Tell it on the Mountain

Paul’s Areopagus Address

(Acts 17.22-34)

An Exegetical Paper by T. R. Rider

March 9, 2007

ORIENTATION AND CONTEXT

Significance of Text
Acts 17:22-34 is the presentation of an address delivered by the apostle Paul to the Athenians. It
is a record of early Christian preaching to the pagan world, and demonstrates the adaptability
of the Christian message. Paul’s main concern is to introduce the wisest of the wise and the
most religious of the religious - as one might expect to find in Athens- to the one true God of
gods, freeing them from useless idol worship and opening for them the way of salvation from His
righteous judgment. If his Areopagus address does not sound like the typical presentation of the
gospel that the saints had used closer to Jerusalem and within a culture that already had
experience with Judaic thought, it is because it is not intended to. For Paul to ““take Christ into
the Hellenistic universe of thought and to ask Greek questions about him was to realize that he is
greater, grander, more active, and his relations with God and humanity more complex than the
earliest concepts could convey” (Walls 149). This passage is evidence that Paul understood that
for God to be a God of all people, all people would need to hear God preached in their own
vocabularies and within the context of their own cultures.

Historical and Social Setting

While there have been attempts to dispute the authorship of Luke-Acts, it is generally accepted
that Luke is the author of both the Gospel and the book of Acts. Tradition has held this opinion
since the second century, and “stylistically and structurally the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of
the Apostles are so closely related that they have to be assigned to the same author”
(Longenecker 238). Furthermore, the several “we” passages within the book of Acts point to a
companion of Paul as the author, and of these companions, the text itself rules out all but Luke
(Gundry 296-7).

The speeches that appear in Acts deserve special consideration in regard to authorship. It has
been disputed that these speeches were not merely recorded by Luke, but created by Luke to
advance his own purposes in writing. Historically, this stance has been based on an argument
made by Cadbury, stating that most ancient historians followed the practice of Thucydides, and
simply created their recorded speeches (Longenecker 213). Longenecker, however, points out
that Thucydides himself claims that, albeit condensed, he attempted to record the significance
and language of the speeches with as much accuracy as possible (214). More recently, there
have been arguments for Luke as the creator of the speeches based on a supposed discrepancy
between the expression of Paul’s theology as presented by Luke in the speeches of Acts, and
Paul’s theology found in his epistles. However, F.F. Bruce presents convincing evidence for
Paul as the original author of his speeches found in Acts. For instance, he states that the
natural revelation demonstrated in the Areopagitica corresponds to Romans chapters 1-3 and
that “the salvation history of the Areopagitica finds its climax in Christ, as does the salvation-
history of the Pauline letters” (Paul 245). Therefore, when studying the speech, we must look
for the contributions of both authors.

While there is debate, the general consensus regarding the use of source material in Acts is that
“Luke’s literary ability and his liberty in handling his materials was evidently too great to
enable us to identify with any certainty the presence, extent, or nature of his sources”
(Longenecker 225). Most credit Luke with recording firsthand accounts from his own travel
journals and traveling companions, although it is noted that in the first half of Acts he may have
used information from sources like the decree of the Jerusalem Council and other such
documents that may have circulated at the time of the early church (Gundry 296).

Longenecker points out that “most scholars date Acts somewhere between A.D. 80 and 95”
(236). However, he then continues by presenting a compelling argument for the date of
composition to be about 64 A.D. His argument is based on three points: first, Luke attempts to
show Christianity as a legal religion based on its relationship to Judaism. Such a position would
only make sense prior to Roman hostility toward Jews which began in 66 A.D. and the Neronian
persecution beginning in 65A.D. Second, the archaic language and geographical boundaries
used by Luke suggest an early date; and finally, Luke writes with no known awareness of Paul’s
letters (235-238). Also, the book of Acts was written to cover the time period from Jesus’
ascension until Paul had been in Rome under house arrest for two years- 63 A.D, which makes a
date of 64 A.D. for composition the most probable.

While Luke addressed Acts to Theophilus in his prologue, he aimed the book of Acts toward the
Gentile rather than the Jewish reader. Longenecker states that Luke may have written Acts so
that “it could also be used within various churches for instructional purposes, to show how
Christianity moved out from its origins in Palestine to become a movement of God’s Spirit in the
Roman Empire” (221). The audience specific to the passage containing Paul’s Areopagus
address was composed of the cosmopolitan and Hellenistic lost. Although Athens was in decline
at the time of Paul’s arrival, it was still famed as “a cultural center and university town, where
the study of philosophy and rhetoric flourished” (Martin, “Athens” 515). The Athenians were
also known for their superstitious worship of many gods (Marshall 281).
We are told by Luke that the audience consisted of some Epicurean and Stoic philosophers (Acts
17:18). Epicurean philosophy, Asmis tells us, holds that pleasure is the greatest gain in life, that
everything happens randomly and that, although gods do exist, they are completely disinterested
in and disassociated with humans. They also believe that there is no reason to fear death
because there is no afterlife (559-560). Schmeller describes Stoicism as expressing a belief in a
divine and universal logos, or reasoning power, which is responsible for the structured creation
of the universe and which inhabits all things. An individual’s value is determined by the
condition of the logos within. The more virtuous your life, the better your logos, and the more
status you had in society. Stoics believed that the soul lived, but only for a short while before it
was reabsorbed into the divine cosmic-soul (210-214). Such were the philosophers who
ridiculed Paul and asked him to come to the Areopagus and better explain what he had already
been preaching in the synagogue and marketplace (Acts 17:18-19).

Consensus is divided as to whether Paul presented this speech casually to gatherers on a

prominent hill called Areopagus below the Acropolis in Athens, or whether he presented to the
actual Council of Areopagus, which met both on the hill or in the Stoa Basileios (Marshall 284).
This council held “far-reaching and undefined religious, judicial, censorial, and political power
[and was] the chief governing body of Athens” at the time Paul was there (Martin, “Areopagus”
371). Bruce argues for the Council being the audience of Paul’s speech based on the wording of
verse 22 which has Paul standing “in the midst” of the Areopagus, and he cites evidence which
indicates that it was common to shorten ‘the court of the council of Areopagus’ to simply, ‘the
Areopagus’ (Bruce, Acts 332). It was Roman policy to outlaw religions that threatened the
protected state religions (Gundry 317); however, since there is no scriptural evidence that Paul
was involved in a trial, his presentation was likely an informal address to the council.

Literary Context
Paul’s speech to the Athenians at the Areopagus in Acts 17:22-34 is contained within the larger
work of Luke-Acts which was originally circulated as a single, two-volume work, placing them
both in the same literary framework. A main intent of Luke-Acts appears to be an attempt to
record a continuation of the saving work of God unto His people, through Jesus Christ and
through the Holy Spirit, and thereby present Christianity as the natural maturation of the Judaic
religion as it sheds its cocoon of old covenant law and through faith instead is offered to all
peoples according to the fulfillment of Scripture. We can identify portions of this larger theme
even within the smaller scope of Paul’s speech.
Acts itself is an historical narrative; a genre which generally speaks of God working out His
plan of salvation for and through His people. One of the main storylines in the book of Acts is
the history of the early church. Acts 15 portrays the council at Jerusalem making the
monumental decision to loose Christianity from the yoke of Judaic law so that people could
understand fully that salvation comes through grace, not works (Acts 15:10-11). Acts 17:22-34
is located in the second half of the book, which Longenecker describes as “the Christian mission
to the Gentile world;” and within the record of Paul’s second missionary journey (245). In this
framework Luke is highlighting the successful spread of the gospel message outward toward
Rome. This begs the question of why Luke recorded this passage in the history of the church,
especially when Athens did not appear to be a particularly prosperous campaign. Gundry notes
that Luke had developed a pattern during Paul’s missionary exploits: “preaching in the
synagogue- success among Gentile proselytes and God-fearers- Jewish hostility- withdrawal
from the synagogue- further successful ministry among the Gentiles- persecution- flight” (317).
However, Paul’s address in Athens breaks this pattern. No Jewish hostility is recorded, either in
the synagogues, or as an attempt to drive Paul out of Athens. One might assume that the Jews
did not have enough influence within Athens to cause Paul serious trouble; however the fact that
all Jewish reaction is surprisingly absent more than likely indicates that Luke instead wishes to
focus the reader’s attention more on the changing presentation of the gospel as it engages the
Gentile populations.
Also, the majority of this passage is included by Luke as a persuasive argument in speech form
given by Paul to the Athenians. Thus while it remains part of the larger narrative by showing the
spread of the gospel message from a largely Jewish to a largely Gentile population, it also
presents an individual message in its own right. The immediate context of the speech has Paul in
Athens waiting for Timothy and Silas so they can continue on their missionary journey. Paul
becomes “deeply distressed” by the numerous idols he has found there, and it is this which
compels him to preach in the synagogue and market to whoever will listen (Acts 17:16-17). This
message then, also addresses the idol worship that is specifically relevant to the Athenian
population.
Structurally, Paul springboards his address off the alter of the Athenians “unknown god,” and
then draws his audience out into Christian thought, turns and reconnects with Hellenistic culture
by citing ancient poetry before again drawing them further into a more Christian understanding
of reality. Paul does not use any biblical quotations; instead he incorporates their own
philosophies and language in his address. “This way of proceeding had been used by Jews in the
previous century or so, when seeking to commend the ethical monotheism of Israel to an
immoral and idolatrous but wistful pagan world” (Green 555). No longer Saul, his intent and
his tone- while uncompromising, are not of condemnation, but of revelation.

PRESENTATION OF TEXT

Scripture Passage
22  Then Paul stood in front of the Areopagus and said, ‘Athenians, I see how extremely
religious you are in every way. 23For as I went through the city and looked carefully at the
objects of your worship, I found among them an altar with the inscription, “To an unknown
god.” What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. 24The God who made the
world and everything in it, he who is Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in shrines made by
human hands, 25nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he
himself gives to all mortals life and breath and all things. 26From one ancestor he made all
nations to inhabit the whole earth, and he allotted the times of their existence and the
boundaries of the places where they would live, 27so that they would search for God and
perhaps grope for him and find him—though indeed he is not far from each one of us. 28For “In
him we live and move and have our being”; as even some of your own poets have said, “For we
too are his offspring.” 29Since we are God’s offspring, we ought not to think that the deity is like
gold, or silver, or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of mortals. 30While God
has overlooked the times of human ignorance, now he commands all people everywhere to
repent, 31because he has fixed a day on which he will have the world judged in righteousness by
a man whom he has appointed, and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the
dead.’ 32 When they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some scoffed; but others said, ‘We
will hear you again about this.’ 33At that point Paul left them. 34But some of them joined him
and became believers, including Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris, and
others with them. (NRSV)

Text Critical Notes

Manuscript variations found for Acts 17:22-34 do not change the interpretation of the
passage. In verse 26, “from one ancestor” is found as “from one blood” in the Western and
Byzantine texts. In verse 27, “for God” can be found as “the divine being” in Western texts,
and is found in other ancient authorities as “for the Lord.” Because Paul uses a similar term to
represent God throughout, never using Yahweh or any specifically Judaic terms to represent
God, there is no major difference in representation of the way he is presenting God.

Outline of Passage
I. Paul’s Address at the Areopagus (vv.22-31)
A. Paul introduces his intent
B. God as creator and sustainer
C. God’s participation in history and our lives
D. Uselessness of idolatry in light of a living God
E. God commands repentance
F. Judgment is assured by a resurrection
II. Response to the Message (vv.32-34)
A. Resurrection incites scoffing
B. Disbelief and uncertainty of some
C. Believers join Paul

PAUL’S ADDRESS AT THE AREOPAGUS

In the first two verses of the address Paul1 introduces his intention to proclaim to the Athenians
only what they have already wanted to know (v 23), consequently dismissing the charge that he
1
Although it is acknowledged that both Paul and Luke participate in the final record of this speech, for ease of
discussion only Paul will be named throughout the exegesis of the speech itself.
has come to introduce yet more new gods to the Athenian idol pool. Paul’s address first takes the
form of a persuasive argument against idolatry; however, he uses this format intentionally to
introduce Judaic Christian theology in an unpretentious yet matter-of-fact approach.

Paul’s description of the Athenians as “extremely religious” in verse 22 has also been
interpreted with the denunciation “too superstitious” (KJV). Robertson explains that
“Deisidaimōn is a neutral word (from deidō, to fear, and daimōn, deity). The Greeks used it
either in the good sense of pious or religious or the bad sense of superstitious.” However, it
would be counterproductive for Paul to begin his address with an attack. In the past,
commentators may have focused too much on Paul’s pharisaic past and not enough on the
transforming power of his conversion to decide the tone of his address. The converted Paul, no
less repulsed by the sin of idolatry, does not react with that same revulsion toward the people,
condemning them, but addresses them as a lost people to whom the salvation message now also
applies. In a perceptive effort to gain a listening ear, Paul first validates their religiosity and
then will attempt to direct that towards the one true God.

Paul uses an existing pagan altar as a point of connection in order to relate what he has to say
with something which they can identify. There has been much controversy over whether such an
altar inscription “an unknown god” actually existed in the singular or not. I would argue that
this is irrelevant to Paul’s purpose. Historical evidence has identified many alters to “unknown
gods” (Bruce, Acts 335), making it reasonable to imagine that Paul was confronted with many
more such alters than we have been able to recover today. Thus he was well aware that he was
not dealing with an isolated instance of one unknown god, nor would he believe he could falsely
create this image for his audience even if there was an altar or two addressed to “an” unknown
god. Realistically, Paul’s own Judaic Christian reality did not recognize any of their gods as
either known or knowable. Paul could, however, safely assume that his audience of philosophers
and councilmen were educated enough to understand that the inscriptions “to unknown gods”
imply a number of singular unknown gods- any of which could represent the One True God of
whom Paul was about to speak; ultimately nullifying all others. His point was to draw for them
two conclusions from the altar- first, their desire to know God and second, their attempt to be
religiously scrupulous. Paul, standing front and center, is leading his audience when he says he
can tell that they want to get it right in their hearts. As a people Paul would knowingly be giving
the Athenians too much credit, but pastorally, he is not addressing a crowd- he is addressing
every individual in that crowd.

Insightfully, while Paul’s very first proclamation advocates monotheism instead of polytheism,
Paul makes the point of argument the statement to which his fiercest opponents would take the
least offense: God does not live in shrines nor is He served by human hands. One can assume
that Paul, who later quotes Greek poetry, was aware that Greek literature and philosophy-
including both Stoic and Epicurean philosophy, already supported this notion (Bruce Acts 337).
Granted, idol worship abounded in Athens and there may have been many present who would
have argued, but then they would also have invited the arguments of the philosophers present.
All else Paul presents as subordinate to that point as though, if one accepts the main point, the
supporting evidence would logically fall into acceptance: one God is the creator, Lord, and
sustainer of all else that exists. Thus, Paul makes no attempt to argue the point of monotheism;
he goes one step higher and assumes its accommodation, instead focusing the audience’s
attention on the aspect of erroneous worship.

Paul continues his revelation of this unknown God by introducing the idea of His personal
involvement in history. God not only created all people, but all have a common origin.
Robertson reminds us that this “view runs counter to Greek exclusiveness which treated other
races as barbarians and to Jewish pride which treated other nations as heathen or pagan.” The
Athenians themselves believed that they were a unique people, “sprung from the soil of their
native Attica” (Bruce, Acts 337). Ethnicity looses its significance with the revelation that all
have been created “so that” we would seek God. History becomes God’s plan for us, and it
revolves around this universal purpose of His bringing humanity into relationship with Himself,
the Creator. Paul, then, affirms that God does indeed desire their worship- and yet, despite this,
humankind continues to grope about as though unable to discern Him. While God can be seen in
both creation and in history, neither philosophical education nor religious piety has been able to
bring to light His true nature so long as they are blinded by idolatry.

Both of the poems that Paul quotes in verse 28 are thought to refer to Zeus, a main god of the
Athenians. The first is accredited to Epimenides, and the second to Aratus, “a poet deeply
influenced by Stoicism” (Bruce, Paul 242). As Bruce concludes elsewhere, using Hellenistic
language and literature may “illustrate the argument in terms familiar to them, but they in no
way commit the speaker to acquiescence in their philosophical presuppositions” (Acts 342).
Paul uses literature referring to a pagan god so that he could reach into their understanding and
get that same idea across about the true God.
By adding that God is not to be found in an image, no matter how worthy the materials or the
artist, Paul concludes his argument that idolatry is a useless form of worship because it misses
the mark. His goal is not to detract from their desire to worship, but to redirect that worship and
instill in them a responsibility to acknowledge God “as God” (Romans1:21). Thus, instead of
making a direct statement, Paul presents the fact that God is a living God by using association:
if we (the creation) are living we ought to assume God (the Creator) is living; and negation: if
God is living He must not be an image. However misconstrued their concept of God is, Paul
continues to keep the focus on the Athenians’ desire to worship appropriately. Whether he
personally considers it sincere or not is of little consequence, he is still able to use it successfully
as a point of agreement in order to introduce foundational truths about God.

Regardless of his awareness that the Athenians worshiped unknown gods as a precaution
against the wrath of a forgotten god, Paul still concludes that idolatry is a useless and improper
form of worship. In light of this, Gempf points out that the “obvious rejoinder from the audience
would be: ‘If our worship is unacceptable to the unknown god, why is there no catastrophe?’”
(53). Anticipating this response, the speech takes a sharp turn at verse 30 as Paul announces
repentance as the logical reparation for idolatry. That Paul wishes to make idol worship the
subject of their repentance is made more clear by his use of the same word for ignorance in this
verse as we find in verse 23 (agnoountes: agnoias, agnostos), as Robertson points out. (What
they worshiped in ignorance, has been translated as what they worshipped “as unknown” [v
23]). The “times of human ignorance” also harkens back to verse 26 and the “allotted times” of
history that God had ordained- suggesting that God overlooked these times not because He
ignored sin, but because He had allowed for this time of ignorance. That time had now ended
and a new time of awareness has begun- an awareness that first and foremost demands
repentance.

The word Paul uses for repent here is the present active infinitive form and means that the
command “repent” is a present and continuous command- repent and remain repentant.
Robertson tells us that this word “was the message of the Baptist, of Jesus, of Peter, of Paul...
[and demanded a] radical change of attitude and life.” Luter, from his study of the use of this
word for repent in the New Testament concludes that, “in the gospels, metanoia stands for the
entire response bringing about eternal life, including faith when it is not stated” (673). Paul,
arguing that we are one people under one God, makes certain metanoia is understood to apply
to “all people everywhere” (v 30).

In Acts 17:30, the phrase, “now [God] commands” repentance has also been translated as
“now [God] tells” men to repent. Terry notes that, in the Greek, “There is only a two letter
difference between the two readings.” However, Paul has just declared that God is the creator
of the world and everything in it. We are His. Not only do we have our life in Him, but as our
Creator our life belongs to Him. Therefore God is able to make this a “command” for
repentance, and it is on these same grounds that He has the right to judge. A less commanding
interpretation would only undermine the authority Paul has established for God.

As part of His plan for humanity, God has fixed both a judge and a judgment day. The
implications of there being one day for judgment of “all people everywhere” is that all will be
living on that day to face the judgment. Thus, when Paul states that God has given assurance to
all by raising this man from the dead, Paul is not only saying that God gives assurance to the
fact that He has chosen Jesus to do the judging, but also to the fact that judgment is certain. This
God which Paul proclaims reaches beyond even death to make it unmistakable that the time of
ignorance has come to an end. We now have specific revelation of God’s will through this
resurrected man. Therefore, judgment becomes both future and present- Jesus has already been
revealed as the means of escaping the future judgment, and now is the time one must act on it.

By previously explaining God as the author of history, and by further stating that God has “fixed
a day” in history for this judgment, Paul proclaims judgment in righteousness as part of God’s
plan for restoring the world to Him. Thus, it is not a statement of condemnation, but a statement
of salvation. In contrast to the beliefs of the Stoics, the Epicureans, the pagans, and even the
Jews, righteousness is not determined by a philosophy or by a religious standard of works, but
by Christ. In fact, as Paul sees it, “the attempt to establish one’s own righteousness- one’s own
position before God- is a rejection of the coming of God’s righteousness in Christ” (Onesti and
Brauch 836), and an invitation to stand condemned before God. Paul says God will judge the
world “in righteousness” by a man whom He has appointed (v 31). Theologian George Ladd
notes that the Greek word dikaiosune can be translated as “justification,” but has traditionally
been translated as “righteousness,” (as it is in verse 31), and interpreted by Catholic tradition
as an ethical quality. Today, he adds, scholarship interprets both justification and righteousness
in terms of relationship. Thus, righteousness “is not a word designating personal ethical
character, but faithfulness to a relationship” (Theology 480-481). What Paul is saying is that
whether we are deemed righteous or not will be a direct result of our relationship with this
resurrected man.

There has been much said at this point as to why Paul did not mention the cross in this address.
However, the reality that our righteousness depends upon Christ sums up the message of the
cross and translates it wholly into Hellenistic terms without going into the Old Testament
sacrificial system. The sacrifices that the Athenians offered were to appease their gods in an
attempt to buy their good favor. The Jewish sacrificial system was substitutionary: accept this
sacrifice in place of my life for the sins I have committed. At this point Paul cannot safely use
the language of Christ's death on the cross as payment for our sins without emersing the
Athenians  in confusion over the differing purposes of the two sacrificial systems. It is perhaps a
similar reason that Paul also does not mention Christ by name in the address even though
scripture tells us that he had been preaching Jesus and the resurrection already in the streets
and synagogue (v 17). It was likely an effort to maintain the argument of monotheism and avoid
reintroducing the mistaken idea that he was advocating new deities.

Furthermore, Ladd successfully demonstrates that the resurrection “was the primary message of
the earliest Christians.  It is the basic presupposition of the New Testament epistles [and the]
cornerstone of the entire New Testament” (Resurrection 42-43). Ladd explains in great length
how judgment and justification are intricately linked to the resurrection, concluding: “Indeed,
we  are justified  by  his  resurrection:  for if  the justification  of the  cross  is  a  proleptic
announcement   of the  eschatological   acquittal,  but  if Christ  has  not  been  raised to defend
his   people  in  the  eschatological judgment,  then  the whole doctrine of justification is a
figment of the imagination” (Resurrection 148). Thus, Paul’s instruction on a redemptive
relationship with the man whom God has appointed- Christ- has indeed introduced the message
of the cross, and in such a way that the Athenians would be more able to assimilate it.

RESPONSE TO THE MESSAGE

Paul’s message comes to an end when his mention of the resurrection from the dead incites
scoffing among the listeners. The Epicureans believed that a person’s existence was comprised
of body and soul atoms and that after death these atoms separated again leaving nothing at all
(Asmis 560). As mentioned earlier, the Stoics believed that one’s soul joined the cosmic-soul,
and therefore no individuality remained. The Hellenistic Greek in general esteemed the body in
his earthly life, but Eddy explains that spiritually speaking, they “understood matter as
questionable at best--if not down-right evil. The body was seen as something like an unnatural
tomb, within which the eternal human soul was temporarily trapped until released by death.”
Thus the idea of a bodily resurrection was absurd at best, degrading at worst, to the majority of
Paul’s audience. It is not difficult to understand that this point becomes the point of breakdown.
While Luke goes further than any of the other gospel writers to ensure an understanding of
resurrection that encompasses a physical, bodily resurrection (Nickelsburg 690), it is the
theological implications of the physical resurrection that Luke wishes to demonstrate. In fact,
unlike Paul’s audience who focused on the physical aspect only, “the New Testament does not
picture the resurrection of Jesus [solely] in terms of the resuscitation of a corpse, but as the
emergence within time and space of a new order of life” (Ladd, Theology 359). It is Paul’s
“now” of verse 30 which God brings into history.

Unable to get past the absurdity of a bodily resurrection, Luke records an immediate response of
vocal disbelief through the jeering of some listeners. This is interpreted by most commentators to
most likely be the Epicureans, although it could just have easily been a mixed group of
unbelievers since crowd mentality is generally quite persuasive. This makes the comment “we
will hear you again about this” of verse 32 even more remarkable. Luke leaves it open to
interpretation as to whether this implies courtesy or curiosity, but it does seem to indicate that
Paul was not officially silenced. Luke leaves no doubt that even among the unbelievers Paul had
at least created uncertainty. In any case, the resulting turmoil does mark the end of Paul’s
address to the council.

Paul leaves, but not without gaining some proselytes. It is important to Luke’s purpose of
showing the acceptability and spread of the gospel to establish that educated and prestigious
Gentiles are receptive to the message. This is done by recording the acceptance of the two
named individuals who believe Paul’s message. First mentioned is Dionysius, a member of the
court of Areopagus and, one could safely assume, an influential and cultured Gentile. Luke gives
“special attention” to women in his portrayal of the gospel message as universal (Gundy 208),
and so it is significant that along with naming a man, a woman- Damaris- is also recorded.
Luke adds that “others with them” became believers as well, but there is no indication of how
many. Longenecker refers to Paul’s address at Athens as a “failure,” citing evidence that there
is no mention of a church formed in Athens, nor does Paul refer to the Athenians as his “first
converts in Achaia” (478). However, Luke writes Acts partially to show how successfully the
Holy Spirit used only a handful of apostles to take the message of Christianity around the world.
It is highly unlikely that same Spirit would consider a handful of disciples in Athens to be a
failure.

SYNTHESIS

In Acts 17:22-34, Paul, has accomplished his intention of exposing the futility of
polytheistic idolatry by proclaiming the truth concerning the One True God to the Athenian’s
through their own culture and vocabulary. Here it is important to remember that Paul addresses
idolatry on two levels: first and most obvious is the ‘extreme religiosity’ which expressed itself
through the worship of man-made images and other physical representations of god. Second, but
of no less significance is the arrogant complacency which expressed itself through the worship
of a man-made philosophy of life. In his argument against idolatry Paul confronts these
representations of self-righteousness that blind the Athenians by presenting to them the true
nature of God, self, and our need for salvation.

Paul came to proclaim to his listeners that the ‘god’ they wanted to worship was the one God
over all Gods- the Creator of “the world and everything in it” (v 24). Challenging popular
ideology, Paul states that nothing- not atoms, not matter, but nothing- existed that God did not
first create. Furthermore, God sustains all things (v 25). He is not dependent upon us for
anything. These points declare God’s transcendence. Paul balances this with the truth of God’s
immanence. He providentially acts in history (v 26) with the purpose of drawing us into
relationship with Him (v27). He is a personal God, a living God (v29) who did not abandon us
after creation. He is forgiving of our past (v30), yet concerned for our future (v 31), and
sovereign even over death (v 31).Contrary to the view of the Athenians, extremely religious
devotion to lifeless idols will not gain one favor with God any more than an arrogant denial of
God’s involvement in history will nullify its truth. Thus, Paul has presented an undeniable
argument as to why this God both desires and deserves to replace everything else and be the sole
object of our worship.

The juxtaposition of God- in control over the past, present and future, arranging history
purposely so that we would find Him, with man- ‘groping’ unsuccessfully for a nearby Creator,
presents a vivid image of mankind’s desperate condition. In contrast to the thought that God
needs our service and sacrifice, Paul states that we are dependent upon God for all things-
including our very life and breath (v25). God created us as one people (v 26) to be united
through a relationship with Him (v27). We, as God’s offspring, bear God’s likeness (v28). We
have lived in ignorance of God, but now that we have been told of Him we must repent (v 30).
We do not bend God to our will, imprisoning Him in shrines and philosophies, but instead, God
will accomplish His will for us, and we will be held accountable to Him (v 31).

Paul brings his listeners to a crisis of belief over verses 30 and 31 with his “now…repent…
because…judg[ment]…is assur[ed]…” thought line which points in the direction of salvation
through this ‘judge’ whom God has appointed. Repentance involves an acceptance that there is
someone greater than you who determines right and wrong, a confession that you have done
wrong, and a desire to do right by turning away from that errant lifestyle. While Paul has made
it entirely too clear that God cannot be appeased and will not be denied, Paul also does not
leave his listeners without hope of escaping certain condemnation. A judge has been resurrected,
through Whom exists the possibility of justification. Thus, the crux of the message becomes
apparent: although you have tried and failed- you may be deemed righteous not through your
works, but through your relationship to the One whom God has chosen.

INTERPRETATION

The significance of Paul’s address before the Areopagus centers on the need to rid one’s life of
idolatry- whether it be tangible objects or philosophical ideas- and enter into a right
relationship with the One True God through the means that He has chosen- a relationship with
Jesus Christ. As idolatry in both forms continues to exist among non-believers, Paul could as
easily be standing before a group of people today with the same message. In the average
enlightened household, one is consulting horoscopes, chanting mantras, filling the chakras and
taking stock of personal karma- all while they are deciding what to wear to church. Paul’s
message on idolatry is one that the body of Christ today would also do well to preach, should
one gain an attentive audience.

In order to reach his listeners, Paul had to establish a connection between the message of the
gospel and an expressed desire of the Athenians’ to be ‘religiously correct.’ Rather than using
condemnation and hostility, Dunham notes that Paul presents his address with humility instead.
Quoting Gaventa, he reminds us that such humility “compels us to recognize that the God “who
does not live in shrines made by human hands (17:24) also does not live in the shrines we
construct from our own particular religious traditions” (204). The church must forgo
unnecessary religious demands and restrictions that inhibit the lost from accepting the gospel
message, and seek to present the message to each audience it encounters in ways that are both
biblically faithful and contextually relevant. Christianity must not become a culture that is
imposed on other people with ethnocentric pride and intolerance, but must instead interact with
other cultures, both to interpret and to understand Christ more fully. Walls reminds us that the
“full stature of Christ is revealed only as a fresh cultural entity is incorporated into the church,
which is his body” (149). As Luke illustrates through Paul’s address and through the book of
Acts as a whole- it is the church’s responsibility, guided and empowered by the Holy Spirit, to
continue to break down divisive boundaries and offer the gospel message to ‘all people
everywhere.’
 WORKS CITED

Asmis, Elizabeth. “Epicureanism.” The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Ed. David Noel Freedman.
6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

Bruce, F.F. Paul Apostle of the Heart Set Free. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1977.

---. The Book of Acts. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids:
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988.

Dunham, Robert. “Between Text and Sermon: Acts 17:16-34.” Interpretation.

60.2 (2006). ProQuest. 29 Mar. 2007 <http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb>.

Eddy, Paul R. “Was Early Christianity Corrupted by ‘Hellenism’?” The Religious

Research Project. 29 Mar. 2007 <http://www.focusonthefaulty.com/ > Path: Articles.
Gempf, C. “Athens, Paul at.” Dictionary of Paul and his Letters. Downer’s Grove: Intervarsity
Press, 1993.

Green, Michael. “Early Christian Preaching.” Eerdmans’ Handbook to the Bible.

Rev. ed. Ed. David Alexander and Patricia Alexander. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1973.

Gundry, Robert H. A Survey of the New Testament. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994.

Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown . A Critical, Experimental and Practical Commentary New
Testament. 3 vols. 29 Mar. 2007 <http://www.biblecentre.net/ >. Path: Commentaries.

Ladd, George. I Believe in the Resurrection of Jesus. Grand Rapids: William B, Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 29 Mar. 2007 <http://www.biblecentre.net/>. Path: Theology.

--. A Theology of the New Testament. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 1993.
Longenecker, Richard N. Acts. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary 9.
Grand Rapids:Zondervan, 1981.

Luter, A. Boyd. “Repentance.” The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Ed. David Noel Freedman.
6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

Marshall, Howard. Acts. The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries 5. Downer’s Grove:
Intervarsity Press, 1980.

Martin, Hubert M. “Areopagus.” The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Ed. David Noel Freedman.
6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

---. “Athens.” The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Ed. David Noel Freedman.
6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

Nickelsburg, George W.E. “Resurrection (Early Judaism and Christianity).” The Anchor Bible
Dictionary. Ed. David Noel Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

Onesti, K.L. and M. T. Brauch. “Righteousness, Righteousness of God.” Dictionary of Paul and
his Letters. Downer’s Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1993.

Robertson, A.T. Word pictures in the New Testament (Mat-Acts). 29 Mar. 2007
<http://www.biblecentre.net/>. Path: NT Studies; Greek Studies- Word Studies.
Schmeller, Thomas. “Stoics, Stoicism.” The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Ed. David Noel
Freedman.
6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

Terry, Bruce. A Student's Guide to New Testament Textual Variants. 1998

Last Modified 10/10/99 29 Mar. 2007<http://www.ovc.edu/tc/>. Path: NT Studies;
Textual Criticism.

Walls, Andrew F. “Old Athens and New Jerusalem: Some signposts for Christian Scholarship in
the Early History of Mission Studies.” International Bulletin of Missionary Research.
21.4 (1997). ProQuest. 29 Mar. 2007 <http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb>.