1

PRESENTING THE GOSPEL TO A GENTILE AUDIENCE: PAUL’S APOLOGETIC

AREOPAGUS APPROACH (ACTS 17: 22-34)

Cosmas Anayochukwu Ukadike

(Ph.D Student)

Department of Philosophy, Religion and Peace Studies, Ebonyi State University, Abakaliki

Abstract
This study examined the presenting of the gospel to a gentile audience, Paul’s apologetic
Areopagus approach. The purpose of this work was to draw the attention of missionaries on
how to communicate thegospel to a pagan, pluralistic culture. The specific objectives are: to
identify and bring out the relevance of Paul’s Areopagus approach, to our contemporary
missionary work; to give room for a critical reflection on how best to contextualize the gospel
message; and to make considerable efforts on how best to dialogue with culture in the quest
for evangelization. The study utilized the historical critical method of diachronic and
synchronic analysis as well as progressive hermeneutics of Biblical studies. The problems it
seeks to address are three in number: The lack of proper understanding of the New
Testament’s ideology of the mission, especially as propagated by Paul in his missionary
journeys; the lack of creativity and a critical reflection on how best to evangelize and
contextualize the gospel in our contemporary era; and, the lack of frantic efforts on the side of
some ministers on how to approach apologetics in evangelization. Against this backdrop, this
study came up with the following findings: that Paul’s Areopagus speech is truly a master
piece for the present day evangelization and contextualization of the Gospel; that Paul had the
opportunity to give the Athenians the unchanging message about Jesus. He first established a
point of contact with them, with the understanding that man is deeply religious. He used pagan
citation sin apologetics, and presents a Judeo-Christian world view in contrast to the Athenian
world view she was critiquing.

Key Words: Paul, Gospel, Areopagus, Apologetics, Idolatry, Contextualization

 2

Introduction
Deissmann (1927), once described Paul’s address to the Areopagus as" the greatest
missionary document in the New Testament,” continuing to say that “it is a manifesto of
worldwide importance in the history of religions and of religion"(p. 397). This address is
frequently regarded as the classic example of how to communicate the gospel to a pagan,
pluralistic culture (keener, 2012, p. 39). In this speech, Paul is preaching to gentiles with
whom he can assume no knowledge of the Old Testament. This parallels our experience in
post-Christian Western culture. He is in Athens, the philosophical capital of the ancient world,
and is contending with the leading philosophical schools of the time. Making use of
observations and quotations from the culture of Athens, Paul’s argument is well structured and
is a pointed critique of the prevailing world views whilst also being a clear presentation of the
distinctive features of a Christian worldview. Luke included this account precisely because it
is a model of how to present the gospel to a gentile audience.
Witherington (1956), regards this passage as “one of the most important in all of Acts,”
noting that “it has attracted more scholarly attention than any other passage in Acts.”(p. 26).
According to Dibelius (1956), Paul’s speech in the Areopagus is clearly intended to be the
climax of the book (p. 26). It is here, in the centre of gentile philosophy and religion, that the
apostle to the gentiles makes his great speech to the gentiles. Dibelius, however, famously
pronounced that there was only one Christian sentence in the whole speech – the last one. 5 It is
otherwise an entirely Hellenistic speech about the nature of God. Dibelius also reckons the
speech to be Luke’s creation, not necessarily bearing any relation to what Paul ever said. 6 So
according to Dibelius, the most significant speech by the apostle to the gentiles delivered to
gentiles, the highpoint in the book of Acts, was not actually delivered by Paul, is not about
Jesus, and is mostly full of pagan philosophical ideas! This serves to illustrate the level of
controversy over the interpretation of the Areopagitica.
Paul’s speech has rightly attracted a lot of attention from contemporary Christian
apologists who have read it as supportive of their differing approaches to apologetics. Boot
and McGrath (1992) can be taken as representative of two divergent and contrasting readings
of the passage. McGrath sees Paul’s approach as building on the foundations of Stoic
philosophy. For McGrath (1992): “Paul is able to base himself upon acceptable Greek theistic
assumptions while at the same time going beyond them. Paul shows a clear appreciation of the
 3

apologetic potential of Stoic philosophy, portraying the gospel as resonating with central Stoic
concerns, while extending the limits of what might be known”.(p. 49)Boot (2014), by contrast,
asserts that Paul “is evidently not establishing a ‘natural theology’ to argue from‘first
principles’ like a pagan philosopher, but is seeking to confront them with their sinful pride.”(p.
433) For Boot, Paul would not have emphasized repentance so much if he thought these
pagans were on the right lines and just needed to be taken a bit further in their understanding
(p. 436). While McGrath emphasizes continuity and common ground in his assessment of
Paul’s communication to the Athenians, Boot emphasizes the discontinuity in Paul’s approach,
seeing it as almost entirely critical of the prevailing philosophies. However, contrary to Boot,
Paul makes extensive use of natural theology, but that does not mean that he is not also critical
of the Athenian worldviews he is confronting. This work therefore, serves as a model for
contemporary apologetics in various ways. This study will show how Paul’s apologetic
approach contextualizes the message, legitimizes the use of natural theology and the use of
pagan citations in apologetics, and presents a Judeo-Christian world view in contrast to the
Athenian world views he was critiquing.
This study shall first discuss the context of the Areopagitica, looking at the context in
Acts and the cultural and philosophical context in first century Athens and how this parallels
contemporary culture. The research will engage also in a verse analysis of the passage, in which
it will seek to show that the speech is neither a simple Judeo-Christian anti-idol polemic, nor
purely based on Hellenistic philosophy, but deliberately both. Finally, this work will assess what
conclusions can be drawn for contemporary apologetics and show how Paul contextualizes his
message, and legitimizes the use of natural theology and the use of pagan citations in Christian
apologetics. Paul’s apologetic presents a Judeo-Christian worldview over and against the first
century Athenian world views, and explains that God’s self-revelation in Jesus means that all
people everywhere need to repent.

Acts in Context

Acts is best seen as part of a two-volume historiographical work, with the focus being
on God’s action in that history (Witherington, 1956, pp.90-115). Witherington further argues
that Acts would surely “have been seen as some sort of Hellenistic historiography, especially
by a Gentile audience” (p. 39). An apologetic purpose to Acts is also widely recognized
 4

(David, 2018, p. 1). Bruce (1968) points out three types of apologetic provided by Acts:
apologetic in relation to paganism, apologetic in relation to Judaism, and apologetic in relation
to the political authorities (p. 390). Paul’s speech is the most extensive passage functioning in
the first type of apologetic. A key feature in Acts is the theme of Gentile mission.
Witherington is surely right to note that “Gentile mission is a crucial if not the crucial event
for Luke in Acts.”(p. 73). Keener (2012) agrees, noting that “Most scholars recognize that
Gentile mission is one the central themes (if not the central theme) of Acts.”(p. 505).
The Areopagitica is the last “missionary speech” in the book of Acts, proclaiming the
gospel to unbelievers. It is therefore the climax or the summit of Paul’s proclamation of the
gospel to the nations.(p. 198). The only other public speech that Paul makes to Pagans in Acts
is the one in Lystra (14:15-17). It is worth noting that despite the brevity of that speech, there
is considerable overlap with the Areopagitica in terms of theological themes
(CopanandLitwak, 2014, p. 24). Both speeches criticize idolatry and proclaim a single
transcendent creator God (14:15; 17:24). Both appeal to natural revelation (14:17; 17:25,27),
describe previous ignorance of God by the nations (14:16; 17:30), and call the hearers to
repentance (14:15; 17:30). In fact there is hardly a phrase in the Lystra speech that does not
find a parallel in the Areopagitica. This repetition of approach clearly serves to emphasize that
Paul (and Luke) saw this kind of message as a model of how to proclaim the gospel to the
pagans. The speeches in Acts are generally replete with plentiful quotations from the
Septuagint, but the speeches in Lystra and Athens are not. This makes sense given that in these
locations Paul could assume no familiarity with the Jewish scriptures. We shall now consider
why this prominent speech was located in Athens and what the Athenian philosophers
believed.
Athens in Context
Athens was the rallying point for philosophers and philosophical excurses as it were.
Such prominent Hellenistic philosophers as Epicurus, Zeno, Arcesiuas, and Crysippus
migrated there from elsewhere (Long, 2001, p. 2). Luke mentions Epicureans and Stoics as
listeners in order to show that he was “fully aware of which schools of thought had most
influence at this time” (Gartner, 1955, p. 47). For Luke, Paul has here penetrated the very
centre of Gentile philosophy and religion (Dibelius, p. 152). Athens was not viewed entirely
positively in the ancient world though. Joseph usin Against Apion defends Jewish tolerance
 5

towards other religions by contrasting the intolerance of others. Athensis cited as a prime
example of religious intolerance, ( Rowe, pp. 162-176) and helists Apollonius, Socrates,
Anazagoras of Clasomenae, Protagoras of Abdera, as amongst those who fellafoul of their
laws against preaching and introducing strange gods (Gärtner, 1955, p. 65). Paul, by contrast,
was not condemned in Athens, in spite of its harsh reputation in this regard. His speech took
place in the Areopagus, and contains allusions to Socrates, perhaps the most famous Athenian
philosopher, as well as Epimenides.
The Areopagus
There is some dispute over whether Paul made speech before the famous council of the
Areopagusor merely on the hill where it sometimes met. “The phrase ἐuὶʏὸvἌpsιοvΠάɶοv
(v19) is used elsewhere in the literature to denote the court”(Gartner, 1955,p. 55). The phrase
could mean the location of Mars Hill or the court which was named after it, but the best option
is to see both meanings applying here. The phrase: “Paul, standing in the midst (ἐv µέσῳ) of
the Areopagus,” (v.22) as Gärtner points out, “would be distinctly odd if Luke meant ‘in the
midst of Mars Hill” (p. 56). Furthermore, one “Dionysius the Areopagite” (v.34) was in the
audience, which references a member of the council, making it highly unlikely that the council
was not in session.
In Diogenes Laertius, three times the Areopagus is the scene for the trial of a
philosopher (p. 169). The Areopagus would be the appropriate authority for an official hearing
to determine a case like Paul’s regarding introducing foreign gods (Witherington,(1956), p.
516). It should be noted that most of the Church Fathers take the Areopagus to be a court
(Gärtner, 1955, 53n1). Part of the purpose of this passage may be to point out that even the
illustrious philosophical court of the Areopagus failed to convict Paul of any crime, thus adding
weight to Paul’s legal innocence in the case taken to Rome (Mauck, 2001, p. 132). Unlike
Socrates, Paul was able tosuccessfully defend himself before the Areopagus. Although it
functions as a defense speech, it is entirely appropriate to view the Areopagus speech as a
missionary speech as well since Paul clearly moves beyond defense to proclamation, and this
result in some prominent people deciding to join him and believe.
The Epicureans and the Stoics 
Paul’s preaching comes to the attention of two groups of philosophers in Athens, the
Epicureans and the Stoics (Acts 17:18). According to the Oxford Dictionary, Stoicism is a “Greek
 6

school of philosophy founded at Athens by Zeno of Citium. The school taught that virtue, the
highest good, is based on knowledge, and that the wise live in harmony with the divine Reason
(also identified with Fate and Providence) that governs nature, and are indifferent to the
vicissitudes of fortune and to pleasure and pain.” The Oxford Dictionary defines Epicureanism as
a “school of philosophy founded in Athens by Epicurus. The school rejected determinism and
advocated hedonism (pleasure as the highest good), but of a restrained kind: mental pleasure was
regarded more highly than physical, and the ultimate pleasure was held to be freedom from
anxiety and mental pain, especially that arising from needless fear of death and of the gods.”
Epicureans
One of the schools of thought among the audience of Paul at the Areopagus were the
Epicureans who propounded the theory of their believe system that even if there were a God, He
was far removed from creation. Kee (1997) holds that the Epicureans followed the teachings of
Epicurus (341-270 B.C). They were materialistic in outlook and the main teaching was that “the
goal of life is happiness” (p. 212). Proctor (1992) describes the thinking of this group: The
Epicureans said, “I lead a quiet decent, respectable life. I don’t bother anyone and nobody
bothers me. I doubt if God has much to be concerned about in what I do – which is alright,
because he doesn’t trouble me either” (p. 71). The Epicureans, with this mentality, did not elude
the sharp barb of Paul who contended that; “God, far from being disinterested in his creation is
personally involved”. His involvement takes the form of sustaining the creation (vs. 28),
forbearing with their former ignorance (vs. 30) and the determination to hold men accountable at
the judgment (vs. 31). The school rejected determinism and advocated hedonism (pleasure as the
highest good), but of a restrained kind: mental pleasure was regarded more highly than physical,
and the ultimate pleasure was held to be freedom from anxiety and mental pain, especially that
arising from needless fear of death and of the gods.”
Thompson (2000) asserts that the apostle Paul shows that he understood the worldviews
of the inhabitants of Athens (p. 68). Armed with this knowledge, he could formulate a pointed
criticism of the Epicureans’ erroneous assumptions. As observed by Lawson (2018), Gospel
proclamation today needs to show “an understanding of the contemporary worldview; moreover,
such proclamation must include some apologetics” with the intention of demolishing the
ideological strongholds of our present day society’s faithlessness (p. 12).
 7

Stoics
The Stoics were disciples of Zeno (340-265 B.C). They took their name from the Stoa
where they frequently met. Fitzmyer (1998) observes that the Stoics taught the importance of
living harmoniously with nature (p.605). They emphasized man’s rational abilities over the
emotions. They were pantheistic; God was the world soul. Moreover, according to Kee (1997),
the Stoics taught that one “should accept with courage and indifference the vicissitudes and
painful experiences of life” (p.213). Pardigon (2020) opines that “Great moral earnestness and a
high sense of duty” marked Stoicism (p. 17). The Stoics identified God with the world. Paul
refutes their pantheism as noted by Proctor (1992), by declaring a personal God who is
transcendent and majestic (p. 70).
Against the Stoics’ self-sufficiency, Paul portrays God as the truly independent One (vs.
25) and man as dependent upon Him for life and breath (vs. 28). In addition, Paul attacks the
Stoics’ morality by charging them with idolatry (vs. 29). Rowe (2011) opines here that Paul
highlights the urgency of the coming judgment (vs. 31, p. 30). The Epicureans were the deists of
the day, while the Stoics were the pantheists. These philosophies were opposed to Christian
doctrine of God, sin, redemption and eternal life. Verse 18 tells us that some from the Epicureans
and Stoics were arguing with Paul. The word συνέβαλλον, (vs. 16, 17) indicates that Paul was
constantly facing opposition. The opposition of the Epicureans and the Stoics as noted by
Wallace (1996), emerges in the conditional sentence: “What does the seed-picker wish to say?”
The protasis “if it were possible” is implied (p. 484). The word σπερμολόγος is literally seed-
picker. According to Jefferson (2018), firstly it refers to birds picking up grains, secondly to men
picking up miscellaneous items and then to worthless persons (p. 2). In this context, seed-picker
is derogatory. A clear understanding of this study will necessitate the analysis of the Areopagus
speech, first, from its point of entry.
The Prolegomena (v16 – 21)
16 Now while was waiting for them at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him as he
saw that the city was chock-full of idols. Paul is presented as taking a tour of the city while he
waits for his companions (Witherington,1956,p. 512). Stonehouse (1949) suggests he is
“taking a brief holiday in Athens,” and not anticipating any actual ministry there (p. 10).
However, Paul is “provoked”
by what he sees. Παpω(ύvsʏο is a strong verb, used only here and1 Cor. 13:5 in the New
 8

Testament, with the meaning “provoked” in 1 Cor. 13. In the Septuagint it is used to refer to
God’s intense anger at the idolatry of his people, (Deut9:18; Ps106:29; Isa 65:3; Hos8:5) and
this meaning fits the context here very well. At the very least, it means that Paul was intensely
irritated, or provoked by what he saw (Witherington, (1956), 512). Note that this verb is in the
imperfect indicative passive, which as Pardigon (2020) notes, indicates that “this was not a
temporary emotional reaction, but an ongoing state, most likely intended by Luke to describe
Paul’s frame of mind during his entire stay in Athens” (p. 216).
Καʏsί6ωhοv is a word which only occurs here in the New Testament and means “full of
idols.” David (2018) rather prefers “a veritable forest of idols” and notes that this word
“vividly conveys an eye witness impression” (p. 19). He points out that kata compounds are
often used of luxurious vegetation, though his case may be over stated (Campbell, 2011, p.
28). David (2014) translates “chocked with idols” (p. 14). It is, as Pardigon (2020) says, “very
important to note that this is Paul’s only and entire definition of the city” (pp. 217-218).
Athens had generally been described as full of idolatry and has been noted for that. Paul
however, has been able to discuss his message in their Agora- marketplace for several days
provoking a variety of responses. Jesus and the resurrection has been the central theme of his
message. It can immediately be concluded that Paul’s models focused on Jesus and the
resurrection in his proclamation of the gospel to a pagan audience. He is a skilful debater, able
to hold his own in the market place and with stand the challenges of leading philosophers.
Being unable to refute him, they have brought charges against him. It is important to see how
Paul defended himself, and at the same time continued his proclamation, before the
Areopagus?
Paul’s address to the Areopagus (Acts 17:22-34)
Verse 22 begins a new section in which the apostle attempts to extricate himself from the
accusation that he was promoting foreign gods. According to Hansen (1998), Paul also “seeks a
point of contact for his proclamation of the unknown god” (p. 315). Paul was perhaps standing in
the midst of the council, the prepositional phrase makes better sense if it refers to the council,
rather than to the hill (Bruce, 1990, p. 375; Kistermaker, 1990, p. 630). However, the physical
location is not crucial; it is the address which requires scrutiny. As contended by Weston (2017),
Paul’s opening line; “Men of Athens” is reminiscent of the formula orators used to address the
Areopagus(p. 7). Paul’s observation that they were δεισιδαιμονεστέρους, ‘very religious’ is used
 9

with an elative sense (Wallace, 1996, p. 300). The word may be used positively or negatively. It
may be interpreted as “very religious or superstitious” (Weston, 2017, p. 8). However, it is
doubtful that the word carries the negative connotation, superstitious, especially since Paul seeks
to make contact with the audience (cf. Acts. 25:19). Paul does not commend the Athenians for
idolatry; this will become clear as the speech develops. The reason Paul assesses that they are
very religious, is due to the objects of worship (cf. 2 Thess. 2:4) he observed as he was passing
through Athens. Such objects perhaps included altars and images. He points out the altar with the
inscription, ΑΓΝΩΣΤΩ ΘΕΩ-‘To an Unknown God’. Paul considers it a frank admission of
ignorance by the Athenians. Paul denies that he proclaims new gods with the expression, “that
which you worship in ignorance”. Since by their altar they admit their ignorance, Paul announces
that his intention is to educate them concerning this unknown God. The neuter construction, that,
instead of the masculine, who indicates that they worship an impersonal god. Paul expresses his
intention forcefully, this I proclaim to you. The personal pronoun ‘ego’ as observed by Dunn
(1996), is emphatic; it stresses “the apostle’s resolve to proclaim the unknown God as the only
God” (p. 235). Although his audience was mainly philosophers, Paul did not engage them in “a
reasoned philosophical argument” (Fitzmyer, 1998, p. 607); instead, he proclaimed the Gospel
(p. 607).
With the statement in verse 24 that the unknown God is “the one Creator God of the
entire universe, and its contents” Charles (2021) observes that Paul begins a series of statements
about God and his character (p. 16). He undercuts both the Epicureans and Stoics conceptions of
the universe. Weston (2017) states: This view of the world is very different from either the
Epicurean emphasis on a chance combination of atoms, or the virtual pantheism of the Stoics (p.
22). Paul is emphatic, this same God is Lord of both heaven and earth (cf. Ex. 20:11; Isa. 42:5;
Acts 14:15). Paul pictures God as noted by Jeff (2019) to be the personal kurios–Lord, who
“governs and cares for all that He has made including this Athenian audience”. The argument
flows logically: if God is Creator and Lord of the cosmos, then it is unthinkable that his location
is confined to man-made shrines (cf. 1 Kings 8:27; Isa. 57:15; Acts 7:48, p. 11). Paul
distinguishes the true God from the various Greek gods with their temples in Athens (Fitzmyer,
1998, p. 608). Since God does not live in manmade temples, Jefferson (2018) holds that by
implication, humans cannot domesticate him (p. 5). In verse 25 the conjunction οὐδὲ-nor,
continues the distinction between God and his creation. Paul argues the independence of God
 10

through the clause, οὐδὲ ὑπὸ χειρῶνἀνθρωπίνων θεραπεύεται προσδεόμενόςτινος“ neither is He

served by human hands, as though He needed anything”. The emphasis upon human hands is a
forceful statement that God lacks nothing that man must supply. The reverse is true: “He Himself
gives to all life and breath and all things.” Paul posits God as the source and sustainer of life and
breath; these are synonymous expressions (cf. Isa. 42:5). Paul finds common ground as opined
by Weston (2017) with both Epicureans and Stoics here by noting that God needs nothing, and
that he gives life to all things (p. 21).
Paul progresses to God’s creation of man (v. 26). The clause, “from one He made every
nation of men” is Paul’s way of saying all men share a common origin. The phrase of the one,
stops short of naming the person, but the reference is to Adam. Bruce (1990) explains Paul’s
remark about the solidarity of the human race: “The Greeks in general considered themselves
superior to non-Greeks, whom they called barbarians. Against such claims to racial superiority
Paul asserts the unity of all mankind, a unity derived ‘from Adam” (p. 382). The times God had
providentially determined beforehand could be either seasons or the eras that belong to particular
nations (v. 26). Keener (2011) holds that since Paul speaks about nations, the latter interpretation
seems preferable (p. 15). He also determined the places where each nation would dwell. May
(2016) sees verse 26 as indicative of God’s sovereign dealings with humanity (p. 12). However,
this verse teaches important lessons that both the Stoics and Epicureans needed to learn.
Fitzmyer (1998) captures best Paul’s thinking in this passage: Paul stresses the unity of all
humanity and its nearness to this creator God (p. 609). He does this by insisting that God has put
all human beings on this earth and is thus countering the idea that the universe came into being
by chance, emphasizing rather the divine design and intention that lies behind all human
existence.
The infinitive clause in verse 27 articulates God’s purpose for creating man;
ζητεῖντὸνΘεὸν- ‘he should seek God’. Both verbs are in the optative mood. For Wallace (1996)
there is no certainty that man on his own could find God; the optative mood refers to a remote
possibility (p. 484). According to Parente (2008), the verb to grope, indicates a searching in the
darkness (p. 17). The concessive καίγε, “and yet God is not far from us” makes it clear that God
is near. Chris (2021) holds that this was a current thought in Stoic philosophy. For confirmation
of God’s imminence, Paul quotes from a Greek poet “in Him we live, move, and exist” (p. 15).
Some attribute the quotation to the poet Epimenides, a poet who lived in Crete in the sixth
 11

century B.C. (Hemer, 1990, p. 118). God however, is the source of life and provides power for
activity. Paul stresses mankind’s dependence upon God for physical, spiritual and intellectual
life. The second quotation, according to Kee (1997), is from the third century B.C. poet Aratus,
who was well known to the Stoics. Through this quotation, Paul establishes humanity’s
relationship to God; we are his children because of special creation (p. 216).
In verse 29, the particle οὖν-therefore, indicates a shift in the address. Paul is about to
apply his message to the audience. The apostle grounds his attack on Athenian idolatry, because
they were God’s offspring. Jipp (2012) views it that, since God is man’s creator, therefore to
imagine the divine nature, like images of silver, gold, stone or any man-made object is obviously
wrong (p. 17). Paul attacks Athenian baseless idolatry in this verse. Chris (2021) maintains that
inanimate objects serve only to impose limits and to demote the Creator to some image of our
creation (p. 11). Paul says God overlooked their ignorance in the past (v. 30, cf. also v. 23). For
Lawson (2018), it does not mean that in the past God regarded their ignorant idolatrous practices
with indifference (p. 10). God treated them with patience, but it was not his intention that people
should persist in idolatry. νῦν, now, signals the transition from the past to the present. God now
summons all people everywhere to repent. This command is for a radical change of mind and
behaviour, particularly in the area of idolatry. According to Lawson (2018), the call for
repentance is all the more important because of the certainty of judgment (p. 12). Paul underlines
the certainty of judgment by establishing two truths:
Firstly, God has determined a day of judgment. Paul’s day of judgment corresponds to the Old
and New Testament’s theme of the Day of the Lord (cf. Amos 5:18-20; Mal. 4:5; 1 Cor. 5:5; 1
Thess. 5:2; 2 Pet. 3:10).
Secondly, He has appointed the Judge. The personal agent of judgment is described as
“a man God raised from the dead”. The Judge, therefore, is the resurrected Jesus Christ
referred to in verse 18. Furthermore, Paul includes the concept of righteousness to convey the
fairness of the judgment. The extent of Christ’s judgment is the whole world. By implication,
even the Athenians will face the resurrected Christ. Verse 31 ends Paul’s speech in Athens.
These verses relate the mixed response Paul’s message received. Some mocked the idea of the
resurrection. Witherington (1998) observes that the people of Athens believed that there was
no resurrection (p. 532). Especially for the Epicureans who denied the resurrection, this would
be difficult to accept. Others showed some interest when they told Paul, “We shall hear you
 12

again concerning this” (v. 32). It is unclear whether this is a polite dismissal or genuine
expression of interest in further discussions. Fitzmyer (1998) holds that the fact that Paul did
not take up their offer, but left Athens soon afterwards for Corinth (cf. Acts 18:1), is perhaps
proof that their comment was a polite but firm rejection of the apostle’s message (p. 612).
Luke informs us that Paul’s encounter with the Areopagus was not a complete failure. Some in
the audience accepted the message.
Parsons (2014) notes that Luke singles out Dionysius, the Areopagite, and a woman
called Damaris as two from the few who believed Paul (v. 34, p. 24). This analysis has shown
that Paul contextualizes his message with superb rhetorical skill, using quotations and
ambiguities to entice the listeners to understand what he is communicating. Paul has critiqued
idolatry using both biblical and Stoic philosophical arguments. His arguments are neither
exclusively biblical nor exclusively philosophical, but both. There is no room for syncretism in
this message, since Paul makes clear that repentance is required of all men everywhere. There
are many indications that Luke (and Paul) did not view the Areopagitica as a failure, but rather
as are markable success, and Luke intentionally includes it in Acts as a model apologetic for
pagan audiences. The implications for contemporary apologetics would now be considered.
Contextualizing through apologetics
From the brief exegesis attempted above, we could see clearly Paul’s use of apologetics
to drive home his message. Although Paul names neither the Stoics nor the Epicureans, there is
universal agreement that these two groups were foremost in Paul’s mind as he preached.
The Stoics identified God with the world. Paul refutes their pantheism as noted by Proctor,
(1992), by declaring a personal God who is transcendent and majestic. Against the Stoics’ self-
sufficiency, Paul portrays God as the truly independent One (vs. 25) and man as dependent upon
Him for life and breath (vs. 28, p. 70). In addition, Paul attacks the Stoics’ morality by charging
them with idolatry (vs. 29). Paul highlights the urgency of the coming judgment (vs. 31). The
Epicureans, on the other hand, believed that even if there were a God, He was far removed from
the creation. Proctor (1992) describes the thinking of this group: The Epicureans said, ‘I lead a
quiet decent, respectable life. I don’t bother anyone and nobody bothers me. I doubt if God has
much to be concerned about in what I do – which is alright, because he doesn’t trouble me
either’ (p. 71) The Epicureans, with this mentality, did not elude the sharp barb of Paul. God, is
far from being disinterested in his creation is personally involved. His involvement takes the
 13

form of sustaining the creation (vs. 28), forbearing with their former ignorance (vs. 30) and the
determination to hold men accountable at the judgment (vs. 31). Thompson (2000) asserts that
the apostle Paul shows that he understood the worldviews of the inhabitants of Athens. Armed
with this knowledge, he could formulate a pointed criticism of the Stoics and Epicureans’
erroneous assumptions (p. 68). Gospel proclamation today needs to show an understanding of the
contemporary worldview; moreover, such proclamation must include some apologetics with the
intention of demolishing the ideological strongholds of our present-day society’s faithlessness.
Paul’s Polemic Against Idolatry
Paul implored the use of Stoic and Biblical arguments to critique idolatrous practices in
Athens. In Paul’s logic, natural revelation shows that God is the transcendent creator and
therefore that he cannot be contained in a temple or represented by a lifeless idol. It is absurd
for created humans to believe that they can serve their creator by worshipping idols. It is
equally absurd for created humans to believe that an image which they have created can
represent their creator, or that a temple which they have built can contain their creator. Paul
thereby exposes the incoherence of Athenian idolatry and its incompatibility with natural
revelation. Although modern western culture does not advocate worship of physical idols, it is
nonetheless the case that all world views substitute something for God. As Pearcy (2015),
writes for example, “Enlightenment rationalists made a god of reason; ‘omantics deified the
imagination; nationalists idealize the nation; Marxists offer an economic version of sin and
salvation” (p. 61). It is easy to see how materialists idolize matter, empiricists idolize the
senses, postmodernism idolizes culture or community, and more obviously, other religions
have their own substitute gods which they idolize. Just as Paul points out the incoherence of
Athenian idolatry, so we should expose the incoherence of contemporary idolatry.

Pearcy (2015), explains how “idols always lead to a lower view of human life” (p. 98).
This is because idols define human nature and unless the creator of humanity is a personal,
rational being there is no way for humans to be personal, rational creatures. Materialism
eliminates free will and consciousness for example. Materialism therefore reduces humans to
products of physical forces. In a similar manner, postmodernism reduces humans to products of
social forces. Marxism reduces humans to products of economic forces. Pantheism, like
materialism, defines ultimate reality in non-personal terms, and therefore must reduce humans
to non-personal beings. The Allah of Islam lacks key elements of personality because of his
 14

fundamental unity, resulting in a fatalistic, mechanistic worship that also depersonalizes humans
(Pearcy, 2016, pp. 195-196). In this way, the incoherence of the idolatry of every non-Christian
worldview can be exposed in that idols are always dehumanizing and therefore always result in
a view of human nature that is clearly contradicted by natural revelation. Just as Paul exposed
how Athenian idolatry is contradicted by natural revelation, so we should expose how
contemporary world views are contradicted by natural revelation. In Romans 1 Paul criticizes
both idolatry and immoral living. The Areopagus speech only addresses the idolatry, not the
immorality. The book of Romans was written to a Christian community, whereas Paul in
Athens is addressing Gentile unbelievers. There is no attempt to address morality in this
message. Paul instead focuses on their false knowledge of God and its resultant idolatry
(Gärtner,1955, p. 145). Firstly, there has to be a case for dismantling the underlying idolatry of
competing worldviews before critiquing the resulting morality. This makes logical sense as
there are no grounds for morality in a materialist worldview. Thus, before people begin to adjust
their behaviour, they need to agree on the grounds of morality first.

Conclusion
There is considerable debate about the relevance of the Areopagitica for contemporary
apologetics, with some arguing that Paul (and Luke) viewed it as a failure, and others debating
the extent to which Paul builds on Stoic philosophy in his gospel presentation. It is pertinent to
note that the Areopagus speech serves as a useful model for contemporary apologetics. Luke
regarded the speech as a success, not a failure, and intended it as a model for pagan
apologetics. Our findings reveal that Paul’s Areopagus speech is truly a master piece for the
present day evangelization and contextualization of the Gospel; that Paul had the opportunity
to give the Athenians the unchanging message about Jesus. He first established a point of
contact with them, with the understanding that man is deeply religious. He used pagan
citations in apologetics, and presents a Judeo-Christian world view in contrast to the Athenian
worldviews he was critiquing.
Paul skillfully contextualizes his message for his Athenian audience whom he can
assume had no knowledge of the Bible. Paul’s apologetics makes use of natural theology
which legitimizes the use of natural theology in contemporary apologetics, including
arguments for the existence of God. He undermines the credibility of their idolatry by showing
how it contradicts natural revelation. This approach should be taken note of. In doing so Paul
 15

makes use of Stoic philosophical arguments and citations, without endorsing all that these
arguments or citations were intended to imply. This means that contemporary apologists can
make use of pagan citations and general world views, without fear of endorsing the worldview
they espouse. Paul engages in ‘worldview evangelism’ by outlining a Biblical understanding
of the nature of God and humanity. Contemporary apologists need to be cognizant of the
increased worldview gap between Christianity and the culture of our time, and should seek to
bridge that gap by articulating Christianity as a worldview. Contemporary apologists should be
bold and unafraid to confront competing worldviews, such as the present day philosophies and
sayings that do not square with the Christian belief, to show how they are undermined by
natural revelation, and explain the true nature of God and humanity. It remains true to this day
that God “commands all people everywhere to repent.” There is therefore, an opportunity for
everyone to receive the Good News.

References

Boot, J. (2014). The Mission of God (St. Catherines, ON: Freedom Press International).

Campbell, S. (2011). Scratching the Itch: Paul’s Athenian Speech Shaping Mission Today.
Evangelical Review of Theology, 35(2)
Chris F. (2021). Paul in Athens: The Backstory you never knew, baptistmessanger.com.

Copanand Litwak, (2014). The Gospel in the Market place of Ideas: Paul's Mars Hill Experience
for our Pluralistic World. IVP.
 16

David, F. (2014). Getting to know the unknown God–Acts

17.https://lookoutmag.com/2014/getting-to-know-the-unknown-god-acts-17

David, G. (2018). Acts 17 – Paul in Thessalonica, Berea, and Athens

https://enduringword.com/bible-commentary/acts-17

Deissmann, A. (1927). Light from the Ancient East: The New Testament Illustrated by Recently
Discovered Texts of the Graeco-Roman World trans. L.R.M. Strachan; L Hodder &
Stoughton,

Dibelius, M. (1956). Studies in the Acts of the Apostles. SCM Press.

Fitzmyer, J.A. (1998). The Acts of the Apostles: A New Translation with Introduction
and Commentary. Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries. Yale University Press.

Gärtner, B. (1955). The Areopagus Speech and Natural Revelation (ASNU; trans. C. H.
King; vol. 21; C.W.K. Gleerup: Uppsala.

Hansen, G.W. (1998). The preaching and defense of Paul. (In Marshall, I.H. & Peterson, D., eds.
Witness to the gospel: the theology of Acts. Eerdmans.

Hemer, C. J. (1990). The book of Acts in the setting of Hellenistic history. Eisenbrauns.

Jeff, H. (2019). Seed-Pickers. The plant city planter, plant city, FL 33563
plantcitychurchofchrist.org

Jefferson, V. (2018). The seed picker speaks Acts 17. Afterlife. US.
httpps://www.afterlife.co.nz.2018/07
Jipp, J. W. (2012). Paul’s Areopagus Speech of Acts 17:16-34 as Both Critique and Propaganda.
Journal of Biblical Literature, 131 (3). academia.edu/62929449/M
Kee, H.C. (1997). To every nation under heaven: the Acts of the Apostles. Harrisburg: Trinity
Press International.
Keener, C. (2011). The altar to the unknown god: Paul preaches in Acts:17:22–31. Retrieved
from http://www.craigkeener.com/the-altar-to-the-unknown-god-paul-preaches-in-acts-
1722-31/
Keener, C. (2012). Acts: An Exegetical Commentary: Introduction and 1:1-2:47 (vol. 1; Baker
Academic.

Kistemaker, S. J. (1995). Acts. New Testament Commentary. Michigan: Baker Books.

 17

Kistemaker, S.J. (1990). Acts. Baker Book House.

Lawson, M. (2018). Exegetical notes: Acts 17:22-34, Thoughts on Ministry, The Bible, &
Christian living https://michaeldlawson.com/exegetical-notes-acts-1722-34 January 10.

Long, A. A. (2001). Hellenistic Philosophy: Stoics, Epicureans, Sceptics. Duckworth.

Mauck, J. M. (2001). Paulon Trial: The Book of Acts as a Defence of Christianity. Thomas
Nelson.

McGrath, A. E. (1992). Bridge-Building. InterVarsityPress.

Oxford Dictionary of English (2020). Epicurians and The Stoics. Oxford University Press.
Pardigon, F. O. C. (2008). "Paul Against the Idols: The Areopagus Speech and Religious
Inclusivism" (Ph.Ddiss. Westminster Theological Seminary)

Parente, P. P. (2008). St Paul's address before the Areopagus." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 11,
no. 2 (ATLA Religion Database with ATLA Serials, EBSCOhost.

Parsons, M. C. (2006). Acts. Dictionary of Biblical criticism and interpretation. Edited by S. E.

Porter. Routledge.

Pearcy, N. (2015). Finding Truth. Colorado Springs: David C. Cook.

Pearcy, N. (2016). Finding Truth, 132; Sam Solomon, Not the Same God: Is the Qur'anic Allah
the Lord God of the Bible? Wilberforce Publications.

Proctor, J. (1992). The gospel from Athens: Paul’s speech before the Areopagus and the evangel
for today. Evangel, 10(3), 69-72.
Rowe, C. K. (2009). World Upside Down: Reading Acts in the Greco-Roman Age.
Oxford University Press.

Stonehouse, N. B. (1949). The Areopagus Address The Tyndale New Testament Lecture;
Cambridge: Tyndale.

Thompson, G.G. (2000). Proclaiming the gospel to postmodernists. Potchefstroom: PU for CHE.
(Ph.D. thesis)
Wallace, D. B. (1996). Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. Zondervan.

Weston, P. (2017). Philosophy in Athens (Acts 17:16-34). St. Michael & All Angels, Gidea Park,
Romford RM2 5EL.
 18

Witherington, B. (1998). The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Eerdmans.