Acts 17:16 - Meaning and Application

A scholar who knows and loves ancient learning might think he would be very happy in Athens, surrounded by philosophers and full of questions about Greek thought. But Paul, though educated and active, did not make that his business there. He had more important work to do. He was not trying to improve himself in their philosophy. He had learned to treat that as empty teaching (Colossians 2:8). His work, in God’s name, was to correct their religious errors and turn them from idol worship, and from Satan’s rule through those idols, to the service of the true and living God in Christ.

Here is the effect that the Athenians’ terrible ignorance and superstition had on Paul’s spirit (Acts 17:16). The city was completely given over to idolatry. Ancient writers said Athens had more idols than all the rest of Greece combined, and twice as many sacred festivals as other cities. They welcomed every new god that was suggested to them, giving each one a temple and an altar. So they had almost as many gods as people. It is worth noticing that where human learning flourished most, idolatry flourished most too, and the idolatry was often the most foolish and absurd. That supports Paul’s point that when people claimed to be wise, they became fools (Romans 1:22). In religion, their minds were full of useless imaginations. The world did not know God by wisdom (1 Corinthians 1:21). They could have argued against many gods and idols, but it seems the greatest lovers of reason were the greatest slaves to idols. This shows how necessary divine revelation was, even for restoring natural religion, and that revelation centers in Christ.

This sight disturbed Paul deeply. He did not want to appear publicly until Silas and Timothy arrived, so that the message might be confirmed by more than one witness. But in the meantime, his spirit was stirred within him. He was troubled for God’s glory, which he saw being given to idols, and he felt compassion for people whose souls he saw enslaved to Satan and carried along by him. He looked on these wrongdoers and was grieved, and horror filled him. He felt holy anger toward the pagan priests, who led the people further into idolatry, and toward the philosophers, who knew better but never spoke against it and joined the drift instead.

Paul testified against their idolatry and worked to bring them to the truth. As Witsius notes, he did not rush into the temples in anger, tear down their images, destroy their altars, or publicly insult their priests. He did not run through the streets shouting that they were all slaves of the devil, though that was true. He behaved properly and kept within wise limits, doing only what fit a sensible man.

He first went to the synagogue of the Jews, who were enemies of Christianity but not idol worshipers, and joined them where they were right. He used that opening to speak for Christ (Acts 17:17). He talked with the Jews and reasoned carefully with them, asking what excuse they could give for refusing Jesus if they were really waiting for the Messiah. There he also met devout people who had left the idol temples but had stopped at the Jewish synagogue. He spoke with them to lead them onward to the Christian church, since the synagogue was only a porch leading to it.

He also spoke with everyone he met about religious matters. In the marketplace, the place of trade and public conversation, he debated daily with those he found there, or those he happened to meet. These were usually Gentiles who never went to the Jewish synagogue. Those who truly defend Christ will be ready to speak for him in any company, whenever the chance comes. Ministers of Christ should not think it is enough to say something good about Christ once a week. They should speak honorably of him every day to the people they meet.

Some of the philosophers wanted to know more about Paul’s teaching. Not everyone paid attention to him, but some thought he was worth questioning, and these were the people whose ideas clashed most sharply with Christianity. The Epicureans thought God was much like themselves, an inactive being who did not care about anything and made no difference between good and evil. They denied that God made the world or governs it. They also denied that people need to care what they say or do, since they thought there would be no punishment to fear and no reward to hope for. Christianity opposes all such loose, atheist ideas. The Epicureans lived for bodily pleasure and made happiness consist in that, while Christ first teaches us to deny ourselves. The Stoics thought even more highly of themselves, and their pride was just as bad as the Epicureans’ love of pleasure. They made their ideal wise man equal to God, and even superior in some way. Seneca said, “There is something in which a wise man excels God.” Christianity stands directly against that. It teaches us to deny ourselves, humble ourselves, and stop trusting in ourselves, so that Christ may be everything.

Their opinions about Paul were divided, just as people were divided about Christ (Acts 17:18). Some called him a babbler and thought he was just tossing out random thoughts without any plan, like a mentally confused person. “What will this babbler say?” they asked. The Greek word means someone who picks up scraps of words and ideas and throws them around without meaning or purpose.

Some critics say the word here pictures a small bird that is worth nothing for food or for keeping, a bird that picks up seeds left on the ground or by the roadside and hops from place to place for that purpose. In that view, they took Paul to be a worthless little fellow, or else they thought he wandered from place to place, spreading his ideas just to get money, a penny here and another there, like that bird picking up one grain after another. They treated him like an idle man and valued him no more than a street singer.

Others called him a promoter of strange gods, and thought he was speaking that way to make himself important. If he had been introducing strange gods, Athens would have seemed like the best place to do it. He was not openly presenting new gods, as many did, but they thought he was, because he preached Jesus and the resurrection. From the first time he came among them, he kept returning to those two great truths, which are really the main doctrines of Christianity, Christ and a future life, Christ as our way, and heaven as our goal. Though he did not call them gods, they thought he meant to make them into gods. So they twisted the Christian message into pagan language, as if believing in Jesus and looking for the resurrection meant worshiping new idols.

They then proposed to give him a free, full, fair, and public hearing (Acts 17:19-20). They had caught fragments of his teaching and wanted a fuller understanding of it. To them it seemed strange and surprising, very different from the philosophy long taught and defended in Athens. They said, in effect, “This is a new teaching we do not understand. You are bringing strange things to our ears, things we have never heard before and do not know how to judge.” This suggests that they either did not have, or did not pay attention to, the books of Moses and the prophets. If they had, the doctrine of Christ would not have seemed so new and strange.

They wanted to hear more simply because it was new and strange. “May we know what this new teaching is? Or is it, like the secret mysteries of the gods, something to be kept hidden? If it can be known, we would gladly hear it, and we want you to explain what these things mean so we can judge them.” That was a fair request. They were right to want to know what the doctrine was before embracing it, and they were fair enough not to condemn it before hearing an explanation.

They brought him to Areopagus, the same place called Mars’ Hill in Acts 17:22. It was the city hall, or council chamber, where the magistrates met for public business and where courts were held. It also served as a kind of public forum, like a university hall where learned men gathered to share ideas. The court there was known for fairness and drew appeals from many places. If anyone denied God, he could be brought before that court. Diagoras was put to death there for mocking the gods, and no new god could be accepted without the court’s approval. They brought Paul there to be examined, not as a criminal, but as a speaker whose views they wanted to hear.

This occasion also gives the general character of the people of that city (Acts 17:21). All the Athenians, meaning both the native people and the foreigners who lived there to learn, spent their time doing nothing else but talking about or listening to something new. That explains why they were curious about Paul’s teaching, not because it was true and good, but because it was new. It is a sad description, yet many people still copy it.

They were people who lived for conversation. Paul told Timothy to devote himself to reading and meditation (1 Timothy 4:13, 1 Timothy 4:15), but these people looked down on that older, slower way of learning and preferred talking and hearing. Good company can help a person, especially when he already has a solid base of study, but knowledge gained only from conversation will be thin and shallow. They also loved novelty. They wanted some new thing to tell or hear, whether in philosophy, politics, or religion. In religion, that meant new gods, new demons, and new images and altars (Deuteronomy 32:17; 2 Kings 16:10). They were always changing.

They also meddled in other people’s business and wanted to know what did not concern them, while neglecting their own duties. Gossips are always busybodies (1 Timothy 5:13). And they spent their time on nothing else, which is a grim account to give of one’s life. Time is precious, because eternity depends on it, and it is quickly moving toward eternity. Yet much of it is wasted in useless chatter. It is useful now and then to hear news about God’s providence in public events, whether in our own nation or others, and in the lives of neighbors and friends. But to become news-seekers and spend all our time on that is to trade something very valuable for something of little worth.