Bible Groups - Digests of Bible Commentaries

The Acts of the Apostles - Chapter 17

Revised 2014

1 Paul and Silas make their way to Thessalonica, a free city where courts have greater freedom, about 90 miles along the Egnatian Way, a main Roman Road linking the Bosphorus to the Adriatic. Philippi, Amphipolis, (another District capital), Apollonia and Thessalonica all lie on this road. The Western text implies they stopped at each town, rather then merely passing through. In Thessalonica, the capital of Macedonia, they find a Synagogue and stay several months.
2 As usual, Paul starts his mission with Jews in the Synagogue, for 3 weeks. Luke does not want us lose sight of Paul’s fundamental commitment the spreading the good news among his people. The verb means “held discussions with them” - ie philosophical discussions, rather than arguments in our sense. This was a common feature of synagogues, as houses of study.
3 In all the NT only Luke gives proofs that Jesus is the Christ - usually the NT merely asserts that Jesus fulfills prophecies or that the Christ who dies for our sins was raised on the 3rd day. Luke’s arguments: Isa 53, Gen 22, Ps 22, + Israel’s whole story from suffering in Egypt, Exodus, & Exile - suffering & vindication, disaster & recovery. Luke’s premise is that the Christ was supposed to suffer and rise from the dead (Cf 3:18, Lk 18:31-34, Lk 24:25, 27,44-46, Mk 10:32-34 {but Lk adds “what the prophets and Moses foretold” to the Marcan source}; Jesus did so die and rise (this middle term of the syllogism is omitted/implied by Luke); therefore Jesus is the Christ/Messiah. “Explaining” or “opening their meaning” has the sense of interpreting. Luke is the only NT writer to assert that the Messiah must suffer: typically he never gives any OT references to this, and the Jews did not expect this - they associated the suffering servant passages with themselves. Paul himself does not claim that Christ must suffer, eg 1 Cor 15:12-23.
4 Reason, persuasion based on the scriptures, rather than miracles. Could we persuade in this way? Does faith come first, or understanding? With mixed results: some Jews were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas (the Greek is “committed to” implying that God “assigned them”), and many Greeks and especially leading (Greek) women, reminding us that the mission is to the marginalised - even if they are well off.
5 Can we compare the resentful Jews with the brother of the prodigal son (Lk 15:28-29)? The Jews had always tried to do God’s will, but considered pagans immoral and godless. The antagonistic Jews are motivated by jealousy of Paul’s success rather than by doctrinal issues. “Ruffians”, ie poorer people who hang about in the market square, waiting for work, but often at a loose end. The socially low contrasted with the leaders who convert! Luke seems anxious to emphasise the better-off converts, even though Paul tells us he laboured hard for his keep in Thessalonica (1 Thess 2:5-9, 2 Thess 3:7-10). We assume Jason’s house has been Paul’s base, as a house-church, like Lydia’s. A Jason is mentioned in Romans (16:21), but we have no evidence it is the same, nor whether this Jason is Greek or Jew.
6 Poor Jason gets arraigned in Paul’s place! The people referred to have be assumed: the mob could not find Paul & Silas, so the mob dragged Jason... Luke is very careful to give the correct names for the city authorities, both here (“politarchai”, a term otherwise unknown until recently found in inscriptions) and in Philippi (“strategoi”). The Greek text has the sense of “subverting the empire” - stronger, and captures better the political charge, than “turning the world upside down”! “Have come here also” - or better: “now they are here”, ie “our enemies are coming!” Charges resemble those against Jesus (Lk 23:2, Jn 19:12). Paul refers to Thessalonians suffering for their faith, but without mentioning Jason by name (1 Thess 2:14, 3:3). Jewish jealousy uses pagan charges to raise a mob. Claudius had accused Jews of “stirring up hatred throughout the world”.
7 The Jews have got the full message, but without understanding it! The “Messiah” is put in the most politically inflammatory form: a king is being opposed to Caesar - essentially subversive and world-changing, though effectively correct! A more serious charge. And who has actually set the city in an uproar? The Jews saw the Messiah as a king who would come to restore the Davidic kingdom: rebuild “the dwelling of David” (Acts 15:16; 2 Sam 7:12-17). Claudius (AD 41-54) would see this as threat. The phrase “another Ceasar” was very emotive - AD 69 was “year of 4 emperors”. Conflict between allegiance to God or state an eternal problem, then as now.
9 In contrast to the magistrates in Philippi, these magistrates follow legal procedure, taking sureties rather than meting out punishment at the behest of the mob. Making Jason responsible for behaviour of his guests.
10 Again Paul chooses discretion and beats a hasty retreat, reducing the problem of the city elders. Now appears controlled by the believers. At night, as so often, moving west 50-60 miles to Beroea, and now leaving the Egnatian Way. Immediately they go to the Synagogue.
11 And a more receptive, literally “more refined” or “well-born”, here meaning behaving graciously, than the Thessalonians, audience examines critically the Scriptures “every day” to test Paul’s teachings. Perhaps for the first time! Again Luke’s emphasis on the Torah as the basis for the claim that Jesus is the Christ. Reasonable to test Paul’s claims by referring to Scriptures. A welcome reaction to any preaching would be if hearers went home and checked the Scriptures!
12 Many Jews believed, including again many women of good social standing, in contrast to the Thessalonian rabble. But rather more Gentiles. Jews here receptive, but others came from Thessalonica. 3 times in this chapter Luke refers to women among the believers - why?
13 Although Paul’s preaching has so far tended to emphasise a Greek logical approach, Luke still characterises Paul and Silas as prophets of God, carrying his word, Paul as “Teacher of Israel”. Success here brings trouble all the way from Thessalonica, as it did in Lystra.
14 The mission now splits temporarily. Opposition in each town leads them to move on, spreading the word further. Can we see God’s work from his point of view, instead of its inconvenience to us? Presumably Paul has attracted all the attention, so he leaves, while Silas and Timothy remain in Beroea. (Interesting that we have no letter to the Beroeans - did they continue true to the word? Presumably they are included in the praise Paul gives the Thessalonians.) These events correspond fairly well to those in Paul’s letter to the Thessalonians (1 Thess 3:1-6), but with sufficient differences, eg 1 Thess implies Timothy went to Athens with Paul, then went back to Thessalonica, Implies 2 independent sources - Luke was not relying on Paul’s letters.
15 It would appear natural to continue west along the Egnatian Way towards Rome. But instead Paul reaches Athens, a town of under 15,000, about 300 miles away, presumably by boat. Athens was now a politically insignificant city, living on the glories of its past, but still the centre of Greek culture. Luke says he is now alone, though asking Silas and Timothy to join him as soon as possible.
Paul has been beset by jealous Jews, pagan sorcerers and Roman politics. Now he faces a major showdown with the full Greek cultural and philosophy, which - rather than religion - affected how the ordinary people saw their world. Luke’s description of Athens reads like the reactions of any pious educated Jew, with no indications he had ever been there.
16 Perhaps implying that Paul’s actions in Athens were unplanned, while waiting for Silas and Timothy to join him. Paul is angry or distressed at all the heathen images in this capital of Greek culture - the many statues seen from a Jewish perspective!
17 Again Paul starts in the Synagogue, but we hear nothing of any results here. V.16 has prepared us for the significant step of Paul taking a stance in the marketplace to debate with all and sundry. Thus far he has spoken only to Jews and “God-fearers”.
18 The Epicurean and Stoic (founded by Zeno, 340-265 BC) philosophies started about 300 BC. Stoics had more spiritual views, accepting the nearness and providence of god(s) and sought to live in harmony with the natural order which they believed was permeated by a rational divine principle or “logos” - in that sense “pantheistic”, god is everywhere, in all. Epicureans (Epicurus, 341-270 BC) were ostentatiously impious, revering only their founder, and believing in reality in terms of atomic particles, rejecting religion. Aim was to enjoy life to the full, maximising sensual (all senses, not especially sexual) pleasure, but avoiding pain. “We don’t know if gods exist, we cannot know; if they do they have no interest in humans”. “This babbler” has the sense of collecting and peddling second-rate religious ideas (a “word-scatterer, as a bird picking up and dropping seeds) without the wisdom to use them. In Luke’s view, Paul is actually giving them good news. Socrates was condemned for “proclaiming foreign divinities”. (Anastasis, the Greek for resurrection, sounds like the name of a goddess).
19 Very ambiguous: are we to understand that Paul is arrested and taken before the city Council that used to meet at the Areopagus (“hill of Ares”, god of war) but by now met in the agora (marketplace), or merely that he accompanied them to this prominent place to carry on the discussions with the philosophical council? The tone suggests the latter. The Question “May we know ...” suggests polite enquiry rather than interrogation. But could imply they thought Paul was talking about a secret society, whose secrets they could be be made privy to.
20 Again, a very polite enquiry, appearing genuinely to be seeking knowledge (Cf 2:12). Perhaps a real compliment to the Athenians, or indicating how Paul is unexpectedly led to make his speech to them.
21 Repeats their anxiety to learn about anything new - but it is philosophy, not expecting it to affect them deeply. Luke’s sarcasm: “new” is ephemeral bad; “old” is good.
22 Luke presents this dramatisation of Paul speaking at and to the centre of Greek culture. A wandering Jewish preacher confronts the cultured sages of Athens. Paul’s famous speech on the Areopagus starts, based on where his audience is philosophically, and so no references to scripture. Likely to have taken several hours of discussion, summarised here very briefly. Luke had heard Paul speak many times, and was aware he could go on for some time, even causing a disciple to fall asleep and out of the window (Acts 20:7-12)! Starting with a compliment is always good! Not what we were told in v.16 how Paul thought about all the statues!
23 Cleverly Paul turns his observations in the city of altars to unknown gods “worshipped unknowingly” to proclaiming this unknown god to be the one true God. There is no evidence of inscriptions to such an unknown god, but many literary references to such a practice in Athens - to ensure none missed out!
24 Ie the God who made the world and all creation. This God is the Lord of all things and therefore cannot be enclosed within any one of them (Cf 7:48, 14:15-18). Both Jews and pagans should beware of putting trust in things and rituals. Statues unworthy of the God of creation - we can be sure God is not like that! The Parthenon - over there - is marvellous, but it is not God.
25 Since this God made everything, he needs nothing from man. Temple rituals have no value: no point in sacrifices to God - he gives us everything. This is the argument of “First Cause”.
26 Luke has Paul express the story in Genesis of all men descended from the first adam. Stoics agree about the unity of mankind, & also believed certain areas of the earth are suitable for human habitation. The 2nd clause is probably a standard statement of God’s creative power, which includes his separating and allotting time and space in an orderly fashion. Lands alotted to Noah’s sons (Gen 10). Note the constant emphasis on “all” - God created all and is all-powerful.
27 Vs Epicureans: God has arranged this so that all will search for him. Some Greek philosophers, eg Philo, also used this argument, which frequently occurs in the scriptures (Ps 27:8, 105:4, Prov 28:5, Wis 13:6, Sir 2:16, Is 31:1, 55:6). Since God creates and sustains everything in existence, he is always near to every creature (Deut 30:11). “Zeas” = “to live” - cf God = “to be”.
28 Agrees with Stoics: “In him we live ...”. All men should seek God by reflecting on nature. All humans have some intimation of the true God. Luke is believed to have been referring firstly to Epimenides of Knossos, C6thBC, although this reference has not been found, and Luke may not have meant a direct quote. What is important is that Paul is citing pagan authorities for his arguments, just as he cites the Torah for Jewish hearers. The second quote is more certain: it is from the Greek poet Aratus of Soli, born c. 310BC in Cilicia. Proverbial line often quoted. Luke probably understands this kinship = offspring as being created in God’s image.
29 Since we are in the image of God, we should not think of God in terms of statues crafted from gold or stone, but only in terms suited to rational creatures. God is rational, as we are. Stoics would agree with all of this so far. Although not obviously Christian, Paul is proclaiming Good News: since there is a creator God, we are not in the hands of squabbling deities; with no creator-God this creation has no future.
30 The theme of earlier ignorance was previously applied to the Jews (3:17, 13:27). IE pagans are not damned (contrast with Paul’s view: Rom 1:18-), because God has partially revealed himself, so pagans can still be saved - providing they turn to the God of Israel. Jews might at this point say pagans must accept Jewish Law & worship, but Paul says judgement is imminent, as proved by the resurrection. Stoics would not accept resurrection: When Apollo inaugurated court of Areopagus he said “no resurrection - dead is dead”. Greeks believed in continuity of the soul freed from the body after death, but not of the body. The theme of universal repentance applies both to Jews (Lk 24:47) and now to Gentiles: natural revelation does not stand on its own, the need for repentance must be added.
31 The climax of Paul’s argument: there will be a day of judgement for all, when the world will be set to rights, as Jews believed; the judge will be the man appointed by God. Not only this God can be known, but he wants to be known. The proof is that God has raised this man-judge from the dead (Cf 10:42) - this new world has already started - ie Jesus’ resurrection. He does not mention Jesus’ name.
32 A varied response to words about resurrection from the dead - an absurd idea to them: some mock, others say let’s continue another day. Paul cannot avoid coming to the resurrection: “Christ crucified ... a folly to the Gentiles” (1Cor 1:23). “He leads them to the God who takes care of the world, who is kind, merciful, powerful and wise; all these attributes of the creator are confirmed in the Resurrection” (St John Chrysostom).
33 This low key ending supports the view that this was an informal discussion, not an arraignment.
34 But not a failure, some - but not great - success. An Athenian church in mid 2nd century known, with Dionysius traditionally believed to be 1st bishop. But no known letters to the Athenians. As usual Luke notes the social status of the converts: Areopagite suggests a member of the Athenian Council, and a woman, Damaris, possibly a philosopher and/or Areopagite, is also noted, like the first convert of Europe (16:14).
In this speech by Paul, Luke develops 3 claims about God which were common among both Jewish and pagan authors: (a) God created the entire universe and therefore has no need of human service or temples; (b) God has ordered the universe and allotted certain zones for the nations. We should be grateful for this and for God’s constant presence to all humans; (c) true worship of God will reject all superstitious practices.
Apart from saying he stayed there, Paul tells us nothing about his stay in Athens. We should not read this speech as verbatim: it is entirely Luke’s creation, as is its dramatic location. Luke has got everything right, as an exemplary meeting between Jerusalem and Athens, but we should not overload it: it is not the end, but another in a series of symbolic encounters between the word of the gospel and the world it is to transform. Perhaps we should see in Paul’s speech a sample of sustained efforts at negotiating the religious and philosophical perceptions of the Greek world. But, importantly, Luke has not condemned or reshaped Greek philosophy, he recognises it as a legitimate approach to God. Paul picks up this natural theology and directs its religious adherents towards their proper object. And he adds the need for repentance: the groping search is not the end, but they have to be called from where they are. The Council of Jerusalem has borne rich fruit, a fundamental step, an affirmation that human culture is a worthy vehicle for the truth of the gospel, toward which it was striving. The answer to the question in v.19 is a definite “Yes”. But understanding is not yet faith. The reactions are mixed, only a few converts. God’s impartial message to all human beings cannot immediately overcome human partiality.
Two Agnostic views: (a) Closed Agnosticism: we don’t know if gods exist, we can’t know, and I’m happy this way (NB Not consistent: “certain we cannot know”!) (b) Open Agnosticism: I suspect therte might be something, I’ll keep an open mind, and hope to find out some time (consistent).
Paul addresses this open agnostic view. God is aware of this ignorance, but this temporary time of ignorance is now ending (v. 30) and is not secret (v 19). This Jewish idea of history moving forward (in God’s plan) is quite foreign to Greeks.
Additional reference: Ignatius.