Apologetic Observations from Acts 17

Previously, we have examined the doctrine of our knowledge of God from Paul’s treatment of it in Romans 1 and 2. In response to the exposition of those passages, someone might well ask such questions as these: How does this work out in practice? You have talked about a seemingly technical distinction between two kinds of knowledge. Is this distinction really important? How does one apply it practically? These are important questions. Thankfully, we are not left to guess at their answers. The same Paul who gave his theological statement about the Gentiles’ knowledge of God in Romans 1 and 2 practically applied this theology in Acts 17:16‑34. Paul himself shows us how his theory is to be applied. In Acts 17:16‑34 Paul addresses the very people he wrote about in Romans 1:18f., natural men with no practical knowledge of special revelation. Considering the brevity or shortness of the book of Acts, Luke devotes an extraordinary amount of space to Paul’s time at Athens. He evidently regarded it as one of the high points of Paul’s ministry. As he stood before the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem and as he will stand before the Emperor in Rome, so he now stands before the Areopagus, the seat and center of Greek learning, at Athens. Luke intends to give us in this passage an example of Paul’s ministry to the Gentiles. F. F. Bruce says, “If the address at Pisidian Antioch in ch. 13:16ff. is intended to be a sample of Paul’s proclamation of the gospel to Jewish and God‑fearing audiences, the present address may well be intended as a sample of his approach to pagans.”^[1] Bruce’s wise statement suggests that two common views of the passage which subtract from its value as an example for us are false.

(1)       The fact that Acts 17 is intended as an example or model of Paul’s ministry to pagans suggests that the view is wrong which asserts that Paul later doubted the wisdom of the way he defended the faith he used in Athens. This wrong view is often introduced by the assertion that the response to this address was unusually discouraging. Then those who take this view say that Paul reconsidered his method as a result. Ramsay, for example, says,

It would appear that Paul was disappointed and perhaps disillusioned by his experience in Athens. He felt that he had gone at least as far as was right in the way of presenting his doctrine in a form suited to the current philosophy; and the result had been little more than naught. When he went on from Athens to Corinth, he no longer spoke in the philosophic style. In replying afterwards to the unfavorable comparison between his preaching and the more philosophical style of Apollos, he told the Corinthians that, when he came among them, he `determined not to know anything save Jesus Christ, and Him crucified’ (I Cor. 2:2); and nowhere throughout his writings is he so hard on the wise, the philosophers, and the dialecticians [those who teach and practice logic‑-SW], as when he defends the way in which he had presented Christianity at Corinth. Apparently the greater concentration of purpose and simplicity of method in his preaching at Corinth is referred to by Luke, when he says, 18:5, that when Silas and Timothy rejoined him there, they found him wholly possessed by and engrossed in the Word. This strong expression, so unlike anything else in Acts, must on our hypothesis be taken to indicate some specifically marked character in the Corinthian preaching.”^[2]

Ramsay is completely mistaken. I say this for the following reasons.

First, Ramsay’s theory forgets or undermines Paul’s apostolic authority. As an apostle Paul’s preaching and his methods are both the rule for us.

Second, it contradicts Luke’s clear purpose in enlarging on Paul’s ministry in Athens. Bahnsen comments:

What Luke portrays for us by way of summary in Acts 17:16‑34 can confidently be taken as a speech of the Apostle Paul, a speech which reflected his inspired approach to Gentiles without the Bible, a speech consistent with his earlier and later teachings in the epistles. His approach is indeed an exemplar to us. It was specially selected by Luke for inclusion in his summary history of the early apostolic church. Apart from the brief summary of the discourse at Lystra …, the address at Athens provides our only evidence of the apostle’s direct approach to a pagan audience.” With respect to the author’s composition of Acts, Martin Dibelius argues: “In giving only one sermon addressed to Gentiles by the great apostle to the Gentiles, namely the Areopagus speech in Athens, his primary purpose is to give an example of how the Christian missionary should approach cultured gentiles.” And in his lengthy study, The Areopagus Speech and Natural Revelation, Gartner correctly asks this rhetorical question: “How are we to explain the many similarities between the Areopagus speech and the Epistles if the speech did not exemplify Paul’s customary sermons to the Gentiles?” In the encounter of Jerusalem with Athens as found in Paul’s Areopagus address, we thus find that it was genuinely Paul who was speaking, and that Paul was at his best. Scripture would have us, then, strive to emulate his method.^[3]

Third, it forgets, as we shall see, that Paul’s address is squarely built on the theology of Romans 1 and 2. We cannot say that Paul later doubted his method in Acts 17 without saying that he also reconsidered the theology of Romans 1 and 2.

Fourth, this theory fails to recognize that the results were really not unusually discouraging. Paul always met opposition and scorn. Those in verse 32 who want to hear Paul again may be viewed as sincerely interested‑-rather than people who are merely avoiding Paul and his preaching. Finally, the conversion of Dionysius was a great triumph of the gospel. Lenski says, “One of these was no less a person than Dionysius, the Areopagite, one of the twelve judges of the Athenian Court. That was, indeed, a sign of victory.”^[4] Later tradition makes him first bishop of Athens.

(2)       Acts 17 is actually a model of Paul’s preaching to the Gentiles. If this view of Acts 17 is correct, it manifests the unacceptable character of the view that says that Paul was interrupted before he finished his speech.

As I have just intimated, some have suggested that Paul was interrupted before he could finish his address. On the basis of this idea they have gone on to argue that the speech of Acts 17 is unfinished and imbalanced. Their theory is that Acts 17 is a mere beginning of what Paul would have wanted to say.

This is most unlikely. The words recorded in Acts 17 are clearly a mere summary by Luke of a much longer speech of Paul. It only takes a minute or two to read the speech as it stands in Acts. It is hard to believe that Paul only spoke a minute or two to the Areopagus before being interrupted. Further, there is no clear evidence that he was interrupted before he was done. The reactions of verse 32 probably came after Paul had concluded. Verses 30 and 31 naturally conclude Paul’s address by giving a summary of the gospel. Clearly, Paul said much more than what is actually recorded here.^[5]  The words recorded in Acts 17 are intended as a summary or epitome of Paul’s address.

Our treatment of this model of Paul’s preaching to raw pagans will be organized under two headings as follows:

I. Expository Comments

II. Apologetic Observations

I. Expository Comments

The theme of this passage is Paul’s Ministry to Athens: The Address to the Areopagus

A. Verses 16‑21: The Occasion of the Address

i. Paul’s Indignation (v. 16)

It is likely that Paul regarded his time at Athens while he waited for Timothy and Silas as a “breather” or short time of rest before going to other fields of ministry.^[6] Verse 16 tells us that as Paul looked around the city his spirit was provoked within him. (The NIV translates greatly distressed.) While sometimes this word may merely mean to urge on or stimulate, it mainly means anger or indignation. This is its meaning here. Note Acts 15:39; I Corinthians 13:5; and in the LXX Old Testament Hosea 8:5; Zechariah 10:3. N. B. Stonehouse says:

The special circumstances in Athens merely provided the occasion for Paul’s deep indignation; his fervent monotheism was the actual cause of it. And it is not without significance that the word which Luke employs to indicate Paul’s feeling is frequently used in the LXX where the Lord is described as being provoked to anger at the idolatry of His people. The zeal of the Lord was eating up His servant Paul, and he was constrained to break his silence in the presence of the presumption of pagan worship.^[7]

As Paul observed the signs and tokens of the Athenians unusually zealous idolatry (their zealous idolatry is supported by ancient history), he was deeply provoked and angry.

ii. Paul’s Action (v. 17)

Paul’s indignation was not empty. It moved him to action. This is the importance of godly anger. It moves us to action.^[8] What Paul did was to reason, discuss, and perhaps even debate with the Jews in their synagogues and more significantly with the Gentiles in the marketplace.

iii. Athenian Reaction

a. Its Representatives: “the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers” (v. 18)

The Epicureans taught that the goal of life was pleasure. While this made them a refuge for many seeking an excuse for their sensualism or the indulgence of their fleshly appetites, Epicureanism actually taught that pleasure consisted in a life of quietness and tranquility. They agreed that the peace and calm of life might be ruined or marred by an overindulgent sensualism. While they believed in the Greek gods, they denied that they had created the world, that they had any interest in men, and that there was any such thing as life after death. They were, thus, practical atheists.

The Stoics were pantheists. They believed that God was the great soul which inhabited the universe. Each man was a little universe. His soul was a divine spark imparting life to his body. Their ethical philosophy was to live according to nature. This involved a stern bravery indifferent to grief and adversity, moral earnestness, and a high sense of duty.

b. Its Character (v. 18b)

There were two closely related responses to Paul. The first was scorn. Literally, they called Paul a seed picker–a slang reference to gutter sparrows.^[9] The second was confusion (vv. 18b‑20).

c. Its Result (v. 19)

As a result of this scorn and confusion Paul was called to stand before the court of the Areopagus and explain himself. Bahnsen explains:

Luke tells us that Paul was `brought before the Areopagus’ (v. 19). The AREIOS PAGOS literally means `the hill of Ares’ (or `Mars hill’); however, his referent is not likely to a geographical feature in the local surrounding of the agora. THE COUNCIL OF THE AREOPAGUS was a venerable commission of the ex‑magistrates which took its name from the hill where it originally convened. In popular parlance its title was shortened simply to `the Areopagus,’ and in the first century it had transferred its location to the Stoa Basileios (or `Royal Portico’) in the city marketplace‑‑where the Platonic dialogues tell us that Euthyphro went to try his father for impiety and where Socrates had been tried for corrupting the youth with foreign deities. Apparently the Council convened on Mar’s hill in Paul’s day only for trying cases of homicide. That Paul `stood in the midst of the Areopagus’ (v. 22) and `went out from their midst’ (v. 33) is much easier understood in terms of his appearance before the Council than his standing on the hill (Acts 4:7).^[10]

d. Its Motivation: vv. 20, 21

Why did the Greeks call Paul to stand before this council and explain his teaching? The reason was probably somewhere between a friendly request to hear his teaching and trial before the court. Bahnsen remarks:

Paul appeared before the Areopagus Council for a reason that probably lies somewhere between that of merely supplying requested information and that of answering to formal charges. After indicating the questions and requests addressed to Paul before the Areopagus, Luke seems to offer the motivation for this line of interrogation in verse 21 ‑‑ the proverbial curiosity of the Athenians. And yet the language used when Luke says in verse 19 that `they took hold of him’ is more often than not in Acts used in the sense of arresting someone (16:19; 18:17; 21:30 ‑‑ although not always, as in 9:27, 23:19). We must remember that Luke wrote the book of Acts while Paul had been awaiting trial in Rome for two years (Acts 28:30‑31). His hope regarding the Roman verdict was surely given expression in the closing words of his book ‑‑that Paul continued to preach Christ, `none forbidding him.’ An important theme pursued by Luke in the book of Acts is that Paul was continually appearing before a court, but never with a guilty verdict against him. Quite likely, in Acts 17 Paul is portrayed by Luke as again appearing before a court without sentencing. Had there been the legal formality of charges against Paul, it is inconceivable that Luke would not have mentioned them or the formal verdict at the end of the trial. Therefore, Paul’s appearance before the Areopagus Council is best understood as an informal exploratory hearing for the purpose of determining whether formal charges ought to be formulated and pressed against him. Eventually none were.^[11]

B. Verses 22‑31: The Summary of the Address

As we have said before, it is very likely that what Luke gives us here is simply an accurate summary of Paul’s address‑-not a word for word record of his speech as a complete whole. Paul’s address has for its theme: The Nature of God. It has three sections.

Introduction: Their Ignorance of God, vv. 22, 23

Delineation: The True Nature of God, vv. 24‑29

Conclusion: The Gospel of God, vv. 30‑31

There is an ABA structure in this discourse which we must not miss. Paul first deals with their ignorance of God. (Note in vv. 22 and 23 the emphasis on their ignorance of God.) He then asserts the truth about God. He then returns to their ignorance (Note in v. 30, the phrase, “times of ignorance”) and calls them to repent of their ignorant idolatry in light of the assertions of vv. 24‑29.

i. Introduction, vv. 22 and 23

a. First Comment.

The term used by Paul in verse 22 (translated in the NASB and NIV by the words, “very religious,”) has several shades of meaning. It may be used in a good sense to mean proper reverence for God or godliness. It may be used in a bad sense to mean superstition. It may be used in a neutral or non‑committal sense to mean religion. The question is this: Is Paul saying that they are very godly, very superstitious, or very religious? Paul did not believe the first. He was not so tactless as to say the second at the opening of his address. He must, therefore, mean the third. Here we see in Paul an example of the courtesy, respect, and gentleness required in 1 Peter 3:15.^[12]

b. Second Comment

History tells us that there were altars to unknown gods in Athens. Paul makes this fact his point of departure. He regards these altars as an implicit confession of ignorance of the deity.  Paul (as translated by the NASB) says, “I also found an altar with this inscription, `TO AN UNKNOWN GOD.’ What therefore you worship in ignorance this I proclaim to you.” The NIV makes clear by its translation that the two words, unknown and ignorance (as translated by the NASB), used in these phrases are related.^[13] It translates the phrases in which they occur as “the unknown god” and “what you as unknown worship.”

ii. Delineation

Verses 24‑29 contain Paul’s proclamation of God’s true nature. It is difficult for me to discern the exact structure of Paul’s thought in these verses. It is clear, however, that Paul is determined to emphasize several very important and immediately relevant points to his Athenian hearers about God, their relationship to Him, and how He should be worshiped.

Generally speaking, these three concerns are taken up respectively in verses 24 and 25, verses 26-28, and verse 29. Verses 24 and 25 affirm that God as Creator is sovereign and self-sufficient and, thus, not in need of the temples or service of men. Verses 26-28 affirm that mankind’s relationship to God is characterized by complete dependence. He made the nations appointing both their times and their boundaries. He so disposed them that they might seek God, even though in another sense they are God’s offspring and always confronted with His existence. Verse 29 concludes from the fact that God is the self-sufficient and sovereign Creator and from the fact that man is God’s offspring–controlled and enveloped by God–that idolatry is intellectually and ethically indefensible.

iii. Conclusion

Here Paul comes to proclaim that God has brought in a new period of time in which He is in the gospel calling all men to repentance. Paul says that God overlooked the times of ignorance. This statement raises many questions in our minds. It is best understood by considering it first negatively and then positively.

Negatively‑-What does it not mean? (1) It does not mean that God was indifferent to their sin. Their ignorance was blameworthy. Note verse 29, “they ought not to think,” (Acts 14:16). (2) It does not mean that God will not one day judge them for their sin (Rom. 2:12).

Positively‑-What does it mean? It simply means that God permitted them to go on in their ignorant, sinful idolatry without bringing on the nations a complete, temporal, historical judgment. The flood of Noah’s day was the classic instance of such a temporal judgment. Paul is primarily thinking of nations and history, not individuals and eternity. Paul means that God purposed to send the nations the gospel before the day of judgment. Hence, he overlooked their sins–not in the sense of forgiving them, but in the sense of not accounting their sins as a reason for not sending them the gospel.

C. The Response to the Address (vv. 32-34)

The response, as already mentioned, was not unusually discouraging. Rather, there is a hint of gospel triumph in Luke’s account.

^[1]F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974) 354f.

^[2]N. B. Stonehouse, Paul Before the Areopagus, 32.

^[3]Greg Bahnsen, The Journal of Ashland Theological Seminary, “The Encounter of Jerusalem with Athens,” 8-9.  Note also Stonehouse, Paul Before the Areopagus, 33.

^[4]Lenski, Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, 740.

^[5]N. B. Stonehouse, Paul Before the Areopagus, 38.  N. B. Stonehouse remarks:  “As applied to the situation confronting us here, this observation suggests that Luke means to imply that the message of salvation through Christ is being intimated in epitome in Paul’s proclamation of the divine command that all men everywhere should repent. “The times of ignorance therefore God overlooked, but now he commandeth men that they should all everywhere repent; inasmuch as he hath appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness by the man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he raised him from the dead” (verses 30, 31).”

^[6]N. B.  Stonehouse, Paul Before the Areopagus,  5.

^[7]N. B. Stonehouse, Paul Before the Areopagus,  6f.

^[8]Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries, en loc.

^[9]Bruce, Acts,  35.

^[10]Bahnsen, “The Encounter of Jerusalem with Athens,”  16.

^[11]Bahnsen, “The Encounter of Jerusalem with Athens,”,  17.

^[12]Bahnsen, “The Encounter of Jerusalem with Athens,” 19.  Bahnsen properly remarks:  “It must first be noted that Paul’s manner of addressing his audience was respectful and gentle.  The boldness of his apologetic did not become arrogance.  Paul `stood’ in the midst of the Council which would have been the customary attitude of an orator.  And he began his address formally, with a polite manner of expression, `You men of Athens.’ The magna carta of Christian apologetics, I Peter 3:15, reminds us that when we offer a reasoned defense of the hope within us, we must do so `with meekness and respect.’  Ridicule, anger, sarcasm, and name‑calling are inappropriate weapons of apologetical defense.  A Spirit‑filled apologist will evidence the fruits of the Spirit in his approach to others.”

^[13] N. B. Stonehouse, Paul Before the Areopagus, 19, translates, “that which ye worship acknowledging openly your ignorance, I proclaim to you.”

Sam Waldron

Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.