Athens
Acts 17:16–34
Overview
This passage is in many regards one of the most important in all of Acts, as is shown by the enormous attention scholars have given it. It is not merely the famous setting of this brief passage which has rightly attracted attention, but especially the content of Paul’s speech, which takes up most of the passage. The message delivered has frequently been thought to be in conflict with what the Paul of the letters has said about such subjects as natural theology. Whether this is so or not, Luke has presented us here with the fullest example of Paul’s missionary preaching to a certain kind of Gentile audience (namely, an educated and rather philosophical and pagan one without contacts with the synagogue), which should be compared to the shorter but similar speech in Acts 14:15–17 (Witherington).
Places
Athens- Athens, a city in Achaia, dedicated to the studies of philosophy, which though but one, is always used to be called in the plural number; its haven, called the Piraeum, is described as fortified with seven walls. The city itself stood about two miles from the sea. Athens’ fame rested mainly on the glories of its past; even as a philosophical center, its primacy was challenged by other centers in the east like Alexandria and Tarsus. But Athens remained the symbol of the great philosophers in popular opinion, so much so that later *rabbis liked to tell stories of earlier rabbis besting Athenian philosophers in debate (Keener and Gills).
People
Epicureans- Epicureans were disciples of Epicurus (341–270 B.C.) who believed that pleasure was the greatest good and the most worthy pursuit of man. They meant pleasure in the sense of tranquility and freedom from pain, disquieting passions, and fears, especially the fear of death. Epicurus taught that the gods took no interest in human affairs. Thus organized religion was bad, and the gods would not punish evildoers in the afterlife. They were atheists. Epicurus’ followers also believed that everything happened by chance, and that death was the end of one’s existence. They were similar to “agnostic secularists.” This philosophy is still popular today. “A motto, written by Diogenes, an Epicurean, in about A.D. 200, sums up this belief system: ‘Nothing to fear in God; Nothing to feel in death; Good [pleasure] can be attained; Evil [pain] can be endured.’”(Constable and Witherington)
Stoics- “Stoics” followed the teachings of Zeno the Cypriot (340–265 B.C.). The name “Stoic” comes from “stoa,” a particular portico (Gr. stoa) where he taught when he lived in Athens. His followers placed great importance on living in harmony with nature. They stressed individual self-sufficiency and rationalism, and they had a reputation for being quite arrogant. Stoics were pantheists, who believed that God is in everything, and everything is God. They were also fatalistic. Their teaching is also common today. A modern poet who set forth this philosophy of life, W. E. Henley, wrote, “I am the master of my fate; I am the captain of my soul,” in his poem Invictus. Stoics were also idealists. (Constable)
“Christianity is the School of Humility; Stoicism was the Education of Pride. Christianity is a discipline of life: Stoicism was nothing better than an apprenticeship for death.” (Howson)
“The two enemies it [the gospel] has ever had to contend with are the two ruling principles of the Epicureans and Stoics — Pleasure and Pride.” (Ibid)
Background
The city had reached its prime 500 years before Paul visited it, in the time of Pericles (461–429 B.C.). During that era, the events of the Book of Nehemiah transpired (ca. 445–420 B.C.), and the post-exilic prophets (Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi) ministered. However, Athens was still the cultural and intellectual center of the Greek world. Paul observed many of the temples and statues that still stand there today. Today these objects are of interest mainly for their artistic value, but in Paul’s day they were idols and places of worship that the Greeks regarded as holy. (Constable)
Key Ideas
Paul’s Speech- Paul assumed the position of an orator, “standing in the midst” (of the council) and delivering his discourse. Paul’s anger establishes a basically judicial situation when it comes to his speech, though Paul also has the deliberative aim of changing his audience’s behavior. The means, however, that he uses to reach that aim is forensic — he presents arguments of defense and attack for his vision of God, humankind, salvation, resurrection, and judgment, drawing on both Hellenistic Jewish and Greek philosophical sources. The speech can be divided up as follows: (1) exordium, including capatio benevolentiae, verses 22–23; (2) propositio, the second half of verse 23; (3) probatio, verses 24–29; (4) peroratio, verses 30–31. Perhaps the major exigence that Paul must overcome in this speech is the fact that he is a preacher of an idea that Greeks basically did not accept — namely, resurrection of the dead coupled with the idea of a final judgment by the one true God. These notions were so difficult for Greeks to accept that Luke or Paul resolved to refer to them only at the very end of the speech once some rapport and more or less convincing arguments had already been presented.
The speech in general follows the basic rhetorical pattern of first establishing ethos, then offering logos, finally concluding with pathos, and in this case an indirect appeal. This subtle but unwavering approach comports with Paul’s commitment to the decree, the essence of which was to make sure Gentiles are led away from idolatry and immorality. The capatio benevolentiae in verse 22 is subtle because on the one hand the piety or religiosity of the Athenians was proverbial, but one the other the word δεισιδαιμονεστερους (deisidaimonesteros) is ambiguous, capable of being taken in either a positive or a negative sense — in other words, meaning either religious or superstitious. However it may have been heard, it seems very likely in view of verse 16 that Luke intends for us to see Paul using it in the negative sense. This interpretation of the word for the verse presently under discussion is further confirmed by the reference to the Athenians’ ignorance in such matters — they were truly too superstitious, even building altars to gods whose names they did not even know, just to protect themselves! The second half of verse 23 strikes a balance notable throughout this speech, between making contact with the audience, and condemning their idolatry. On the one hand, Paul says that the Athenians, in a fashion, worship this unknown God. On the other hand, they do not really know this God and need to repent and receive instruction on who this God is and what this God has done. In short, Paul is suggesting here that the Athenians have an inkling that such a God exists, as is shown by their actions, but they do not either really know or properly acknowledge this God. As we shall see, this comports with what is said in Acts 17:27 about pagans groping around in the dark for the one true God. In both texts there is an affirmation of natural revelation but not of anything that amounts to an adequate natural theology as a response to that revelation. This is why in Acts 17:23 Paul insists he must proclaim the truth about this God’s nature and activities to his audience. Without such proclamation they would not really know it. It is hard to doubt that Luke sees this speech in Acts 17 as something of a model for how to approach educated pagan Greeks, and means it to reflect positively on his hero Paul, especially since he records only 3 major speech summaries from Paul’s travels, and this is the only major one specifically directed at Gentiles. It is surely not seen as merely a record of a unique occasion, or of something tried, which failed and was later discarded. Athens is one of the few places on this journey where Paul is not in fact run out of town! (Witherington)
Idols- “It was said that there were more statues of the gods in Athens than in all the rest of Greece put together, and that in Athens it was easier to meet a god than a man.” Paul’s Jewish upbringing and Christian convictions made all this idolatry repulsive to him — so while “observing” all the “idols,” his “spirit” was “provoked within.” This idea is especially conveyed by the word χατειδωλος, which means full of idols. Presumably we are meant to think not only of what could be seen on the Acropolis, which even included statues of Augustus Tiberius, Germanicus, and Drusus, but of the numerous pillars that could be found in various places in the city displaying the head of Hermes and also an erect phallus. These statues would only have confirmed Paul in the early Jewish Christian impression that idolatry and immorality went together, as the reaction to both in the Acts 15 decree suggests (Constable, Barclay, and Witherington).
Ignorance of the Pagans- Though God is omnipresent, and not so far from any person, ironically human beings are stumbling around in the dark trying to find God. When one is blind, even an object right in front of one’s face can be missed. The sentence does not encourage us to think the speaker believes that the finding of the true God is actually going on, apart from divine revelation. To the contrary, the true God remains unknown apart from such revelation. The history of the pagan search for God can be categorized under the banner “the times of ignorance.”The culture that Athens represents is called to repent because it makes God dependent on human temples, rites, and images. The conclusion follows naturally from the argument. God in mercy previously overlooked the times of ignorance, the times when pagans were groping in the dark for God and making idolatrous images, but now, as a result of what has happened through Christ’s death and resurrection, such ignorance will no longer be endured (Witherington).
Possible Discussion Points
- Paul questions the validity of the gods of Athens without attacking the people. He brings conviction of their ignorance through informational means, rather than means of accusation. When you share a correction with someone, is it unloving, or does it build up their ego without addressing the issue at hand? How can you change your approach?
- Paul is brought before the Areopagus to defend this ‘new religion’ and gives his testimony. Are you well prepared to defend your faith at any moment?
Noteworthy
It is worth noting that Paul was not flattering his audience by calling them “very religious”; this was a statement of fact. The Greek words simply mean that they were firm in their reverence for their gods. (Constable)
The reaction to Paul in the “marketplace of ideas,” however, was not notably positive. Verse 28 tells us that some asked what this σπερμαλογος wished to say, while others suggested that he seemed to be a purveyor of foreign δαιμονιων (divinities). Both of these complaints are significant. The former term is based on the image of a bird. which picks up and drops seeds, and therefore a gossip of sorts, but more to the point it came to connote someone who was a conveyor of snippets of knowledge or philosophy or religious ideas, in short a dilettante. In one of his rare overt remarks Luke characterizes Athenians and those foreigners resident there as themselves being the busybodies or dilettantes, spending all of their time in telling or hearing something new. We are not, then, to see those who take Paul to the council as mere inquiring minds, or noble truth seekers. The reason why they thought the apostle was for bringing in other gods, than which nothing was more foreign from him, was, because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection: the Syriac version reads, “and his resurrection”; that is, the resurrection of Christ; the Arabic version renders it, “the resurrection from the dead”; the general resurrection; both doubtless were preached by him, see ( Acts 17:32) Jesus they took for one strange and new God, they had never heard of before, and “Anastasis”, or “the resurrection”, for another. (Witherington and Gill)
