Founding a New Church


Acts 17:1-4

When departing from Philippi, Paul had to choose whether to go backward or forward, whether to return to Asia and solidify the gains already made there or to press on into Europe. Determined to evangelize new regions, he went forward. He set off along the westward road taken by travelers to Rome. This was the major Roman road known as Via Egnatia, which ran through Philippi as it followed a course connecting Byzantium (later known as Constantinople, today as Istanbul) to the east and Dyrrachium to the west. Dyrrachium was a port on the Adriatic Sea allowing travelers to embark on a short voyage to Brindisi in Italy, then continue on a fairly straight line to Rome. In its western portion on the Balkan Peninsula, the Via Egnatia followed a difficult track through the mountains, but it was easygoing where Paul, Silas, and Timothy journeyed. Like other Roman roads, it was a well-constructed avenue about twenty feet wide paved with either stone or hard sand.

The road led the missionary team through Amphipolus and Apollonia, both large cities, but Paul and his companions did not linger in either place. Their destination was Thessalonica, the capital of Macedonia. As the largest and most important city in the region, with a population perhaps as much as 200,000, it was a good strategic choice for their next presentation of the gospel.

After walking about one hundred miles, the travelers finally reached Thessalonica. For both Paul and Silas, who bore fresh wounds from the beating they endured in Philippi, the journey must have been severely taxing. Every step was further descent into weariness and pain.


Getting Practical


Tough or soft

Many men and boys today pride themselves on being tough. Before they swell up in vanity, however, they should compare themselves with the apostles. They should ask themselves whether they, like the apostles, could plod on day after day in the work of God despite unceasing body-breaking afflictions. Or would such afflictions, as they would most people in our day of soft living, reduce them to moaning in bed?

After arriving in the city, Paul, in line with his usual practice, went into the Jewish synagogue to preach Jesus. His strategy for reaching Jews was to show that Jesus fulfilled the prophecies of the Old Testament. So, for three Sabbaths he expounded the texts foretelling that Christ would die for our sins and rise again, and he argued that Scripture was referring to recent events. The long-awaited Christ who died and rose again exactly as prophecy required was the man Jesus. Luke says of Paul’s preaching that he "reasoned with them." His method was properly called reasoning because he showed an agreement between prophecy and historical facts that could not reasonably be dismissed as mere coincidence.

The effect on his hearers was to force a decision to believe or not believe. Among the Jews, some believed, but among the God-fearing gentiles, the number who believed was a multitude, including some of the upper-class women.


Turmoil


Acts 17:5-9

Paul’s success provoked an angry reaction among the Jews who did not believe. The root motive of their opposition was envy, as it had been years before when unbelieving Jews denounced Paul in Antioch of Pisidia. Paul’s opponents in Thessalonica must have included leaders of the synagogue, who foresaw that the followers of his religion would band together and choose their own leaders, while turning away from the synagogue and its leaders. So, the Jews who refused to believe were afraid of losing power and influence.

Their opposition was carried to an extreme showing that these Jews who prided themselves on keeping the law had no concept of true godliness. The law required justice and mercy (Matt. 23:23), but the unbelieving Jews waged a campaign against Christ’s apostles that can only be described as unscrupulous and vicious. They found allies among "lewd fellows of the baser sort"—in other words, thugs. Then, by gathering a crowd of citizens and haranguing them with false accusations against the men of God, they managed to whip up the whole city into a state of rage. With a vanguard of hooligans who loved violence for its own sake, they attacked the house where they expected to find Paul and his missionary team. It was the house of a believer named Jason. But the team was gone. Rather than go away empty-handed, the mob seized Jason together with some fellow believers and dragged them before the rulers of the city.


Delving Deeper


The rulers in Thessalonica

The Greek term translated "rulers" is politarchs, a title found nowhere in the writings of ancient historians. Yet it does appear in numerous inscriptions as a title for magistrates in Macedonian cities including Thessalonica. At the time of Paul’s visit to the capital city, it was under a governing board of five politarchs. So, we come to more evidence that Luke was familiar with the times and places that furnish a setting for his narrative.

Now the mob had to state charges serious enough to legitimize what they had done. The ringleaders cried out that these preachers of Christ were troublemakers, causing civil unrest wherever they went. Perhaps news of Paul’s evangelistic work in Philippi and other places had preceded him. But notice verse 6: "These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also." It is doubtful that Paul’s enemies would have represented his impact as worldwide. More likely, they were aware that the gospel had already gone well beyond the reach of Paul’s ministry, and by "these" they meant all Christian evangelists. Perhaps news of the recent action taken by Claudius Caesar had spread as far as Thessalonica. The Roman historian Suetonius records that Claudius, who reigned from AD 41 to 54, issued a decree expelling all "Jews from Rome, on account of the riots in which they were constantly indulging, at the instigation of Chrestus." Another historian, Orosius, dates the edict in AD 49 or 50. From a vantage several decades after the event, Suetonius garbled the facts slightly when he misspelled "Christus" (Latin for "Christ") as "Chrestus" and when he accused Christ of being the instigator of the riots, but the information he provides makes it obvious what really happened. The general opinion of Bible scholars is that the riots started when Christian preachers came to Rome and tried to evangelize the Jewish community. There, as in many cities where Paul introduced the gospel, entrenched Jewish leaders incited their followers to violent protest. The disturbances in Rome and Caesar’s crackdown to stop them may well have become common knowledge in all other major seats of government throughout the Roman world. Caesar’s decree aimed at ridding Rome of the trouble caused by preachers of Christ may have been uppermost in the minds of the Jews in Thessalonica when they accused Paul’s team of doing "contrary to the decrees of Caesar."


Delving Deeper


Early date for beginnings of historic Christianity

Many skeptics have, in their attempt to reconstruct the rise of Christianity, viewed it as a movement evolving gradually from something distinctly Jewish to something distinctly gentile, with corresponding changes in doctrine and practice. Yet the new movement became a revolutionary presence demanding the emperor’s attention only sixteen years after Jesus death in AD 33. The religion causing disturbances in Rome was the same as historic Christianity. It was the religion upholding Jesus as Savior and King for both Jews and gentiles.

The mob holding Jason and the other believers pressed their case further by alleging that the apostles were trying to set up another king besides Caesar; that is, they were traitors to Rome. This common distortion of Christian teaching that Jesus is King succeeded in upsetting the rulers. After all, they could not stand idly by if a dangerous conspiracy to overthrow Roman authority had gained a foothold in their city.

Yet the rulers evidently decided that the charges were wildly exaggerated, for instead of taking Jason and his friends into custody, they released them after they posted bond. Perhaps they knew that the accused men were otherwise men of good report, with no record of any dishonest or disloyal conduct. The bond was essentially Jason’s pledge that his guests would no longer stir up unrest by their preaching. The money would be returned when the authorities were satisfied that Jason had kept his word.

Jason’s disappearance from the narrative at this point suggests that he and the others brought before the magistrates were never subsequently tried or condemned on criminal charges. Otherwise, Luke would probably have credited them with suffering further persecution.


True Nobility


Acts 17:10-15

Seeing that Paul and his party were in danger, and concerned to fulfill Jason’s pledge to authorities, the believers in Thessalonica sent the missionaries on to the next city, Berea, which was one step closer to Athens. To reach Berea, Paul probably started by heading northwest on Via Egnatia, then turned off and traveled a less important road toward the southwest. Overall the team walked about fifty miles. Although a sizable city, Berea (modern Verria) was described by the Roman statesman Cicero as "off the beaten track." Perhaps Paul felt that going to a more isolated place would give him enough time to build a new body of believers before pursuing enemies would catch up and cause trouble.

Paul’s first move to evangelize Berea followed his usual pattern. He went to the synagogue and began to preach Jesus. Here, he found the Jews unusually receptive. Whereas at Thessalonica the number of Jews who believed was only "some," the number at Berea was "many." Also persuaded by the gospel were many upper-class Greek women and more than a few Greek men. By not calling them God-fearers, Luke probably means that before hearing the gospel, they were pagans.

In accounting for Paul’s success in reaching the Jews in Berea, Luke describes them as "more noble than those in Thessalonica." They were more noble not because they held a higher position in society, but because they were more willing to dig for truth. They sat down daily with their copies of the Scriptures and examined them to see whether Jesus truly fulfilled the Messianic prophecies. They understood that the only reliable test of truth is whether it agrees with the Word of God. Because they exalted God, they did not fail to find that Jesus is God’s Son.


Getting Practical


God's measure of greatness

For us also, our ranking in the eyes of men is not the same as our ranking in the eyes of God. Men accord us high status if we have money, or power, or education, or talent, or good looks. But nobility in God's sight depends solely on one criterion: whether we exalt Him. In the grand scheme of things, we are great only to the extent that we honor the greatness of God. The practical way to honor His greatness is by giving Him our love, and the proof of our love is reliance upon His Word for both truth and guidance.

No doubt the Jews at Berea were nothing extraordinary in the view of their neighbors and fellow citizens. But because they honored God’s greatness by turning to His Word for wisdom in evaluating the claims of Christ, they have been forever memorialized in Scripture as "noble."

Another case of vast discrepancy between standing with God and standing with men is the poor widow who threw her last farthing into the treasury at the Temple (Mark 12:41–44). Jesus said that she was the most generous of all who gave, but it is doubtful that anyone else at the Temple singled her out for praise. Probably few people there, if any, even noticed her. In the eyes of other worshipers she was of no account, an object of pity or even of scorn. They all would have agreed that she was least in social importance. None would have dreamed that in God's sight she was the greatest among them. In eternity, she will have the biggest mansion on the block, so to speak.


Getting Practical


Seeking truth

The Bereans found that it was not difficult to certify that Jesus is the Christ. God never makes it hard for us to find the truth. On the contrary, He is eager to show the truth to whoever seeks it. Jesus articulated this principle in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 7:7-11). The same principle is a theme of Scripture (Deut. 4:29; 2 Chron. 7:14; Prov. 8:17; Jer. 29:13).

If men fail to find the truth, the reason is not that God is hiding it from them, but that they do not really want it. The natural tendency of the human heart is to embrace lies rather than the truth (Rom. 3:10–12). Lies allow men to continue in the darkness of sin rather than expose themselves to the condemning light of God's holiness (John 3:20-21). But if a man whose heart has been touched by that light abhors his sin and wishes to forsake it, he will find that the light also brings hope. Indeed, by following the path that God will illumine before him, he will come to a Savior from sin, to Jesus Christ.

The power that turns a man from pride to repentance is the grace of God (Acts 15:11; Eph. 2:8).

The devil was not willing to allow Paul's victory in Berea to go uncontested. He brought news of what Paul was doing back to his enemies in Thessalonica. Some of these rushed to Berea to stop him. They went among the people and trumpeted the same false charges that they had used before to turn public sentiment against the new religion. No doubt they alleged that Christians intended to challenge the Roman government. As before, these charges made people suspicious and prejudiced them against the apostles. Also as before, these charges created the danger that Paul would be arrested and severely punished and perhaps killed. So, the new believers in Berea insisted that he leave town.

Yet they all realized that wherever Paul went, his enemies would follow him and disrupt his work again. They therefore decided to send him along a course that would keep his enemies from guessing his destination. Although his exact movements are uncertain, a reasonable guess is that he left Berea on an eastward road leading to a port city on the Aegean Sea, either Methone or Dium. It appeared to observers in town that he intended to catch a boat back to Asia Minor. But when he reached the coastal road, he turned onto it and headed south toward Athens. Most travelers from Berea to Athens probably left town on a road joining the coastal road farther south. In Paul’s company were some Berean brothers, who came along to assure his safety. He left Silas and Timothy behind in Berea so that they might further strengthen the new church. They could safely remain because the enemies of the new religion regarded Paul as their chief target.


Pondering a Question


Why did Paul resort to deception?

Paul did not lie to his enemies. He knew that they would mistake his purpose, but that they did so was not his fault. He was under no obligation to take the shortest route to Athens. Their failure to discover his true intent was the result of their failure to seek it by taking the proper steps. They should have become his friends. As his friends, they could have approached him and discovered his true intent readily enough.

Luke’s inclusion of a story that, after a superficial reading, might lead the reader to question Paul’s honesty guarantees that the writer is simply recording what really happened. If the Book of Acts were a work of fiction designed to portray Paul as a saint, no such story would appear.

One purpose of the Book of Acts is to teach believers how to deal with persecution. Here they learn that to protect themselves, they can give watching enemies a false impression of what they plan to do next.

The distance to Athens was about two hundred miles, normally requiring ten to twenty days of walking. After the travelers reached their destination, the men from Berea returned home, perhaps choosing the quicker route by sea. Paul sent a message to Silas and Timothy imploring them to come as quickly as possible.


Light in a Stronghold of Darkness


Acts 17:16-21

Paul had now reached the capital of Greek civilization. Politically, the city was no longer of great importance, and its population had probably shrunk to less than 50,000, but it was still the seat of a famous university and a center of learning. It was still a magnet for young men who felt themselves gifted with a great mind. No place offered better lectures and debates on questions of philosophy. An atmosphere of intellectual elitism permeated the city. Doubtless Paul felt that as God’s appointed apostle to the gentiles, he had a special duty to evangelize the city that had always exercised a commanding influence on gentile minds.

Paul knew perfectly well that he did not fit in. Despite his good education, he was far from being the kind of person who impressed the Athenians. His talk marked him not as an intellectual snob who dabbled in philosophy, but as an intensely earnest rabbi. When some of the leading thinkers of the city heard him, they referred to him contemptuously as a babbler. Yet Paul was not intimidated by them. On the contrary, he was grieved in his heart at the spiritual darkness he found in Athens. The whole populace, the intelligentsia as well as the common people, was steeped in idolatry. Idolatry had captured their hearts. The phrase "given to idolatry" means "full of idols." Everywhere he looked he saw sculptured representations of the gods and goddesses. No doubt his disappointment was especially keen because he hoped to find a true searching for God in the city that had once been home to some of the world’s greatest philosophers. He knew that such thinkers as Socrates and Plato, in their quest for truth, had attained much higher conceptions of God and righteousness than were current in pagan religion. Yet whatever glimmerings of light they had brought to the city had been lost long ago, and now darkness reigned.

Undaunted, Paul began a one-man assault on this stronghold of unbelief. As he usually did, he went first to the synagogue and sought to win both Jews and God-fearing gentiles. Yet Luke records that he only disputed with them. He does not say that Paul succeeded in winning converts or in founding a new church. It appears from Luke's wording that the local darkness had blinded even those who might be expected to hear the gospel with an open mind. Besides his efforts to evangelize the synagogue, Paul also preached Christ daily in the marketplace, known as the Agora, to a group that gathered about him. The Agora lay just west of the Acropolis, the elevated site of the original fortified city. It was a good choice for public witness because it was the place where people congregated to conduct the business of daily life.

One day, a group encountered him who were teachers and students of philosophy. Whether they met him by chance as they went through the marketplace, or heard a rumor that a teacher of some new doctrine had entered the city, we do not know. The group included followers of the two schools of philosophy dominant in Paul's day, Stoicism and Epicureanism.


Delving Deeper


Worldviews of Athenian philosophers

Both Stoicism and Epicureanism developed as reactions to centuries of futile philosophical speculation. At the foundation of both was a profound disbelief in a supreme God separate from the material world. But from this common foundation arose different world views. The Stoics, who conceived of God as a mere soul animating the universe, believed that the only right strategy for coping with life is to develop a strong mind, capable of mastering base emotion and fulfilling moral duty. The Epicureans were polytheists who had decided that the gods do not involve themselves with the world of man—that it is impossible for man to find them or know them. The rule of life promoted by the Epicureans was to seek pleasure for its own sake, not necessarily crude self-indulgence, but rather a consistent enjoyment of things pleasant and avoidance of things unpleasant.

Philosophers belonging to these schools of thought found Paul and began speaking with him. "Encountered" can be understood to signify either that they conversed with him or that they engaged him in argument. Whichever kind of interaction it was, they reacted with predictable contempt. The translation "babbler" does not carry all the contempt in the original word. Literally, they called him a "seed picker," as if he were a worthless bird scavenging for food. The suggestion was that he was a basically unlearned man who had picked up bits of knowledge here and there.

Yet they wanted to hear what he had to say. Like all who live in leisure, free from any obligation to engage in useful work, they were exceedingly bored, so they were always curious to hear something new (v. 21). The ancient Greek writers Thucydides and Demosthenes corroborate Luke’s judgment. What Paul was preaching sounded new indeed, for they had never heard of Jesus and His resurrection from the dead.

The philosophers conducted Paul to the Areopagus, which means "Hill of Mars," an ancient tribunal named after its traditional meeting place on a hilly rise northwest of the Acropolis. The Areopagus had fluctuating jurisdiction over the centuries, for a while serving only as a criminal court, but in Roman times it was a judicial body with broad authority even over religious matters. Although church tradition has always preferred to picture Paul speaking on the hill above town, scholars agree that in the first century AD, it had been centuries since the court convened there. Its meeting place had been moved to the Stoa Basileios ("The Royal Portico") in the northwest corner of the same Agora where Paul was preaching to passers-by. In his day, this court controlled who was allowed to give public lectures in the city.

Whether Paul appeared before a formal session of the court or merely explained his teaching informally to some members of the court, the text does not reveal. Yet it is clear why the philosophers took him to the Areopagus—so that the leading minds in the city could hear what he had to say.


Who God Is


Acts 17:22-28

Paul accepted the challenge delivered to him by the court. The message he presented to these philosophers in Athens rose to a very high mark. It was a beautifully constructed argument full of subtleties. It showed that he was no babbler, but their equal in every respect: indeed, their superior, for he was not only a master of their ideas, but a thinker so penetrating that he could demolish their ideas and offer them new ones more exalted than they had ever considered. He started off by bluntly accusing them of being superstitious. Throughout his message he did not spare them from criticism. Rather than fawning on them for their favor, he prodded them to accept that they were dead wrong.

He recalled that he had seen an altar in their city dedicated to "The Unknown God." Ancient writers testify that altars of this kind were common in Athens. They reflected a prevailing attitude toward religion. Many Athenians despaired of knowing God, or, as they imagined, the many gods hidden from their view. Even when they felt that the gods impacted human affairs, they did not know which gods were responsible or how to approach them. Paul boldly declared that there was only one God they needed to know and that he, Paul, had come to declare Him.

Paul devoted the first part of his sermon to describing this God, who was new to the Greeks. He was the creator of all things—not only the world but everything in it, not only material things but also life and breath. In the pantheon of popular Greek religion, the highest god was Zeus, but the Greeks did not conceive of him as the creator, whereas the God Paul was preaching was the Creator indeed. He was so great and self-sufficient that it was foolish to build temples for Him, as if He needed a place to dwell, and it was foolish to bring him offerings with human hands, as if he depended in some way upon man. Man himself is one of God's creations.

So far, Paul was making the point that God transcended his hearers' small-minded conceptions of deity. Notice that he was basically accusing them of being stupidly limited and narrow in their thinking. He was trying to encourage humility before God. Then Paul stated that God created all races from the same blood and determined beforehand both the place of their habitation and the course of their history. Again, his point was that his God was much greater than any deity the Greeks imagined.

Paul was stressing the basic kinship of all men perhaps to overcome Greek prejudice against a Jewish preacher of a Jewish Messiah. Holding themselves to be superior, the Greeks would have been tempted to reject Paul's teaching simply because he was not Greek and Jesus was not Greek. Paul reminded them that all men have the same blood; in other words, that Jews were no less men than they were.

Paul continued by explaining why God created man. The Greeks did not imagine that the gods had a strong benevolent interest in the human race. In Greek religion, the single God or the many gods were either remote, as the Epicureans believed, or impersonal, as the Stoics believed, or preoccupied with their own intrigues, as the common man believed. But Paul introduced the revolutionary and exciting idea that God actually cares for man—that God wants to have a relationship with man—that God created man precisely so that man might find Him and enjoy His fellowship. Then Paul added the comforting thought that God is not hard to find. He is not far from us, for, as Paul said, "In him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring."

Paul was presenting ideas that broke the categories of Greek thought wide open. So to help his audience accept what he was saying, he reminded them that some of their own thinkers had come to the same conclusions. He quoted three writers. The statement that we live, move, and have our being in God comes from the renowned Cretan poet Epimenides, whom Paul quotes again in Titus 1:12. The next statement that we are God's offspring is found in two Stoic philosophers: Aratus and Cleanthes.


Pondering a Question


Why in an evangelistic sermon did Paul quote with approval a pagan poet and two pagan philosophers?

Paul was implementing a strategy he described in 1 Corinthians 9:22: "I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some." Before a Jewish audience, he assumed the role of a rabbi, but before an audience of philosophers, he talked like a philosopher. In his sermon to the Areopagus, he had two specific reasons for trying to bridge the gap between himself and his audience.

  1. Like any good teacher, he was trying to build new knowledge on a foundation of what they already knew. Any other approach would have missed the mark by going either too high or too low: either too high by presenting totally unfamiliar truth that they would certainly fail to understand and accept, or too low by boring them with the obvious. Therefore, he started with truth found in writers that many of them had probably read and admired.
  2. He was trying to erase the perception that he was a mere babbler. If he had allowed this perception to remain in their minds, they would have dismissed his sermon without giving it fair consideration. For the sake of their souls, he wanted to be taken seriously. Therefore, he did not hide his intellect, but brought it into full play, attacking their world view with sharp critical judgment.

Getting Practical


Bridging the gap

As we witness for Christ, we too should not scorn to adapt ourselves in some measure to our audience. When speaking to the simple, we should be simple. When speaking to the thoughtful, we should be thoughtful. The right way to reach Jews is to present Jesus as the Jewish Messiah. Reaching the Muslims is always a special challenge, but a wise servant of Christ will start by acknowledging the truth in Islam. Although false overall, and although offensive in its demeaning view of women and in its countenance of jihad, historic Islam understands that there is one God, it grants an exalted status to Jesus, and it preserves conceptions of sin and righteousness, although these conceptions are impoverished by blindness to the true nature of love.

Invitation


Acts 17:29-31

In the second part of Paul's sermon to the court in Athens, he began with a powerful argument that his conception of God, not theirs, must be correct. The argument he used belonged to a type known in Christian apologetics as theistic. A theistic argument draws from the facts of creation some conclusion about God. The conclusion Paul drew was that God must be greater than any deity the Greeks worshiped.


Delving Deeper


Theistic arguments

Although ultimately we know God by faith, God Himself expects us to find out many things about Him through the evidence of His work in nature, in the human heart, and in history, especially in that portion of history recorded in the Word of God. According to Paul in the Book of Romans, nature reveals two attributes of God: that He is a great power and that He is a divine person (Rom. 1:20). These two attributes are so clearly displayed in creation that men will be held without excuse if they fail to see them.

As we seek to understand what nature reveals about God, we must follow the right road from observed facts to conclusions. This road is mapped out by two theistic arguments, known as the cosmological and the teleological. By discrediting other explanations for the origin of the universe, the cosmological argument shows that the universe must have originated in a great power. By demonstrating that the universe is everywhere marked by purpose and design, the teleological argument shows that the Creator must have been a thinking person of surpassing wisdom.

To demonstrate how great the real God must be, Paul said first to his Greek audience that their own philosophers taught that man is God’s offspring. Then he said that if God was capable of creating man, their idolatry was inappropriate. Paul evidently expected them to see why the images they crafted to represent Him insulted His true greatness. By molding His likeness in gold and other material substances, they treated Him as a being made of matter. As a result, they put Him in a place below themselves, for the Greeks recognized that man has an immaterial soul as well as a material body. This line of reasoning was a theistic argument because it drew from a fact of creation—that is, man’s possession of a soul—the conclusion that man’s Creator cannot be "like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device." Paul wanted them to understand that the world of matter is not where God's essence resides.

Although Luke probably has given us only a summary of what Paul said, we can reconstruct Paul’s fuller presentation, whether stated or implied. No doubt Paul wanted the philosophers to understand further that if man was the offspring of God, God cannot be man’s equal. He must be superior to man. The Greeks imagined that everything came from nothing. Yet a work of art implies an artist greater than his creation. Likewise, the intricate being known as man requires a designer and maker greater than His product.

Indeed, Paul was strongly implying that the true God must be superior also to any god of Greek mythology. The Greek gods themselves were supposedly the chance product of empty time and space. But no mere outgrowth of nothing could make something as ingenious as man, with all his capacities and potentials. The true Creator, whose greatness must surpass the deities named by mythology, is the unknown God that Paul wanted them to know.

Having laid the groundwork for his final appeal, Paul told briefly what the God who is man's Creator expects from man. In the past, God allowed the Greeks and other nations to continue in ignorance. Paul’s bluntness here is startling. Although the court hearing him was made up of men who thought they embodied centuries of Greek learning and philosophy, he did not shrink from telling them the unpleasant but sorely needed truth that they were steeped in ignorance. We marvel at his courage. Paul said that "the times of this ignorance God winked at." The translation "winked at" is unfortunate. It suggests that God looked upon paganism with a kindly tolerance. The right translation is "overlooked." The meaning is that God chose not to bring immediate judgment on the nations, although they deserved it because they neglected Him. Rather, He postponed judgment until He could provide a way for the nations to come into a right relationship with Himself. Paul declared that the time for removing their ignorance had arrived. God was now, through the gospel, revealing Himself to men everywhere and commanding that they repent of their sins. In His mercy God would still postpone judgment. Yet a day of judgment would come. Although God had temporarily overlooked sin in the sense that He withheld His wrath for a time, He would not overlook it forever. He had already set a Day of Judgment and appointed a Judge. The Judge would be a man, but not an ordinary man. God certified this man as extraordinary by raising Him from the dead.


Pondering a Question


Why did Paul fail to mention Jesus by name?

Perhaps he was afraid that the philosophers would make Jesus' name a byword in their jests and incur greater judgment on themselves. Yet a better explanation may be that Paul did not finish his sermon. The account suggests that his hearers stopped him when spoke of Jesus' resurrection. The interruption forced him to quit before he could tell them the whole gospel.

Mixed Results


Acts 17:32-34

Many of Paul's hearers suffered so keenly from chronic boredom that they even found Paul's sermon boring. When Paul affirmed Jesus' resurrection from the dead, they had heard enough. They stopped him from speaking further. Some reacted to his sermon with outright mockery. Like many intellectuals today, they wore skepticism as a badge of their intelligence. They felt that by disbelieving in the things of God, they showed themselves smarter than other people. Others who heard Paul treated him more politely, saying that they would listen to him again at a future time. But Paul evidently viewed their words as merely an excuse to escape from listening to him further at the present time, for he walked away and made no effort to witness to them again.

Yet as he walked away, a small band of Greeks followed him and identified themselves with Christ. Among them was Dionysius the Areopagite. His name means that he was a member of the court that had just heard Paul's defense of his teaching. Since membership in this court was considered a high honor, he was a distinguished convert indeed. The leading woman who believed in Christ was Damaris. Besides these two, there were others as well, so that Paul did not need to view his time in Athens as a complete failure. No doubt the believers he left behind continued in the faith and started a church.


Getting Practical


The two names never forgotten

The highest ambition of the philosophers who heard Paul was to make a name for themselves that future generations would remember. The only persons in the audience who attained this goal were the man and woman who, instead of living for self, decided to live for Christ.