Acts 17

CHAPTER XVII

THE SECOND MISSIONARY JOURNEY: THESSALONICA AND BEREA

Acts 17:1

1Timothy and Luke were left behind in Philippi to continue the work there; Paul and Silas left this City. Now, having made their way through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they went to Thessalonica where there was a synagogue of the Jews. They followed the great Roman road, the Via Egnatia, for thirty-two miles to Amphipolis, the capital of the first of the four districts into which the Romans had divided the kingdom of Macedonia. The city was thus named from the fact that the river Strymon flowed around nearly all of it. They went on without stopping, another thirty-two miles to Apollonia which was also on the Egnatian Way. Here, too, they did not stop but proceeded about thirty-six miles farther to Thessalonica on the great Roman road, the capital of the second of the four great divisions of Macedonia, which finally became the capital of the entire province.

When Cassander rebuilt it he changed its name Therma to Thessalonica in honor of his wife, the sister of Alexander the Great. It shared the commerce of the Aegean Sea with Corinth and with Ephesus. Politically it ranked with Antioch in Syria and Caesarea in Palestine. It is now called Saloniki.

The reason that Paul and Silas made no halt in the two other cities was, in part at least, due to the fact that neither had a synagogue while Thessalonica had one from which work could readily be begun. 1 Thess. 1:8 shows what a strategic center Thessalonica became, for the gospel sounded forth from it into Macedonia and Achaia. The fact that some cities were passed by when the gospel was brought to a province must not be taken to mean that the gospel was not to be offered to them. This would come later. After it had taken root in the proper centers, the intervening cities and territories would be reached in due time.

Acts 17:2

2And according to the custom for Paul he went in to them and on three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, opening up and submitting on his part that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to arise from the dead, and that this One is the Christ, the Jesus whom I on my part am proclaiming to you.

The phrase in regard to what was customary for Paul helps to indicate why he passed by the two cities and made a halt in Thessalonica: here he could work in his chosen and most rapid way by beginning in the synagogue. Εἰωθός is the neuter of the second perfect participle of ἔθω, the perfect, however, being used with the force of the present: “what is customary.” On three consecutive Sabbaths Paul and Silas attended the synagogue and “reasoned with them from the Scriptures.” In the case of Jews and proselytes of the gate the prophecies of the Old Testament necessarily formed the basis for a presentation of the gospel of Jesus. The aorist implies that Paul’s work was completed in the space of the three Sabbaths. We need not worry about the weekdays, about synagogue services during the week, and the like. Paul’s great efforts were made on these three Sabbaths. Then the decision and the division came. The idea that this occurred exceptionally soon is not implied; in Pisidian Antioch the division came already on the second Sabbath.

Acts 17:3

3Luke gives us a clear idea as to just how Paul proceeded. After presenting the discourse delivered in Pisidian Antioch in 13:17–41, a brief resume is sufficient at this point. Two present participles which cover the time included in the main verb state Paul’s method: “opening up and submitting on his part” (note the middle voice and also the meaning, M.-M. 490). On the basis of the Scriptures Paul opened up and on his part submitted to his hearers in the synagogue the great facts concerning “the Christ,” the promised Messiah, namely that according to God’s own Word “it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to arise from the dead” (see 3:16 on this phrase). What prophecies Paul used we do not know; we naturally think of Isa. 53. The suffering, of course, includes the death, for the resurrection follows; both aorist infinitives state historical facts, and the imperfect ἔδει states the enduring necessity lying in the prophecies and going back to the eternal counsel of God.

This was new to the hearers, it had to be opened up to them. The Jews had the prophecies but in spite of them had formed a far different conception of the Christ whom they expected. After opening up the prophecies Paul submitted them to his hearers. Luke says nothing about “heated discussion by the opposing rabbis” on these three Sabbaths. Luke draws a totally different picture in v. 5.

After opening up the Scriptures Paul proceeded to show their fulfillment in Jesus. Here Luke drops into direct discourse: “that this One is the Christ (of the Scripture promises), the Jesus whom I on my part (emphatic ἐγώ) am proclaiming to you.” Thus the whole story of Jesus was presented in the light of the Messianic prophecies. We follow the same course to this day even for ourselves who are not of Jewish blood. What makes us so everlastingly sure is this prophecy through the ages with its fulfillment in Jesus. The Old Testament has supreme value in this central part of our faith. To this day the Jews are helpless before their own ancient prophecies with their revelation of the suffering and the risen Savior.

Whom did those prophets have in mind if not Jesus? The claim that they had in mind the Jewish nation and not an individual is surmise. If the Jewish nation is the Messiah of the world, who is the Messiah of the Jewish nation? or does it need none? need none when the prophets promised the Messiah to Israel first of all?

Acts 17:4

4And some of them were persuaded and were allotted to Paul and Silas, also of the worshipping Greeks a great multitude, also of women those foremost not a few.

This success was secured in three weeks, objections to the contrary notwithstanding. Why does Luke specify three Sabbaths if more time than that were necessary to accomplish this? Every reader expects Luke to say what the results were after three Sabbaths. The matter is not changed by inserting a καί before Greeks so that we should have four classes, some Jews, proselytes of the gate, many pagan Greeks, prominent women. This leaves the three Sabbaths as before; but it also leaves τῶνσεβομένων without a noun and makes the prominent women pagans, who, no doubt were proselytes of the gate. Everywhere women of the upper classes were attracted to Judaism; we have an instance in 13:50.

As far as 1 Thess. 1:9, and 2:16 are concerned, both passages apply to Greek proselytes and do not refer only to converts from paganism. As for the many proselytes of the gate in the Thessalonian synagogue at this time, what of it? Why must the number be reduced?

Only some Jews were converted. We must refer both verbs to all the subjects: Jews, proselytes, including women. All were persuaded and were allotted to Paul and Silas. The translation “consorted with” cannot be accepted (see M.-M. 549). The unexpressed agent in the two passives is the Lord or his grace. The second verb shows that a separation from the synagogue was effected. This implies a good deal, namely that a new organization was brought into being, a Christian congregation. On the two kinds of proselytes see 2:10, and on σεβόμενος, 13:43. Not a few of the proselytes who were converted in Thessalonica were women of the upper classes. All these converts formed a strong church from the very beginning.

Acts 17:5

5But the Jews, roused with jealousy and taking with them of the market-loafers some vicious men and having made a crowd, began to put the city in an uproar. And coming upon the house of Jason, they were seeking to bring them before the people.

The New Testament is full of the records of the moral obliquity of the Jews who spurned the gospel. They consistently resort to foul, vicious, criminal means in order to crush the heralds of the gospel. Their Judaism never even makes them hesitate. This great historic fact ought to receive more attention. Men who spit upon the gospel are morally vicious and, as soon as the occasion offers, are ready to prove it. Piously they sat in their synagogue in Thessalonica Sabbath after Sabbath and now they plot and execute a regular riot against Paul and Silas—no, not against pagans and idolaters but against two former Jews who were telling them of the Messiah for whom their nation had hoped for so long a time.

Their motive was of the basest kind, jealousy. Paul and Silas had taken so many from their synagogue and had started what to them appeared as an opposition synagogue. The plan was to disrupt it by foul means. So they take along with them “of the market-loafers some vicious men” and put the city into an uproar with a loud and boisterous commotion. These Jews hire the most vicious loafers that loiter around in the market place and with shouts start for the house of Jason where Paul and Silas lodged. A great crowd was attracted by their commotion and ran along with them. The plan was to lay hold of the two and to bring them before the δῆμος, an assembly of the people for public trial. What would happen then one may imagine.

How soon after the third Sabbath this wicked move was made is not indicated; enough time must have elapsed to convince the Jews that the Christian organization promised to become permanent, and that strong measures alone could hope to break it up. After the separation from the synagogue Paul and Silas worked with pagan Greeks who had been made accessible to them through the proselyte Greeks they had gained. This, however, enraged the Jews of the synagogue all the more.

Jason must have been a former Jew. This conclusion is not based on his name, for he bore the name of an ancient king of Thessaly. Many Jews bore foreign names, among the apostles Andrew and Philip had Greek names. Similar-sounding names were often chosen; one who was named Joshua might adopt the name Jason. On coming to Thessalonica, Paul would not lodge with a Gentile in order not to offend the Jews at the very beginning of his labor. The two imperfect tenses leave the outcome in suspense: will these Jews and these thugs lay hold on Paul and on Silas?

Acts 17:6

6The imperfect used in this verse is also descriptive. But not having found them, they were dragging Jason and some brethren to the politarchs, shouting: They that turned the world upside down, these are here also, whom Jason has hospitably received. And these all act contrary to the decree of Caesar, declaring there is a different king, Jesus.

Paul and Silas were providentially absent as Timothy and Luke had escaped the mob in Philippi (16:19). But Jason was at home and several brethren were with him, and these were made to suffer instead of Paul and Silas by being brought to the politarchs. Thessalonica was a free city and was governed by politarchs (“city-rules”), a senate, and a people’s assembly (βουλὴκαὶδῆμος, senatus populusque). This δῆμος is mentioned in v. 5, and in 19:29–40 we see it in action; but note 19:39 regarding an assembly that is lawfully called.

Πολιτάρχη is not found in Greek literature and was for a long time referred to as one of Luke’s errors in historical matters. But now it can be seen in an inscription on an arch which is preserved in the British Museum, in seventeen other inscriptions, fourteen from Macedonia (five of these from Thessalonica); one is from Egypt, and a papyrus letter from Egypt mentions the “politarch Theophilus.” M.-M. 525. At the time of Augustus five men composed this board of burgomasters, during the time of Antonius and Marcus Aurelius this number was increased to six. The verb corresponding to the noun has also been found.

The whole mob arrives before the offices of these politarchs, who are forced to investigate as to what is disturbing the peace of the city. They are met with shouting, charges that treason is abroad in the city, and the implication of Jason in particular. Paul and Silas are described as “they that turned the world upside down,” τὴνοἰκουμένην (γῆν), “the inhabited earth,” meaning the Roman empire as in Luke 2:1. News had evidently come from Philippi regarding the action of the mob there, and it may well have been possible that the Jews had learned about other places where Paul had been. The accusers are, of course, the hostile Jews and not the loafers or the crowd. “These fellows (οὗτοι) are here also” to disturb the city’s peace with their treason. The charge is political and hence extremely serious.

It is interesting to read in a papyrus letter dated Aug. 4, A. D. 41 that a bad boy used this very verb ἀναστατόω in the sense of “he upsets me.”

Acts 17:7

7Paul and Silas were, of course, not present to be accused, but poor Jason was: “whom Jason has hospitably received,” i. e., and is still harboring. And now the terrible thing that is being done: “These all, Paul, Silas, the brethren captured with Jason, and all others who follow these leaders, they all act contrary to the decrees of Caesar by declaring there is a different king, namely one called Jesus.” One hears the echoes of what the Sanhedrin once charged against Jesus himself. Here Jews again renounce all their Messianic hopes and pose as the most loyal subjects of Caesar.

The emperors never called themselves rex because they had kings under them; but in the provinces they were commonly called “king.” Here again the Jews lie brazenly, for they know that Jesus is a spiritual and not a political king, and these Jews even shout that Jesus is usurping Caesar’s place although Jesus had been crucified about twenty years before this time. They mention the δόγματα (see 16:4) of Caesar to convey the idea that the followers of Jesus are in rebellion against Caesar and against all Roman laws and yield allegiance only to this usurper Jesus.

But they exaggerate unduly. These politarchs had never heard of a Jesus, a pretender to the Roman throne. If the world had been upset, these politarchs had not heard the noise. The only noise they heard was that made by the frenzied shouters before them. These are the points to be noted rather than making an effort to figure out how this charge in regard to Jesus’ being a king could have been based on Paul’s preaching. We must note how carefully Luke records just what Paul had preached regarding Jesus, namely that he had to suffer (die) and rise from the dead.

If we may venture a guess it would be that these Jews of Thessalonica had heard how their Sanhedrin had accused Jesus before Pilate and had succeeded, and so they tried to repeat the accusation before the ignorant politarchs. “Caesar” was a name to conjure with. Had not Pilate bowed before it? would not the politarchs do the same?

Acts 17:8

8And they agitated the crowd and the politarchs, they hearing these things. The charge had a disquieting ring. Being thrown into the crowd, who had not heard it before, it excited them. The politarchs were in the same position. But these politarchs were not swept off their feet as the praetors in Philippi had been (16:22). They kept their heads.

Acts 17:9

9And having taken the security from Jason and the rest, they dismissed them. And that is all that the riotous excitement accomplished. In λαβόντεςτὸἱκανόν (generic article, R. 763) we have a forensic expression, the equivalent of the Latin cum satis accepissent (B.-D. 5, 3, b). The politarchs took money as a security from Jason and the brethren and made certain that Paul and Silas would cease all activity in Thessalonica. Since the politarchs were much in the dark as to what it was all about they intended to take no risks, especially since Caesar was said to be involved and they intended to shield their own positions. What they did was about the least they could do since there was no clearer evidence than that which they had.

Acts 17:10

10But the brethren immediately by night sent forth both Paul and Silas to Berea. This was the only course open to them in view of the security Jason and others had been compelled to give the politarchs. Somewhere in the city a quiet gathering of the brethren was held at night, and Paul and Silas were spirited away. A small delegation of brethren no doubt accompanied them for a considerable distance as this was so generally done by the Christians. Berea, about fifty miles from Thessalonica, was chosen as the next place for work. This was located in the third district of Macedonia and hence was outside of the jurisdiction of Thessalonica.

Paul’s moving on to other localities was providential. However much he might have preferred to remain and to work longer, his work was more fruitful when it was transferred to other cities. This is true also regarding his inability to return to Thessalonica. Whether the bond Jason and others had given to the politarchs was still in force and prevented Paul’s return, or whether other causes played in, the result is that we have two letters written to the Thessalonians by him which are priceless to the church of all time.

From these letters we glean that persecution had come upon the Thessalonian brethren after Paul had left them (1 Thess. 2:14; 3:3–5; 2 Thess. 1:6, 7). We again meet Jason in Corinth (Rom. 16:21). Two ethers, Aristarchus and Secundus of Thessalonica, will go to Jerusalem with Paul (Acts 20:4), and the former will even travel to Rome with the prisoner Paul (27:2). These brief notices speak volumes for what was accomplished in Thessalonica.

Who, on having arrived, kept going away to the synagogues of the Jews. Although it is added relatively, this is an independent statement. Again it is the synagogue which determines the choice of the city for work. The imperfect is iterative so that we need not think that immediately on setting foot in Berea Paul and Silas hurried to the Jewish synagogue. What Luke tells us is that the synagogue was made the scene of their work and continued to be so. Ἀπῄεσαν is the imperfect of ἄπειμι, and this compound is found only here in the New Testament. Because of the ἀπό in the verb it is often supposed that the synagogue was outside of the city, but this is too improbable.

Acts 17:11

11Now these were nobler than those in Thessalonica, such as received the Word with all eagerness, day by day examining the Scriptures whether these things were so. Many of them, therefore, believed, also of the Grecian women, those of good standing, and of men not a few.

This is one of the most beautiful pages in Paul’s missionary labors. In this somewhat secluded town a fair and lovely congregation grows up, a tender violet in a quiet corner, a lovely rose in a fair spot of the garden. Here many of the vicious influences which Paul met so often are absent. Luke compares the Jews of Berea with those of Thessalonica and calls them nobler. The word may mean of noble birth, race, or character, here the latter is evidently intended. The Bereans were better Jews because they had imbibed the true spirit of Israel and the Old Testament.

They had allowed the grace of God to mold their hearts through the Old Testament Scriptures. This rendered them incapable of jealousy, lying accusation, and resort to violence, all of which are so directly contrary to God and to his law as recorded in the Word.

As so often, οἵτινες has causal force: “since they were such as,” etc. The proof of their nobleness is the fact that they “received the Word with all eagerness,” namely the gospel as Paul and Silas preached it to them from the Old Testament. Luke has given us a sample of that preaching in 13:16–41, and a summary in 17:2, 3. The participle describes the manner of this reception. These Bereans were by no means a credulous, uncritical lot, which certainly would have made them far from noble. Their acceptance of the gospel was the result of their “examining day by day the Scripture whether these things were so.” Ἀνακρίνω is often used in a forensic sense, especially with regard to the preliminary questioning and examination of a prisoner by the judge.

This gives us the sense that applies here. These Jews probed most carefully whether what Paul and Silas taught about Jesus was really in the Old Testament as these preachers claimed. This examination was not superficial, it continued “day by day.” The article before the distributive κατά makes the phrase an adverbial substantive. This examination took time because only a few owned copies of the LXX.

The one concern of these Bereans was to find out at firsthand “whether these things were so,” the things proclaimed by Paul and Silas. Here there was no initial blind, unreasoned hostility that sought only objections no matter of what kind. Here there was no cold indifference that is careless as to whether “these things” were really true or not and was taken up by other interests. Time, study, search, discussion were fully devoted to the Scriptures and to finding out what they contained in regard to this new teaching.

The attitude of heart thus revealed is the mark of spiritual nobility. The Bereans did not know it, but they have occupied a shining place in the New Testament Scriptures for nearly 2, 000 years. This is exactly what Paul and Silas desired: to have them examine, truly examine the Scriptures. That examination, properly made, could result in only one verdict: “These things are so!” and that implied faith, intelligent faith, that rested on the one true ground of faith, the Scriptures.

R., W. P., is right when he makes the optative of the indirect question represent the indicative of the corresponding direct question: “Are these things so?” Then, however, εἰ is but the mark of the indirect question and not conditional. If, however, εἰ is regarded as the protasis of a condition, this could be only a condition of reality: “if these things are (indirect in English: were) so,” and not, as R., W. P., thinks, a condition of potentiality: “if these things might be so.” Of course, ἔχω with an adverb amounts to our “to be”: ob sich diese Dinge so verhalten.

Here we have an excellent example of the right of private judgment which is part of the royal priesthood of believers. Each man is to have direct access to the Scripture, is to see and to judge for his own person and conscience. Although Paul was an apostle, his preaching had to be tested by the Scriptures. Because he was an apostle he asked for this, demanded it. As an apostle his whole preaching automatically rested on the Scriptures.

But we dare not misunderstand this divine right granted to every man to go to the Scriptures in person. It does not mean that you and I have the right to interpret the Scriptures as we please. Your right and my right is to see and to find the one divine truth which the Spirit placed into the Scriptures. This and this alone is in them. If you claim to find anything else you have not done so at all, you have fooled yourself or have let others fool you. The same is true with regard to every other man.

Everyone and all of us together can truly find only this one truth and true sense in the Scriptures and will thus be one in faith. And the Scriptures are clear, perfectly adequate to present this one truth to every man. Those who deviate from that one truth, no matter how, can do so only by making the Word mean what it never meant, and they, they alone are to blame for such deviation. A great, glorious right indeed, but one that is combined with an equally great and serious responsibility. Do not misconceive the right, but also do not treat the responsibility lightly!

Acts 17:12

12 Μὲνοὗν as in 1:6. This, then, is the manner in which many of the Jews in Berea “believed.” The aorist is simply historical to indicate the fact, or ingressive, “came to believe.” The shining way to faith is to receive the preached Word with all eagerness—not with hostility, and to test and to examine every bit of it by the Scriptures and to accept only what agrees with them. Oh, for more Bereans everywhere! Away with preachers and with hearers who treat the Scriptures like an actor’s nose of wax that is to be twisted as one may please. To take any man’s word for it is Romanism even if it be you and your word, the word of some “great scientist,” or of no matter what “high authority” within or without the church. All these are like the Serpent in Eden: they thrust the Word aside, “Yea, hath God said?” and then substitute their own falsehood for what God did most assuredly say. God said, “In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die!” Satan, “Ye shall not surely die.”

In addition to many Jews also many Grecian women believed, and of the men not a few. The adjective “Grecian” is feminine but refers to “men” as well as to “the women” since women are mentioned first. They were not only more numerous than the men but also more influential. That is brought out by the adjective which is added by a separate article and thus given special stress: τῶνεὑσχημοόνων, “of good form,” i. e., “of superior social standing.” This is the third time that we note that Greek women proselytes of the gate constituted an important element in a Jewish synagogue (13:50; 17:4; and we may note 16:14). Some think that Luke refers to pagan Grecian women and Grecian men or at least to some pagans in addition to proselytes of the gate. But this is untenable.

After the Christian congregation had been organized, these Jewish proselytes proved the means for reaching into the pagan world. At the beginning Paul and Silas were fully occupied in the synagogue. “Many,” “not a few,” Luke writes, thus not all the Jews and the proselytes yet a large number, the nucleus of an excellent congregation.

Acts 17:13

13But when the Jews from Thessalonica realized that the Word of God was proclaimed by Paul also in Berea, they came also there, stirring up and agitating the multitudes. And then immediately the brethren sent away Paul as far as to the sea; and both Silas and Timothy remained there.

News of the work done by Paul in Berea reached the vicious Jews of Thessalonica, and they at once repeated what the Jews of Pisidian Antioch and of Iconium had done when they hurried to Lystra to stop Paul’s work (14:19). They always direct their efforts at Paul, which is plain proof that he towered above his assistants. These are regarded as negligible: he draws the lightning. Silas became involved in difficulty in Philippi only because he happened to be found in Paul’s company at the moment (16:19). The same tactics were followed that had been set in motion in Thessalonica. They again probably hired the market loafers and then stirred up and excited the crowds.

But again they failed to lay hold on Paul and could find no other victim. One thing must be noted, namely that Luke in no way implicates any of the Berean Jews who had not accepted the gospel; none of them joined in this riot that was instigated by the Thessalonian Jews. When Luke writes that the latter went to this length because “the Word of God was proclaimed by Paul,” he speaks from his own point of view, for these Jews never admitted that it was the Word of God.

Acts 17:14

14At once and without waiting for night to come the brethren hurried Paul off. They profited by what had happened in Thessalonica. This again was the hand of providence which swiftly moved Paul on to a new field of labor. God merely used the hatred of Paul’s enemies to further the divine plans.

And now we come to a debatable point. While ἕως is the assured reading in preference to ὡς, and we must translate “until to the sea,” the question arises whether Paul and those with him went by sea or took a route overland. Luke nearly always mentions the harbors even in the case of short voyages, but he mentions none here (Dium, Pydna, or Methone). Codex Bezae inserts the remark that, because Paul was hindered from preaching in Thessaly, he passed this province by, which makes the impression that this commentating text had in mind a journey by land. The real object, however, is to explain why Paul made a journey as far as Athens. But if Paul went by land, why does Luke mention the sea?

It is this mention of the sea that induces us to decide for a journey by sea. The fact that no harbor is indicated we must leave unanswered. The A. V. reads ὡς, “as it were to the sea.” Thus Paul and his company would be throwing pursuit of them off the track by a ruse.

Silas had come to Berea with Paul, and so we are not surprised that he was left behind. But Timothy had been left in Philippi with Luke when Paul and Silas moved on from there (16:40). But now Timothy is in Berea and is left with Silas to aid the young church from which Paul is suddenly torn. A glance at Phil. 4:15, 16 reveals that the church at Philippi, where Luke and Timothy had been left, twice sent gifts to Paul while he was in Thessalonica. When he left Philippi he may have been poorly equipped. So the first gift was dispatched a day or two later, Timothy and some companion being the bearers of it.

Why Paul was in need in Thessalonica we see from 1 Thess. 2:9: he worked night and day in order not to be chargeable to his converts. When Timothy returned to Philippi and made this known, a second gift was promptly sent. Phil. 4:15 would indicate that Paul had moved on to Berea and that Timothy found him there. Thus it came about that Timothy and Silas were left at Berea when Paul hurried away.

Acts 17:15

15Now those conducting Paul brought him as far as Athens; and having received command to Silas and Timothy that they come to him as soon as possible, they left.

Paul did not travel alone even on this journey. Several Bereans conducted him, and that not only to the vessel but all the way to Athens, whose seaport was Pireus. There is silent testimony throughout the story of Acts that the churches solicitously guarded Paul even as here the Bereans send competent men with him who probably had made this journey more than once before this time. Now, why Paul went to Athens and just to Athens, no one can say. Some think that he intended to return to Macedonia as soon as it was safe and base this view on the vision and the call to this province (16:9). But Paul had traveled through all of Macedonia; he was certainly not to confine himself to this one province and must have realized that the work which the Lord intended he should do there in person would come to an end.

We thus conclude that Paul intended to begin work in new territory. When the Codex Bezae explains why Paul passed by Thessaly, we see that the explanation is only a comment that is drawn from 16:6, 7. Why had Paul gone through Amphipolis and Appolonia without stopping, and why had he halted nowhere between Puidian Antioch and Troas, not even stopping in Troas?

After they had arrived in Athens and had enjoyed a brief rest, Paul’s conductors return to Berea. But Paul sends instructions with them that Silas and Timothy are to hurry on to Athens. Thus Paul remained alone for a brief period. The aorists imply that Paul’s instructions were carried out and that Silas and Timothy did join him “as soon as possible” (ὡς with the superlative) in Athens. The ἵνα clause is simply sub-final and does not state the purpose but the contents of the ἐντολή or command. After Silas and Timothy came to Athens, we know from I Thess. 3:1–6 that in his anxiety regarding Thessalonica Paul sent Timothy back, who also returned to Paul with a most encouraging report.

But he joined Paul only after the apostle had gone on from Athens to Corinth (18:5). So Paul sent also Silas back to Macedonia; to what congregation in this territory is not stated. It was probably to Philippi. This mission of Silas’ is indicated in Acts 18:5 when Silas and Timothy come to Paul in Corinth. The movements of Paul’s assistants are mentioned only incidentally, and Luke makes no attempt to trace them in detail. After 18:5 Silas is not again mentioned, but Timothy is again mentioned in 19:22, and 20:4.

We may add that in 20:4 Sopater of Berea is in the group of men who are with Paul. This is the Sosipater who is with Paul in Corinth, cf., Rom. 16:21, together with Timothy and Jason of Thessalonica. Ἐξῄεσαν is the imperfect of ἔξειμι, “to go forth.”

THE SECOND MISSIONARY JOURNEY: ATHENS

Acts 17:16

16Athens, “the eye of Greece, the mother of arts and eloquence,” still held this position in the Greek world at the time of Paul’s visit to this city. It was filled with great memories of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, of Sophocles and Euripedes, of Pericles, and of Demosthenes. In its Agora, Socrates had walked with his pupils; here was the Academy of Plato, the Lyceum of Aristotle, the Porch of Zeno, the Garden of Epicurus. The Parthenon, the most beautiful of temples, crowned the Acropolis. Standing on its glorious height, the writer saw pages and pages of the ancient history of Greece and Athens spread out as on a map. The view is unforgettable.

At one time Athens dominated all the great cities around the Mediterranean that are located in Asia and in Europe. These political glories had taken wing. It was now only a provincial city in the province of Achaia with Corinth as its capital. This province had been restored to the Senate by Claudius in A. D. 44 and was thus governed by a proconsul.

This was a city that was entirely different from any that Paul had ever visited or was to visit. It is often described as a university town that was similar to those cities of our day that have great universities located in their midst; but this conception is misleading in more ways than one. It was the world center of art, but an art that was devoted chiefly to the idolatries of Greek mythology. Its great attraction today is the ruined Parthenon with the Erechteion on the far left and two amphitheaters far below on the right. Sculpture, Greek architecture, Greek theaters, schools of philosophies, literates of all kinds, all steeped in Greek paganism—this was Athens as Paul saw it in A. D. 52.

This is what the pagan Lucian has in mind, “When I first came to Athens I was astonished and delighted to see all the glory of the city.” Pagan writers remark regarding the plethora of temples and statues. Petronius satirically remarks that in Athens it was easier to find a god than a man. In his fine description Pausanias states that Athens had more images than all Greece put together. Xenophon calls Athens “one great altar, one great offering to the gods.” Livy writes, “In Athens are to be seen images of gods and men of all descriptions and made of all materials.” In the Agora every god of the Olympus found a place. Every public building was at the same time a sanctuary that was dedicated to one or to more gods. Besides the ordinary gods there were deifications of Fame, Modesty, Energy, Persuasion, etc.

Two things must be noted with regard to Paul as he appears in Athens. First, his feeling of intense indignation as he surveys the city. The glory he saw was utter shame. He was in no way humbled and abashed by the pride of this pagan flowering; he was only aroused to set the glory of God and of Christ where the glory of idolatry now spread itself. Secondly, Paul was in no way impressed by the philosophic show in this central seat of philosophic cults. The hollowness of it never impressed him more than here among its most ardent votaries.

Again his spirit strained at the leash to explode all this supposed wisdom by the divine Wisdom which is Truth. That is why Luke made the record about the work in Athens as it is. The body of it is Paul’s great address. The apostle meets the Athenians with a mastery such as they had never seen. All one needs to do is to place side by side the sentences of Paul and the Apology of Plato or any other of Plato’s writings. Athens is the measure of Paul.

Now while Paul was expecting them in Athens, his spirit was provoked within him, he beholding the city as being full of idols.

Since it was wholly new to him, Paul inspected this famous city during the first days of his visit while he was awaiting the arrival of Silas and Timothy for whom he had sent (v. 15). Here he beheld a city that was κατείδωλον, a word that is found only here but one that is formed with the perfective κατά: “excessive as to idols,” beyond any other city in this respect. It is, of course, self-evident that Paul was not thinking that the statues were idols instead of only representing imaginary idol beings. All images are idols just because they are representations of such beings. It has been well said that Paul was not impressed by mere art for art’s sake, no matter how perfect the art might be. That is the modern canon.

But art is never abstract, just as beauty is not. Beauty is a quality in something, and art the means of presenting that beauty. What that something is: falsehood, idolatry, and superstition with a heavy dose of sensualism, when it is presented with beauty and art, is the most vicious prostitution of both. Luke is not given to recording emotions. Hence when he here writes with the imperfect tense that Paul “was provoked,” stirred with sharp indignation even in his very spirit because of what he beheld at almost every step, the statement is the greater in force. The worse the prostitution of all this art, the more aroused Paul’s inner spirit became.

Note that the two present participles in the genitive absolute agree with the durative imperfect tense of the main verb.

Acts 17:17

17Accordingly, he began to reason in the synagogue with the Jews and those worshipping, and in the market place every day with those happening to be present.

Luke writes as though Paul had originally intended to wait for Silas and Timothy before he began his work of spreading the gospel in Athens. But, being stirred as he was, he could not delay. Yet he was not radical or rash; he followed his regular course of procedure. He went into the synagogue and reasoned (v. 2) with the Jews and “those worshipping” (see 13:43), the Greek proselytes of the gate. Little attention is often paid to this statement because Luke says no more regarding this work in the synagogue. But Luke says no more about it because he has already said so much in regard to it when sketching this type of work in the other cities and because he intends to tell us something about the work among the pagan Athenians.

Paul’s success in the synagogue is taken as a matter of course. A congregation was organized in Athens with the converts thus gained. This work in the synagogue was by no means “a slim chance” as it has been called.

Paul also spent a part of every day in the Agora conversing with the pagan Greeks who might happen to be there. This “market place” was by no means devoted only to selling and to buying all sorts of provisions. Nor was it frequented only by busy, bustling crowds that were occupied with nothing else. The Athenian Agora was also the public meeting place for philosophers and their following, for idlers and persons of leisure, a place of conversation, discussion, plus business. Under the great plane trees there stood the statues of some of the most famous men of the city such as Solon, Conon, Demosthenes. The Agora was replete with historical memories.

Everywhere the buildings were decorated with sculpture and impressive figures; some of the more prominent were graced with porticos and cloisters and beautified with paintings and ornaments. Here was the famous Painted Porch where philosophers and rhetoricians held forth. Here Zeno, the founder of Stoicism, had become famous. The cultural and the intellectual life of Athens throbbed in the Agora. Here Paul could always find an interested audience and men who were ready for serious discussion.

Acts 17:18

18Moreover, some also of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers were having discussions with him.

The imperfect tenses used in v. 16–18 resemble a moving picture and show us what was going on during these days. Yet a progress must be noted: Paul is provoked—he reasons in the synagogue and in the Agora—he has discussions with philosophers—two opinions about Paul are expressed: all this is expressed with imperfects. They lead up to the final outcome which is stated by the two aorists: in v. 19 “they brought” Paul, etc., and in v. 22, Paul “said” in his great address. Unless the tenses are understood and noted, Luke’s account is not fully appreciated.

The reasonings in the Agora were carried on with anybody who happened to be present (παρατυγχάνοντες). But it was not long before more important men were attracted, namely professional philosophers of the two great schools that were prominent in Athens, where they had been founded, and also in the entire Roman educational world. These συνέβαλλον (λόγους) αὑτῷ, literally, “kept throwing words or statements together with him,” “kept engaging him in discussion,” namely day after day. When these professionals engaged Paul in argument, the audience of lesser men increased to a great degree. Paul was creating somewhat of a sensation in Athens. And it is worth noting that he adapted himself to the Athenian ways by first gathering circles of hearers in their Agora and then entering into public discussions with their philosophers.

Luke uses only one article with the two kinds of philosophers, for they constituted one party and Paul alone was on the other side. The discussions were, no doubt, keen although entirely friendly. These philosophers followed this practice almost daily; it was their delight and diversion as well as their profession. They tolerated each other while they fought each other intellectually. They cultivated broad tolerance, and the Jewish fanaticism that always sought Paul’s blood was wholly foreign to them. Nothing is said about persecution of Paul in Athens.

The story of Socrates who had been tried and condemned to drink the poison hemlock Was a matter of the remote past. In his W. P. R. groups as follows: “Socrates had turned men’s thoughts inward (‘know thyself!’), away from the mere study of physics. Plato followed with a profound development of the inner self (metaphysics). Aristotle with his cyclopaedic grasp sought to unify and relate both physics and metaphysics.

But Zeno and Epicurus (840–272 B. C.) took a more practical turn in all this intellectual turmoil and raised the issues of everyday life. Zeno (336–260 B. C.) taught at the Stoa (Porch), and so his teaching was called Stoicism.” That of Epicurus bore its author’s name.

The Epicureans were quite atheistic in their speculation; they thought that the world was formed by a fortuitous concourse of atoms and was not created, not even formed by divine power. While they permitted a certain belief in the gods they treated them as phantoms who were without influence upon the world and upon life; they mocked at the popular mythology but presented nothing better. Thus their view of the soul was materialistic. At death it was dissolved and dissipated in the elements thus ending forever the existence of man. Life, therefore, was not regulated by higher moral or spiritual interests; its highest aim was gratification: gross and sordid, even vicious and criminal if one was inclined that way; or refined and esthetic if one had tastes and aspirations in this direction. Pleasure, ἡδονή, not duty was the substance of this philosophy.

The means to attain it was called virtue. This was a doctrine which could not produce anything but selfishness and sensuality when men put it into practice. Note how little advance certain schools of philosophy of today have made beyond this old Epicurus and his following.

The Stoics were pantheists; they condemned the worship of images and the use of temples, and considered them only as ornaments of art. God was merely the Spirit of Reason of the universe; matter was inseparable from this deity, and he was conceived as impressing order and law upon it since he regulated it as an inner principle. The soul was corporeal, at death it was burnt or absorbed into God. The Stoic moral code was higher than that of the Epicureans, their ideal being an austere apathy and unconcern which regarded itself superior to passion as well as to circumstance; pleasure was no good, pain no evil; reason was the guide and decided what was good and what was evil. He who followed reason was perfect and sufficient in himself. When reason saw no more in life, it dictated suicide as the most reasonable thing.

Its first two leaders died by their own hand, and the Romans who felt attracted to this sterner philosophy often followed their example. Stoicism was the philosophy of human pride. Seneca, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius espoused Stoicism. The poets Lucretius and Horace were Epicureans.

Both of these philosophies were diametrically opposed to Christianity with its doctrine of God, the soul, sin, redemption, salvation in Christ, the resurrection of the body, and eternal life.

And some began to say, What would this seed-picker say? and others, He seems to be a proclaimer of foreign divinities; because he was proclaiming as good news Jesus and the resurrection.

Luke does not write “some of them,” namely of the philosophers disputing with Paul, but “some” of those who heard the discussions. One group was supercilious and scoffed, the other was more serious and tried to understand. The question: “What would this seed-picker say?” of course, expects no answer. The sense is that what he says amounts to nothing. That is why Paul is called “this seedpicker,” σπερμολόγος. The interpretation of this word must be either literal or metaphorical.

Since we have no metaphorical equivalent, the literal alternative alone is left. Used-originally with regard to a bird “picking up seed” here and there, Athenian slang applied it to a man picking up an idea here and there and passing these on without a real knowledge of their meaning. Tindale’s “babbler” was adopted in our versions and is not far from the sense. Moffatt translated by interpreting “fellow with scraps of learning”; Goodspeed’s “ragpicker” is incorrect, M.-M. 583. These scoffers saw nothing worth-while in Paul. The question with the optative and ἄν is the apodosis of a condition of potentiality (B.-D. 385, 1; R. 1021), and οὗτος is derogatory (B.-D. 290, 6).

Καταγγελεύς as well as ξένωνδαιμονίων are to be understood from the Athenian point of view. The former has finally been found in an inscription in the sense of “announcer” of games, and the latter refers to “divinities” in the pagan sense. They were “foreign” because they were not known in Athens. We might translate “new.” R., W. P., thinks that Paul was treading on thin ice when he proclaimed Jesus as God in Athens, for this was contrary to Roman law and introduced a religio illicita; but these men did not have in mind the idea of an illegal religion, new divinities rather interested them because they might perhaps offer new ideas. The injection of something that was perhaps criminal on Paul’s part is unwarranted.

Luke explains on what this second opinion rested, namely on Paul’s preaching as good news—and the Athenians loved news!—“Jesus and the resurrection.” Some interpreters ask whether “the resurrection” was understood as a divinity. The imperfect, of course, shows that Luke adds this remark as being his own; but that does not exclude the idea that “the resurrection” was understood as a divinity by these Athenians. The main point is that Luke elucidates the plural “foreign divinities” by “Jesus and the resurrection” and not by a reference to the Trinity. And all know that the Athenians personified and worshipped as divinities all sorts of abstract virtues and truths (see above). We must note, too, that Luke writes only the abstract “the resurrection” and not “his (Jesus’) resurrection.”

Luke describes this result of Paul’s discussions in the Agora to show what a task the apostle was facing, and how hard it was even to make these lovers of philosophy and learning really understand what he meant. It is still so. Science, falsely so-called, often beclouds the intellect to such an extent that spiritual verities are not even intellectually understood, to say nothing of being accepted.

Acts 17:19

19And having taken hold of him, they brought him to the Areopagus, saying: Can we come to know what this new teaching uttered by thee is? for thou art bringing to our ears some things that are foreign. We desire, therefore, to know what these things intend to be. Now all Athenians and the resident foreigners were accustomed to have leisure for nothing other than to be stating something or to be hearing something brand new.

ὉἌρειοςΠάγος was the Hill of Ares (Mars) and, named from this Hill, the supreme Council of Athens, the Areopagus, which was called the Upper Council to distinguish it from the council of the Five Hundred. This Upper Council consisted of all who had held the office of Archon, and they were members of it for life. In the days of Chrysostom and of Theophylact it was supposed that Paul had been tried before the Areopagus. Then it was seen that the whole account contains not even a trace of a trial, and so it was thought that Paul was to give an account of his teaching to the high court of Athens on the supposition that this court exercised some sort of oversight over the teachings and the lecturers in Athens. The extreme was reached when a discussion arose regarding the place where Paul spoke, some insisting that it took place on the actual Hill of Mars but only before a dozen or more of philosophers whom some even call “professors”; others that it did not occur on Mars Hill but in the Stoa Basilica where the Council often met.

Now these points are certain. The only motive for requesting Paul to state his teaching was curiosity. The polite request and urging so states, and Luke himself adds that the Athenians always had plenty of time for anything new. The motive was not in the least hostile. We must not be misled by those who had called Paul “this seedpicker,” for they were not the ones who now asked him for a full statement of his new doctrine. The address itself undoubtedly fits Paul’s audience.

The two opening sentences, however, do not fit either Epicurean or Stoic philosophers; what their opinion of the gods was we have seen. Paul addressed a formal or informal meeting of the Council and many Athenians and resident foreigners who flocked in to hear Paul’s new teaching. In other words, Paul obtained a grand opportunity to present the gospel teaching concerning God and Jesus to a representative audience of the great and famous city of Athens, and he certainly rose to the occasion.

After going over Mars Hill in 1925 the writer must confess that he found nothing there that might prove helpful in this study. When one faces the Acropolis and the Propyla or entrance to the Parthenon, this rocky ridge lies to the left, and scores of century plants in the intervening space shoot up their tall stalks of bloom, prickly pear also growing in abundance. The hill is rough rock in its natural state. From the Parthenon one looks down upon it. The side that is toward the city is a steep descent, rough and hard to climb. On top we found two holes with conelike stonework in the excavations.

The side of the rocky hill away from the city is concave in contour, but all is in its natural rocky state. This slope, like the top, is an utter disappointment as far as even the remotest trace of a place where a court might have assembled is concerned. All the ancient amphitheaters show where the seats were, but on Mars Hill all is natural, apparently untouched rock. In imagination we tried to see Paul and his audience in the concave lower slope, but it was pure imagination. It is inspiring to imagine a Mars Hill with Paul delivering his great address on God before the Athenians on such an eminence, stone seats for the Areopagites, etc., but the Mars Hill of actuality sadly upsets all that.

When we then read the phrases ἐπὶτὸνἌρειονπάγον, in v. 22 ἐνμέσῳτοῦἈρείουπάγου, and in v. 33 ἐκμέσουαὑτῶν, the two latter especially compared with ἐντῷμέσῳ in 4:7 with regard to the Sanhedrin, we must think of some other place than Mars Hill. Reluctantly we dismiss the Hill and accept “the Areopagus” as being the Council of Archons, and the place of their meeting somewhere along the Agora—the Stoa Basilica will do. Curtiss may have missed it otherwise but not as far as the place is concerned. To speak about the noise of the Agora is inept, for here in the Painted Porch and in the Stoa Basilica and in other places as well all manner of meetings were held, and no noise interfered with them. “They took” Paul and “brought” him. They encouraged this stranger to come and then showed him the way. Politely they ask whether they may know this “new” teaching, and the position of the adjective makes it decidedly emphatic. The second article introduces the ὑπό phrase and also lends it an emphasis (R. 776) and is not superfluous.

Acts 17:20

20“New” is explained (γάρ) by ξενίζοντα, “being foreign” (participle), coming to Athens as a stranger guest. That is what attracts these Athenians; that is what is giving Paul this exceptional hearing. These men feel that Paul’s teaching is so new, so unlike anything else in Athens that their Areopagites ought also to hear it. Its newness will mightily interest them. They would like to know, too, “what these things intend to be” (the same expression as in 2:12), what their real purpose and aim are.

Acts 17:21

21With the parenthetic δέ Luke describes the outstanding characteristic of the Athenians so that we may evaluate this invitation properly. If they had time for nothing else they always had plenty of it for anything “newer,” just out and thus newer than what they had heard thus far. They were enamored of “the latest” as we should call it, both they and the resident foreigners who had come there and were living there for a while. They loved both to state and to hear something new. Both Thucidides and Demosthenes rebuke the Athenians for this passion for the new. It tended to make them exceedingly superficial.

They might welcome the gospel, the greatest news in the world, but only for an hour; when something newer came along, they would cast the gospel aside as being old. The world still has many religious Athenians. Religion must be progressive, have new doctrines, “advanced ideas,” not everlastingly repeat the old “categories or patterns of thought.” They are like the vain woman who would never dream of appearing in last year’s dress or hat.

Acts 17:22

22Paul had learned to take sinners as they are. The gospel had power to transform any of them. The old and ever new gospel was intended for all of them. Two Sanhedrists had been converted (Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathaea), so here one at least of the Areopagites (v. 34) was converted. And Paul, having taken his stand in the midst of the Areopagus, said, etc. The very words show what a dramatic moment this was for Paul.

He might have longed to have his helpers with him but he was all alone. All eyes were upon him. In all Greece there was no audience such as this. Without effort on his part it had assembled just for his sake. He was here by invitation, and every ear was keyed to hear anything he might say. He felt the full responsibility resting on him; he knew the Holy Spirit was with him.

No wonder Luke records his address.

The outward scene is usually pictured in order to bring out the dramatic side of it: the Acropolis with its wonderful Parthenon towering on the right which contained the golden statue of Minerva, the tutelary divinity of Athens; Mars Hill overlooking the city, the famous Agora beneath the Hill with all the great names of Athenian history attached to its Porches and its halls; the magnificent panorama of land and sea around, scenes of history and of fame that keep our students busy even after 2, 000 years. But we shall have to change all this and draw the picture by starting with the men of Paul’s audience, Athenians and residents, an assembly that was unique in many ways. It is just as dramatic, but internally and not merely externally. Parthenon, Hill, Agora, city and land; history, poetry, art, philosophy, and all else were there and lent their effect, but Paul faces these Athenian men. Note incidentally that nobody would write, “in the midst of Mars Hill” or any hill; “in the midst” of an assembly—yes. “In the midst of the Areopagus” means in the midst of the body of notables who were called “the Areopagus.”

Paul’s address is a masterpiece in every way: in its introduction, in its line of thought, in its aptness for the audience, in its climax. It is bold but it does not offend in a bungling manner; it refutes but it does this so as to convince and to win; it states the truth squarely and fully but so as to lift it far above the follies of error; it is reasonable but it is directed at the heart; it seeks to win men but only by glorifying God and the Lord Jesus Christ. It was not quite concluded but it did not fail of divinely given fruit. Just ask yourself, “If you had stood in Paul’s place that day, what would you have said?”

The theme is “the Unknown God” (v. 23). This God who is now revealed is the first part (v. 24–29); this God will judge through Jesus Christ, is the second (30, 31); it was probably to be followed by the third: this God delivers from judgment through Jesus Christ. The address is not philosophic. It was something brand new to these Athenians but surely refreshing and effective already for that very reason. It elevates both God and his creature, man, in a way which these Athenians had never heard before. Here was the truth—and oh, how insufficient it made their two great philosophies appear!

It drove straight at the conscience by its demand for repentance and its announcement of the divine judgment—yes, conscience, the one vulnerable spot in every human being. On the judgment day no man who heard Paul before the Areopagus can excuse himself with the plea that Paul did not tell him what he needed to be told.

Men of Athens, in all things I behold you as Unusually devoted to divinities. In fact, in passing through and noting your objects of worship I found even an altar on which had been inscribed, To the Unknown God. Now what without knowing you are worshipping, this I on my part am proclaiming to you.

Paul’s introduction is a gem because it leads so simply and so directly to his theme, which he also states in the clearest and most natural way. He intends to speak only a few minutes and thus keeps the proper proportion for his introduction and approach. ἌνδρεςἈθηναῖοι is the form of address used by Demosthenes and by all the orators and is thus exactly suitable for Paul. He is speaking to Athenian citizen. There were three classes of men in Athens: the citizens with the precious right of suffrage in the Assembly and of holding office (the latter being held by almost all in course of time), the residents who had neither right, and the slaves. Luke refers to the residents in v. 21 when he says that they were as avid to hear the latest as the Athenians themselves. Paul does not make the mistake of placing these foreign residents on a par with the citizens.

They were not at all on a par with them although some of them were present to hear Paul. To have named them on a par with the citizens would have been resented by the latter. In a synagogue Israelites and proselytes of the gate could be addressed together, but in Athens the Athenians and the mere residents could not be thus joined. While Ἀθηναῖοι is an adjective, it is here used as a noun in apposition with ἄνδρες, an idiom we cannot reproduce as little as we can reproduce ἄνδρεςἀδελφοί.

All uncertainty in regard to Paul’s opening statement is unnecessary, including that of Robertson who leaves it to exegesis and to one’s personal choice as to how Paul is to be understood. Pausanias and others had told the Athenians just what Paul is telling them, namely that to an unusual degree, above other Grecian cities, they are devoted to the cultus of divinities. That fact was more than obvious. The noun δαιμόνια, which is akin to the adjective, is to be understood in the Athenian sense of “divinities,” all kinds of gods, deified heroes, virtues, etc., and has nothing to do with “demons” in the sense of devils. And δείδω, the verb in the adjective, refers to “fear” in the sense of worship, devotion to the cultus pertaining to these divinities. Their statues, temples, shrines, and altars filled the public places and the city generally; from Zeus and Athene down they all had their devotees, and there were divinities and shrines in every house.

Let us remember that the heathen festivals were celebrated in grand style; all these temples had their priests (though not in the sense of a specific class but only as men elected by the Assembly of citizens); public and private functions were accompanied by sacrifices and by rites. This was true of other pagan cities, but Athens stood in the first rank because of the number of its divinities and the multiplicity of its statues and its shrines. This is what Paul refers to when he says: “I behold you as unusually devoted to divinities.”

The ὡς belongs to the object: “as devoted,” etc. (see examples in R. 481); it is not a conjunction with ὄντα to be supplied: “how or that you are,” as B.-D. 416, 1 supposes. The comparative contains no Vorwurf (censure) as the A. V.’s “too superstitious” implies. “Superstitious” conveys the wrong idea, and “somewhat” in the R. V. is a mistranslation of the comparative, “very” would be more correct. “Religious” (R. V. margin) also misleads. The Athenians were not “more religious” than pagans generally but had far more divinities to occupy their attention; in v. 18 Paul is regarded as introducing still more divinities, and the Athenians imagined that they had about all of them. What Paul says is that the Athenians were unusually devoted to divinities.

Paul was not addressing only a group of “university professors,” a misleading term for philosophers. This idea gives a wrong direction to the address and to the philosophers themselves. Paul had a large audience, and such philosophers as were present, despite their speculations, were agreed with the other citizens in all that pertained to the cultus of the divinities. Some might be called “atheists,” but this term was to be taken only in a philosophical sense and did not by any means apply as far as the public and even the private cultus of the divinities was concerned. Let a man assail Athene, the goddess glorified in the Parthenon, and the Assembly would have made short work of him; he would immediately have been brought before one of the panels of Five Hundred (jury and judge in one). Let us remember Athens as it was and get away from every university idea of today.

Acts 17:23

23Paul continues by saying that in passing through and inspecting their σεβάσματα or “objects of worship,” temples, altars, statues of divinities, he found one βωμόν that especially attracted his attention since it had engraved upon it the words ΑΓΝΩΣΤΩΘΕΩ, which is intended to be definite although it is without the article in the Greek: “To the Unknown God.” The idea expressed is not “to some Unknown God” but to a certain one whom the Athenians did not know as to his actual name, power, work, etc., as they knew their many other divinities. It was wholly immaterial to the apostle as to how and why this altar had been erected in Athens, or what polytheistic conceptions the Athenians might entertain concerning this “God.” He intended to regard this altar and its inscription only as a confession on the part of the Athenians that, despite their multitude of divinities, one God existed of whom they themselves said that, while they knew of him, they did not in any way know him.

It is going too far to claim that by this inscription the Athenians intended to set aside all their other gods, or that thereby they virtually set them aside. Paul makes no such deduction for them; he does not try to catch them with a trick of logic, which would have been about the worst thing he could have attempted. He had just said that the Athenians were most notable worshippers of divinities. This altar to the Unknown God was only one among hundreds and not prominent at all and certainly drew no worshippers away from other altars and other gods.

Commentators make much of what is here said by Paul and preserved by Luke. They point us to “the nameless god” mentioned in a vedic hymn; to old Egyptian records that mention “the great god whose name is unknown,” “God whose name is hidden,” etc.; and to the nine-story teocolli or mound built by the Aztecs and dedicated to the “unknown god, the cause of all causes.” Then, as far as Athens is concerned, we hear about Philostratus (A. D. 200–240), about Diogenes Laertius of about the same time, about Pausanias (160–180), who knew of altars to unknown gods; in addition to these pagans we find some of the ancient church fathers who bear similar testimony. In his Apostel-geschichte Zahn has an elaborate excursus. Stories as to how such an altar or a number of them came to be erected contribute nothing to Paul’s address. We pass all this late material by as being of little interpretative value.

The correct text reads ὃ … τοῦτο, “what … that,” neuter; not masculine: “whom … this one.” But the unacceptable nature of the latter reading does not lie in the fact that it would introduce the personality of God too soon, for the inscription itself had already introduced that, and Paul continues it in the next statement. Either reading would be proper for Paul’s address. The former is better because it says more than the latter. By erecting this strange altar and by the worship connected with it the Athenians were worshipping something about which they knew nothing whatever. They were taking this God for granted but were conceiving him to be one who was similar to their other gods. Paul is here to proclaim the very thing that is far from their knowledge, namely the facts about this God, the facts that will make them realize that all their other gods and divinities are fictions, base delusions, to be forever cast aside.

But the thought that the apostle might thus be proclaiming a religio illicita contrary to Roman law was wholly foreign to his mind; he was using no turn of language in order shrewdly to evade a legal charge. To think of such an act on his part is to assail his character.

Acts 17:24

24God who made the world and all the things therein, this One, being heaven’s and earth’s Lord, does not dwell in handmade sanctuaries, nor by men’s hands is he served as needing something, he himself giving to all life and breath and all things. And he made out of one man’s blood every nation of mankind to settle on the face of the earth, having destined their appointed seasons and the boundaries of their settlement—for them to be seeking God if, indeed, they might touch him and find him, he even being not far from every one of us; for in him we live and move and are, as also some of the poets among you have said, For of him even offspring are we. Being offspring of God, we ought not suppose the divine nature to be like to gold or silver or stone, a thing graven of man’s technique and conception.

Paul is preaching natural theology as he had done in Lystra (14:15, etc.). The Scriptures also contain all of this theology; but in dealing with pagans an appeal to the Scriptures as Scriptures would be useless, hence Paul appeals to the mighty facts themselves as even pagans may see them and realize their direct import. He presents God, the omnipotent Creator, Ruler, and Benefactor, who is absolute and sufficient in himself. He lays special stress on man’s relation to God, who as his creature is altogether dependent on him and his gifts, the very offspring of God, who is intended to worship God. All this Paul does in a simple, direct, and grand way by stating the realities as they are and by relying on them as realities that are able of themselves to enlighten and to fill his hearers’ hearts with full conviction. Truth needs no argument, it never does, for it is its very nature to convince.

By ὁΘεός Paul does not have in mind one God among many others such as Zeus, the chief god of Greek paganism, but “God” who alone is God and by his revelation of himself in nature and among men establishes this fact regarding himself. Over against the vain gropings of paganism, including their mythologies and their philosophies, the apostle sets the first chapter of the Bible: “God who made the world (τὸνκόσμον, the ordered universe) and all things therein,” great and small, visible and invisible. Nothing came into being of itself or arranged itself, nothing was before God, nothing has its origin apart from him. The philosophies of science to this day disprove themselves whenever they set aside and operate without this elementary reality.

“This One,” the emphatic οὗτος, resumes this tremendous reality and then restates it: “being heaven’s and earth’s Lord,” for as the Creator of all he is their one master and ruler who is infinitely greater than any and all things called into being by him. When he is conceived thus as he is in his supreme eminence, the very foundation of idolatry is forever abolished in its emptiness. But Paul does not state this abstractly, he puts it in a concrete way so that the philosopher and the common man alike may get its full force: this Creator-Lord “does not dwell in handmade sanctuaries.” How could the Creator and Lord of all be confined in one of the little spots he himself has made? So Solomon once asked regarding the Temple he had built, 1 Kings 8:27. All these sanctuaries are “handmade,” fashioned by human hands. That adjective reveals what they are in comparison with the universe which is made by God who is greater than even this universe.

Acts 17:25

25Connected with this first deduction is the second which is involved in it: “nor by men’s hands is he served as needing something.” The emphasis is on the first phrase, “by men’s hands,” and then on the final participial phrase, “as needing something.” The verb θεραπεύεται is exactly proper to express the thought intended, rendering someone a service that he needs as the sick man must have the service of a physician. The service of worship: adoration, praise, prayer, petition, is a totally different thing. By it we profit and not God, nor does it supply a need in God.

The very reverse is true: “he himself giving to all life and breath and all things”; ζωή, life in its essence and existence, “breath,” its continuance in our bodies, “and all things,” adding all else to the two supreme gifts of our natural being. Three words, and yet they go to the very heart of our dependence upon God. “He himself giving” is the proper verb even as to the tense. Not only this or that is a gift, but our very existence is such a gift and a gift that flows on and on like a glorious stream. But the moment this mighty reality concerning God is grasped the whole conception of pagan offering and sacrifices as needed by the gods so that they must insist on being supplied, is abolished. So also the multiplicity of gods, one doing this, another that for his votaries; some in one country and nation, some in another. Life and breath have one source; above us is one Creator, Ruler, Preserver, Benefactor.

Paul’s presentation must have struck especially the philosophers who had learned in different ways to scorn the gods of Grecian mythology. That really was no great achievement for thinking men. But what had their speculation put in place of the gods? Here at last was the true reason for scorning all pagan gods, not a veiled atheism, a vapid pantheism, or a supercilious skepticism which left the great questions regarding the cosmos, man, the course of men and of nations, etc., unanswered in helpless ignorance but a clear, full, efficient grasp of the truth—the one true and only God before whom all debasements of his being simply fade away.

Acts 17:26

26In the same way, by trusting the power of truth to win its way against error, the apostle speaks about anthropology, especially about the intentions of God regarding man. First, the unity of the human race: “And he made out of one man’s blood every nation of mankind to settle on the face of the earth.” The entire human race in all its different nations sprang from one man. The R. V. follows the texts which drop the word “blood.” Zahn marshals the reasons for retaining the word as is done in the other texts, such as the A. V. If ἐξἑνός is placed next to πᾶνἔθνος, the numeral would be neuter: “out of one nation” he made every nation, etc.

Standing by itself, ἐξἑνός could not be determined as masculine. But if we read ἐξἑνὸςαἵματος with πἅνἔθνοςἀνθρώπων following, the sense would be, “out of one man’s blood every nation of men” and not merely, “out of one blood,” etc.

The Athenians were fond of being called αὑτόχθονες, indigenae, “indigenous” (see Liddell and Scott on the word). Paul, however, deals with something that is more important than Athenian pride. The different pagan mythologies had their different accounts of man’s origin. Over against all of these he places the one true God who created Adam, the one progenitor of the human race. This fact, recorded on the very first page of the Bible, our science has proved over and over again to its own satisfaction, finding also human blood vitally different from all other blood since it permits cross-fertilization in all human races.

Some of the German commentators translate πᾶνἔθνοςἀνθρώπων “alles Menschenvolk,” “all humanity.” They think of ἔθνος as it is used with reference to bees, ants, migrating birds, and the like, as a collective noun; but this does not agree with the very next clause where national diversity is evidently referred to. So we abide by “every nation of men.” These God made to settle over all the earth, one here, another there. But not in a haphazard way but as: “having destined their appointed seasons and the boundaries of their settlement,” αὑτῶν modifying both “seasons” and “settlement.” God allotted to each nation both its period and its geographical location according to the wisdom and beneficence of his providence. Zahn finds much fault with the reading and, as so often, resorts to the Codex Bezae which has: “according to their settlement boundary”; but this reading overlooks the resultant sense, namely that God destined or fixed the seasons according to the boundary of the territory settled—a strange way of doing! Here again this codex, while trying to improve, did the opposite.

God’s hand has ever been and still is in history, Nations begin, rise to full development, finally decline. Historians trace out their courses, and thousands of natural causes are found to be at work. But these are but the surface. Underneath, over, within is the unseen Hand that guides and directs according to the supreme Will. We see the pattern from below, as it appears on the wrong side of the cloth; someday we shall see it as God weaves it, the right side, which is beautiful and perfect.

Acts 17:27

27Paul is not solving the mysteries of providence. All that he presents in v. 26 with regard to God’s doings with the men he made and with the nations he arranged is to bring out the supreme purpose of God regarding men: “for them to be seeking God,” etc. Ζητεῖν is the infinitive of purpose, its subject is implied, namely men: “for them to be seeking.” The implication is that men had lost God. This was a thought that was already implied in the reference to idol worship (v. 25), in fact, already in the mention of the altar “to the Unknown God.” It is not God’s will to remain unknown, he wants men to seek and to find him and to enter into communion with him. All God’s dealings with men show that this is his great purpose; God’s creation of man and his providence place this beyond doubt. All false ideas about God, in particular agnosticism, atheism, pantheism, skepticism, to say nothing of polytheism and paganism, destroy the right relation of man to God and the attainment of the divine purpose.

The optatives are due to indirect discourse; εἰ is used for ἐάν with original subjunctives. That means that we here have a condition of expectancy. The ἄρα argrees with this and γε emphasizes, expressing, as always, a natural correspondence, namely, in this instance, that what God has done will, indeed, cause men to touch and to find him. So the expectancy is strengthened: “if, indeed, they might touch him and find him.” The “haply” of our versions is misleading; it weakens the expectation. We are sorry to note that R., W. P., supports that idea by speaking of a “vague hope” in regard to the condition’s being met.

Paul expresses a distinct and clear expectation. That is what all ἐάν conditions do; and he even emphasizes it as being proper by ἄραγε. And καίγε agrees with this, γε strengthening καί; “he even being not far from every one of us.” So near is he that one is fully entitled to expect that men will find him. And this is surely the case. The heavens declare the glory of God, everything points to him, the expectation must be that men will find God.

This is, of course, only natural revelation, and it cannot do what lies in the province of Scripture and of supernatural revelation. It cannot save man; but it can and does reveal the existence of God, of his majesty, glory, omnipotence, omniscience, beneficence, righteousness, and justice. So the expectation voiced by Paul is that, to say the least, men may, indeed, touch and find him. Paul is speaking about what God has a right to expect, in fact, the fullest right. The fact that men grossly disappoint him in this expectation is another matter, one that leaves them in the most fearful guilt. On that phase of the subject Paul speaks with equal clearness in Rom. 1:19–23.

Here at Athens, however, Paul is trying to open the eyes of pagans to what God has given them: the cosmos to testify of him, their existence in the midst of endless beneficence, their nation in its development in a grand location on the earth with all that thus made Greece and especially Athens great. God had every right to expect that men such as those of Athens would long ago have arrived at a true and an adequate natural conception of their Creator, Ruler, and Benefactor. A silent, shaming question runs through the apostle’s words: “Why had the Athenians not done so, they who even regarded themselves as standing so high among the nations?”

Acts 17:28

28In order to bring out the idea as to how near God is to man in his natural state, the apostle does not appeal to the abstract omnipresence of God but to this omnipresence in its beneficent effect: “for in him we live and move and are.” To live is more than to move, which even the inanimate creatures may do; to move is more than merely to be, to exist. Here, then, is an anticlimax. Man should be cognizant of God, for without him he could not live for a moment, could not move hand or foot, could not in any way even exist. This is a cardinal passage on the divine providence of God including the praeservatio and the so-called concursus. “In him” is more than “through him”; it expresses a wonderful immanence, yet, as the clear enunciation of creation and providence and the absolute self-sufficiency of God show, without even an approach to pantheism.

Gibson has translated the Syriac commentary on Acts written by the Nestorian bishop Ischodad, of Chadeth on the Euphrates, about 850. This bishop quotes a certain Greek poet who wrote in praise of Zeus, and one of the lines reads: “For through thee we live and move and are.” From Chrysostom’s comment on Titus 1:12, Zahn concludes that this Greek poet was Epimenides, and the title of his composition was, “On Minos and Radamanthys.” The Greek original has been lost, and Paul’s statement is not metrical in form, nor does he indicate that he is quoting. All that one may say is that Paul may have read Epimenides and have used his statement in a formulation of his own.

He continues, “As also some of the poets among you have said.” He refers to several Greek poets, and from one of them he quotes the last half of the hexameter: “Ever and in all ways we all enjoy Jupiter, for we are also his offspring.” This is taken from Aratus, a countryman of Paul himself, who was born in the Cilician coast town of Soli about 310 B. C., and died about 240. He was a versatile man, a mathematician, astronomer, medic, court poet of the Macedonian king Antigonus Gonatus, editor of Homeric epics for the Syrian king Antiochus I Soter. He lived in Athens for years and was a pupil of Zeno, the founder of Stoicism. In Athens he composed his Phaenomena, which promptly became celebrated and was admired in the Greek-speaking world for centuries and was translated into Latin by Cicero and by Caesar Germanicus. Paul had certainly read this composition.

By using the plural “some of the poets among you” he indicates his conversance with others who say about the same thing as Aratus. One of them is the Athenian Stoic Cleanthes who for thirty-two years was leader of the Stoic school. In his famous hymn to Zeus he identifies himself with the whole human race and even with all mortal beings that live and crawl on earth and declares: ἔκσουγὰργένοςἐσμέν, κτλ., “for from him we are offspring.” A third poet is probably Timagenes who is named by Chrysostom in this connection, a writer of comedies of whom little is known.

On two other occasions Paul quotes from Greek poets. He quotes Menander in 1 Cor. 15:33, and a full hexameter from Epimenides of Crete in Titus 1:12. The question is naturally asked as to how far Paul was conversant with Greek literature, in particular with poetry. When Paul quotes verbatim as he did in these three cases he thereby shows a rather thorough acquaintance with Greek literature, he particularly demonstrates that he had studied and retained in memory certain striking passages. Paul was fully equipped to appear before the Athenians. His quiet reference to several of their poets and the exact quotation from one who was famous gently inform his hearers that he is not a stranger to their learning.

The words are quoted as Aratus wrote them; Paul omits neither γὰρ nor καί. We scan: — — | — υυ |— υ : Τοῦγὰρ | καὶγένος | ἐσμέν. Here τοῦ is to be taken in its original sense as a demonstrative pronoun. The quotation from an Athenian poet is in the nature of an argumentum ad hominem. Zeus, of course, is not the true God but only the head of the mythological gods; but if the Greek poets themselves declared man to be his γένος (from γίνομαι as having “become” from him), that was an inkling of the real truth that the true God called us into being, preserves, and keeps us as such, in other words, treats us as his “offspring” which we are. The quotation is intended to refer to all that precedes in v. 26–28 and is certainly telling for this particular audience.

Acts 17:29

29Paul then draws the simple, self-evident conclusion that God’s own offspring certainly ought to know τὸθεῖον better than to imagine (νομίζειν) that “the divine nature,” that which God really is, could possibly be represented and pictured by anything made of gold or silver or stone, however skilfully it may be graven by man’s “technique” in these materials and of his “conception” bodied forth in such material. God certainly must be conceived as being infinitely greater than man whom he has made; hence he cannot be like (ὅμοιον) anything that is far beneath man, namely metal and stone although it be worked up ever so artistically by man’s art and thought.

Paul acknowledges all the art and the genius manifested in the statues of Athens but points out that, even when these are applied to the highest degree in the finest materials, they do so little justice to God that they do not even do justice to man and the conception he ought to have of his Maker, Ruler, and Benefactor. The idea of the apostle is thus not like that expressed in Isa. 44:9, etc., that the image made by man is itself considered to be a god by its maker. Paul advances beyond that. Such an image, man himself ought to realize, cannot even represent or picture God. Paul intends to say that the Athenians should certainly have touched and found God sufficiently, so that they would know that as the One in whom we live, move, and are, no images of gold, silver, or stone, a thing fashioned by the creature could in the least be like God. And he properly uses τὸθεῖον, “the divine nature,” that which is peculiar to God; for this is what would have to be embodied in an image. On its very face this is an impossibility.

Our versions mistranslate, for τὸθεῖον, is ἡθεώτης, das Goettliche, das, was Gottes ist, and not ἡθεότης, das Gottsein, das, was Gott ist, “the Godhead,” cf., C.-K. on these words, 490, etc. And what is peculiar to God and places him vastly above all material images is not merely the fact of his being spirit, as has been thought, but his infinite majesty and glory which transcend all human power of conception. These Athenians had been entertaining too low a conception of the divine nature; their city full of statues was a great reflection on their intelligence. No wonder the philosophers rejected the gods that were thus represented. But what had they to put in place of them, gods that had a nature that could be pictured in metal and stone? Nothing!

Paul shows them what to put in place of all these gods: the infinite greatness, power, and glory of the one true God who is revealed already in the cosmos of his creation and in man, his offspring. The words of the apostle were few, but in all the philosophies and the poetry of Greece nothing had ever been uttered that even approached the power of these statements of Paul’s.

Acts 17:30

30After these fundamentals in regard to God and to man have been stated, the apostle advances to the revelation which God made in Christ. He naturally passes over the revelation made in the old covenant (he is speaking to pagans) and shows his hearers what God now offers them. The times of the ignorance, accordingly, God having overlooked, as regards things now he passes the order along to all men for all everywhere to be repenting inasmuch as he set a day in which he is about to judge the inhabited earth in righteousness in the person of a man whom he ordained, having furnished assurance to all by having raised him up from the dead. One God, one human race; and now one way of salvation, one judgment: these are the lines of the apostle’s address.

Paul did not need to say that the purpose of God that men should seek him had not been met on the part of the Athenians; their polytheistic sanctuaries and statues were evidence enough of their failure in this regard. What did God do? Besser replies: “Had he looked at the Athenians with the fire flames of his holy eyes, there would have been no Athenian this many a day.” But God “overlooked the times of the ignorance” by looking at Christ and the plan of salvation for the coming ages. He bore the idolatries of the Gentiles, he ceased not to reveal himself to them in nature and in providence, and because of their guilty ignorance he made them feel his wrath by giving them over to the effects of this ignorance, their depravity. But at last the great day for which God had so long been preparing and waiting in patience and in love had arrived: redemption was complete, the gospel could go forth to all the world.

So Paul says τανῦν, “as regarding things now” (adverbial accusative), since a new era has begun for all mankind through Christ. Now God “is passing the order along to all men for all everywhere to be repenting.” He has sent out his heralds to all nations with the call to repent. At this very moment God was giving this order to the Athenians through Paul. Note the universality: “to men” as men—“all everywhere” with not a single exception. It is thus that Paul explains his presence in Athens and his preaching to the Athenians. On μετανοεἴν see 2:38.

The present tense is used because of the succession implied in “all everywhere”—ever more men are to repent. They are to turn to the true God from their idols and their ignorance with an inward change of heart. Paul has not yet mentioned Christ; he will do so in a moment. But repentance is in place already on the basis of what Paul has presented thus far.

Acts 17:31

31Καθότι is causal, “in consideration of this,” “in accord with this reason.” And the reason that God now orders all men to repent is the fact that “he did set a day in which he is about to judge the inhabited earth in righteousness.” As he appointed certain times and certain locations to every nation, so he has set a day of final judgment for all men. He is a righteous God, and his judgment will be “in righteousness,” in harmony with this principle of his being. It will be a judgment that all men will acknowledge as right; for it will condemn all those who persist in turning away from God and will exonerate all those who allow themselves to be brought to God by his revelation and his grace. As God made all men and intends that they shall seek and find him, so all must appear before his judgment; ηοἰκουμένη (γῆ), “the inhabited earth,” is here a term for all mankind.

By referring to God’s righteous judgment Paul is aiming directly at the consciences of his hearers. His whole presentation has moved in this direction and is now being driven home. For so long a time these Athenians had been blind to God’s revelation of himself in nature and in their own being; they were no longer blind since Paul had pointed out God to them in a way that brushed aside all their false representations of the divine nature. Must they now not turn and be drawn to God? How would they meet him at the great day of judgment when righteousness would flood them with its revealing light?

At this point Paul brings in Christ. The great feature about this judgment will be that God will execute it ἐνἀνδρὶᾦὥρισεν, “in the person of (ἐν in this sense, R. 587) a man whom he ordained” (the relative is attracted to the case of its antecedent). Paul emphasizes the human nature of Christ as Christ himself does in John 5:27 when he speaks of his executing judgment as “the Son of man.” He who died for us and rose again for our justification in his human nature, he shall be the judge at the last day who will pronounce the verdict as to whether a man has accepted or has rejected the redemption bought at such a price. Paul says that God will judge in the person of this man, God set the day, God ordained the man. He is preaching God to these pagans in mighty terms. As far as Christ is concerned, they will accept him only as one who was ordained by God.

The thought that all men were to be judged by a man was not new to Paul’s hearers; but the mythological form of this idea current among them made this man a nebulous ancient being such as Minos and Radamanthys and thus turned the whole conception into something dim and ineffective. As the apostle had lifted God into a clear vision for his hearers, so he did the same with regard to Christ, the Judge. It was God himself who ordained this man to be the judge, “having furnished assurance to all by having raised him up from the dead.” All are to know that God so ordained him, their assurance is God’s raising him up. Παρέχω (here the second aorist participle) πίστιν means “to furnish trustworthy assurance or evidence,” that assurance being Christ’s resurrection. Some refer πίστιν to saving faith and say that the participle extends such faith to all; but this does not agree with the expression itself which means Buergschaft leisten, Unterpfand gewaehren (B.-P. 1061). The argument that μετανοεῖν requires that πίστις in the sense of saving faith should follow, does not show that it follows in this expression. Paul had not finished his address, more was to follow.

Paul held his hearers in suspense by not at once naming this man. Who could he be? It was the very question Paul intended to provoke in order the more effectively to present the great truth that God appointed this man Judge because God first of all made him our Savior. The fact that God raised this man from the dead and by that astounding act sealed him as Judge was the first part of Paul’s answer to the question as to who this man was. But instead of opening their ears wider to hear more about this man these Athenians gave way to a scoffing, skeptical spirit. They interrupted Paul, broke off his address, and would hear no more. On ἐκνεκρῶν see 3:16.

Paul’s address in Athens has been called philosophy. Instead of preaching the gospel, Paul is said to have tried something else for the benefit of these educated Athenians. To this is added the statement that Paul failed. This claim is extended, and Paul is thought to have left for Corinth, a thoroughly disappointed and discouraged man. We are told that he never again tried to preach as he had done in Athens. Evidence for these ideas is found in the fact that Luke fails to mention any baptisms that were performed in Athens, any congregation, any appointment of elders.

Then 1 Cor. 2:1–5 is introduced as though Paul returned to Christ crucified and abandoned philosophy when he worked in Corinth. But if Paul’s address in Athens was a mistaken resort to philosophy or, softening this, a mistaken mode of trying to reach his hearers, why did Luke report this address in full? Paul succeeded in Athens (v. 34). Luke lays so much stress on this masterly address that he makes it the main part of his report in regard to Athens. The fact that the persons mentioned in v. 34 were baptized goes without saying; Luke does not always mention the baptisms. A congregation was certainly organized, its size is immaterial.

Acts 17:32

32But on hearing the resurrection of the dead some began to mock, others said, We will hear thee concerning this yet again. Thus Paul went out from their midst. Some men, however, closely drawn to him, believed, among whom was also Dionysius, the Areopagite, and a woman by name Damaris, and others with them.

Already in v. 18 Luke has told us that the resurrection attracted attention. Now the moment Paul mentions it again “some began to mock” with derisive exclamations. We can scarcely imitate ἀνάστασιννεκρῶν with its absence of articles, Totenauferstehung, such a thing as dead men being raised. The very idea was preposterous to these scoffers. It is impossible to determine whether these scoffers were Epicureans or Stoics. We have stated what these philosophers believed regarding the state of the soul after death; the Greeks otherwise believed that the soul lived on. But even the ordinary Greeks had absolutely no conception that the body could or did arise. So they just laughed at Paul. “If the judge before whom thou citest us is one risen from the dead, we little fear him!” Besser.

Others were indeed willing, they said, to hear Paul again about this matter. This is usually taken to be only politeness on the part of those who had invited Paul before this audience. Yet it may well have been real interest so that they did hear Paul again.

Acts 17:33

33Thus Paul went out from their midst. The famous address had been held.

Acts 17:34

34But now comes the glorious result. Some men were closely drawn to Paul (literally, “glued to him”) and could not tear themselves away from him. These constituted the third class among those who had heard Paul. And Luke at once adds that they believed, believed already on the strength of what Paul had said. The aorist is historical. 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 signal victory. About 100 to 120 years later, as Eusebius reports (4, 23, 3, also 3, 4, 11), the bishop of Corinth by the same name in a letter to the church at Athens speaks of this Dionysius who was converted by Paul as having been the first bishop of Athens. His very standing as an Areopagite would certainly have made him the man to become chief elder in the infant congregation.

Luke speaks of ἄνδρες “men,” and yet adds a woman and even records her name, Damaris. This causes a good deal of discussion. How did it come about that she was present? She was not the wife of Dionysius, which Luke does not state. Some regard her as a ἑταίρα (Liddell and Scott) at the expense of her character, for instance as an educated courtesan. Even her name is altered as though Damaris had been written instead of Damalis (heifer).

Abbott-Smith makes the name a derivative from the poetic word for wife δάμαρ, which is better. One thing is certain, her presence helps to answer the view that Paul spoke to only a dozen or a score of philosophers. The very mention of her plus her name proves that she was a woman of consequence who could be present at this meeting to hear Paul and was of great importance in the congregation. There were also others, but all of them were men. But these were the first to believe. Paul remained and continued to work.

We need not think that he at once left Athens. This beginning would detain him until he could leave the young flock in security. Because Luke says no more is no reason to think that more converts were not added and that a congregation was properly organized and put on its feet.

NOTE: Manuals on Logic define the argumentum ad hominem as an attack on an opponent’s character instead of an answer to the subject of discussion. When I speak of Paul’s argumentum ad hominem on page 733 I do not accept this definition. John 8:48 is not an argumentum ad hominem but vicious vilification. He who runs out of argument attacks the person. This is the abandonment of all argument, the open admission of defeat in all argument. The definition of the argumentum ad hominem is given by the Standard Dictionary under “argumentum”: “An argument proving a conclusion from the principles or practices of an opponent himself: often by showing them to be contrary to his argument.” International Cyclopedia: “An appeal to the known prepossessions or admissions of the person addressed.” This argumentum is legitimate and sound, and in the sense here defined I use the term throughout.

M.-M The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament Illustrated from the Papyri and other non-Literary Sources, by James Hope Moulton and George Milligan.

R A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. 4th edition.

B.-D Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage, besorgt von Albert Debrunner.

C.-K. Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von Dr. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.

B.-P Griechisch-Deutsches Woerterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments, etc., von D. Walter Bauer, zweite, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage zu Erwin Preuschens Vollstaendigem Griechisch-Deutschen Handwoerterbuch, etc.