul rejects the anti-Christian assumptions of human autonomy and sufficiency; rather, he acknowledges that man is bound by moral depravity and mental finitude. If man is to know the truth – any truth – he must depend on God. Christian epistemology is superior because instead of trying to find out the truth by our own power when we have no such power, it accepts the verbal revelation of Scripture as the only way to ground and obtain any knowledge. Non-Christian philosophy is ultimately founded on human speculation, but Christian philosophy is ultimately founded on divine revelation. In non-Christian philosophy man pretends to find the truth by his own power, but in Christian philosophy the omniscient God tells us the truth, making it plain by his omnipotence.
Following the apostle Paul, when we confront non-Christian belief systems today, we need not begin by accepting their first principles or basic assumptions, since ultimately these are the very premises that we are arguing about. Instead, by demonstrating the failure of non-Christian religions and philosophies, and by holding forth the self- authenticating revelation of Scripture, we may confidently declare to unbelievers the truth about God. Unbelievers will try to force us to accept their presuppositions, and they will try to bully us with empty arguments and sarcastic insults, but if we can show that their presuppositions make knowledge impossible and lead to absurd conclusions, why must we accept them? By their presuppositions, they can know nothing, but by divine revelation, we can know the truth about God, his creation and commands, and receive the knowledge that leads to salvation through faith in Christ.
When we take this approach to apologetics and evangelism, we avoid the mistake of pitting our mere human wisdom against their mere human wisdom; rather, we are pitting the wisdom of God against the wisdom of man. They may consider the gospel foolishness, but even the "foolishness" of God is greater than the wisdom of man (1 Corinthians 1:25), and there is no real contest between the two. Divine revelation will always be superior to human speculation at every point and on every issue. We who profess the Christian faith must also confidently rely on the content of Scripture; it is more than adequate to tear down all non-Christian religions and philosophies, exposing them to be sinful attempts to know truth without submitting to God. Therefore, we may announce without arrogance and exaggeration that the Christian worldview has an absolute monopoly on truth, and that every non-Christian religion and philosophy is false. As it is written, "Let him who boasts boast in the Lord" (1 Corinthians 1:31).
Paul does not "dialogue" with the Athenians to see what they can learn from each other. He has no respect for their religions and philosophies. Instead, he says, "What you do not know, I am going to tell you," and he proceeds to tell them in verse 24. Although what follows is almost certainly a condensed version of Paul's speech, it contains enough to inform us of the content and scope of what he says, from which we can derive a biblical approach to apologetics and evangelism.
Paul first underscores the ignorance of the non-Christians, and in contrast, he claims to speak from a position of knowledge and authority. After this, he moves on to address the nature of God and the nature of creation – that is, he expounds on the biblical view of metaphysics, or the theory of reality. He begins by saying, "The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands" (v. 24).
Contrary to the philosophy of the Athenians, the world – not just the planet earth, but the kosmos, or the entire universe – and everything in it have not always been in existence; rather, this one God about whom Paul is preaching created the universe and everything in it. Against the Epicureans, Paul declares that the universe was not formed by the random collision and combination of ever-existing atoms. Against the Stoics, Paul declares that God and the universe are not identical, but that God is distinct from the universe, and that this God does not only animate the universe, but he created the universe.
Contrary to the religion of the Athenians, there is not a god for this and a god for that. There is not a god for war, a different god for love, a different god for wisdom, and a different god for harvest. Rather, this one God about whom Paul is preaching is the Lord of hosts, the Lord who provides; he is love and he is wisdom, so that there is no true love and wisdom apart from him. He is "the Lord of heaven and earth," the kurio, the possessor of all that exists, the ruler of every sphere of physical existence and intellectual contemplation. This is the God about whom the Athenians did not know, and since this true God is the sole deity, the mere fact that they worshiped other "gods" necessarily implies that they were not worshiping this true God.
God is transcendent, meaning that he is distinct from the universe, although he is free to become involved in it and he does become involved in it (divine immanence). On the other hand, the mythological gods of the Athenians were part of the universe. Contrary to this, Paul states that the true God "does not live in temples built by hands" (v. 24), and that "he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything" (v. 25). Paul deals with the nature of God with his particular emphasis because he is addressing the Greek popular religions in particular. Other parts of the Bible provide us with enough information to know that our view of God agrees with no other religion or philosophy, and we need to adapt our remarks to them when addressing them to make our disagreements apparent. Of course we contradict the atheists and Hindus on their views of God, but even some professing Christians deny that we radically differ with the Mormons and Muslims. These people are ignorant of both Christian theology, which condemns all other religions, and non-Christian religions, which contradict biblical revelation on all major points.
The Mormons are not even monotheistic, claiming that Elohim is the god of only this world, that there are many gods for many different worlds, and that a man's "salvation" is his attainment of godhood to rule a particular world. They make Elohim and Jehovah into different entities, so that Jesus is Jehovah, who was created by the sexual union between Elohim and Mary. Christians may chuckle at the Mormon claim that the Garden of Eden was located in what is now Independence, Missouri, but when they make Satan the brother of Jesus, both Christians and non-Christians ought to have enough sense to note the differences between Christianity and Mormonism. But of course stupid people still insist that the two are in essential agreement. Doubtless some Mormons will say that this is a misrepresentation of their beliefs, but they probably do not know what Mormonism really teaches.42 In any case, if the Christian faith has been "once for all entrusted to the saints" (Jude 3), then it is not subject to revisions or additions; therefore, Joseph Smith was a false prophet. Will the Mormon agree with this assessment? If not, Christianity is not in agreement with Mormonism, even though we have mentioned only a few major points.
As for Islam, Allah is certainly not the same as the God described by the Bible. The person who says that Allah is just another name for the Christian God must also show that Allah is a trinity, because this is what Christians affirm, that God is one in terms of godhood and three in terms of personhood, that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit all participate fully in the divine attributes. No true Muslim agrees with this. In addition, Robert Morey shows that Allah was in fact a pagan moon god.43
Because Muslims consider the Hadith just as inspired and authoritative as the Koran, they must therefore venerate its teaching about Muhammad's psychological obsession with urine and feces. In vol. 1, chap. 57, no. 215 and vol. 2, no. 443, Muhammad says that people who soil themselves with urine will be tortured by hellfire, but a contradiction occurs in vol. 1, no. 234, when he ordered people to drink the milk and urine of camels as medicine. Muslims must accept and defend the claims that Adam was ninety feet tall (vol. 4, no. 543), that "Satan stays in the upper part of the nose all night" (vol. 4, no. 516), that Satan urinates into the ears of those who fall asleep during prayer (vol. 2, no. 245), that Allah will refuse to hear those who pass wind during prayer (vol. 1, no. 628; vol. 9, no. 86), and Allah will reject your prayers if you have bad breath (vol. 1, nos. 812, 813, 814, 815; vol. 7, nos. 362, 363), among other strange and vulgar teachings.44
It is true that some professing Muslims, probably embarrassed by the Hadith, choose to reject its status as divinely inspired. But when the discussion is about whether Christianity agrees with Islam, the Koran alone supplies enough information to establish radical differences between the views of the two religions on all major doctrines, such as the nature of God, the status of Jesus Christ, and the way of salvation. I have already mentioned the Trinity as an example – Christians insist on it, but Muslims reject it. No one can say that the two religions worship the same God.
Since this book is not specifically about Islam, we cannot document its many problems here; nevertheless, we will mention one error in the Koran about the Trinity, since we have already brought up the topic. Muhammad (Sura 5:73-75, 116) thought that Christians worshiped three gods: the Father, the Mother (Mary), and the Son (Jesus). The Koran makes the mistake of saying that Christians believe Jesus to be the "Son" of God in the sense that he was the product of sexual relation between the "Father" God and Mary. However, the Bible affirms that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Christ. If Muhammad was a prophet of God, we would expect him to at least understand the basic doctrines of Christianity when he commented on it.45
Although some professing Muslims are also embarrassed by the Koran, so that they reject both the Koran and the Hadith as divinely inspired, they probably should not be called true Muslims, just as professing Christians who reject the Bible are not true Christians. In cases where professing adherents to a religion reject the official authority of that religion, they are not true adherents to that religion, and we must deal with them as individuals and ask about their personal beliefs. Our approach to apologetics and evangelism toward them is the same, so that unless they are already true Christians and explicitly biblical in their worldview, their beliefs concerning all major issues will contradict biblical revelation, and ultimately the conflict will be settled on the presuppositional level.
Every attempt to rob Christianity of its uniqueness by allegedly exposing (but in reality imposing) its similarities with other worldviews, philosophies, and religions have been refuted.46 But the spirit of Babel lives on, and so non-Christians (including false Christians) continue trying to force essentially contradictory worldviews together. Deep down in their minds they know that Christianity is the only truth, but they think that if they can neutralize the biblical worldview, they will not have to obey the only true God or confront his revelation. As John the apostle writes, "This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed" (John 3:19-20). To achieve unity at the expense of their rationality or even their sanity seems to be a small price to these people, but in the end it will cost much more than that, because they will be condemned to suffer extreme torment in hell forever.
v. 24-25
Since God is the creator and ruler of all that exists, he is also distinct from and greater than the universe. It follows that he "does not live in temples built by hands. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything" (17:24-25). Positively, verses 24 and 25 set forth the Christian view of God and his relationship to the universe. Negatively, what Paul says here subverts the Athenians' whole religious and intellectual foundation, and indeed their very way of life. He is saying that they were living a big lie, that their entire culture and their deepest beliefs are false.47
Paul has set up the situation such that to maintain their way of life with intellectual integrity, the Athenians must destroy Christianity in argumentation, or else have their ultimate commitments be destroyed by Christianity. Those who cannot resist the truth of Christianity, but desire to maintain their non-Christian commitments, choose the route of self-deception, telling themselves that they have the right to maintain their non-Christian beliefs without refuting this biblical worldview that challenges and contradicts every aspect of their thought and conduct. This translates into greater condemnation against them.
Following the apostle, our approach to apologetics and evangelism must avoid finding ways to agree with anti-biblical thinking. We must clearly expound the faith so that all who hear will understand that the biblical worldview disagrees with all non-biblical worldviews on all major issues. Thus they cannot just avoid us, or compromise with us; rather, they must destroy us or be destroyed. The apologist then takes the additional step of demonstrating the impossibility of non-biblical worldviews, leaving the non-Christians no intellectual foundation on which to support their resistance toward the Christian faith. Contrary to what is implied by some Christians' approach, biblical evangelism does not only add Jesus to the unbelievers' belief systems, but it destroys their entire belief systems and replaces them with the biblical worldview. Anything short of this is unworthy of being called biblical apologetics or evangelism.
We need to recover the offensiveness of the gospel rather than settling for a "seeker-friendly" message so diluted that non-Christians can agree with it without a genuine and complete conversion. The non-elect ought to be offended by the gospel, and say, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?" (John 6:60). But when confronted with the plain truth, the elect, or those whom God has chosen for salvation, will say, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God" (v. 68-69). The gospel message, when properly preached, should draw the elect and repel the reprobates (John 10:27). The word of God divides the sheep from the goats, and the wheat from the weeds (Hebrews 4:12). Even then, in the wisdom of God, he has ordained that some will appear to rejoice at the word of God, only to fall away at a later time (Luke 8:13). Therefore, let us work out our salvation with fear and trembling (Philippians 2:12); let us test our faith so as to remove false assumptions about our standing with God (2 Peter 1:10).
If we, as Sanders does, grant that non-Christians are intellectually "on the right track," then we have distorted both the Christian and the non-Christian positions. It is because they are on the wrong track that Scripture commands them to repent, which refers to a turning of the mind. For example, we must not say that unbelievers are fairly good scientists, that if they will only do a little better, they would approve of the Christian faith; rather, we must say that they are extremely poor scientists, that they have rejected the truth from the start. We must not say that unbelievers are already quite moral, but that they are just not good enough; rather, we must say that they are thoroughly corrupt, that they have not even started being moral. They are intellectually inferior and morally depraved. Christianity does not call people to merely improve their lives based on their present foundation, but it calls for genuine and complete conversion.
In addition, conversion is not about changing only several aspects of your life, but it results in a comprehensive transformation. If your "conversion" does not produce such a change, or the beginning of such a change that will clearly lead to continued growth in the correct direction, then you have not been converted; the life of God is not in you, and you remain in death and darkness.
When Paul says that God does not live in man-made temples and that he is not served by human hands (v. 24-25), he effectively declares his rejection of all popular religions in Athens. He does not state any point of agreement he has with the unbelievers, but he states his denials – what God is not like and how he is not served, that it is wrong to think of God a certain way and that it is wrong to serve him a certain way. This alone suffices in showing that apostolic revelation denies that there are many ways to God, since here it is stated that God is not like some of the conceptions that people have of deity, and that he is not served in some of the ways that people try to perform their worship.
Of course, Paul is addressing a particular audience, and therefore he adapts his comments to correspond to his hearers' beliefs and culture. Since the rest of the Bible provides us with enough information to rule out all other ways to God except Christianity, those who claim to be Christians must either reject this biblical claim, in which case they are no longer Christians, or they must accept it, and in turn cease to be embarrassed about the exclusivity of the Christian faith. We should boldly admit, "Yes, Christianity teaches that all non-Christian religions are false, and all adherents of all non-Christian religions will suffer endless and extreme torment in hell. If you disagree, then this is why we are debating."
Some time ago, I came across a review of a Christian book, written by a woman who at least implied that she was a Christian. Although she liked the book in general, when it came to the book's negative comments about Mormonism, she objected and wrote that only God has the right to judge whether a religion is true or false. Since she implied that she was a Christian, this objection made no sense. It is true that God alone has the right to judge whether a religion is true or false, but this should not stop us from speaking against non-Christian religions, because he has made his thoughts known to us through his verbal revelation.
When she said that God alone has the right to judge religions, and used this as an objection against anti-Mormon remarks in a book, she was implying that God had not made a judgment about Mormonism in particular, or even non-Christian religions in general. Or, if he had already made such a judgment, he had not made it known to her. But God has already pronounced his judgment through Scripture, and all religious and non-religious propositions that contradict what has been revealed in Scripture must be considered false by the Christian.
Thus this reviewer either had such a poor knowledge of Scripture as to disqualify her from critiquing a Christian book, or she had rejected the divine inspiration of Scripture, in which case she had no justification for claiming to be a Christian – she was merely a non-Christian stating her disagreement with the Bible. God alone has the right to judge the various religions – of course this is true – but he has already judged them, and he has made his judgment plain to us through the Bible. We can agree with him and be saved, or disagree with him and perish.
Paul continues in verse 25, "He himself gives all men life and breath and everything else." God does not need us, but we need him. When praying to God, David says, "Everything comes from you, and we have given you only what comes from your hand" (1 Chronicles 29:14). Since "life" (Greek: zōē) was popularly associated with Zeus, the supreme Greek god, and since the triad of "life and breath and everything" reflects terminology current to his hearers, it is possible that Paul is again deliberately contradicting their religion. He is saying, in effect, that the Christian God, who does not live in temples and who is not served by human hands, is the author and sustainer of life, not Zeus. Even if this is not Paul's intention, his statement contradicts the religion and philosophy of the Athenians, who attributed life to another source.
v. 26a
Continuing with this theme that it is the one true God who gives life to man and all living things, Paul elaborates on the biblical view, and says in verse 26, "From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth." The Athenians believed that they were indigenous, having sprung from the earth, so that they were different from and superior to all other peoples, whom they consider to be barbarians. Paul's statement contradicts not only the religious and philosophical explanations of the Athenians, but it attacks the belief that was the source of their ethnic pride.
Since the Greek does not state who or what the "one" is, various suggestions have been given, but "from one man" seems most suitable to the context. The main thrust of the phrase is that God created mankind from one starting point, which Christianity asserts to be Adam, the first man. Different races and nations of men originated from one man, and not many. Since all races and nations of men originated from one man, there is no justification for the belief that any race or nation of men is inherently superior or privileged than another, at least not in the sense that many believed themselves to be superior or privileged. Even if there are some differences between the races and nations, at least all human beings have been made in the image of God.
Non-Christian science and philosophy have no basis from which to affirm the unity and equality of the races. For example, apart from biblical revelation about the origin of man, from what reliable and authoritative principle can you assert that genocide and cannibalism are immoral? Why is it wrong for one race to destroy another, or for the people of one race to slaughter the people of another race for food? Science cannot demonstrate that we all came from one man.48 If these questions appear to be shocking and outrageous, then unbelievers should have a ready answer for them. However, apart from biblical authority, no principle can provide an adequate foundation on which to ground moral judgments about these issues. By what universal and absolute moral authority do you impose your morality upon me, forbidding me to commit genocide and cannibalism? Is something morally "wrong" for me to do just because you do not want me to do it? Unless moral principles have biblical revelation as its foundation, they will all be annihilated when challenged.
Since I have given my argument against evolution elsewhere, I will not repeat it here.49 But I mention evolution to illustrate an earlier point. As on all other major topics, on the subject of human origin, we should not say that the unbelievers are doing "good science," that they are brilliant and honest scholars, and if they will just be a little more careful, then they will come to believe in divine creation. No, they are not brilliant; they are not honest; and they are not doing good science. To come to a knowledge of the truth, it would not suffice for the unbelievers to simply do "better science," but they must change their first principles or foundational axioms altogether, and not just their subsidiary theorems. This takes a sovereign work of God in their hearts, and if it does not happen, they will remain in spiritual and intellectual darkness.
Unbelievers may tell you that they are intellectually neutral, but do not believe them, because intellectual neutrality does not exist. You are either for Christ or against Christ. A person who claims to be examining the arguments for Christianity to determine whether it is worthy of belief is against Christianity while he is examining the arguments, and he will not be for Christianity until God changes his heart. Unbelievers are prejudiced against God; they have an agenda against him. They have taken up presuppositions that preclude the truth as revealed by the Scripture. Yet they claim that they will follow the facts wherever they may lead, and then they will challenge you to prove that the facts lead to your conclusions using their presuppositions and methods! Christians should not fall into this trap. But although our first principles differ from that of the unbelievers, we need not assume that it is futile to argue with them; rather, we can challenge their presuppositions as our negative case, and present the self-authenticating principle of biblical infallibility as our positive case. Unless they can provide an adequate first principle to justify their subsidiary claims, they do not even have the right to present their subsidiary claims to us for consideration, as in the case of evolution.
v. 26b
Not only is God the creator and sustainer of humankind, but he is also the present ruler of humankind: "He determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live" (v. 26). There are two possible interpretations for the words, "He determined the times set for them." One takes the phrase to mean that God controls and maintains the seasons and natural cycles of life that are crucial to human survival and development, as in Acts 14:17. The other takes the phrase to mean that God determines the course and periods of human history, as in the rise and fall of nations. Scripture as a whole supports both assertions about God, but the question is which one Acts 17:26 intends to convey.
Either interpretation would contradict Greek religion and philosophy. Besides proclaiming a God totally unlike the irrelevant deities of the Epicureans, Paul is "setting his own belief in divine providence over against the fatalism of his Stoic auditors."50 But he is doing more than that, since he is presenting a view of divine providence to which no non-Christian would give consent. Only Christians affirm that God – this God and no other – having created the universe, now sustains life and determines history. The broad point is that Paul asserts a biblical view of divine providence as an explanation to the whole of human history that no one else agrees with.
God determines the exact territories of nations; his control is exhaustive and precise. Some professing Christians can tolerate mention of divine providence as long as we are talking only about his control over groups of people, and this is indeed the main emphasis of the verse. However, some of these same professing Christians put up tremendous resistance when it is pointed out that the Bible speaks of God's control over individuals in the same way.
Since I have defended divine sovereignty over human individuals elsewhere, I will not repeat the relevant arguments here; however, I will at least point out that if one affirms divine omniscience, as every Christian must, then to acknowledge God's sovereignty over groups of people obligates him to also acknowledge God's sovereignty over individuals. This is because an omniscient being does not think of a group of anything without knowing every individual object that makes up the group.
For example, when I use the word "trees" without setting a limit on the word, as in "these trees," I am using it as an universal, as in "all trees." But I do not know all trees, I have made none of them, I have determined none of their properties, and I do not even exhaustively know any one tree in particular. So do I know what I am saying? Not on the basis of empiricism. On the other hand, when God uses the word "trees," he says it as one who has made and who knows all of them. His knowledge of all particular trees corresponds to his use of the universal "trees." When I say "trees," the actual content of my knowledge does not include all trees, although I intend to refer to all trees by the word. Therefore, when God says that all trees are a certain way, he has in mind every tree, that every tree is a certain way, and not just trees in the abstract without the actual content of all trees. Because God is omniscient, to him "trees" must mean the sum of all individual trees, and not trees in the abstract.
If you have two children, named Tom and Mary, then every time you say "my children," you are in fact referring to Tom and Mary in particular. You would not intend to mean "my children" without the actual content of "Tom and Mary." The words, "my children," represent for you "Tom and Mary." Suppose that you are omniscient, but you do not have children yet. In this case, "my children" would still mean "Tom and Mary," since you know for certain that you will have these children in the future. Therefore, an omniscient being never uses a designation of a group without conscious awareness of all the members of that group. That is, the universal term always represents the sum of all the individuals belonging to the group. A being who lacks omniscience uses the universal term without knowledge of all the individuals in that group, but a being who possesses omniscience uses the universal term with a conscious awareness of all the individuals in that group. This is a necessary implication of omniscience.
Accordingly, when God thinks of a nation, he is also thinking of all the individuals comprising that nation at any given time, since a nation is the sum of all those individuals whom God has chosen to belong under that nation, and he has exhaustive knowledge of every individual. Indeed, he creates each individual to be included in the nation he has chosen for that individual. It is not as if God decides to enforce a given policy toward a certain group, such as male humans, and then allow each human being to volunteer to become members of that group. Instead, God creates all human beings, and groups them together as he pleases.
Therefore, it makes no sense to say that God exercises absolute sovereignty over a group, such as a nation or the elect, without also affirming the necessary implication that he exercises absolute sovereignty over each individual within that group. It makes no sense to say that God elects a group for salvation without determining which individuals would be in that group, or that he controls a nation without controlling the individuals within that nation. The individuals do not make themselves. The point is that even when the Bible is only talking about God's sovereignty over groups, his sovereignty over individuals is implied. That said, the Bible also contains many passages that directly assert God's absolute sovereignty over individuals, and not only groups or nations.51
v. 27
Verse 27 proceeds from divine providence to its implication for religion, and therefore it is crucial to Paul's presentation. But since it is easily misunderstood, we must study it with care: "God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us." The word "this" here refers to what he says in the previous verse, so that he is saying, "God [determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live] so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us."
There are two main interpretations of this verse. One says that God in his works of providence makes it possible for men to find him apart from special revelation, and that he indeed intends for men to find him apart from special revelation.52 The other says that God in his works of providence makes it obligatory for men to seek him, but that it is impossible to find him apart from special revelation. In other words, the first has verse 27 saying that divine providence stirs men up to seek God, and that God himself intends to be found by men apart from special revelation, but the second understands verse 27 as saying that divine providence makes seeking God a moral obligation, although no one can actually find him without special revelation. Although the first interpretation immediately appears to be inconsistent with the previous verses of our passage, we will also provide several specific reasons for rejecting the first view and accepting the second.
Henry Alford writes that the expression translated "perhaps" (NIV) or "if perhaps" (NASB) "indicates a contingency which is apparently not very likely to happen."53 On the other hand, Rendall proposes that it should not be translated "perhaps," but rather "indeed," so that the verse would read, "if they might indeed feel after him."54 He takes this to convey a real intention on God's part to have people seek after him and find him apart from special revelation. However, when Rendall himself admits that the optative mood of "to reach out" and "to find" points to "the fact that this intention had not yet been realized,"55 his exposition suddenly amounts to saying that what God really intends to happen can indeed fail to happen. If so, then the full force of all the biblical arguments for God's absolute sovereignty now stand against him; therefore, his interpretation is impossible. Now, even if the verse should read, "if they might indeed feel after him," it does not necessarily convey a real intention for the accomplishment of something, but rather an imposition of a moral obligation.
However, we do not have to settle this using only arguments about the fine points of grammar. Instead, we may look to another relevant passage in Paul's writings to determine the meaning of the verse in question. Earlier we have cited 1 Corinthians 1:21, which says, "For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe." Pay special attention to the words, "in the wisdom of God" and "God was pleased." To paraphrase, Paul is saying, "God, in his own wisdom, has determined that man will never come to know God by man's own wisdom – that is, by human philosophy and science – but God is pleased that the chosen ones will come to know him by the content of his verbal revelation." Accordingly, the GNT reads, "For God in his wisdom made it impossible for people to know him by means of their own wisdom."
What does this say about God's "intention" in Acts 17:27? Did he intend for people to find him by their own wisdom, although 1 Corinthians 1:21 says that he himself made it impossible? No, God never intended for sinful men to seek him and find him on their own. To say otherwise, besides contradicting 1 Corinthians 1:21, is to portray God as having intended for men to do something without knowing the outcome, not knowing what to expect, and he was later disappointed that men indeed failed to seek him and find him. This contradicts the omniscience and sovereignty of God. If something did not happen, then God did not intend for it to happen. However, God's works of providence did impose the moral obligation upon men to seek him and find him. Romans 1 shows us that, rather than doing what they were morally obligated to do, humans have suppressed the innate knowledge that they had about God, and worshiped idols instead.
With this in mind, let us read the verse again, this time paying special attention to the final portion: "God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us." Since God displays his power and goodness in providence, men ought to seek him; however, men have failed to seek him and find him, even though he is not far, and therefore all who do not know God are subject to condemnation. This is the thrust of the verse. Again, it is a statement that opposes the religion and philosophy of his audience; it does not comfort or compliment them in any way, nor does it indicate that they are already "on the right track." Rather, they are heading the very opposite direction that God wants them to go, and that is why they need to repent, and not merely improve.
The statement, "He is not far from each one of us," is highly relevant for contemporary philosophy of religion, and it also provides an apt illustration for the biblical approach of apologetics and evangelism, which in turn exposes the misguided approach of today's Christians. Unbelievers in both academic and non-academic circles have voiced the objection that the evidence for God and Christianity are unclear or unconvincing. They claim that if there is a God, if he really wants people to believe in him, and if he will punish people for not believing in him, then should he not provide clearer and better evidence than what we have so far witnessed? Should not the existence of God and the truth of Christianity be less ambiguous?
This problem or objection is often called "divine hiddenness." The typical approach taken by Christian theologians and philosophers is first to admit that God indeed hides himself from us, and having agreed to this, they then try to provide arguments as to why God is justified in hiding himself, even though he wants people to believe in him. Many works that attempt to answer the problem of divine hiddenness never challenges the assumption that God is hidden.
However, this is an anti-biblical approach, since the Bible itself denies that God is hidden at all. Instead, it says that "He is not far from each one of us" (Acts 17:27) and that "What may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them" (Romans 1:19). Christians who attempt to answer "divine hiddenness" by first agreeing that God is hidden have adopted non-Christian assumptions and principles without argument. Why scramble to defend God for doing something when the Bible says that he has done the opposite? Why be so hasty to defend God's alleged hiddenness when the Bible says that he has made himself plain and evident to all? Why admit that God is hard to find when the Bible says that he is not far from each of us? Some of us who profess to be Christians are nevertheless too quick to think like non-Christians, and in doing so, even when we think we are defending the biblical faith, in reality we have denied it from the start.
According to what standard of epistemology or "evidence" is God hidden? Non-Christian epistemology is fatally flawed in the first place; they must justify their epistemology before saying that God is hidden to them. Some of them may claim that they will come to believe in God if they see him as a great ball of light. But since the God that we affirm is invisible, he is not a ball of light. Therefore, if he manifests a ball of light in front of an individual, he is not in fact revealing his own person to him, but only doing something for him to see. That is, if the unbeliever holds a false epistemology, then any evidence that will satisfy him will not be evidence that reveals the truth.
If the individual nevertheless accepts this as evidence, then he has made an irrational leap of logic from the ball of light to the existence of God. And does this "evidence" compel him to conclude that the Christian God exists? Similar problems exist with "evidences" such as miracles or apparitions. The problem is that empiricism itself cannot justify any belief, regardless of what it admits as evidence. And since no necessarily implication follows from observation, one who relies on empiricism can always avoid the conclusion he dislikes. But then the person is to blame, and not the evidence.
Of course, there are other non-Christian epistemologies besides empiricism, but if only Christian epistemology is true, then non-Christian epistemologies rule out the truth from the start, and then when they demand evidence that will satisfy them, they may not come to the right conclusion even if provided with the evidence that they want, since their epistemologies are faulty. And since their epistemologies oppose Christian first principles, the evidence that they demand will often contradict the very nature of our claims. For example, God is invisible, but they may demand visible evidence – but then any evidence that satisfies them does not reveal the true and essential nature of God.
There are indeed visible evidences for Christianity, so that even if we assume non-Christian first principles for the sake of argument, we can show that Christianity remains the most rational. But the effect of such an approach is always limited by the unbeliever's faulty epistemology, and we must not be satisfied with it if we were to honor God in our apologetics and evangelism. In other words, we must not be satisfied with showing that Christianity is only more probable or more rational than other worldviews; rather, we must argue for what the Bible actually claims – that is, Christianity is the only possible and the only true worldview. Other worldviews are not merely less probable, but impossible and foolish.
Within the intellectual framework constructed by Christian presuppositions, God is perfectly clear – so clear that he is inescapable, that literally everything is evidence for the existence of God and the truth of Christianity. Within the framework of non-Christian presuppositions, things are not as clear. But why must we be challenged on the basis of non-Christian presuppositions unless they can justify these presuppositions to us? Of course, they may demand justification for our presuppositions, and this is why we must learn to argue about them. The lesson is to avoid being bullied into using non-Christian presuppositions, when presuppositions are the very things that we should argue about. But once we have pushed the debate to the presuppositional level, then we have already won.
The solution to divine hiddenness is very simple. The first part of this solution is to deny that God is hidden in the first place, since the Bible states that he is not far and that he has made himself evident. But then, it seems that we have to explain why so many people do not acknowledge God. We will first try to find the answer from Acts 17:27, and then briefly refer to Romans 1 again.
The words "reach out for him" in the NIV is better translated "grope for Him" in the NASB. The expression rejects the picture of sharp-minded unbelievers attempting to discover the truth about God through sound procedures; instead, it paints the picture of ignorant and confused people groping around in the dark, desperately trying to make contact with reality, but never attaining knowledge of the truth. The same language had been used by Homer when referring to the blinded Cyclops, and by Plato when referring to vague guesses at the truth. This is Paul's opinion of the non-Christian thinking of his day. What is your opinion of contemporary non-Christian philosophy and science? Do you admire the pagan mind? But we have the mind of Christ.
Paul's presentation in Acts 17 is completely consistent with his exposition of pagan thinking from God's perspective as recorded in Romans 1:
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools. (v. 18-22)
Just as Acts 17 says that God is not far from each one of us, Romans 1 says that what can be known about God is plain because God has made it plain. But since not all acknowledge this God, this gives rise to the question of divine hiddenness. What is obviously implied by Acts 17 is here explicitly stated in Romans 1, namely, that the reason unbelievers do not make a conscious affirmation of God is not because the "evidence" is unclear, but because unbelievers "suppress the truth," and they suppress the truth because of their "wickedness." Consistent with the idea that unbelievers are groping in the dark, Romans 1 says that "their thinking became futile," that "their foolish hearts were darkened," and that "they became fools."
Therefore, while the first part of the biblical answer to alleged divine hiddenness is to deny divine hiddenness, the second part of the biblical answer exposes the real problem, namely, that unbelievers are sinful fools. The real problem is not divine hiddenness but human blindness! The evidence for God is so clear that unbelievers already know about him; in fact, they are born with knowledge about him. But because they are sinful, they suppress their knowledge about him and push their awareness of him to a level below their immediate consciousness. They refuse to worship him even though they know about him.
They deceive themselves into thinking that they do not know him and that the evidence about him is unclear. However, since they should know better than to think this way, and since they only think this way because of their sinful rebellion, God has determined that they will also suffer endless torment in hell for such stubborn wickedness. Atheists and other non-Christians – such as Muslims, Mormons, and Buddhists – do not differ in this regard, in that both are guilty of refusing to worship the true God, although God has made himself evident to both kinds of people. The