Dr Greg Bahnsen - Ancient & Medieval Philosophy: Advent of Christ (Part 15)

Roman numeral 12 in our outline is the advent of Christ. This doesn't fit in to most outlines of the history of philosophy at the secular university. Because this belongs in the religion department, we are told. And so we have to stop for just a minute and I guess, justify and explain why the advent of Christ is part of my history of philosophy. When did philosophy begin? Liz, would you like to answer that for us? When did philosophy begin with Adam? Well, how come when I have these books in the history of philosophy here, they all begin with Thales, then what accounts for that difference? No, it's not. Because the Greeks were the first ones to put it in writing. In fact, you may remember I said that the Hebrews had the beginning of a philosophy that was reduced to writing at least a thousand years before, or about a thousand years before Thales. Why is it that our textbooks in the history of philosophy begin with Thales instead of with earlier writers like Moses? Okay, Exactly. Because the beginning of philosophy is understood by most of these people to be identical with the beginning of secular philosophy. When you start naturalizing your concepts and insisting that men must know things on the basis of their unaided or autonomous reason, then you're doing philosophy. And I argued against that perspective a few days ago when we were at the beginning of the class. And I would argue against that perspective here as well. The advent of Christ represents, of course, a step in the history of religion, but it also is a step in the history of philosophy. Because all of life is religious and particularly philosophy is religious. It's very hard to distinguish these two. We all tend to do this. We tend to include in our surveys those things that we think are the proper members of the class. Or think of it like this. If we were to have a convention where we were going to have people speak on what should we say? Some aspect of theology. We would not be inclined as Christians to invite Hindus and Buddhists to come give papers at this. They're not proper members of the class. And when philosophers despise the teaching of Scripture and want to put down the contribution of Christ to man's history and so forth, it shouldn't surprise you then. They don't want to see Christ's advent and contribution included as a proper member of the class of philosophy. You might call it religion and then sneer a bit, but certainly not philosophy. What is philosophy? What is the task of philosophy? Pete, remember. Okay, so the constructive task of philosophy is to develop an overall worldview in which every aspect of man's experience has its proper place. And that Includes then presuppositions about reality and how we know what we know and how we should live our lives. What's the critical task of philosophy? Well, a critical task more generally is to cross examine opinions, to find reliable presuppositions. And so much of what you're saying fits into that. I think that's right. We have to resolve contradictions, but more importantly, we have to ask tough questions about conceptual clarity and logical consistency and so forth. Now, if that's our conception of philosophy, cross examining opinions, setting up antitheses, and trying to resolve the differences between people's different opinions and establishing a constructive worldview, an overall vision of life and reality in terms of which every aspect of man's experience has its place. Did Christ have a philosophy? Did he cross examine people? Did he say things which would lead to antithetical positions with popular opinions of his day? To ask the question is almost, you know, it makes you laugh. Do you know the story of Jesus life? Of course I did. He was crucified, for crying out loud. Well, did he present a worldview? Did he have an outlook that unified our view of reality and how we know what we know and how we should live our lives? Well, yes, he did. So why don't our unbelieving friends at least have the honesty to say Jesus was a philosopher, but a very bad one in our opinion. We don't like his philosophy, but instead we tend to have it disparaged as not being one of the players at all. When Jesus is dealt with in the philosophy books, you almost always have the advent of Christianity rather than the advent of Christ. You know why that is? Because Christianity is a social movement. And you can look at the social movements, leading speakers and so forth, but it's not important that you had Jesus. Okay, so I'm trying to undo a bit of that prejudice in our own class. I'm going to talk about the advent of Christ. If nothing else, we can speak of the advent of Christ as a step in the history of philosophy because Jesus presented himself as the Jewish Messiah. And just that remark at opens up the door to a whole wide background of perspectives that you would find in the Old Testament. There was a philosophy, a reality, a philosophy of life, a philosophy of knowledge presented in the Old Testament. All of which is assumed by Jesus appearing on the scene as the Jewish Messiah. He is the one who was awaited. He is the one who was prophesied and promised in the Old Testament. Jesus, when he combated his opponents, did so on the basis of the Old Testament. He would Say, haven't you read, you know, he told Nicodemus that if Nicodemus really understood the Old Testament, he wouldn't be having these silly questions about what Jesus was saying. Are you a teacher of Israel and you don't understand these things, Nicodemus? So Jesus assumed the perspective of the Old Testament. And previously we talked about there being a philosophy in the Bible, a particular view of reality. First of all, it's a dualistic view of reality, right? There's a difference between the creator and the creature. Moreover, it's a personal view of reality. The Creator is not an impersonal force as a, as a person, as a sovereign person, as a holy person is the one that not only brings the world into existence, but controls everything that happens in the world. This is the perspective of the Old Testament prophets, the basis of prophetic literature. God controls the events of history. And God is a God that judges on the basis of his holy character. And God makes himself known to all men in the created order as well as in their very internal constitution. So there is a philosophy already in the Old Testament. That's what I've been trying to say. And Jesus assumed it. Let's just pick up with Jesus own life and what we are told about Jesus by his followers. I'm going to focus, as you can tell from the outline, a says Jesus the Messiah as the way, the truth and the life. John 14:6. This is how Jesus described himself. Jesus said that he was the way, the truth and the life. And no man would come to the Father except through him. So there's good news and there's bad news here. The good news is Jesus says something which is uplifting and encouraging. There is a way of life. There is a truth, an object of truth to be found. He can give life. The downside which makes Jesus unwelcome at our philosophical parties is that he said no one comes to the Father. But for me it was that kind of exclusive, self centered and self assured teaching that is offensive in a democratic culture such as our own. A lot of people think since everyone has the right to hold their own opinion, that is the political right to hold their own opinion and to say what they want to say. That therefore no one has the right to be correct or incorrect. Everyone has got to be in the gray area. Who knows? When Jesus says I do know and I am exclusively the truth, he doesn't fit in to our democratic perspective anyway. Jesus claimed to be the way, the truth and the life. I don't know if you brought your Bibles with you today. But if you have them turn to John. Chapter one. The opening of John's Gospel is really ripe with philosophical implications, which after the time we put into this class, should be much more evident to you, I hope. Are much more evident to you than when you read it previously. It says, in the beginning was the word. Now the English word word comes from the Greek word Logos. In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that hath been made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. We could take weeks just expounding on all these general axioms about Logos. And so Jesus had said in John 14:6, he was the way, the truth and the life. Obviously, that has ethical and epistemological consequences. It has metaphysical consequences too. He is the life. There is no life in existence outside of him. John 1:4 tells us that in the Logos was life, and this life was the light of. Just stop and think about these concepts, the way that has to do with guidance, the way you live your life, the truth, the life and the light of men. We have a particular philosophy of nature given to us already. I have pointed out to you already that a person's view of nature and how morality relates or how values relate to nature. The underlying. One of the major underlying issues in philosophy, according to the New Testament, there is a philosophy of nature given to us. And it's given because a Logos, a personal Logos, has made the world and gives life to all things. Let's go back and talk about Heraclitus for a moment. Heraclitus said there has to be an order to the world, right? There's this changing world, but there's got to be order in this changing world. And he called that principle of order in the changing world what Logos? There is a reason or a It's not so much a word, but an account, a rationale that governs all things. But for Heraclitus, being a pagan, this Logos is God. But where is the Logos found? It's part and parcel of the natural order, right? The Logos, as it were, flows through all the material changes that we experience. So Heraclitus, if you will, has an eminent Logos. John declares the transcendent Logos when he talks about Jesus being the creator of all things. In fact, he is the Eternal One. He's there in the beginning. He is God Himself. Hebrews 1:3, Who being the effulgence of his glory and the very image of his substance, and upholding all things by the word of his power. When he made purification for sin, sat down on the right hand of the majesty on high. A lot can be said about this verse. I want to focus on this expression, upholding all things by the word of his power. According to the author of Hebrews, what is it that unifies the created order and sustains it? It's the word of Christ's power. Jesus is the providential sustainer of all things. He's the Creator of all things, the sustainer of all things. He is the Eternal One. He is separate from creation because he is the Creator. I hope enough has been said to convince you that we do have an elementary philosophy of nature, a view of reality presented in the New Testament. There's also an elementary epistemology found here. Going Back to John 1. We've read that Jesus is the source of life. He is life and he is the light of men. In John 14:6, Jesus said he was the way, the truth and the light. John 1:9. This was the true light which enlightens every man coming into the world. John tells us that Christ is the epistemological principle or focus as well. He enlightens every man coming into the world. What does that mean? Does that mean that everyone who is born is saved? Is this enlightenment, the giving of saving faith to all men? No, it must mean something short of salvation, because John goes right on to say that he gives light to to all men coming into the world. But he was in the world and came to his own and wanted nothing to do with it. So there is a general work of Christ that allows men to know what they know. There is an enlightening work of Christ, the sustainer of all men, that makes knowledge possible. The Old Testament had already taught that the fear of the Lord was the beginning of knowledge. The Old Testament personified wisdom in the Book of Proverbs as the creator of all things. The world has an order, shows a cause and effect system, and displays an order that is wise, so that in the long run, those who defy wisdom suffer, and those who live their lives in accordance with it are blessed. And this wisdom created the world. It isn't something imposed, you know, from outside. You have the course of the world, and then you have God trying to manage the course of the world. It's rather wisdom itself created the world to be the way that it is. This personification of wisdom is seen by many interpreters. I would agree with them as a foreshadowing of the doctrine that Christ is the Logos that enlightens all men coming into the world. In Colossians 2, verse 3, Paul tells us that in Christ are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge deposited, that he then is the key to any wisdom and knowledge that men would have. If men will not see the world as the Logos reveals it, they will not be able to understand anything properly. So we see a metaphysic, we see an epistemology in the New Testament focused on Christ. And obviously we see a doctrine of value or an ethic presented. Jesus is the way, after all. We're supposed to walk in the way that he shows us. Even the pagan philosophers read the New Testament and understand that Christianity is a lifestyle, it's an ethic. So there are moral norms to be found in the Bible and guidance for men. But I want to go beyond that obvious point and indicate that the guidance that the New Testament gives to men is for all areas of life. That is offensive in our day and age. But Christianity doesn't present an ethic which is privatized. That is to say, an ethic that is for the internal thoughts of men or for their prayer closets, for their families and churches, but rather an ethic that is universal, applies to all men, and therefore applies to all areas of life. Peter tells us in First Peter Chapter one, that we are to behold in all manner of living, that if we follow Christ, we are his disciples. We're going to be holy in all manner of living. Jesus said that if we would be his disciples, we must abide in His Word. John, the eighth chapter. And if we abide in His Word, then we will know the truth and the truth will set us free. What does it mean to abide in the Word of God? To live in the Word of God? That means all of my life is governed and shaped by the Word of God. Before Jesus went to the cross, In John the 17th chapter, we read that he prayed that his followers would be sanctified by the truth. They would be distinctive, consecrated, and set aside by the truth. And then he declared, thy Word is truth. To be a follower of Christ, then, is to live your entire life distinctively on the basis of the truth presented in God's Word, the truth which is embodied in Jesus and is worked out and codified in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. Now Jesus expects us to live our lives entirely on the basis of His Word. Then that means that our lives are to be governed in such things as economics and education, arts and sciences, on the basis of his word as well. Jesus is given the title by Paul in 1st Timothy, chapter 6, and by John in Revelation, chapter 19, the King of kings and the Lord of Lords. And so clearly, Christianity has political implications. We're not going to argue today about the details of those. But certainly Christianity presents not only a view of reality and a view of human reason, how we know what we know, and a view of values, but it develops into a worldview that includes political applications as well. Jesus claims to be a king. Indeed, he claims to be the king over all kings. When he stood before Pilate, I wonder if you remember this. Pilate was inclined to release Jesus. He didn't want to make trouble. He didn't want to have to account for this. And so he was inclined to let him go until the Jews cried out for his crucifixion, saying that he is no friend of Caesar's. Pilate would not be a friend of Caesar's as Jesus claims to be a king. The Jews understood they didn't have the right concept of kingship, but they knew there was an antithesis, a conflict here. Pilate takes him back in private and asks him about this. I love this part of the New Testament. Pilot says something to the effect, they say that you are a king. Jesus says, you said it real, real blunt. He says, you got that right. I am a king, but I'm not a king in the way that you understand. I don't rule with physical force. My followers don't take up swords. That's because my kingdom doesn't originate from this world like yours does, Pilate. Rather, my kingdom is from above. And you would have no authority over me if it had not been given to you from above. Talk about a higher law. The Stoics are johnny come lately when it comes to that sort of thing. Jesus understood there was a higher law and a higher personal authority that Pilate would answer to. And Jesus also said, I am that authority. So anyway, political application for the teaching and the work of Jesus. Jesus taught that his kingdom was international, not just a nation among nations, but rather the nation that is for all men. Where the Romans struggled toward an idea of universal brotherhood and citizenship, Jesus taught that within the church, all men were equally sons and daughters of God, Jew and Gentile alike, bondman and free, male and female. And he taught that his kingdom was based not on the application of force, not on might, but was based on God's grace and truth. That leads me to the last point I want to make about Jesus, the Messiah as a philosophical option or A step in the history of Western thought. When Jesus taught that his kingdom was based on the grace of, of God. What he was saying is that man needed inward renewal, that redemption is the key to philosophy, to truth, and to living a right life. Redemption. Now that sounds unusual, doesn't it? Notice all the philosophies that we've been studying up to this point have excluded a redemptive dimension. You know why that is? Because they all begin with the autonomy of man. Man is self sufficient. Man is all right as far as he goes. He just needs to get his thinking in order, needs to learn more about the world, needs to kind of draw all the pieces together and then he'll have a correct philosophy. You see, that's the downfall of every pagan or unbelieving philosophy is the assumption of man's adequacy, the assumption that man is all right as far as he goes. Christian philosophy, philosophy based on the teaching of Christ and his person and work, differs with every other philosophy at just that point. By teaching first the need of redemption. Philosophy cannot be an impersonal study of the world. Philosophy cannot be abstract. It's highly personal. That's what makes for philosophers uneasy. When you bring in a Christian approach to things. We talk about Christian philosophy in the more or less social sense, that there are Christians out there putting theories, abstract theories before us, then that's okay. When you start talking about philosophy has to be done either in obedience or disobedience to the Lord over all creation. That's too up close and personal for people. People. We want to make philosophy theoretical. We want to keep it out there in the abstract dimension. Jesus doesn't allow that. He says, the only way to the Father is through me. I am the truth. So don't try to make the truth some impersonal principle over here that I then conform to. I am the truth. I am the way. Ethics isn't just abstract principles of right and wrong. It has to do with exemplifying my character and showing my grace and power in your life. So philosophy cannot be impersonal. Given the New Testament approach, what we find in the teaching of Jesus, moreover, man's mind is not self sufficient. Man is in need of redemption, and in particular man's sin has darkened his mind. I think most people who are just acquainted with the New Testament at a distance, they have to know enough about it to be able to differentiate Paul and Peter as apostles, you know, that kind of thing. Be able to say they know there is something in the history of thought like the new New Testament would probably tell you that the New Testament is full of. Exhortations about sin and redemption. But they would view sin pretty much in a behavioral sense, that is, talking about your sexual conduct, your economic conduct, things like that. That sin has to do with lifestyle and behavior. But in the New Testament, if you are a student of the New Testament, you realize that sin affects the mind of man. It's what we call in theology the noetic effect of the fall. That sin darkens the thinking of man as well as leads him astray in terms of his outward conduct, the use of his body, and for the sake of time. Want me to summarize? In Romans 1, Paul tells us that men suppress the truth because of their sin and rebellion. They suppress the truth which is known about God. And they become darkened in their understanding. Their hearts are hardened because they will not acknowledge and live up to what they know. So very well. God has made himself known. But men will not accept that. They try to evade it. So, professing themselves to be be wise, professing themselves to be philosophers, lovers of wisdom, professing themselves to be wise, they do what they become fools. So sin has a noetic effect. Man's mind is darkened according to the teaching of the New testament. In Ephesians 4, Paul points that out very explicitly in Words Other in a way that will not be considered flattering to the natural man. Notice how he piles up these expressions when he talks about the mind of the Gentiles. He says, I say therefore. This is verse 17 of chapter 4. I say therefore, and testify in the Lord that you no longer walk as the Gentiles walk in the vanity of their mind, being darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardening of their hearts. Well, I mean, hammer blow after hammer blow, darkened understanding, vain minds alienated from the life of God, the ignorance that is in them, hardened hearts. In the New Testament, man's problem is not just behavioral, it's also epistemological. He doesn't properly his mind is darkened. And this rebellion alienates him not simply from the personal Creator, but also alienates him from his own dignity and the meaning of life that he has as a creature of God. And so we believe that sin and rebellion is the source of all of man's distress and that redemption by dealing with the source lives our political lives, our entertainments, our arts and our sciences. Redemption is the key. From a Christian perspective. Christianity did not come into Western history in a vacuum. Christianity appeared on the stage during the development of the Roman Empire. And consequently we have to say something about the relationship of Christianity to the Roman culture that was already on the scene. This leads to the next two points in my outline. B will be philosophical antithesis and C will be political antithesis. We do not find in the New Testament a desire on the part of the followers of Christ to assimilate themselves to the philosophical outlook of their day or the political and socio cultural attitudes and behavior of their day. The Christians were a real pain, to put it simply. After all, they were following somebody who claimed to be exclusively the truth. And they followed him in an absolutistic sense that there was no question about him being right in what he said, that he was the savior of men and that we must obey whatever he teaches us. Well, that created problems. You should be aware of the fact that the Roman Empire made it a policy that whenever they subjugated a people, those people were allowed to keep their religion and to keep their schools and to keep their family life and so forth. Rome was not interested in transforming everything to make everybody live like they were in Rome. Maybe in Rome you should do as the Romans. But they were quite happy to have people outside of Rome live anywhere they wanted, except in one area that had to do with political conformity. If your religion will fit in with the needs of the Roman Empire, that's fine. The only thing they wouldn't tolerate was absolute submission to the political authority of Rome. And so the appearance of a new sect of the Jews, which is why they understood it at first. The appearance of a new school of Judaism, followers of this teacher Jesus was really no problem to the Romans at all. We have to understand that they could not have cared less that these silly Jews had come up with another cult. They allowed just about any kind of cult to survived under their political protection. But when Paul went to Athens, we see very clearly that there was an antithesis between the teaching of the Christians and the philosophers of that day. Let's look at Acts 17 and just pick up some of the flavor here of this antithesis. Many people might have thought Christians would like to piggyback on the philosophies of their day. You know, it's kind of like pick the best one out of the lot there and make that your vehicle for presenting your adoration of Jesus and the presentation of his saving claims. Paul was not interested in synthesizing his message with the philosophers of his day. We read in Acts 17 that while he waited for his companions at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him. As he held the city full of idols. Paul is indignant at the idolatry Athens. Are you surprised to read of Athens being full of idols? We've been thinking of Athens as the center of intellectual culture. This is where all the great philosophers go. Well, you know, the philosophers still have to live in society, and they didn't always win over the populace. To their points of view, the people of Athens were still a very idolatrous people and full of superstition, idolatry, mythical ideas of God. Paul is incensed, and verse 17 tells us he began to reason then in the synagogues with the Jews and the devout persons and in the marketplace every day with them that met him. Please notice that Paul's response in the synagogue is the same as his response in the marketplace. Paul doesn't have two different approaches. He doesn't have two different authorities. He reasons with men in both places. The argumentation that's found in the marketplace, we must assume, is the same kind of argumentation that you would find in the synagogue. I say that because it's popular among evangelicals in our day to tell us that the way in which we do theology is one thing, but you have to do apologetics differently, because now you're dealing with unbelievers. You can assume the ultimate authority of scripture when you do theology, but you can't do that in philosophy, not when you're arguing with unbelievers. Apparently, Paul did the same thing both in the synagogue and in the marketplace. Verse 18 and certain also of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers encountered him. Now, what did they find there? They find a man who was looking for common ground with them. Find a man who said, you know, you've got a lot going for you. I kind of like your philosophy. Can I add a little bit to let me say, could Jesus fit into your philosophy? No. When they encountered him, they said, what would this babbler say? They were not flattering at all. In fact, the Greek for babbler here is technically seed picker. It's a reference to a gutter sparrow, a bird that picks things out of human dung seed to eat. And so they were really being nasty. What would this seed picker say? This hick, he doesn't know what he's talking about. He seems to be setting forth strange gods talk about not understanding his concepts because he preached Jesus and the resurrection. Jesus in Greek is masculine. The word resurrection is feminine. They apparently understood him to be presenting two new gods, one named Jesus, and then his female counterpart called Resurrection. Socrates was brought up on charges in Athens previous to Paul and what was he accused of? Not just corrupting the youth of Athens, but setting forth new gods. He was an atheist because he didn't follow the state gods at that time. So here's Paul now getting into the same trail. And they took hold of him and brought him unto the Areopagus, which you can read of the Areopagus in the dialogues of Plato and also in the Greek epic poets. It's a long standing court in Athens and by the days of the New Testament its job was primarily to investigate teachers in Athens and to certify them as, I guess, safe for the population. So he was brought to the Areopagus and they said, may we know what this new teaching is which is spoken of by you because you bring certain strange things to our ears. We'd like to know therefore what these things mean. And Luke adds the comment that the Athenians and the strangers there spent their time in nothing else but to tell or to hear some new things. They love gossip. They love to have somebody come and tickle their ears and give them something new to think about. Paul stood in the midst of the council and he says to the Athenians, now before you hear what he says, let's see if we can't bring what we've learned this morning to bear. What are the governing attitudes among the philosophers of this day? Skepticism, epicureanism, we live for pleasure. And Stoicism. You men of Athens and all things. I perceive that you are very superstitious. For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription to an unknown God. What therefore you worship, displaying your ignorance, I set forth to you in the first place, the skeptics have now been lost. Here's Paul saying, I have the word set forth in Greek by the way, which means we declare with authority. Because I'm going to tell you the truth, I'll let you know. But the skeptics are saying no one can tell us the absolute truth. Who do you think you are, Paul? He tells them that their lifestyle and their teaching displays ignorance. He goes, what you worship displaying your ignorance, I'll now set forth for you. This doesn't look like he's trying to make common ground. It looks very much like an antithesis being set up. You're wrong and I'm right. The God that made the world and all things therein, he being Lord of heaven and earth, he's already Lord now. The Stoics don't believe God is the Creator. Of heaven and earth. God is the Logos and Reason that governs everything in the physical world. God is, if you will, a principle of nature. Now he's the Creator of heaven and earth. He's the Lord of heaven and earth. And he doesn't dwell in temples made with hands. Very likely Paul was saying this with the the Parthenon in view of the people listening to him. Here they have their temple with their gods and he says God doesn't dwell in temples made with hands. He's not served by men's hands. As though he needs anything. God is completely self sufficient. He needs nothing of you, seeing that he gives to all life and breath in all things. He's the source of everything and he made of one every nation of men to dwell on the face of the earth. There's the universal brotherhood of men. It's not found in the Roman Empire and it's not found in Stoic philosophy. It's found in the fact that we're all creatures of God, having determined their appointed seasons and the bounds of their habitation. You are right about this. God governs all the affairs on earth. But it's not a God that's natural flowing through the changing affairs of the physical cosmos, but rather a God that created the world. And God did this, that they should seek him, if aptly, they might feel after him and find Him. The word for feel after is the same verb that's used by Homer to speak of the Cyclops. When the Cyclops loses his eye, feels around, that's the kind of term, it's to grapple in the dark. If they might feel after him and find him, though see, they have no excuse for not finding Him. He's not far from any of them. That sounds very much like Romans 1. They have the truth, but they suppress it. And then they become fools for that reason. For in him we live and move and have our being. And then this has troubled a number of New Testament scholars. Paul says as certain even of your own Paul poets have said. The emphasis here, I believe, is on the fact that even your own poets know this. It's not on. Now since you already believe this, your poets have said it. Let's see if I can build on their good foundation. His point is, why are you grappling after God in the dark? He's not far from any of us. In fact, I can prove he's not far. Even your stupid poets got this right. And what did they get right? That in him we live and move and have our being as certain even as Your own poets have said we are also his offspring. I told you in previous lectures, that's a quotation. In fact, we have the original source of that quotation. Which philosopher said that? In which school of thought did he come from or did he exemplify. Cleanthes? Right. The hymn to Zeus. This is a quatrain from that hymn to Zeus. And Cleantes was what kind of philosopher? Stoic philosopher. So your own poets understand this much. Now, does that mean Paul agreed with the Stoic philosophers as to the meaning of these terms? Was he endorsing a Stoic view of life by quoting them? No. He was showing that even in their darkness they cannot escape the truth about God being then the offspring of God. We ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, silver, stone, graven by art and the device of man. So you're wrong. It's the idolatry in your city demonstrates that you don't know what you're talking about. You haven't got in touch with the true God and you're not living a life pleasing to him. Verse 30. The times of ignorance, therefore God overlooked, but now he commands men that they should everywhere repent. Repentance is a change of mind. The Greek term means to turn the mind around. God requires you to repent. You've been in ignorance for all this time, but God is now calling on you to repent. Why? Because he sent the truth into the world in the person of His Son, and His kingdom is going to earth's remotest ends, and everywhere men are to bow the knee to Him. God calls on you then to repent, inasmuch as he's appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness by the man whom he has ordained. Here's the declaration of Jesus as the King of kings, he will be Lord over all, and especially at the end of history. This will be evident on the day of judgment, whereof he has given assurance unto all men that he's raised him from the dead. Here's a God who intervenes in the natural order and raises His Son from the dead to be the judge over all men. At the founding of the court of Areopagus, by the way, it was declared there is no resurrection. Interesting. We know that from historical inscriptions. Here's Paul standing now in the Areopagus, declaring the resurrection. And my point is that Paul represents philosophical antithesis to the outlook of the Greek philosophers. What we see in Paul is not compromise, but confrontation. How does the story end now, when they heard of the resurrection of the dead some mocked. Remember, the Areopagus is founded on the denial of resurrection. So they mocked. Others say, we'll hear you again concerning this. Basically, we don't have an answer for you, so why don't you get on your way? Thus Paul went out from among them. But certain men claim unto him and believed among them was Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris. And others with them, apparently two leading citizens because they're named here. It's not like a handful of people. But this includes Dionysius and Damorus. Paul leaves Athens. He writes First Corinthians. First Corinthians 1, I think, is an appropriate summary of what we see exemplified by Paul as he encounters the Greek philosophers. Verse 18. For the word of the cross is to them that perish foolishness, but unto us who are saved, it is the power of God. For it is written, I will destroy, destroy the wisdom of the wise. And the discernment of the discerning will I bring to nothing. Here's Paul, who has just had his day in court with the Greek philosophers. Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Hasn't God made foolish the wisdom of this world? And then Paul goes on to develop this theme of antithesis, that you have the wisdom of God, which is the world calls foolish, and you have the foolishness of men, which they think is so wise. And he plays that out and he tells us that Christ is a stumbling block to Jews and he's foolishness to Gentiles. Jews just can't get over the idea of a dying Messiah dying as a criminal of all things. And the Greeks don't see wisdom here at all. They see foolishness. But unto them who are called both Jews and Greeks, Christ, the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men and the weakness of God is stronger than men. So at the advent of Christ, we do have a distinctive philosophical outlook. Jesus. It's a personal philosophical system based on Jesus, the way, the truth and the life. This creates a philosophical antithesis which is illustrated, I think, clearly in the New Testament. Acts 17, First Corinthians, chapter 1. It also creates a political antithesis. I told you that if we understand the New Testament concept of Jesus kingdom, it has political ramifications. He is the king of kings and the Lord of lords. Florence, the Roman Empire, I said was perfectly happy to have Christians teach whatever they wanted to teach, provided that it fit in to the sovereignty of Rome. As a political force, you could teach about an afterlife. You could even have a king of an afterlife. They didn't care about that. They thought it was all silly anyway. But if you teach that there's a king in this life, then you got trouble. That's why Pilate couldn't let Jesus off. He had to eventually do something about this. In Revelation, chapter one, we know and encounter this political antithesis between Christianity and Rome. In that John tells us in verse 9 that he is a partaker with his readers in the tribulation, kingdom and steadfastness which are in Jesus. And that he, John, is in the isle of Patmos. Why? Great vacation place in the ancient world. No, he was put there against his will. He was in the isle of Patmos for the word of God and the testimony of Jesus. He says, that's what's got me into political trouble. It's the word of God. It's the testimony of Jesus. He's been exiled to Patmos. And I would love to expound the entire book of Revelation someday. Maybe you could listen to the 65 tapes I have on that. Fill in this gap in your notes. Let me get to a key point. Revelation 13. In Revelation 13, we read of an unhappy encounter between a character called the beast and those who follow Jesus. Now, I happen to be a preterist. That is, I view a good portion of New Testament prophecy as having been fulfilled in the first generation of the church, in the fall of Jerusalem and in the fall of Rome. But whether you're a preterist or a futurist, everybody agrees that the beast is a political character, right? And who is this beast? Well, the beast, According to Revelation 13 arises from the sea. Let's remember that the readers of this book are Jews. Their perspective is from that. Their geographical perspective is from that of Palestine. Now, when you look from Palestine to the sea, where are you looking? You're looking toward Rome. Here a beast rises out of the sea. He has seven heads and ten horns and so forth. And this beast is not, not happy with those who oppose him. In fact, the second beast on the land which I take to be the imperial cult of Asia Minor, the second beast requires that everyone who wishes to enter into the marketplace to buy or sell have the mark of the beast on them. The mark of the beast is placed on the forehead and on the hand. In the Old Testament, God had required that his law be written on the forehead and on the hand. So here you have a beast that competes with God for allegiance and ultimate authority. Confrontation not Compromise. Who is the beast? Beast is the Roman Empire, and the heads of the beast are the emperors of rome. In Revelation 17, John, who is totally amazed by this point, just wondering what this all means. God says, don't be startled. I'll explain this to you. So he sends an angel. The angel tells us that the seven heads of the beast are the seven hills. Seven mountains which. Anybody who knows classic literature knows the reference to Rome set on seven hills. And then the angel says, but there's a double imagery. It's also seven kings, that is the rulers of the empire who are in Rome set on seven hills. There are seven kings. And John is told that five. Five of these kings are past. They're now dead. And the sixth now reigns. And the seventh, when he comes, will reign but a short time. And by the way, this is the only book in the New Testament that specifically gives you the date of its writing. We know that John is writing during the reign of the sixth emperor of Rome. Who was the sixth emperor? Emperor of Rome? All depends on where you start counting. Does Julius Caesar count? You all know the story of the Ides of March, right? Did he ever get to be emperor? No. Should he be counted one of the emperors? Yes, because he was deemed a king and he ruled as a king. And when you read Josephus and the other Jewish writers, they consider him the first emperor of Rome. The niceties of Roman political history don't make any difference from a Jewish standpoint. He ruled over them as an emperor over this empire. You start with Julius. The sixth emperor of Rome is Nero. The Gematrian equivalent of Nero's name. Remember what Gematri is, where you take letters of the Alphabet, treat them as numbers. You get numerical equipment, equivalents. The walls of Pompeii had graffiti upon them. I love her, whose name is 324. It's kind of a way of openly declaring your love for somebody, but you're not giving the name. You have to kind of figure it out. John says, here's the mind that has wisdom. Revelation 13. The name is the number of a man, and his number is 666, the gematrian equivalent of Nero's name as the Jews would have known it. We know this from the documents of Meribahat. It was spelled Neron Kaizron. It's equivalent to 666. I mean, it's a perfect match. Why did John refer to Nero in this obscure way? Let's remember where he was when he wrote the book. He was a political exile. The only way this book could have gotten back was to his Christian friends in Asia Minor is through a Roman transport. And if he's not going to get the church into more trouble, he has to write in a way that the Romans will read this and say more religious gibberish. But the Christians, the minds that have wisdom, they look at it and they understand. And what he's saying is, you're not being ruled by a man, you're being ruled by a beast. In Revelation 12 and Revelation 14 both we are told that those who oppose the beast are those who keep the testimony of Jesus and the commandments of God. The beast wants his commandments, kept the name of the emperor written on the forehead and on the hand. Those who oppose him are those who follow the commandments of God and the testimony of Jesus. So the earliest days of the New Testament indicate to us that Christianity came on the scene as an antithetical, philosophical and political force among men. The interaction of the early Church, the interaction of Christianity with the Roman Empire is described in your reading chapter one of Francis Schaeffer's book, How Should We Then Live? I'm not going to go over that in detail. I think it's easy enough reading, you don't need a lot of explanation. Schaeffer tells us that the Roman Empire was in many ways great, but it was not able to bind life together, was not able to answer the basic questions of life for its citizens. Rome was built on military strength, without a fundamental worldview and ethic that would bind people together. Rome had tried to found its culture on the authority of its accepted citizens. You have the consuls of Rome and then political figures, the elite. They even tried to incorporate the gods. But as you know, the Roman gods were nothing but amplified humanity. They only contributed to the problems of men that insolved them. And so Rome didn't have a sufficient base for society and for life. Self interest began to replace social interests. There were riots in Rome, chaos. And as Schaeffer says, in desperation, Rome turned to the Emperor as a dictator to bring peace and unity, stability, predictability in the conditions necessary for financial or economic affluence. And so Augustus represented to the people the offer of peace and prosperity. The cost, give up your freedom, make me your God, make me your Emperor with absolute authority. And the people, they bought it. Christians, however, couldn't buy that because the cost of following the Caesars was to worship them as Lord. It's interesting, we have have accounts of Christians being martyred for refusing to do this. The Roman soldiers sympathized with The Christians, in one sense, we can appreciate this. They didn't, in many cases want to kill the Christians. They respected these people. So they would say, look, just say these three words. Actually, two words in Greek, Caesar is Lord. That's all you have to say. You can even cross your fingers and we all know you're lying. You don't believe. Just say those words and we won't have to kill you. Christians wouldn't do it. Of course, you see, the Roman soldiers were trying to be nice. But you see, their philosophical worldview would not let them see the significance of declaring the lordship of Caesar to them. Big deal. Religion's just fairy tales anyway. So why don't you just, you know, go practice your fairy tales and say the politically expedient thing to say Caesar's Lord. The Christians would not do it. Becoming a Christian meant standing opposed not only to pagan religion, but also to the culture of pagan religions. That leads to a political order where Caesar can consider himself Lord. And so they were often martyred in those days. If you were a person doing sociological analysis, you would not think the Christian church has much of a future. It's a small band of people. What do they have going for them? And they have the might of Rome against them.