Acts 17:16-34
VBS 2022 • Sermon • Submitted
0 ratings
· 27 viewsNotes
Transcript
Now while Paul was waiting for them at Athens, his spirit was being provoked within him as he was observing the city full of idols.
Athens was known the world over for its magnificent art and architecture. The art, however, characteristically portrayed the exploits of the various gods and goddesses of the Greek pantheon, and most of the impressive buildings were temples to the pagan gods. For Paul, Jew that he was with his strong monotheism and distaste for graven images, the scene was most unappealing. The NIV is too gentle in saying that he was “greatly distressed” (v. 16). The Greek word Luke used is much stronger (paroxynō). We get our word “paroxysm” from it. Paul was “infuriated” at the sight. Ancient descriptions testify that the marketplace was virtually lined with idols
So he was reasoning in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Gentiles, and in the market place every day with those who happened to be present.
But during the week, on a daily basis, he bore his witness in the agora, the famous marketplace and hub of Athenian life. There he got his most pronounced response, especially from some of the philosophers.
And also some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers were conversing with him. Some were saying, “What would this idle babbler wish to say?” Others, “He seems to be a proclaimer of strange deities,”—because he was preaching Jesus and the resurrection.
Epicureans were thoroughgoing materialists, believing that everything came from atoms or particles of matter. There was no life beyond this; all that was human returned to matter at death. Though the Epicureans did not deny the existence of gods, they saw them as totally indifferent to humanity. They did not believe in providence of any sort; and if one truly learned from the gods, that person would try to live the same sort of detached and tranquil life as they, as free from pain and passion and superstitious fears as they.
The Stoics had a more lively view of the gods than the Epicureans, believing very much in the divine providence. They were pantheists, believing that the ultimate divine principle was to be found in all of nature, including human beings. This spark of divinity, which they referred to as the logos, was the cohesive rational principle that bound the entire cosmic order together. Humans thus realized their fullest potential when they lived by reason. By reason, i.e., the divine principle within them which linked them with the gods and nature, they could discover ultimate truth for themselves. The Stoics generally had a rather high ethic and put great stock on self-sufficiency. Since they viewed all humans as bound together by common possession of the divine logos, they also had a strong sense of universal brotherhood. The mention of these schools is not incidental. Paul would take up some of their thought in his Areopagus speech, particularly that of the Stoics, and thoroughly redirect it in line with the Creator God of the Old Testament.
It was not particularly complimentary when the philosophers dubbed Paul a “babbler.” They used a colorful word (spermologos), “seed-speaker,” which evoked images of a bird pecking indiscriminately at seeds in a barnyard. It referred to a dilettante, someone who picked up scraps of ideas here and there and passed them off as profundity with no depth of understanding whatever. They could not understand Paul’s concept of resurrection at all. Epicureans did not believe in any existence after death, and Stoics believed that only the soul, the divine spark, survived death.
So what was this idea of a bodily resurrection (anastasis)? “He must be speaking of a new goddess named resurrection (“Anastasia”) along with this new god Jesus he keeps talking about” (author’s paraphrase). How ironical that they were making Paul into a polytheist like themselves. Before the Areopagus he would eliminate such thinking with his clear monotheistic exposition of God the Creator.
And they took him and brought him to the Areopagus, saying, “May we know what this new teaching is which you are proclaiming?
The Areopagus was both a court and a hill, due to the fact that the court traditionally met on that hill. The term Areopagus means hill of Ares. Ares was the Greek god of war. The Roman equivalent god was Mars, hence the KJV “Mars’ hill” (17:22).
It probably was not even on the hill of Ares where Paul spoke. The evidence is that in his day the Areopagus met in the Stoa Basileios or Royal Portico in the northwest corner of the agora. This would be all the more natural since the portico frequented by the philosophers, whom Paul had just encountered, was adjacent to the Royal Portico.
“For you are bringing some strange things to our ears; so we want to know what these things mean.”
(Now all the Athenians and the strangers visiting there used to spend their time in nothing other than telling or hearing something new.)
Luke’s remark is quite ironical. The Athenians had accused Paul of being the dilettante (v. 18), an accusation much more pertinent to themselves. Their curiosity had a beneficial side, however. It set the stage for Paul’s witness.
They Said Paul Picked Up Scraps of Ideas and Taught Them Without Understanding Any of Them…
But They Were the Ones Who Lived that Way
They Were Always Picking Up Scraps of Ideas
So Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, “Men of Athens, I observe that you are very religious in all respects.
Paul’s opening remark that he had observed the Athenians in every respect to be “very religious” has often been described as a capitatio benevolentiae, an effort to win the favor of his hearers and thus secure their attention. Such introductions were a standard device in Greek rhetoric, and Paul probably did have some such intention. He surely did not wish to alienate his audience at the very outset. The term he used for “religious” (deisidaimonesteros), however, had a definite ambiguity in current usage. It could be used in a positive sense for one who was very devoted to religious matters. It was also used with a negative connotation for those who were overly scrupulous, even superstitious, in their religious observance. The context in which the word is used determines which connotation it has. Perhaps Paul deliberately chose the ambiguous word. For the Athenians his remark would be taken as commending their piety. For Paul, who was already fuming at their idolatry (v. 16), the negative connotation would be uppermost in his mind. By the end of the speech, the Athenians themselves would have little doubt about Paul’s real opinion of their religiosity.
“For while I was passing through and examining the objects of your worship, I also found an altar with this inscription, ‘TO AN UNKNOWN GOD.’ Therefore what you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you.
As so often in the speeches of Acts, Paul began his discourse with a point of contact with his audience. In this case it was the altars Paul had already observed in the city (v. 16). One in particular caught his attention. It was dedicated “TO AN UNKNOWN GOD.” This gave him the perfect launching pad for his presentation of monotheism to the polytheistic and pantheistic Athenians. Piety had no doubt led the Athenians to erect such an altar for fear they might offend some deity of whom they were unaware and had failed to give the proper worship. Paul would now proclaim a God who was unknown to them. In fact, this God, totally unknown to them, was the only true divinity that exists.
There Were Many Altars in Many Places to “Unknown Gods”
But Paul Adapted it to the Singular “Unknown God” to Talk About the ONE True God
there is a strong emphasis on ignorance, on not knowing. For Greeks, as for Stoics, ignorance was a cardinal sin. The greatest virtue was to discover truth through pursuing the divine reason within oneself. Not to live in accordance with reason, to live in ignorance, was the greatest folly imaginable. Paul accused them of precisely this ignorance, this sin. He would return to this theme in v. 30 with his call to repentance. The time had arrived when such ignorance of God was wholly without excuse.
“The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands;
For them divinity was to be found in the heavens, in nature, in humanity. The idea of a single supreme being who stood over the world, who created all that exists, was totally foreign to them. This was indeed an “UNKNOWN GOD.”
nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things;
and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation,
These verses form the center of the speech. As such, they should be central to Paul’s argument, and they are. They contain two emphases: (1) God’s providence over humanity and (2) human responsibility to God. The two verses comprise a single sentence in the Greek text. The sentence consists of a main clause (“From one man he made every nation of men”) and two subordinate purpose clauses. The thought thus runs: God made humanity for two purposes: (1) to inhabit the earth (v. 26) and (2) to seek him (v. 27). The dominating thought is thus still that of God as Creator.
God “made” every human nation. There is the added nuance, however, that he made every nation “from one man.” The reference is most likely to Adam, and the emphasis is on the universality of humankind’s relationship to God. Although there are many nations, though they are scattered over the face of the earth, they are one in their common ancestry and in their relationship to their Creator. One can see the significance of this in an address before Gentiles. The God whom Paul proclaimed was no local Jewish cult God. He was the one sovereign Lord of all humankind.
that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us;
for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we also are His children.’
It also serves the rather unique function of providing the “scriptural base” for the speech. In this instance it isn’t a matter of Scripture at all but rather a quote from a pagan philosopher. Scripture would have been meaningless to the Athenians. Paul still continued to address them as much as possible in their own terms.
“Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man.
Earlier he had critiqued temple and cult. Now he attacked idolatry. The attack was based on the previous statement that humans are God’s offspring. The idea is that of people being made in God’s image. If humankind is the true image of God, the work of God’s hands, it follows that no image made by human hands can render proper homage to God. If humanity is like God, then God is not like gold or silver or any such material representation. Only the creature can express the true worship of the Creator, not the creation of the creature, not something made by human design and skill.
“Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent,
Paul now directed his attention to the Athenians, returning to the theme of ignorance with which he began. They were guilty of ignorance. All their acts of piety were in vain, for they did not know or worship the one true God. In his forbearance God formerly “overlooked” such ignorance (cf. 14:16; Rom 3:25). The times of forbearance had now ended because their ignorance had now ended. Now they knew the one true God through Paul’s proclamation. He was no longer an “unknown God”; and should they continue in their false worship and fail to acknowledge his sole lordship of heaven and earth, their sin would no longer be a sin of ignorance but a high-handed sin.
because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.”
Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some began to sneer, but others said, “We shall hear you again concerning this.”
Epicureans believed in no human existence after death. Stoics believed that only the immaterial spirit survived death. To Greeks the idea of a body surviving death did not make any sense—even a transformed body. So many in the Areopagus simply scoffed at Paul’s reference to the resurrection.
So Paul went out of their midst.
But some men joined him and believed, among whom also were Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them.