Paul’s Areopagus Speech

By Kenneth O. Gangel

[Kenneth O. Gangel, Academic Dean, Associate Professor of Education, Calvary Bible College, Kansas City, Missouri.]

There is no more controversial sermon recorded in Scripture than that preached by the Apostle Paul in Athens. Its format and text are considerably different from his other addresses and the difference has called forth criticism.

The Setting

Paul visited Athens on the second missionary journey. After visiting Phrygia and Galatia and crossing through Asia Minor, he sailed from Troas to Neapolis in Macedonia. From there he went to Philippi where he labored for some time. Passing through Amphipolis, Apollonia, and Thessalonica, he went to Berea. Having been driven away from there, he sailed to Athens. Luke records that the apostle was alone in Athens awaiting the arrival of Silas and Timothy.

Upset by the idolatry of the city, he engaged in dialogue in the synagogue and in the market place, and because of his mention of the resurrection he was taken to the Areopagus. There he delivered what many consider to be one of the most brilliant impromptu sermons ever recorded.

The dominant theme of the speech is the nature of the true God versus idolatry. Verse 22 and 23 of chapter 17 are introductory. Paul exhibits remarkable rhetorical skill coupled with a precise knowledge of the mental frame of mind of his hearers. He tactfully deals with the religio-philosophical sensitivity. Homiletically, the speech is a work of genius if one adopts the view that Paul was interrupted after verse 31, and therefore we do not have any sort of conclusion and perhaps not even a formal finish of the body of the message. This view is still applicable even though Luke probably recorded only a representative summary.

The Areopagus speech is marked by some radical variation from many other Pauline addresses. The serious Bible student will note, however, that in many ways it is similar to some of the apostle’s work. Hackett points out, for example: “One can readily believe, looking at this feature of the discourse (the logic), that it was pronounced by the man who wrote the epistles to the Romans and Galatians; where we see the same mental characteristics so strongly reflected.”[1] F. F. Bruce compares the Areopagus speech with Paul’s protest at Lystra in Acts 14:15–17 and also the argument of Romans 2:14–16. The Acts passage reads as follows: “And saying, Sirs, who do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein. Who in times past suffered all nations to walk in their own ways. Nevertheless he left not himself without witness, in that he did good, and gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness.”

Did Paul Compromise in Athens?

Paul has been accused of compromising the gospel in Athens. In a sense he does accommodate himself to Greek philosophy, and in so doing shows more than a cursory knowledge of it. The only question is whether he makes an accommodation sufficiently serious to compromise his Christian message.

One of the questions regarding accommodation, is raised by Paul’s use of the word δεισιδαιμονεστέρους in verse 22. Some scholars have taken it to be quite critical. The Authorized Version text has “superstitious,” and other versions, “religious” or “very religious.” Bruce says: “We should not lay too much stress on the likelihood of Paul’s commencing his talk with a compliment; according to Lucian (de gymn. 19) complimentary exordia to secure the good will of the Areopagus were forbidden.”[2] On the other hand, there is no question about the extremely religious nature of the Athenians. (The word is the accusative plural masculine imperative form of a connection between deido and daimon.)

Some have raised an argument over the singular theo in verse 23 saying that the many altars in Athens which have this inscription always has theos in the plural (θεοῖ). There is, of course, no real reason given why there could not have been an altar that read exactly the way Paul described it.

From the words, “Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth all life, and breath, and all things”; In verse 25, Bruce points out that Paul deals with “the Epicurean doctrine that God needs nothing from man and cannot be served by them, and the Stoic belief that he is the source of all life…Paul consistently endeavours to have as much common ground as possible with his audience.”[3]

A good example of a point at which Paul does not compromise the truth to satisfy Greek philosophy is in verse 26. The argument here has to do with the unity of the human race as descended from Adam, a point not calculated to make the Athenians happy, for the Greeks in general considered themselves superior to non-Greeks, whom they called Barbarians. This racial superiority is clearly condemned by Paul.

Bruce points out that “the prevalence of ὑπάρχω [being] in this speech…is in keeping with its elevated style.”[4] It shows us that Paul could use the language of the higher culture when it was necessary. The latter part of verse 28 is a quote from an address to Zeus by his son, Minos. “‘They fashioned a tomb for thee, Oh holy and high—the Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies! But thou art not dead; thou art risen and alive for ever, for in thee we live and move and have our being.’“[5] There are various sources from which this idea may have come. “The Zeus of these Stoic poets is of course the λόγος or world-principle which animates all things. Their language, however, is largely adaptable to the God of revelation. By presenting God as Creator and Judge, Paul emphasizes His personality in contrast to the materialistic pantheism of the Stoics.”[6]

When one comes to verse 31 and 32 he finds that though Paul may be accommodating his terminology to suit the Greek mind he certainly is not compromising the message of the gospel as he speaks of the resurrection.

Gaertner compares “assimilation or adaptation” and opts for the latter. The Athenians’ use of σπερμολόγος shows the skill with which Paul adapts the idiom familiar to them. Certainly we have to remember that the Areopagus message was preached in a situation unlike any other situation which Paul faced during his recorded ministry. Not that he did not at times preach to Greeks and write to Greeks, but here was an impromptu sermon in Athens before philosophers.

What Was the Source of Paul’s Theology?

The question of Hebrew versus Hellenistic theological thought in the Areopagus speech is merely an extension of the controversy projecting from the discussion of overall Pauline theology. Dibelius argues that the speech is strongly Hellenistic with some kind of a Christian ending tacked on. However, Dibelius also argues that it is not historical and certainly could not have been given by Paul.

The matter of Hellenistic versus Hebrew theology has to do with the question of Paul’s use of natural theology rather than biblical theology in the speech. Of course, there are varying positions in apologetics and theology relative to the question of God’s revelation in nature. Some would argue that God has given a revelation in nature which can be appreciated and understood by unredeemed men. The opposite extreme would be the position of Karl Barth who maintains that fallen man can know nothing about God apart from revelation. Varying degrees of mediating views fall along the continuum.

The matter of natural theology certainly has a place in Paul’s Areopagus speech. Through it he shows something about the nature of God as a personal, transcendent, and yet an immanent spiritual being. Man was by creation Godlike and therefore essentially personal and spiritual, but he has drifted into idolatry.

In verse 31, however, Paul becomes extremely revelational. There are those who would argue that Paul’s reference to a transcendent God cannot be attached to the Old Testament. Alexander disagrees: “The error here denied is that of Heathenism and corrupted Judaism, namely, that Deity could be confined or unchangeably attached to any earthly residence, not the genuine Old Testament doctrine of Jehovah’s real and continued dwelling in the tabernacle and temple. There seems to be an evident allusion here to Stephen’s words, which had been heard by Paul himself.”[7] Ellis also emphasizes the comparison with the words of Stephen: “In the light of this temple-typology the connexion of Stephen’s quotation in Acts 7:48f with Pauline thought becomes apparent. Paul’s statement on Mars Hill that God does not dwell in temples made with hands…is almost verbatim with Stephen’s words [in Acts 7:48].”[8]

Did Paul Preach the Gospel in Athens?

Verses 31 and 32 firmly testify to evangelical witness. Paul argues that man cannot continue in idolatry overlooking God’s commands because there will be a day of universal righteous judgment which has been guaranteed by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Christ is to be the judge, and the destiny of redeemed man is fellowship with God through repentance and faith in the resurrection.

The conclusion of this writer is that St. Paul skillfully communicated the gospel on the Areopagus in the form most likely to penetrate the hearts of his audience. The focus of the sermon is on the Savior, as Conybeare and Howson clearly argue: “Above all, we are called upon to notice how the attention of the whole audience is concentrated at the last upon Jesus Christ, though His name is not mentioned in the whole speech. Before St. Paul was taken to the Areopagus, he had been preaching ‘Jesus and the resurrection;’ and though his discourse was interrupted, this was the last impression he left in the minds of those who heard him.”[9]

The intelligentsia of American society today have not been offered by contemporary Christianity as distinctive a witness to truth as that heard by the Greek philosophers in Athens on that day. The “preaching of the cross” does not have to consist of simplistic verbal meanderings calculated to evoke appropriate emotional responses. The Areopagus sermon offers us a standard of excellence in depth and relevance. Let the modern day Athenians hear again the word of the Risen Christ.

Notes

1. H. B. Hackett, “The Discourse of Paul at Athens, a Commentary on Acts 17:16–34, ” Bibliotheca Sacra, VI (1849), 338–56.
2. Frederick F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles, p. 335.
3. Ibid., p. 336.
4. Ibid., p. 337.
5. Ibid., p. 338.
6. Ibid., pp. 338-39.
7. Joseph A. Alexander, Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, p. 616.
8. E. Earle Ellis, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament, p. 90.
9. W. H. Conybeare and J. S. Howson, The Life and Epistles of St. Paul, p. 295.