CBTS Logo

Presuppositional Apologetics: Apologetic Observations from Acts 17 | Sam Waldron

by | Sep 11, 2025 | Apologetics

*Editor’s Note: The following material is the sixteenth of Dr. Sam Waldron’s 20-part series on Presuppositional Apologetics. Click on the following numbers to read the accompanying parts of this series:

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20.

 

Apologetic Observations from Acts 17

 

I. Paul’s View of General Revelation

Surely if anything is clear from Paul’s presentation, it is that Paul thought that the pagan Athenians were ignorant of God (vv. 23, 30). This is the theme of the entire proclamation. Because of this, Paul conceives his central duty to be to declare as God’s mouthpiece the true knowledge of God to them. Hence, the bulk of the sermon is just such information (vv. 24‑29). This harmonizes well with his wholly negative evaluation of their religion in Romans 1:23f. Paul does not view their idolatrous religion as having some positive value. Paul does not look upon their religion favorably. Paul does not see it as containing a little knowledge of God. Paul does not in the fashion of natural theology view them as possessing a vague or potential knowledge of God. He views them as ignorant of God.

But the very clarity of Paul’s emphasis on their ignorance of God ought to raise a question which goes both to the heart of apologetics and to the heart of Paul’s evaluation of his Athenian hearers. How is this emphasis on the ignorance of the Athenians consistent with the emphasis of Romans 1:18‑2:15 that men are aware of, and in that sense do know, the character and demands of the living God? Four considerations will help us answer this question and in the process make clear some critical, but less obvious, features of Paul’s view of the Gentiles and their knowledge of God.

(1)       Romans 1 as well as other passages in Paul’s writings clearly emphasize the Gentiles’ ignorance of God (Rom. 1:21-25; Eph. 4:17‑19; 1 Cor. 1:21; 2:6‑8). It should not surprise us, therefore, that Paul emphasizes the ignorance of the Gentiles in Acts 17. This is a continual emphasis of Paul in his other letters. Furthermore, we should not conclude that the obvious emphasis on the ignorance of the Gentiles in Acts 17 contradicts the idea that in another sense they possessed a certain awareness or knowledge of God. If these two things can be taught right next to each other in Romans 1, this may also be the case in Acts 17. If Paul can juxtapose the Gentiles’ knowledge and ignorance of God in Romans 1, he may also do it in Acts 17.

(2)       We must also notice that the ignorance of Acts 17:23f.–far from excusing the Gentiles–is itself blameworthy. It is guilty ignorance. Verses 29 and 30 make this certain. In verse 29 Paul, having just quoted a heathen poet to support his point, concludes his exposition of the true nature of God with a pointed application. He says we‑-including the Gentiles with himself‑-ought not to think that the divine nature is like gold, etc. The Greek word, ofeilomen, refers to one’s ethical duty or moral obligation. It is the Gentile’s moral obligation to avoid idolatrous thoughts. It is not merely that now after hearing Paul’s message it is their duty. Rather Paul’s citing of the heathen poet in corroboration of his point shows that it has always been the Gentiles’ duty in the light of general revelation to avoid idolatrous thoughts. As the offspring of God living and moving and having their being in God, they ought never to have thought idolatrously. Verse 30 supports this by speaking of how God overlooks their sin. As we have seen, this in no way means that God was indifferent to their sin. If God were indifferent to it, there would have been no need for God to overlook it. No, God’s overlooking of the times of ignorance speaks to us of His patient forbearance with sin because of a gracious purpose to the Gentiles. The blameworthiness of their ignorance implies that it disguises and suppresses a certain awareness of the living God. Bahnsen says:

Paul’s writings also establish that, because all men have a clear knowledge of God from general revelation, the unbeliever’s suppression of the truth results in culpable ignorance. Men have a natural and inescapable knowledge of God, for He has made it manifest unto them, making his divine nature perceived through the created order, so that all men are `without excuse’ (Rom. 1:19‑20). This knowledge is `suppressed in unrighteousness’ (v. 18), placing men under the wrath of God, for `knowing God, they glorified Him not as God’ (v. 21). The ignorance which characterizes unbelieving thought is something for which the unbeliever is morally responsible.[1]

(3)       Paul in this address is satisfied simply to affirm or assert the fact of the existence and character of God. There is no attempt at a systematic proof for the existence and character of the living God. It is true that there are quotations of heathen poets in support of his assertions. But these are clearly brought in only as a secondary argument. (Note the language of verse 28: “As even some of your own poets have said.”) This raises the question, How can Paul expect the simple assertion of truth to constrain its believing acceptance?  The only answer to this question is that Paul believed (as he teaches in Romans 1 and 2) that the Gentiles possessed a fundamental awareness of the character and demands of the living God. This knowledge made proof or evidence unnecessary. That some did believe without such proof and merely on the basis of Paul’s proclamation further shows that such proof is not necessary.

(4)       We are considering whether there are any indications in Paul’s address in Acts 17 that he believed that the Gentiles in some sense possessed the knowledge of God.  Probably the most significant fact in this passage in regard to this must now be considered. It is the fact that Paul appeals to heathen poets for support of his assertions (v. 28).

Before we can evaluate the significance of this fact for the Gentiles’ knowledge of God, certain questions raised by this fact must be examined. Is Paul approving of their heathen theology, at least that part he cites? If not, how is it valid for him to cite heathen poets to prove his point?

Let us examine the verse in question. In verse 28, Paul cites the heathen poet, Aratus, in the words, “For we also are his offspring.”[2] Paul quotes, “For we also are his offspring,” in support of his own sentiments. Note his words: “as even some of your own poets have said.” This means that Paul’s use of this heathen poet is not ad hominem.  It is not merely due, in other words, to his hearers’ trust in the teaching of these poets. Paul is not quoting heathen poets (with whom he really disagrees) just to make a point in his sermon to the Athenians. He is not merely showing that the Athenians contradict their own writers. Paul clearly attaches some truth to the sentiments quoted. N. B. Stonehouse remarks:

In arguing from the quotations to his Christian conclusions Paul appears unmistakably to be attaching validity to them even while he is taking serious account of their presence within the structure of pagan thought. The formula confirms indeed an observation made previously: it intimates that the quotations are not offered as foundation features of the Pauline proclamation, but only quite subordinately and even incidentally to the main thrust of his address, which stands on strong Biblical ground. The fact remains, however, that at least momentarily, he appears to occupy common ground with his pagan hearers to the extent of admitting a measure of validity to their observations concerning religion. The problem becomes acute when we listen to this quotation in its original context.”[3]

We cannot explain away Paul’s citation of the heathen poets in this way.

It must also be remembered that the words “for in him we live and move and exist” also are the words of a heathen poet. These words from verse 28a are an excerpt from a work of Epimenides the Cretan. Paul also quotes from this same poet and context in Titus 1:12. Therefore, however, these words are brought forward as Paul’s own sentiments–not as a quotation of someone else. F. F. Bruce gives the quatrain from which both quotations are taken.[4]

They fashioned a tomb for thee, O holy and high one‑-

The Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies!

But thou art not dead; thou livest and abidest for ever;

For in thee we live and move and have our being.

Before we attempt to solve the problem raised by Paul’s citing of heathen poets, we must appreciate what a serious problem it is. What makes the problem so serious is that in their original contexts the statements Paul quotes are completely pagan. Both the poets Paul quotes are in their original contexts referring to Zeus![5] N. B. Stonehouse’s statement of the problem is helpful:

The problem is formidable because the quotations in their proper pagan contexts express points of view which were undoubtedly quite repugnant to Paul. How far removed from the Christian theism of Paul, with its doctrine of the sovereignty of the Creator and Lord and of man as created and fallen, were the heathen deification of man or the humanizing of a god, and the pantheistic mysticism of the Stoics, not to dwell on the irreligious scepticism of the Epicureans! Moreover, Paul would appear to be contradicting his evaluation of the Gentiles, which must have included the poets who are quoted, as belonging to the “times of ignorance,” and his judgment upon the religion of Athens as one of ignorance. In spite of the antithesis which in fact existed, and which Paul insists upon, can there be a finding of common ground between him and his pagan audience?”[6]

The point is that it appears that Paul’s quotation of such poets in support of his Christian point of view was incorrect. Stoic pantheism does not support the Christian doctrine of the omnipresence of God. But in its original context the statement, “for we also are his offspring,” had a pantheistic meaning.

The solution to this difficulty can only be supplied from Paul’s teaching in Romans 1:18f and Acts 14:17. These passages teach that men possess a divine revelation which they suppress. Such men, however, often borrowed ideas from this divine revelation which they fitted into their pagan systems. Since such ideas were derived from a divine revelation, Paul can read them back to the Gentiles in support of his teaching. He can do this because Christian teaching allows the divine revelation which the Gentiles suppressed to come to its proper intellectual and ethical expression. N. B. Stonehouse remarks:

As creatures of God, retaining a sensus divinitatis in spite of their sin, their ignorance of God and their suppression of the truth, they were not without a certain awareness of God and of their creaturehood. Their ignorance of, and hostility to, the truth was such that their awareness of God and of creaturehood could not come into its own to give direction to their thought and life or to serve as a principle of interpretation of the world of which they were a part. But the apostle Paul, reflecting upon their creaturehood, and upon their religious faith and practice, could discover within their pagan religiosity evidences that the pagan poets in the very act of suppressing and perverting the truth presupposed a measure of awareness of it. Thus while conceiving of his task as basically a proclamation of One of whom they were in ignorance, he could appeal even to the reflections of pagans as pointing to the true relation between the sovereign Creator and His creatures.”[7]

The relevance of this to our point is clear. In quoting heathen poets to establish his point, Paul virtually teaches that men have a suppressed awareness of the divine character and demands.

 

II. Paul’s Use of Special Revelation

One of the striking aspects of this address is that it contains no direct or explicit or overt quotations of Scripture. This is a marked contrast to Paul’s address to the Jews in Pisidian Antioch (Acts 13:13‑52). Since the Gentile Athenians were not those to whom God gave the Old Testament Scriptures, and since as a result they did not formally recognize their divine authority, the fact that Paul does not formally quote Scripture is perfectly understandable.

We must not conclude from this, however, that Paul regarded the Scriptures as unimportant for the Gentiles. We must also not think they lacked power to attest themselves to the Gentiles. We must not think that this is the reason he did not use them in any way in his Gentile evangelism. Such ideas would be completely false. Bahnsen reminds us, “Some Greek texts of Acts 17:24‑29 (e. g., Nestle’s) list up to 22 Old Testament allusions in the margin, thus showing anything but a neglect of the Scriptural word in Paul’s Athenian preaching!”[8] Furthermore, both previously and in the Areopagus’ address itself Paul proclaimed to the Gentiles the peculiar and distinctive content of special, redemptive revelation, “Jesus and the resurrection” (Acts 17:18, 30, 31). Bahnsen enlarges upon the scriptural presuppositions of Paul’s address:

In Acts 17:24‑31 Paul’s language is principally based on the Old Testament. There is little justification for the remark of Lake and Cadbury that this discourse used a secular style of speech, omitting quotations from the Old Testament. Paul’s utilization of Old Testament materials is rather conspicuous. For instance, we can clearly see Isaiah 42:5 coming to expression in Acts 17:24‑25, as this comparison indicates: Thus saith God Jehovah, he that created the heavens and stretched them forth; he that spread abroad the earth and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it … (Isaiah 42:5). The God that made the world and all things therein, he, being Lord of heaven and earth … giveth to all life, and breath, and all things (Acts 17:24, 25).

In the Isaiah pericope the prophet goes on to indicate that the Gentiles can be likened to men with eyes blinded by a dark dungeon (42:7), and in the Areopagus address Paul goes on to say that if men seek after God, it is as though they are groping in darkness (i. e., the sense for the Greek phrase `feel after Him,’ 17:27). Isaiah’s development of thought continues on to the declaration that God’s praise ought not to be given to graven images (42:8), while Paul’s address advances to the statement that `we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by the art and device of men (17:29). It surely seems as though the prophetic pattern of thought is in the back of the apostle’s mind. F. F. Bruce correctly comments on Paul’s method of argumentation before the Areopagus:

“He 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 … Unlike some later apologists who followed in his steps, Paul does not cease to be fundamentally biblical in his approach to the Greeks, even when (as on this occasion) his biblical emphasis might appear to destroy his chances of success.”

Those who have been trained to think that the apologist must adjust his epistemological authority or method in terms of the mindset of his hearers as he finds them will find the Areopagus address quite surprising in this respect. Although Paul is addressing an audience which is not committed or even predisposed to the revealed scriptures, namely educated Gentiles, his speech is nevertheless a typically Jewish polemic regarding God, idolatry, and judgment![9]

Later in these lectures we will study the doctrine of the self-authentication of the Scriptures. The self-authentication of the Scriptures is simply the idea that the Bible proves itself to be the Word of God without arguments from evidence outside itself. The message itself shows itself to be divine and true. What Paul does here is very significant for that important doctrine. Without apology (!) and without proof Paul requires submission to the gospel message by the Athenians. Nothing could more eloquently convey Paul’s faith in the living power of the Word of God in the gospel. Thus, while there is no formal quotation of the Scriptures or insistence on scriptural authority in Paul’s address, there is everywhere the authoritative proclamation of the material of Scripture, its truth‑content, its message.

We learn from Paul’s method that it is the message–not the form–of Scripture which is self‑authenticating. Paul does not quote the Scripture as authoritative in the same way as he would have with the Jews. He does not say Isaiah or David said. Yet he does preach its message boldly and with authority to Gentiles who did not acknowledge its authority. This gives us the right also to proclaim without apology or embarrassment the truth of the gospel even to those who do not acknowledge the formal authority of Scripture.

 

III. Paul’s Method of Presenting the Truth

A. His Opposing Stand

What I mean by this is that Paul takes the position of an adversary or enemy of the pagan system of thought. He does not try to make common cause with the pagan polytheism. He rejects any idea of a common ground which he shares with the pagan polytheism. He regards the essence and direction of Christianity and the Greek religion as completely opposite. Paul believes that they have suppressed and perverted every truth by means of their system. Two things make this clear: (1) His indignation in verse 16 (Their religion made him angry.) (2) His charge of ignorance in verse 23 (He regards their religion as empty of true knowledge of God. He regards them as requiring his instruction in the most elementary truths about God.).

But if Paul’s conduct makes clear his method of taking a stand opposing Paganism, so also does the Athenian response to him. Bahnsen explains:

Paul was well aware of the philosophical climate of his day. Accordingly he did not attempt to use premises agreed upon by the philosophers, and then pursue a `neutral’ method of argumentation to move them from the circle of their beliefs into the circle of his own convictions. When he disputed with the philosophers they did not find any grounds for agreement with Paul at any level of their conversations. Rather, they utterly disdained him as a `seedpicker,’ a slang term (originally applied to gutter‑sparrows) for a peddler of second‑hand bits of pseudo‑philosophy‑‑an intellectual scavenger (v. 18). The word of the cross was foolish (I Cor. 1:20‑21). Hence Paul would not consent to use their verbal `wisdom’ in his apologetic, lest the cross of Christ be made void (I Cor. 1:17) . … Paul rejected the thinking of the philosophers in order that he might educate them in the truth of God. He did not attempt to find common beliefs which would serve as starting points for an uncommitted search for whatever gods there may be.  His hearers certainly did not recognize commonness with Paul’s reasoning; they could not discern an echo of their own thinking in Paul’s argumentation. Instead, they viewed Paul as bringing strange, new teaching to them (vv. 18‑20). They apparently viewed Paul as proclaiming a new divine couple: `Jesus’ (a masculine form that sounds like the Greek iasis) and `Resurrection’ (a feminine form), being the personified powers of `healing’ and`restoration.’ These `strange deities’ amounted to`new teachings’ in the eyes of the Athenians. Accusing Paul of being a propagandist for new deities was an echo of the nearly identical charge brought against Socrates four and a half centuries earlier. It surely turned out to be a more menacing accusation than the name `seed‑picker.’ As introducing foreign gods Paul could not simply be disdained, he was also a threat to Athenian well-being. And that is precisely why Paul ended up before the Areopagus council. In the same city which had tried Anaxagoras, Protagoras, and Socrates for introducing `new deities,’ Paul was under examination for setting forth `strange gods’ (vv. 18‑20). The kind of apologetic for the resurrection which he presented is a paradigm for all Christian apologists. It will soon be apparent that he recognized that the fact of the resurrection needed to be accepted and interpreted in a wider philosophical context, and that the unregenerate’s system of thought had to be placed in antithetic contrast with that of the Christian. Although the philosophers had used disdainful language (v. 18), verses 19‑20 show them expressing themselves in more refined language before the Council. They politely requested clarification of a message which had been apparently incomprehensible to them. They asked to be made acquainted with Paul’s strange new teaching and to have its meaning explained. Given their own world-views, the philosophers did not think that Paul’s outlook made sense.[10]

The application of this to ourselves is clear. We must be very careful, especially in our day, not to allow men to think that we are in fundamental agreement with them. We must make it clear that Christianity and their systems are completely different and at war with one another. While men have truth, they have no truth that is not either suppressed or perverted. We must never convey any approval of their systems. Sometimes this can be very difficult in our day because the relativism (the teaching that there is no such thing as truth or an absolute right and wrong) and humanism (the teaching that makes man the goal and standard of all things) and tolerance of modern thinking have trained men to be open and accepting of everything. They think of this as the greatest virtue. Thus, many will make every attempt to agree with you. All the while, however, they are fitting what you say into their humanistic and relativistic framework or system.

 

B. His Deeper Appeal

We have just finished saying that we must openly and clearly oppose all non-Christian systems of thought. We must make it clear that there is no common or neutral ground between Christianity and paganism. Yet at the same time it is clear from Paul’s address that in a deeper sense there is common ground with the natural man. We can appeal to the truth men have suppressed or perverted. Often through common grace men will make admissions or take positions that will give us a point of contact. Acts 17:23 provides a perfect illustration of how Paul took stunning advantage of such unintentional admissions. When the Athenians built altars to unknown gods, the last thing they intended to do or thought they were doing was to make an admission of religious ignorance. The Athenians didn’t intend for Paul to make this use of their altars to the unknown god. Yet, clearly, these altars were an admission of religious ignorance. Thus, Paul uses what they admit against them.

Unbelieving men will also often borrow truth from the divine revelation they are suppressing and fit it into their perverse system. Because the native and original meaning of that truth is proper and true, we may appeal to it against the very pagan systems into which it has been fitted. We must, however, be careful to alter the intended pagan meaning. This is what Paul did when he quoted the heathen poets.

 

C. His Authoritative Claims

One of the most pronounced features of Paul’s address is his claim to religious authority. Several things make clear that Paul was claiming great authority before these Gentiles.

  • His emphatic assertion that he was able to instruct their (Athenian!) ignorance. In verse 23 note the Greek phrase, ἐγὼ καταγγέλλω ὑμῖν. Literally translated this phrase means, `I myself declare to you.’
  • His parallel assertion in verse 30 that God was declaring to men that they should repent. Note also verse 23. The parallel makes clear that Paul was claiming to be God’s mouthpiece in this declaration. He thus claimed divine authority.
  • The word Paul uses in verse 23 means to solemnly proclaim or preach.[11] It is frequently used to designate the apostolic proclamation. N. B. Stonehouse remarks: “Special interest in this connection attaches to the verb which Paul employs in verse 23 in introducing his proclamation. The verb, καταγγέλλω, is used frequently in the Acts and the Pauline Epistles of the official apostolic proclamation of the gospel. “The word of God” is proclaimed by Paul and Barnabas (Acts 13: 5, 15:36, 17:13); “the testimony of God” as proclaimed to the Corinthians (I Cor. 1:21); “the gospel” is that which is proclaimed by divine appointment (I Cor. 9:14); “Jesus” (Acts 4:2, 17:13) and “Christ” (Phil. 117, 18; Col. 1:27f) likewise sum up the divine message ( also Acts 3:8; I Cor. 11:26). That the publication of the apostolic message was viewed as claiming direct divine authority is furthermore confirmed by the use of the same verb in describing the proclamation beforehand of Christ by the prophets (Acts 3:24; 3:18, 22).”[12]
  • It is precisely in the book of Acts that Paul’s divine appointment as an apostle to the Gentiles is repeatedly emphasized 26:15‑18, 22:14,15, 9:15. Thus, in the address to the Areopagus Paul performs one of the most characteristic functions of the apostolate. He witnesses to the resurrection of Christ (1:22).

All of these things make clear that Paul was confronting these Gentiles with strong claims to divine authority for his message. We are not apostles, but we do proclaim an apostolic message. We, therefore, must not water down its authoritative claims either by a hesitant manner or by an uncertain matter. We must be bold. We must never for a moment give any one the impression that the truth of God is in doubt, merely probable, or only one possible alternative. Paul never pretends for a moment that the truth he proclaims about God and the gospel is anything but absolute truth. We must like Paul run the risk of being thought pompous and arrogant.

 

D. His Ethical Focus

Paul’s proclamation of the nature of God comes quickly to an ethical focus in verses 29‑31. Even before this in verse 25 and verse 27 he has made practical applications of the truth. This is an example for us that a proper apologetic makes its focus not the secondary intellectual problems of men, but their conscience. The ethical duty of men is the primary issue. We will be wise to follow this example and not disguise the real issue.

 

E. His Asserted Proof

No survey of the apologetic significance of the Address to the Areopagus would be complete if it failed to notice Paul’s appeal to the resurrection as proof of his message. Paul preached that God had appointed a day in which He would judge the world through a certain man. God had furnished proof of this by raising that man from the dead.

The words, “furnish proof,” mean literally, “give faith.” The word translated furnish, grant, or give is used of God in only one other place in the New Testament (1 Tim. 6:17).  The word translated proof here is the common word for faith. This is its only occurrence with this meaning in the New Testament. It designates a means of belief (Eadie) and, thus, (Lenski) a trustworthy assurance or evidence. Paul’s appeal to the “resurrection was the final authentication of the message” he preached (Blaiklock).

Care is necessary here if we are not to misinterpret the meaning of this use of the resurrection of Christ for our defense of the faith.[13] There are two differences which are important to notice between Paul’s proof and modern proofs of the gospel. What Paul is doing here is different from what many defenders of the faith do in our day. They give proof for the resurrection. Paul presents the resurrection as proof. They argue for the resurrection. Paul argues from the resurrection.[14]

Paul’s “proof” can only be appreciated in the proper presuppositional framework. We must not forget that before addressing the subject of “Jesus and the resurrection,” Paul lays out that framework in the preceding verses. It is the doctrine of the existence and character of the living God.[15] The proof of the resurrection of Christ is proof only on the presupposition that the living God exists. We must approach the resurrection of Christ within this framework or context. Even if men accept the mere fact that Christ came back to life, without this presupposition it will prove nothing to them. Instead of worshipping God and trusting in Christ, they may say, `The world is a strange place. Strange things do happen.’ The resurrection proves the gospel message, because it was the living God who raised Him from the dead.

 

 

[1]Bahnsen, “The Encounter of Jerusalem with Athens,” 21.

[2]F. F. Bruce, Acts, 359-360.

[3]N. B. Stonehouse, Paul Before the Areopagus,  29.

[4]ibid.

[5]ibid.

[6]N. B. Stonehouse, Paul Before the Areopagus,  27f.

[7]N. B. Stonehouse, Paul Before the Areopagus, 30.

[8]Bahnsen, “The Encounter of Jerusalem with Athens,” 8.

[9]Bahnsen, “The Encounter of Jerusalem with Athens,” 30, 31.

[10]Bahnsen, “The Encounter of Jerusalem with Athens,” 14, 15, 17, 18.

[11]Cf. BAG.

[12]N. B. Stonehouse, Paul Before the Areopagus,  24.

[13]My concern is that we not see in this biblical support for “Evidentialism.”

[14]Bahnsen, “The Encounter of Jerusalem with Athens,” 35-36.  Bahnsen accurately notes:  “To be accurate, it is important for us to note that the resurrection was evidence in Paul’s argumentation, it was not the conclusion of his argumentation.  He was arguing, not for the resurrection, but for final judgment by Christ.  The misleading assumption made by many popular evangelical apologists is that Paul here engaged in an attempted proof of the resurrection ‑‑ although nothing of the sort is mentioned by Luke.  Proof by means of the resurrection is mistakenly seen in verse 31 as proof of the resurrection.  Paul proclaimed that Christ had been appointed the final Judge of mankind, as His resurrection from the dead evidenced.  The Apostle did not supply an empirical argument for the resurrection to the final judgment.  For Paul, even in apologetical disputes before unbelieving philosophers, there was no authority more ultimate than that of Christ.  This epistemological attitude was most appropriate in light of the fact that Christ would be the ultimate judge of man’s every thought and belief.”

[15]Bahnsen, “The Encounter of Jerusalem with Athens,” 19.  Bahnsen comments:  “Next we see that Paul’s approach was to speak of basic philosophical perspectives.  The Athenians had specifically asked about the resurrection, but we have no hint that Paul replied by examining various alternative theories (e. g., Jesus merely swooned on the cross,the disciples stole the body, etc.) and then by countering them with various evidences (e. g., a weak victim of crucifixion could not have moved the stone; liars do not become martyrs; etc. in order to conclude that `very probably’ Jesus arose.  No, nothing of the sort appears here.  Instead, Paul laid the presuppositional groundwork for accepting the authoritative word from God, which was the source and context of the good news about Christ’s resurrection.  Van Til comments:

It takes the fact of the resurrection to see its proper framework and it takes the framework to see the fact of the resurrection; the two are accepted on the authority of Scripture alone and by the regenerating work of the Spirit. Without the proper theological context, the resurrection would simply be a monstrosity or freak of nature, absurd resuscitation of a corpse.  Such an interpretation would be the best that the Athenian philosophers could make of the fact.  However, given the monism or determinism, or materialism, or the philosophy of history entertained by the philosophers in Athens, they could intellectually

find sufficient grounds, if they wished, for disputing even the fact of the resurrection.  It would have been futile for Paul to argue about the facts, then, without challenging the unbelievers’ philosophy of fact.”

Follow Us In Social Media

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This