Acts 17:32-34

The response to Paul’s preaching 17:32-34

Most Greeks rejected the possibility of physical resurrection. [Note: See N. Clayton Croy, "Hellenistic Philosophies and the Preaching of the Resurrection (Acts 17:18, 32)," Novum Testamentum 39:1 (1997):21-39, for the Epicurean and Stoic views. See also Witherington, p. 532, for the view of Apollo at the founding of the Areopagus, who also rejected the possibility of resurrection.] Many of them believed that the most desirable condition lay beyond the grave where the soul would finally be free of the body (e.g., Platonists). The response of the Athenians to Paul’s preaching was typical: some mocked, others procrastinated, and a few believed. Among the believers were Dionysius, a member of the Council of the Areopagus that had examined Paul, and Damaris, a woman about whom we know nothing more. Paul later wrote that the household of Stephanas was the firstfruits of Achaia (1 Corinthians 16:15), so this man and his household may have been additional converts that Luke did not mention here. Or perhaps Stephanas lived in Corinth but he and his household became Christians through Paul’s early ministry in Achaia.

Some Bible students have interpreted Paul’s statements in 1 Corinthians 1:18 to 1 Corinthians 2:5 as evidence that the apostle believed he had taken the wrong approach in Athens. [Note: E.g., Neil, p. 193.] In that passage Paul repudiated worldly wisdom. He wrote that he determined to know nothing but Jesus Christ and Him crucified when he preached. He also said that he had entered Corinth, his next stop after Athens, with fear and trembling. In Athens, Paul had preached Christ, but he had spent considerable time, assuming Luke’s summary of his sermon accurately reflects the whole, discussing natural revelation and philosophy. I agree with those interpreters who do not think Paul’s statements in 1 Corinthians reflect belief that he had taken the wrong approach in Athens. The lack of response in Athens was due to the fact that the Athenians loved to discuss issues but did not like to take action. Moreover unsaved educated, intelligent people generally tend to be more critical and non-committal than others when they first hear the gospel. Paul’s statements in 1 Corinthians seem to reflect his general commitment to elevate Jesus Christ in all aspects of his ministry including his preaching, which he also did in Athens.

The absence of any reference to a church being planted in Athens in this passage or elsewhere in the New Testament is hardly an adequate basis for concluding there was none. As we have seen repeatedly in Acts, Luke made no attempt to provide a comprehensive history but selected only those facts and events he wished to emphasize. In this section (Acts 17:16-34) he emphasized Paul’s preaching to cultured pagans. We do not know if Paul planted a church in Athens; there is no record that he did. I suspect that if he did Luke would have mentioned it since the spread of the gospel is such a major theme in Acts. However, there is evidence that the gospel took root in Athens, if not during Paul’s visit.

"In the next century that Church at Athens gave to the Christian church Publius, Quadratus, Aristides, Athenagoras, and others, bishops, and martyrs; and in the third century the church there was peaceable and pure. In the fourth century the Christian schools of Athens gave to the Christian Church Basil and Gregory." [Note: Morgan, p. 332.]

Donald Meisner argued that the structure of the record of Paul’s missionary journeys in Acts 12:25 to Acts 21:16 is chiastic. [Note: Donald R. Meisner, "Chiasm and the Composition and Message of Paul’s Missionary Sermons" (S.T.D. thesis, Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago, 1974), pp. 273-322; and idem, "The Missionary Journeys Narrative: Patterns and Implications," in Perspectives on Luke-Acts, pp. 199-214.]

Chiasm is "a stylistic literary figure which consists of a series of two or more elements (words, phrases, sentences, paragraphs, or longer sections) followed by a presentation of corresponding elements in reverse order." [Note: Ronald E. Man, "The Value of Chiasm for New Testament Interpretation," Bibliotheca Sacra 141:562 (April-June 1984):146.]

Writers used this device to highlight the central elements in the structure and or to clarify the meaning of paired elements. The central section of the Acts 12:25 to Acts 21:16 chiasm, as Meisner saw it, is Paul’s sermon in Acts 17:16-34.

"The chiastic structure of the missionary journeys narrative suggests that, of all the places on the itinerary, Athens is the most significant intermediate point as the gospel moves to the end of the earth. . . .

"The Areopagus speech . . . is the only sermon reported by Luke which is preached to Gentiles by ’the apostle to the Gentiles’ (except for the brief Lystra sermon [Acts 14:15-17]). . . . Now that Paul had preached the word in the spiritual capital of the Greek world, he turned his face toward the imperial capital of the Greco-Roman world. It is only after the Athens climax that Luke noted Paul’s expression of his necessity to go to Rome, which he stated both at Ephesus (Acts 19:21), and at Jerusalem (Acts 23:11)." [Note: Meisner, "Chiasm and . . .," pp. 315-16.]

To the Philippian jailer Paul preached Christ as the personal savior of individuals. To the Jews in Thessalonica he presented Him as the promised Messiah. To the intellectual Gentiles in Athens he proclaimed Him as the proven judge of all humankind appointed by the one true God.