Dr Greg Bahnsen - Seminary Apologetics: Acts 17 (Part 11)

We've laid out the contours of biblical approach to defending the faith throughout this day. I think it'd be very helpful if we could draw it together into an illustration. And the best illustration of how the Christian faith is defended in the face of secular arguments against it and opposition is found in Acts, the 17th chapter, where we find Paul going to the city of Athens, the intellectual capital of the ancient world, to the home of the great schools of philosophy, Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics, the Epicureans. And there encounters the philosophers as well as other men in the marketplace and reasons with them about the truth of Christianity, only to find himself hauled before the Areopagus Council to give a reason for the hope that is in him. And I think as we go through this text, and I hope as we go through this text, you'll be able to see these contours or general principles that I've been teaching here from the Bible are illustrated very nicely in the way Paul approached his apologetic. What I'm going to be following here is based on a lengthy and detailed article that I've done exegeting acts, the 17th chapter, and the relevant portion of Paul's work at Athens. And if any of you would like supplemental work to this lecture, I'd encourage you to pick up that article. I'm not going to go over everything in the article. Time won't allow it. A couple of words by way of background before we get into the text itself. There have been some interpreters of the Bible who have said that the reason Acts 17 in Paul's encounter at Athens is found in the inspired text is to show us not what to do. Okay, so I need to say something about that. You know why? Because Paul says in first Corinthians, which follows in his own life, his experience at Athens, that he determined to know nothing among them but Christ and his cross. That in fact he eschewed worldly wisdom to preach the foolishness of the cross. And here's the thinking of some New Testament interpreters. Paul went to Athens and he gave a good go at being a Greek philosopher and trying to prove Christianity in that way. But he left being ridiculed by people having to cut short his apologetic. He hightails out of town and he writes to the Corinthians, he says, I've had it with that. Now I only want to know Christ, his cross, and I don't want anything to do with fancy oration and the words of wisdom and things like that. Well, on the surface there's a kind of plausibility to that maybe this is trial and error. You know, Paul doing his trial and error and, you know, getting kicked around badly, and he says, okay, so why bother with that? There have been fundamentalists who, following this interpretation, have argued that we shouldn't engage in academic education and we shouldn't engage in a philosophical defense of the faith, because what we learned from the New Testament is Paul said, I'm just going to preach. Forget this defending things with philosophers. Well, in my article you can pursue this at greater length, but I hope it's obvious to us that this is not Paul at his worst, offering us a negative illustration. This is, in fact, the only extended oration of Paul to a completely secular audience that Luke gives us in all the Book of Acts. Now stop and think about it. Why would Luke, if he's going to go through the many speeches that he heard by Paul in unbelieving settings, choose as the extended one to give to us the one where Paul said, I got it wrong? It just wouldn't make any sense, would it? This is the Acts of the Apostles, and we should come with the presumption that it's here in the text because God wants us to see how the founders of the church operated, because they left us an example, moreover, of Paul's early departure from Athens and his disdain for what happened there. We don't read anything in the text. If you look at the end of Acts 17, we read in verse 32. Now, when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked. If you ended right there, you say, okay, maybe Luke's saying, okay, that was a real wash, because now people are mocking him. But that isn't what the verse says. It says, some mocked, but others said, we will hear thee concerning this yet again. Thus Paul went out from among them. But notice this is the note on which Luke ends. But certain men cleaved unto him and believed, among whom was Dionysius the Areophagite and a woman named Damaris and others with him. Have you ever asked yourself, why are Dionysius and Damaris mentioned here? Do we know anything else about them from the Bible? Do you think they're mentioned for our sake? We don't even know who they are. Now, if Luke's interest here is in saying only a couple of people and a few more were there, it's interesting that he would say others with them and then mention but two of them. The suggestion by interpreters that I think is reliable is that Dionysius, the Areopagite and Damris must have been particularly prominent Citizens in Athens. He doesn't just say, and some people cleave to Paul and leave it at that. He says, some people cleave to him. And that included some of the leaders of the city, Dionysius and Damaris, and then, of course, others without that prominence, and others with them. And so the idea that Luke puts us in here to show us Paul at his worst and what we shouldn't do just doesn't fit the context in the actual words of the text. I don't believe, well, I could labor more on that. So I'm going to take it for granted that what we read here is supposed to be a model and an ideal for us to emulate as well as we engage in apologetics. Let's read it in its entirety, and then I'll go back and pay attention to specifics. Verse 16. Now, while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him as he beheld the city full of idols. So he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the devout persons, and in the marketplace every day with them that met him. And certain also of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers encountered him. And some said, what would this babbler say? Others he seems to be a setter forth of strange gods, because he preached Jesus and the resurrection. And they took hold of him and brought him unto the Areopagus, saying, may we know what this new teaching is which is spoken by thee, for thou bringest certain strange things to our ears. We would know, therefore, what these things mean. Now all the Athenians and the strangers sojourning there spent their time in nothing else but either to tell or to hear some new thing. And Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, now I want to read his speech in its entirety, but let's just look at the setting here real quickly. Verse 16 says, Paul was provoked in his spirit when he was there in Athens. And what provoked him? The idolatry of the city. Athens was renowned for its idolatry. Petronius, the Roman satirist, once said, it was easier to find a God in Athens than to find a man. There were idols everywhere. And the word provoked here is the same word used in the Greek Old Testament, the Septuagint, for God's spirit toward Israel. When Israel engaged in idolatry, isn't that interesting? Israel provoked him by idolatry. Here Paul is provoked, even as Jehovah is provoked, by the idolatry of the city. And so he can't keep his peace. He has to speak out verse 17 says he reasoned with them. When Paul proclaimed the gospel, he didn't simply give the message of the gospel and expect people to accept it on declaration. He didn't. He argued, he reasoned with them. And I've already told you what he did with the Jews in the synagogue is exactly what he did with the secular Greek in the marketplace. He reasoned with them. Verse 18 says, and of all things, the philosophers were out that day, uh oh, the Epicureans and the Stoics were walking about and they heard this new guy, this new teacher, and they encountered him, they wanted to, to put him down. And some said, what would this babbler say? The word babbler, meaning seed picker, a purveyor of bits and pieces of cheap philosophy, just like the gutter sparrow who picks seeds out of human excrement. What would this babbler say to others? He seemed to be setting forth strange gods. And so the same city that had had judged Anaxagoras and Protagoras and Socrates for setting forth strange gods is now going to judge the apostle Paul. And the reason they thought he set forth strange gods is because he set forth Jesus in the resurrection. The male and female deities of restoration and healing probably is what they thought and they took hold of him. That is significant to be real brief because it apparently was more than just a request for information. They didn't just give Paul a polite invitation. At 3 o' clock this afternoon we're all going to be sitting around talking. Why don't you come tell us more of what you're saying. The same word is used elsewhere in the New Testament for arresting somebody. So there does seem to be some kind of formal stricture. But on the other hand, we don't have any formal accusation listed. And I know this is an argument from silence, but it's an argument from probability based on Luke's way of doing things. It's highly unlikely that if Paul had a formal charge, Luke would not mention what it was. Indeed, the very purpose of the Book of Acts seems to be given to us in the closing words. We want to turn back there very quickly. He abode two whole years in his own higher dwelling. This is Paul, and received all that went in unto him, preaching the kingdom of God and teaching the things concerning the Lord Jesus Christ with all boldness. And here's the theme, none forbidding him. Luke probably wrote Acts as something of an apologetic saying, because if you read the way things line up in every case, when the apostles are arrested or have trouble with the authorities, they're vindicated in every case. Even the Jews have to let them go. God sends an angel to open the prison. Paul is not convicted of this, that and the other. And so apparently Luke has a special interest in showing that the Gospel is not as the Roman Empire is trying to portray it, this threat that, in fact, in every case, none forbid the apostles. They're not found guilty of things. So it would have been an ideal opportunity for Luke to say, and here was the charge against Paul at Athens. And even there they didn't find him guilty. The fact that it's not there seems to suggest then that Paul did not have accusation formally brought against him, yet he was arrested. So my conclusion is this is probably in our jargon, a preliminary hearing. He's appearing before the grand jury to see if an indictment will be now brought against him. And they took hold of him and brought him under the Areopagus. We almost have to conclude that Paul was not standing on the Arios. Pagas. Eris. Pagas. You all know your Greek, right? Pagas Hill. The hill of Aries. Aries is the goddess or God. Of what? Of war. Mars. So it's called Mars Hill. Some people have thought so. Now Paul is standing on Mars Hill. The difficulty is, it says that in verse 22, he stood in the midst of the Areopagus, which is not very likely that he stood in the midst of the hill. That doesn't make a lot of sense. The council called the Areopagus, took its name from the hill where originally and historically it had met. But in the days of Paul, history, historical evidence indicates that the council met in the marketplace, which is where Paul was found, arguing with the philosophers anyway. And they said, you've brought certain strange things to our ears. We know, therefore, what these things mean. And verse 21 is parenthetical on Luke's part, but it fits in perfectly with what we know of Athens. Others had ridiculed Athens because everybody seemed so interested in strange news. You know, bring us something new, you know, dirty laundry, right? We want to know what's going on. You know, the National Enquirer would have sold very well in ancient Athens. And so Luke comments on that. And that's the setting as best as I can lay it out for you. Now let's study how Paul approaches it. Ye men of Athens, in all things I perceive that you are very religious. 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 in ignorance. This I set forth unto you the God that made the world and all things therein. He, being Lord of heaven and earth, dwells not in temples made with hands, neither is he served by men's hands, as though he needed anything, seeing He Himself gives to all life, breath, and all things. And he made of one every nation of men to dwell on the face of the earth, having determined their appointed seasons and the bounds of their habitation, that they should see, seek God, if aptly they might feel after him, and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. For in him we live and move, and have our being as certain even of your own, poets have said, for we are also his offspring. 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. The times of ignorance therefore God overlooked, but now he commands men that they should all everywhere repent, inasmuch as he has appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness by the man whom he has ordained, whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead. Paul reasoned daily in the marketplace, even as he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews. In the marketplace, he would take on anybody who was willing to talk, and that included the philosophers from the school of the Stoics and the school of the Epicureans, both of which were dominant in this particular time in the history of Athens, as we know from extra biblical studies. It's interesting, by the way, that Luke is always accurate in his historical settings, in the way he mentions officials and other settings in Ephesus, Paul reasons daily in the school of Tyrannus. We know from extra biblical literature of such a school, and that would be where he was. But in Athens, the philosophers did not do their work in separate buildings. You know, a school over here, there they went out in the marketplace, and they were peripatetic and walked about. And so we find Paul being described by Luke in the same way. I only give that to you so you have a sense of the authenticity. This is historically right on target. And Paul was quite aware of the philosophical climate of his day. He did not reason with men or attempt to use premises in his reasoning that agreed with their autonomous and neutral, allegedly neutral approach to the truth. Paul did not try to start within the circle of the philosopher's beliefs and say, now, step by step, I can take you from your circle into the circle of my conclusions theologically. Indeed, when he disputed with the philosophers, the text indicates they didn't find any common ground. Rather, they disdained him, didn't they? They had listened to him, after all, they had some assessment of what he said. And they said, he's a babbler, he's a seed picker. He doesn't know what he's talking about. What a hick, what an amateur. The word of the cross was to them, foolish. That's what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 1:18, and in their own pseudo wisdom. After all, they were philosophers. Philosophy means the love of wisdom. In their own pseudo wisdom and love of wisdom, they didn't know God. Paul would not be content and he would not consent to use the word of wisdom, their verbal wisdom, and is apologetic, lest the cross of Christ be made void. That's what he tells us in First Corinthians 1:17. He said, if I depended upon the way of thinking of the world, the cross of Christ would be destroyed. It'd be emptied of its meaning and significance. And so Paul rejected in Acts 17 the assumptions of the philosophers with the view that he might educate them in the truth of God. He didn't look for common beliefs which would serve as a starting point for a neutral and uncommitted search for whatever gods there may be. Now I say that despite the fact that in this text we have what many non presuppositionalists think is definitive proof of the attempt to go to the unbeliever to say, I believe what you believe on this, let's move from there to what I do. Because Paul said, as your own poets have said, by the time we get there, I hope I can prove to you that Paul was doing the very opposite. He wasn't saying, let me agree with you that you might work toward my conclusion. He says, here's my conclusion, and let me prove you already know it. Well, the philosophers looked upon Paul as bringing a strange new teaching, this babbler, this seed picker. And they thought it particularly weird that he declared to them the resurrection. Well, they didn't understand it properly. Paul did explain it. And verse 32 says, now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked, and then we know, others wanted to continue the conversation. And yet others believed, but notice that they wanted to know about the resurrection. So they began doubting the resurrection, being ridiculing or having questions about it. And notice after Paul got done, what did they do? They had reason, a nice big circle, hadn't they? And when he came back to the resurrection, they said, oh, how ridiculous. They began by saying, what you say is ridiculous. They ended by saying, what you say is ridiculous. Who reasons in circles, the unbeliever. And Luke makes that point rather conspicuously in the marketplace. Paul had apologetically proclaimed. He had proclaimed with reasoning the fundamental kerygma, the proclamation that centers on Jesus and the resurrection. This summed up God's decisive and saving work in history for his people. Christ had been delivered up on the cross for their sins and raised by God for their justification. And this had constituted him the Son of God with power. This had demonstrated that he was the exalted Lord. Paul's approach to those who were without the Scriptures is seen in 1st Thessalonians 1, 9, 10. We there read that his approach was to challenge them to turn from their idolatry and serve the living God whose resurrected Son would finally judge the world. That's the summary in 1st Thessalonians 1. And if you look at the Areopagus, that's the very same thing Paul presents here. There's real consistency in his method. He charges men and challenges them to turn from idolatry and to turn not to neutrality, but to serve the living God, a God who has sent his Son resurrected from the dead to be the final judge of the world. And that was the burden of Paul's message at athens as well. Dr. Van Til writes in his pamphlet, Paul at Paul was determined to know nothing among men save Jesus Christ and him crucified in his resurrection through the power of the Creator. There stood before men the clearest evidence that could be given, that they who would still continue to serve and worship the creature would at last be condemned by the Creator, then become their judge. No one can be confronted with the fact of Christ and of his resurrection and fail to have his own conscience tell him that he is face to face with his judge. And this is what Paul declares here. He says, you think that there are other gods. Paul indicates he's provoked by the idolatry there. He says, but God made heaven and earth, and God sent his Son, and his Son's going to judge you someday. What did Jesus say? If you don't accept my words on the Day of Judgment, my words will judge you. And this is Paul's declaration. And what I'm saying to you, you need to be aware God's no longer putting up with this stuff. He calls all men everywhere to repent because the day is coming and he's proved it by the resurrection that Jesus is going to judge you. It was specifically the aspect of Christ's resurrection in Paul's Gospel that elicited a challenge from the philosophers. That's what made them haul him into the Areopagus council for an explanation and as I've indicated to you, and when he got to the resurrection which proved what you're going to be judged by Jesus, they mocked that and wanted to back away from any more conversation with him about it. All right. The first major point in Paul's apologetic that we need to cull from this text is the declaration of the ignorance of his audience. As Paul began his Areopagus apologetic, he began by drawing attention to the nature of man as inherently a religious being. Look at verse 22. And Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, ye men of Athens, in all things I perceive that ye are very religious. Man is by nature a religious being. The term that is used to describe the Athenians, literally fearers of the supernatural spirits, is sometimes translated very religious. Sometimes it's translated in English, somewhat superstitious. The reason for that is that there really isn't an adequate English equivalent to that Greek word. Very religious is too complimentary. Paul was not prone to flattery, and indeed, according to Lucian, it was forbidden to use compliments before the Areopagus, and in effect to gain goodwill. But somewhat superstitious is perhaps a bit too critical in thrust. Although the term could sometimes be used among pagans as a compliment, it usually denoted an excess of strange piety. Accordingly, in Acts 25:19, Festus refers to Judaism using this term as a mild reproach for its religiosity. It's not beyond possibility that Paul cleverly chose this term precisely for its ambiguity. His readers would wonder whether the good or the bad sense was being stressed by Paul. And Paul would be striking a double blow. Men cannot eradicate a religious impulse within themselves, and you Athenians demonstrate that. And yet this good impulse has been degraded by rebellion against the living and true God, as you Athenians also demonstrate. So I'm suggesting that maybe the word in its ambiguity was very well chosen. And precisely what Paul wanted to do is to leave people thinking, well, this is good. You can't escape God. But it's bad because it's strange in excess and excessive as well. Although men do not acknowledge it, they are aware of their relation and their accountability to the living and true God who created them. But rather than come to terms with the living and true God, and particularly come to terms with his wrath against their sin, Romans 1:18, they pervert the truth. And in this, as Romans 1:21 and 22 says, they become ignorant and foolish. And thus Paul could present his point by making an illustration of the altar dedicated to an unknown God. And this is the key to the apologetic. I'm saying that the first point that he draws out is the unbeliever's ignorance. You're very religious. It's not the best word to use for you. And he proves just how, quote, religious they are, or superstitious. He says, because I noticed you had an altar to an unknown God. Paul testified that as he observed the Athenian objects of worship, he found an altar with an appropriate inscription. The verb used of Paul's activity does not mean merely looking at things, but it meant a systematic inspection, a purposeful scrutiny of it. The English word to theorize is actually cognate to the Greek verb. Here Paul looked at this altar and he theorized about it. He did intellectual analysis of it. He says, among your objects of religious devotion, I find a text for what I want to say. He takes the admission of the Athenians themselves, and building on it, Paul could easily indict them for the ignorance of their worship, that is, any worship which is contrary to the word of God. The Athenians had brought Paul before the Areopagus with the desire to know what they were missing in religious philosophy. And Paul immediately points out that heretofore their worship was admittedly of the unknown. We would know what you are saying. Paul says, that's appropriate because you don't know what you're talking about. You worship the unknown. Paul did not attempt to supplement or build upon a common foundation of natural theology with the Greek philosophers. He didn't say, oh, wonderful, you've got an altar to the unknown God. That's my God, and let's go on from there. Paul said, look at this. You don't know what you're worshiping, do you? He began with an expression of their theological inadequacy and the defectiveness of their approach. What he wanted to underscore was their ignorance. And he proceeded from that significant epistemological point. Remember what we said about an internal critique of the unbeliever. You don't want to leave him thinking he's got it made in the shade. You don't want him to be wise in his own eyes. You want to say, you know, you have to admit you're pretty ignorant. You don't know what you're talking about, do you? The presence of altars to unknown gods in Athens was attested by writers such as Pausanias and Philostratus. According to Diogenes, Laertius Such altars were erected to an anonymous source of blessedness about 550 BC, when once a plague afflicted Athens without warning and could not be mitigated by medicine or by sacrifice, Epimenides counseled the Athenians to set white and black sheep loose on the Areophagus and then to erect altars wherever the sheep came to rest. Well, that's pretty impressive, isn't it? Let the sheep go wandering and wherever they lie down, then make an altar to a God there. Not knowing the specific source of the plague's elimination, the Athenians built various altars and said, these are altars to the unknown God. The plague went away. There must be some supernatural explanation, but we don't know which God it is. So this is an altar to an unknown God. This sort of thing was apparently common in the ancient world. In 1910, excavations at Pergamon unearthed evidence that a torchbearer who felt under some obligation to gods whose names were unknown to him, expressed his gratitude by erecting an anonymous altar for them in the city of Pergamum. And so the conclusion of the New Testament scholar Dysman is worth repeating. I quote. In Greek antiquity, cases were not altogether rare in which anonymous altars to unknown gods, or to the God whom it may concern, were erected when people were convinced, for example, after experiencing some deliverance, that a deity had been gracious to them but were not certain of the deity's name. Apparently the Athenians had a number of such altars on Mars Hill, and this was testimony to the Athenian conviction that they were lorded over by mysterious, unknown forces. Yet these altars were also evidence that they assumed enough knowledge of these forces to worship them and worship them in a particular way. Don't you see why the altar is such a great illustration for people? He says, on the one hand, you say you're ignorant of this God, but on the other hand, by making this altar and pursuing this God in this way, you must know enough about this God to worship in this fashion. So which is it? Do you not know God, or do you know God? There was an element of subtle and internal critique in Paul's mention of the Athenian worship of that which they acknowledge as unknown. Verse 23. You worship what you acknowledge is unknown. Moreover, Paul was noting the basic schizophrenic character of unbelieving thought when he described in the Athenians both an awareness of God verse 22, as well as an ignorance of God. You look at Romans 1, 18:25. Isn't Paul saying the same thing you know God, but you don't know God. You know God, but you're suppressing it in unrighteousness. Berkower notes of this passage, and I quote, there is full agreement between Paul's characterization of heathendom as ignorant of God and his speech on the Areopagus. Ever with Paul, the call to faith is a matter of radical conversion from ignorance of God. Knowing God the unregenerate nevertheless suppresses the truth and follows the lie instead, thereby gaining a darkened mind. And so the commentator Monk says of this passage in Acts 17, what follows reveals that God was unknown only because the Athenians had not wanted to know Him. So Paul was not introducing foreign gods, but the God who was both known. And as this altar shows, and yet unknown, the unbeliever is fully responsible for his mental state. And that's a state of culpable ignorance. And that's why Paul, at the end of his message, verse 30, issues a call for repentance. He doesn't say, hey, you're all on the right road. Keep on going, you're going to get to Jesus. He says, you better turn around, you need to have a change of mind. Because their ignorant mindset was in fact immoral. Okay, so the first theme that we see drawn out by Paul at the Areopagus or before the Areopagus is the ignorance of the unbeliever, and yet a culpable ignorance because he's religious enough to know that he should worship God, but he doesn't know what he's talking about. The second theme that we see here is the authority of revelational knowledge. Having alluded to an altar to the unknown God, Paul said, that which you worship, acknowledging openly your ignorance, I proclaim unto you. There are two crucial elements of his apologetic approach to be seen just here. Paul started with an emphasis upon his hearer's ignorance. From there went on to declare with authority the truth of God. Their ignorance was made to stand over against his unique authority and ability to expound the truth. Paul set forth Christianity as alone reasonable and true. And his ultimate starting point was the authority of Christ's revelation. The word that is used in Greek for Paul, proclaiming or setting forth in verse 23 refers to a solemn declaration made with authority. For instance, in the Greek papyri, it's used in in an announcement of the appointment of one's legal representative. It might seem that such an authoritative declaration by Paul would be appropriate only when he dealt with Jews who already accepted the Scriptures. However, whether dealing with Jews or secular philosophers, Paul's epistemological platform remained the same, so that even in Athens he proclaimed the word of God set it forth with authority. The verb is frequently used in the Book of Acts and the Pauline epistles for the apostolic proclamation of the Gospel which has behind it direct divine authority. Now why am I laboring this point? Well, Paul has been ridiculed as a philosophical charlatan. This Paul, who is ridiculed as not knowing his philosophy, now presumes the unique authority to provide the Athenian philosophers with the knowledge they lack about God. He goes, and I proclaim it to you. The same word that's used when you say to Jews with divine authority God has sent. Paul says, I'm God's gift to you. You don't know what you're talking about. I'm here to tell you. Yah, you know, we kind of back off that sort of thing. That kind of confidence is a little bit unnerving. Thus far from stressing common ideas and beliefs, Paul said, you're ignorant and I'm here with authority to tell you the truth. That offensive shows that Paul. Paul felt the antithesis had to be stressed in his apologetic the antithesis between the ignorance of those who refuse to know God and the God given authority of those who speak his word. So Van Til says, they were sure that such a God as Paul preached did not and could not not exist. They were therefore sure that Paul could not declare this God to them. No one could know such a God as Paul believed in. That's where they were coming from. Paul aimed to show his audience that their ignorance would no longer be tolerated. Because now God, the one for whom he proclaims with authority the truth, now God commands all men to undergo a radical change of mind. Verse 30. And so from beginning to end, the unbeliever's ignorance is stressed. Set over against an antithetical fashion, the revelational knowledge of God and the demand made for a change of fundamental outlook, a change of mind. Third theme. The third theme that I want to pull out of Acts 17, the culpable suppression of the truth. Paul reasoned on the basis of antithetical presuppositions. He began with a different starting point, a different ultimate authority, but he also suppressed the culpability of his hearers and the ignorance that results from their unbelief. Natural revelation certainly played a part in his convicting them of this truth. However, there is not a hint in Paul's words that this revelation has been handled properly by the Greek thinkers or that it establishes a common interpretation between the Believer and the unbeliever. Indeed, Paul's reference to natural revelation. All of them were made for the very purpose of indicting his audience rather than complimenting his audience. His allusion to their religious nature. I've already discussed in addition to that notice in verses 26 and 27, that Paul taught that God's providential government of history was calculated to bring men to Himself. That is, they should have known him from his works, and he made one every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth. Having determined their appointed seasons and the bounds of their habitation. Paul declares, God created all men of one, and God providentially controls the bounds of their habitation. Why? For what purpose? Verse 27. In order that they should seek God, if aptly, they might feel after him and find him, though he's not far from each one of us. Creation and Providence prove what you need to be seeking God. You need God. And so Paul indicates in verse 27 that God's providential governance of history should bring men to seek God. He says if perhaps they might feel after him. By expressing this as a subordinate clause, Paul is intending to express an unlikely contingency. He says if perhaps they should feel after him, but it's unlikely they will. That is, the force of the syntax is not that it's a prerequisite, but rather this is an unlikely contingency added. The natural man seeking and finding God shouldn't be taken for granted. In Romans 3, Paul cites Psalm 14. There is none that seeks after God. They have all turned aside and together become unprofitable. In Acts 17:27, even though the unregenerate should attempt to find God, should seek God, given what they know of creation and providence, he would at best the unregenerate would at best feel after God. I love that verb in the Greek to feel after. It's the same that's used by Homer for the groping about of the blinded Cyclops, you know. So the Cyclops loses its eye and it feels after things. And Paul says, that's what you're doing. You're all blinded feeling after God. The verb is used by plural Plato for amateur guesses at the truth. Well, now is Paul trying to flatter his opponents? Then he says, what? You worship in ignorance? I declare to you you're superstitious. You're groping in blindness like the Cyclops. Amateur guesses. Far from showing what some commentators think was a clear appreciation of the elements of truth found in their philosophy at Athens, Paul taught that the eyes of the unbeliever had been blinded to the light of God's revelation. Pagans don't interpret natural revelation correctly. They don't come to the light of the truth. Here and there they grope in darkness. And so Paul viewed men as blameworthy for not holding fast to the knowledge of God which comes to them in creation, in providence. Like in Romans 1, he says the rebellious are without excuse due to God's general revelation. So Paul, when he appeals to general revelation in Acts 17, wants us to see that the unbeliever is guilty before God because he has mishandled the truth of God. He's responsible because he possesses the truth, but he's guilty because of what he does to the truth. And both aspects of the unbelievers relation to natural revelation have to be kept in mind. When we talk to people about natural revelation and are apologetic, we must keep both aspects in mind. You are a creature of God, living in God's world. You know the truth very well. And yet what you're doing with the truth is culpable. You're suppressing it, distorting it, and not doing what God would have you to do. So in Acts 17:27, heathen philosophers are said at best to grope in darkness after God. This inept groping is not due to the deficiency of God's revelation. The philosophers grope, Paul says, even though God is not far from each one of us. Notice how verse 18 begins with the word, for he's not far from each one of us. Verse 28 is offering a clarification or an illustration of the statement that God is quite near at hand. Even for blinded pagan thinkers. The unbeliever's failure to find God and his acknowledged ignorance is not an innocent matter. And Paul demonstrates that it's not innocent by quoting two Greek philosophers, two Greek poets. The strange idea that these quotations stand as proof in the same way as biblical quotations in the other speeches of Acts stand as proof for Paul is really contrary to Paul's decided emphasis in his theology upon the unique authority of God's Word. But beyond that, it simply won't comport with the text of Acts 17. What Paul says is you have groping, unrepentant, ignorant pagan religiosity. And I can prove that Your own philosophers have said, since God is near at hand to all men, since his revelation impinges on them continually, since he's the creator and providential controller, they can't escape knowing him. So they're without excuse for perverting the truth. And Paul makes the point that even pagans, contrary to this spiritual disposition, possess a knowledge of God which, though suppressed, renders them guilty before the Lord. And so Paul supports his point at the Areopagus by showing that even the pantheistic Stoics are aware of, and they obliquely express God's nearness, man's dependence upon Him. Epimenides the Cretan is quoted from a quatrain in an address to Zeus. In him we live and move, and have our being. It might be interesting to those of you who are New Testament scholars that Paul quotes Epimenides also from the same quatrain in Titus 1:12. The phrase is in him would have denoted an idiomatic Greek of the first century, especially in Jewish circles. The thought of in his power or we exist by him. This declaration by him we live is not at all parallel to Paul's theology of mystical union with Christ. That's the point that I want to get across here. It's closer to Colossians 1:15, 17 in him were all things created, and in him all things consist. The stress here is on man's absolute dependence on God for his existence. Paul's second quotation is introduced with the words as certain of your own poets have said. His use of the plural is further evidence of his educated familiarity with Greek thought. For as a matter of fact, the statement which is quoted is found in more than one Greek writer. Paul quotes his fellow Cilician Aretas as saying, for we are also his offspring, which is from the poem Natural Phenomena. But it's also echoed in Cleanthes Hymn to Zeus. Paul could agree to the formal statement that we are God's offspring. However, he would certainly have said by way of qualification what the Stoics did not say, namely, that we are children of God merely in a natural, not a supernatural, sense. Paul teaches elsewhere that we are children of wrath, so we can be called the offspring, but certainly not in the intended pantheistic sense that was given by Aretas or Cleanthes, who were saying, and so we're on good terms, we're offspring of God. That isn't what Paul thought. Knowing the historical philosophical context in which Paul spoke and noting the polemical thrust of the Areopagus address, We really can't accept any hasty pronouncement to the effect that that Paul cites these teachings with approval, unqualified by allusion to a totally different frame of reference. An anti vantilian writing on Acts 17 ridiculed what van Till said by saying, that isn't what Paul does, he doesn't qualify this by a totally different frame of reference. Well, I think those who make such remarks eventually are forced to acknowledge the qualification Anyway. The same person who wrote this against Van Til's interpretation went on to say Paul is not commending their Stoic doctrine and he did not reduce his categories to theirs. Well, if he's not commending Stoic doctrine and his categories of interpretation are not the same as theirs, then aren't you admitting that when he quoted the Stoics, he wasn't approving of what they said without qualification? I think Berkauer is correct at this point when he says, and I quote him, there is no hint here of a point of contact in the sense of a preparation for grace, as though the Athenians were already on the way to a true knowledge of God. There's no hint of that. It's rather indictment. Even your poets know that you're not far from God even in their blindness. Glorious groping in darkness, they end up saying things like this. Paul knew his philosophy well enough that he would not make the egregious mistake of quoting premises that are interpreted in a Stoic fashion to prove a conclusion that is interpreted in a Christian fashion. That is one of the most elementary logical fallacies. It's known as equivocation. So I convince you of my premise on one interpretation of it, but I draw a conclusion that is of a different interpretation of what the premise meant. Paul wasn't doing anything so fallacious as that. Rather, Paul appealed to the distorted teaching of the pagan authors as evidence that the process of theological distortion cannot fully rid men of their natural knowledge of God. Certain expressions of the pagans manifest this knowledge, but manifest this knowledge as suppressed within the philosophical context espoused by the ungodly writer. The expressions were put to a false use, but within the framework of God's revelation, the framework they were suppressing in unrighteousness, these expressions properly express a truth about God. Paul was not utilizing pagan ideas in the Areopagus address. He was using pagan expressions to demonstrate that ungodly thinkers have not eradicated all idea, albeit suppressed and distorted, of the living and true God. And so FF Bruce remarks about this passage. Epimenides and Aritas are not invoked as authorities in their own right. Certain things which they said, however, can be understood as pointing to the knowledge of God. But the knowledge of God presented in the speech is not rationalistically conceived or established. It is the knowledge of God taught by Hebrew prophets and sages. It is rooted in the fear of God, it belongs in the same order as truth, goodness and covenant love. For lack of it, men and women perish in the coming day of God. It will fill the earth as the waters cover the sea. The delicately suited allusions, the Stoic and Epicurean tenets which have been discerned in the speech, like the quotations from pagan poets, have their place as points of contact with the audience, but they do not commit the speaker to acquiescence in the realm of ideas to which they originally belong. Or as Ned B. Stonehouse said in his well known article, Paul the Areopagus, the Apostle Paul, reflecting upon their creaturehood and upon their religious faith and practice, could discover within their pagan religiosity evidences that the pagan poets, in the very act of suppressing and perverting the truth, presupposed a measure of awareness of it. Van Till observes, they could say this adventitiously only, that is, it would be in accord with what they deep down in their hearts knew to be true in spite of their systems. It was that truth which they sought to cover up by means of their professed systems which enabled them to discover truth as philosophers and scientists. In verse 29, Paul draws the practical application of the statement quoted from the Greek poet. He's just said, for we are also here his offspring, he says, being then the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, silver, or stone graven by art and device of men. Now this is the telling and final refutation of the view that Paul was trying to make common cause with the ideas of the Greeks. Here Paul says, since you say that we are the offspring of God, he says, it follows in answer the fool according to his folly, if we're the offspring of God, then we shouldn't think of God as something that's gold, silver, or crafted by the hands of men. Where did Paul say this? In Athens that is renowned for the Parthenon, right in the temple of Aries. And what do we find in all these gold and silver and gods crafted by the hands of men? If Paul were trying to agree with the outlook of his readers or of his hearers, rather than doing an internal critique, how would he then say so? Then we draw the conclusion that you shouldn't have these idols. Paul is saying is if you know that we're the offspring of God, then you shouldn't be doing this. He's trying to demonstrate that they don't understand properly the statement we're the offspring of God because their understanding allows for idolatry. His understanding prohibits idolatry. Again, I don't see how you can get beyond that. Paul is not using commonly understood premises to say, I'll be like a Stoic philosopher and then try to argue into the Christian faith. The next basic thing from Acts 17 that I want you to see, and I'm not going to have the time to pursue this at length, is that Paul rests his argument on scriptural presuppositions. At every point where Paul is laying down a positive point or premise leading to his conclusion, Paul is quoting the Old Testament or alluding to the Old Testament. Paul takes the word of God that teaches us about creation and providence, that men should repent, that he's appointed a day, that he'll judge the world in righteousness, and so forth. He takes this right from Scripture itself. And then next, I want you to see that he pressed the antithesis with his hearers. He pressed the antithesis. Against the monism of the Greek philosophers. Paul taught that God created all things. The Greek philosopher said, all being is one. Gods and men are all on the same scale of being. Paul said, no, you have to honor the Creator creature distinction. And that precluded the materialism of the Epicureans and the pantheism of the Stoics simultaneously. So is Paul trying to make common cause? No, he proclaims the creation, which simultaneously refutes Epicurean and Stoic philosophy. Against naturalistic and emanatistic views. Paul proclaimed the supernatural transcendence of God. And as his listeners may have been looking upon the Parthenon, he declared, God doesn't dwell in temples made with hands. See, it's conflict, conflict, conflict. Not, hey, I'm really on your side, but let's go further and take Jesus. Actually, the Greek philosophers may have said, yeah, we can add Jesus to the Parthenon. We've got plenty up there. But Paul says, you see, that God doesn't dwell in temples like that. You've got it all wrong. That doesn't look like commonality. That looks like confrontation to me. And God needs nothing from man. In fact, on the contrary, man depends on God for everything. And so the philosophers of Athens should thus do all things to God's glory, which means bringing every thought captive to him and renouncing their autonomy. Paul taught about the unity of the human race. That was quite a blow to Athenian pride. The Athenians thought they were special people set apart from all mankind. Paul said, confrontation again. Wrong. All men are created by God. They're all on a common footing. Many of these Greek thinkers were committed to the concept of fate. Over against that Paul declared the providence of God. He's the one that determines the boundaries of the nations. Upon the founding of the Areopagus court by Athena, according to legend, Apollo declared when the dust drinks up a man's blood once he has died, there is no resurrection. Isn't that interesting? The very founding of that court mythologically included the declaration there is no resurrection. Paul comes declaring the resurrection. Does that look like commonality or confrontation? Maybe I'm riding a hobby horse. This audience doesn't need this. But so often I've had to go to the sex the street show people. You have not approached it right. When you think Paul went to Athens and said, yes, I agree with much of what you say, but let's go to my conclusions rather than yours. That wasn't his approach. His approach was confrontation. You say this, I authoritatively say that you are in ignorance. I tell you the truth, you have internal subtle contradictions.