November Feature Article

Paul in Athens (Acts 17:16-34):
A Biblical Resource for Contemporary Apologetics

 

Dr. Lars Dahle is the Academic Dean of Gimlekollen School of Journalism and Communication, Kristiansand, Norway and is also a member of the EAN Steering Committee.  Dr. Lars Dahle recently finish his Ph.D. at Open University under the supervision of EAN member Dr. E. David Cook.  The title of Lars’ dissertation is

Acts 17:16-34. An Apologetic Model Then and Now? The following article comes from his research and lays out a biblical foundation for Apologetics. [1]

 

Paul in Athens (Acts 17:16-34):

A Biblical Resource for Contemporary Apologetics [2]

 

The Need for Biblical Foundations

 

Apologetics has traditionally been described as the rational justification of Christian truth claims over against relevant questions, objections and alternatives. [3] Despite its prominence historically, apologetics is seen as controversial in many contemporary Christian circles. Wherever practised, however, contemporary apologetics seems largely to be characterised by a neglect of biblical foundations and models. [4] This is true also of much evangelical apologetics. Remarkably little has been done by evangelical theologians in terms of biblical research in the area of apologetics and most evangelical textbooks and studies seem to lack a proper discussion of the biblical material. Where biblical material is used, Acts 17:16-34 keeps recurring as the most popular biblical paradigm for apologetics.

 

I would like to suggest that the theological validity of apologetics is established a) if it could be shown that the science and art of apologetics goes back to a reflective practice of apologetics in the New Testament, and b) if such a practice could be shown to be in accord with key theological convictions of the New Testament.

 

Acts 17 as a Key Apologetic Text

 

Acts 17:16-34 is the most extensive example in the New Testament of a dialogue with, and an address to, a pagan and pluralistic context. The passage clearly describes Paul as an apologist in the Athenian marketplace (agora) over against relevant objections, questions and alternatives.

 

It seems highly plausible that historical precedent in the Bible must be related to authorial intent in order to have any normative value. [5] This implies that Luke should be seen to have intended to establish a positive precedent – whether normative, recommended or repeatable – of apologetics in Acts 17:16-34, if this passage can be seen to a) fit a positive repeated pattern in Acts [6] and b) relate to Luke's purpose(s) for writing Acts.

 

Acts 17 seems to have been recorded intentionally by Luke as a positive model from apostolic practice. The basis for this claim is found both in the fact that this passage fits a positive repeated pattern in Acts of key apologetic approaches and arguments and that Luke in the Book of Acts argues for the historical and theological truth of the Christian Gospel for Christian converts. This is done by Luke both to confirm the truth-value of their faith and to give them tools and models for their own apologetic ministry. [7]

 

This passage played a key role as an important bridge historically between the apologetics of Hellenistic Judaism and the Christian Greek apologists of the second century. [8] Throughout the history of Christian apologetics, Acts 17 has continued to influence apologetic discussions, paradigms and argumentative strategies. Paul’s approach in Athens is referred to by a number of contemporary apologists as a model for apologetics in the (post)modern secular and pluralistic world, but has never been fully developed as such. [9]

 

The Apologetic Model in Acts 17 [10]

 

This New Testament model may be outlined in terms of a number of significant features.

 

 

1. A normative worldview

Luke’s account describes the defining, normative content of Paul’s truth claims as consisting of key Judeo-Christian convictions about who God is and how he has revealed himself. Both God’s transcendence and immanence and God’s self-disclosure in general and special revelation clearly informed Paul’s apologetic strategy in Athens. On the one hand, Paul’s Judeo-Christian understanding of God as both transcendent and immanent enabled the apostle to ‘positively deconstruct’ Athenian idolatry, Stoicism and Epicureanism. [11] On the other hand, Paul’s appreciation of God’s self-disclosure generally in creation and specifically in history enabled the apostle simultaneously to affirm genuine elements of truth within other beliefs as well as the uniqueness of Christian truth claims about ‘Jesus and the Resurrection’. [12]

 

Thus, Luke describes Paul as an apologist steeped in a genuinely Judeo-Christian worldview in the midst of a challenging pluralistic and pagan context of Athens.

 

2. A ‘proactive’ approach

Paul’s initial presentation of ‘Jesus and the Resurrection’ in the agora was misunderstood, at least to a large extent. This is described in the context of pagan idolatry in Athens (17:16), which provoked Paul to proclaim the Gospel both in the synagogue and in the agora (17:17). The initial responses in the agora to Paul’s new teaching were characterized by incomprehension, fascination, and an invitation to the apostle to present his views before the Areopagus Council. Paul perceived that their ignorance was basic to their idolatry. This led to a renewed presentation and justification of Christian truth claims in this new setting. As in Lystra (Acts 14), Paul initially seems to have underestimated the influence of the pluralistic and pagan context on the listeners’ appreciation of his Gospel about ‘Jesus and the Resurrection’.

 

This may imply that Paul had to rethink his initial approach in Athens along more ‘proactive’ lines (probably in view of key Old Testament precedents such as Is. 40ff.), and that the Areopagus Speech constitutes this renewed ‘proactive’ approach. Whereas Paul’s initial ‘reactive’ presentation resulted in misunderstandings and curiosity, the apostle’s later ‘proactive’ presentation provoked the Athenians to three different reactions: rejection, reconsideration and repentance. [13]

 

Thus, Luke probably describes Paul as an apologist who gradually sees the need for a ‘proactive’ approach in agora contexts.

 

3. Contextual understanding

The Lucan description of Paul as apologist in the Athenian agora shows his contextual understanding of relevant questions, objections and alternatives to his truth claims about ‘Jesus and the Resurrection’. These apologetic challenges in Athens included the following:

 

Key questions to the apostle’s claims were the explicit “Can we hear more about this?”, the implicit “Who are ‘Jesus and the Resurrection’?”, and the implicit “Is there a need for a new altar?”. The presence of these questions corresponds to the Lucan narrative aside about Athenian curiosity in 17:21.

 

Key objections to the apostle’s claims were the explicit “This is foolish!”, the explicit “This is foreign!”, as well as the implicit “If we are wrong, why is there no plague?”. The presence of these objections indicates that (at least) part of the audience had a critical attitude towards Paul.

 

Key alternative worldviews were popular Athenian religion, Stoicism, and Epicureanism. The key role of Paul’s polemical engagement with these beliefs indicates that the apostle was aware that such alternative belief-systems shape how the Christian worldview is perceived in a given context and thus affect people’s questions and objections to Christian truth claims. Paul’s understanding of these challenges enabled him to identify both legitimate ‘points of continuity and contact’ [14] and significant ‘points of discontinuity and tension’ [15] .

 

Thus, Luke implicitly describes Paul as a Christian apologist with a contextual understanding of relevant questions, objections and alternatives in Athens to his claims about ‘Jesus and the Resurrection’.

 

4. Applying appropriate justification procedures

The Lucan description of Paul in Athens includes an increasing awareness of different justification procedures of the synagogue and the informal and formal agora contexts.

 

The Lucan narrative seems to imply in 17:17 that the proper justification procedure for Paul in the context of ‘the Scripture community’ is to demonstrate the consistency between the Old Testament Scriptures (as the assumed shared authority) and Christian truth claims about ‘Jesus and the Resurrection’ (as confirmed by historical evidence). The Scriptures were thus the common ground in the synagogue context in Athens.

 

The focus of Luke’s narrative, however, is on the pluralistic context of the agora, both in terms of the open discussions in the marketplace and the more formal setting before the Areopagus Council (which also should be located in the agora). Paul encountered Hellenistic people who were biblical illiterates, had no knowledge of the Christian worldview, and did not accept the Jewish Scriptures as the final authority. A justification procedure on the basis of the formal authority of Scripture would thus have seemed largely irrelevant – or even invalid – in these pluralistic contexts. Thus, Paul appeals to available evidence, to Athenian authorities and traditions, and to logic.

 

These appeals seem to indicate that Paul assumed that there was a common ground between him and the Athenians, not only ontologically but also (at least to some extent) epistemologically. The ontological common ground is indicated in the references both to a shared created reality and to a shared, created humanity. This clearly implies, that – however differently reality may have been described and experienced by representatives of different worldviews in the Athenian agora – there is, according to Paul, an ontological givenness of shared, created reality and humanity. The epistemological common ground is indicated in what implicitly seems to be considered by Paul as common or shared criteria of truth. The appeals to evidence, authorities and logic mentioned above seem thus to be implicit appeals to the truth criteria of coherence and consistency, correspondence with reality, and adequacy and relevance.

 

Thus, Luke describes Paul as an apologist with an awareness of and an ability to apply appropriate justification procedures in various contexts, relative to whether people have any knowledge of the Old Testament Scriptures and/or belief in these Scriptures as authoritative.

 

5. ‘Positive deconstruction’ of alternative worldviews

The Lucan account claims that Paul started where the Athenians were in this follow-up speech before the Areopagus Council. This means that he started with their popular piety and with their Stoic and Epicurean beliefs. Paul claims that Stoicism and Epicureanism are ‘half-truths’, thus simultaneously identifying and affirming elements of truth (i.e. ‘points of continuity and contact’) and identifying and challenging elements of error (i.e. ‘points of discontinuity and tension’) within these worldviews. The apostle saw Stoicism and Epicureanism as influential beliefs, which do not fully or adequately explain both the transcendence and the immanence of God and should not have accepted the popular Athenian idolatry.

 

Paul relates the question of the nature of God to the question of the purpose of humanity. Paul argued in Athens that human beings do not find ultimate meaning on the basis of their own views of themselves, but only on the basis of the one, true God and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Paul’s implicit claim, then, seems to be that holding a non-Christian worldview, such as Stoicism and Epicureanism, in fact implies being in tension both with reality (since human beings do no find ultimate meanings on the basis of their own views of themselves) and with God (since humanity substitutes the one, true transcendent-immanent God with counterfeit idols). Popular idolatry, Stoicism and Epicureanism are thus shown by Paul to be inconsistent, as failing to correspond to reality in key areas, and as much less adequate than the Judeo-Christian worldview.

 

Thus, Luke describes Paul before the Areopagus as a ‘proactive’ Christian apologist who starts with the beliefs of the Athenians and ‘positively deconstructs’ [16] these beliefs.

 

6. Paul’s argumentative approach

Paul’s argumentative approach before the Areopagus Council, as recorded by Luke, should be expressed in terms of a move from natural theology through ultimate authority to resurrection.

 

First, Paul argues that, whereas natural theologies such as Stoic pantheism and Epicurean deism contain elements of truth, a Judeo-Christian natural theology provides the most adequate view of God, the universe and humanity. This developed argument has a number of functions in Paul’s apologetic: It simultaneously answers the question ‘Is there a need for a new altar?’ and meets the objection ’This is foreign!’. It also shows the plausibility of a Judeo-Christian natural theology over against alternative natural theologies such as Stoic pantheism and Epicurean (polytheistic) deism. Furthermore, it provides a credible premise for Paul’s claims about God’s judgement - since God in fact has ultimate authority as the Creator and Sustainer. Finally, it provides a theistic context for Paul’s claims about ‘Jesus and the Resurrection’.

 

Secondly, Paul argues that the claim that the Judeo-Christian God has ultimate authority – as expressed in the claims about his final judgment – is plausible, since he is the Creator and Sustainer, and it constitutes an appropriate basis for claims about ‘the epistemic obligation’ [17] of the Christian faith. This compressed argument has a number of functions in Paul’s apologetic: It answers the implicit question ‘If we are wrong, why is there no plague?’ and relativizes or deconstructs any claims from the Areopagus Council (or from any philosophical or religious worldviews) to any kind of ultimate authority. It also challenges fundamental Athenian attitudes such as their escapism, attempts at safety-precautions and feelings of self-sufficiency. Furthermore, it presents God’s final judgment (as an expression of his ultimate authority) as the plausible reason for the universal summon to repentance (thus claiming the ‘epistemic obligation’ of the Christian faith). Finally, it reintroduces the topic ‘who is Jesus?’ in an indirect and ‘proactive’ way.

 

Thirdly, Paul argues about the historical Resurrection of Jesus – as resonating with ultimate human concerns, as indicating the uniqueness and authority of Jesus, and as being based on sufficient, available evidence. This highly compressed argument has a number of functions in Paul’s apologetic: It answers in an indirect way the questions ‘Can we hear more about this?’,  ‘Who is Jesus?, and ‘What is the Resurrection?’. It also reintroduces the controversial question of the Resurrection (from 17:18) in a theistic context with claims to ultimate authority. Thus, the Christian claims about the Resurrection are introduced as more attractive than Stoicism (‘the soul lives on after death but is finally absorbed into god’) or Epicureanism (‘death is the end of all existence’), since the message of the Resurrection (’death conquered!’) speaks to ultimate human needs and concerns. Furthermore, it provides evidence of the unique role of the man Jesus as God’s appointed Judge. Finally, it implicitly invites the listeners to check the credibility of the historical evidence for the Resurrection.

 

Thus, Luke describes Paul as a Christian apologist with an overall argument before the Areopagus Council, where he moves from arguments about the credibility of a Judeo-Christian natural theology through the plausibility and implications of God’s ultimate authority to the significance and evidence of the Resurrection.

 

7. Paul’s apologetic aims

There seems to be an underlying awareness (at least in the Lucan narrative and probably also in Paul’s approach) that people’s perspectives affect their perceptions. Paul’s arguments were met with three different responses: mocking (17:32a), interest (17:32b) and repentance (17:34). These responses seem to a certain extent to have corresponded to what seems to have been Paul’s threefold apologetic aim: ‘to interest’, ‘to persuade’, and ‘to confront’.

 

The mocking attitude of some Athenians (who obviously persisted in their pagan attitudes and seem to have blinded themselves to the truth) should thus probably be seen as indicating that the apostle confronted their untenable convictions at the basic worldview level.

 

Some Athenians, however, expressed a genuine interest in listening further to Paul’s justification of his claims. This corresponds to Paul’s positive and immediate aim to generate further interest in ‘Jesus and the Resurrection’. [18] The apostle achieved this, not just by answering their questions but also by ‘proactively’ generating genuine and significant questions about the Christian faith. This could be seen as an implicit communicative principle underlying Paul’s apologetic approach.

 

Paul’s ultimate apologetic aim was to persuade interested Athenians of ‘the epistemic obligation’ of Christian truth claims about ‘one God and one Lord’, and the Lucan narrative shows that some Athenians were persuaded.

 

Luke seems to urge his readers, then, when encountering a degree of openness, to aim primarily to generate further interest about the Christian faith and ultimately to persuade people who are interested of ‘the epistemic obligation’ of the beliefs in ‘one God and one Lord’  – and when encountering scepticism, persistent rejection, and scorn to confront the unbelief.

 

Thus, Luke presents Paul as an apologist with a threefold apologetic aim: ‘to interest’, ‘to persuade’, and ‘to confront’.

 

Contemporary Application: The Postmodern Challenge

 

Christian apologetics responds to relevant questions, objections and alternatives. Non-Christian worldviews (i.e. ‘alternatives’) often tend to affect questions and objections to Christian truth claims. This would imply that a contextual understanding of significant alternative belief-systems is crucial for the apologist. If so, contemporary apologists need to be aware of and understand influential present-day alternative worldviews.

 

A number of Christian theologians and apologists claim that philosophical [19] and popular [20] postmodernism [21] – with scepticism, relativism and hedonism as key components – constitutes a major contemporary ‘worldview challenge’ to Christian truth claims. If so, the outlined features of the Acts 17 model above need to be assessed in the light of this influential challenge. Such an assessment leads to the following conclusions: [22]

 

a) The worldview content of the Acts 17 model – about who God is and how he has revealed himself – remain valid and relevant as defining elements of a Christian worldview also in the contemporary context.

 

b) The Lucan emphases in the Acts 17 model on contextual understanding, application of appropriate justification procedures [23] and ‘positive deconstruction’ of alternative worldviews [24] may justifiably be seen as valid and relevant in any context. Despite a number of significant differences between the Acts 17 and the postmodern contexts, the common features of biblical illiteracy and pluralism indicate that Paul’s approach in the Athenian agora could be seen as relevant to the contemporary challenge of postmodernism.

 

c) Paul’s apologetic arguments may need to be further developed in view of key postmodern challenges:

1. If ‘the natural theology argument’ should be seen as showing the adequacy of Christian views about humanity, the universe, and God, it must be justified over against postmodern deconstruction and reconstruction of identities, explorations of various perspectives, and naturalistic presuppositions.

2. If ‘the ultimate authority argument’ should be seen as showing the legitimacy of God’s authority and the obligation of humanity, it must be justified over against postmodern suspicions and consumerism.

3. If ‘the Resurrection argument’ should be seen as resonating with ultimate human concerns, indicating the uniqueness and authority of Jesus, and being based on sufficient, available evidence, it must be justified over against postmodern ambiguous attitudes, explorations of any ‘stories’, and indifference to and uncertainty about history.

 

d) Paul’s aims (‘to interest’, ‘to confront’, ‘to persuade’) seem relevant and valid in a postmodern context, if properly applied and when seen as complementary.

 

These conclusions indicate that the content, the approach, the arguments, and the aims of the apologetic model in Acts 17:16-34 may justifiably be seen as valid and relevant for contemporary apologetics in comparable ‘agora contexts’, at least in relation to the postmodern challenge.

 

Evangelical Apologetics: Rooted in Scripture

 

If evangelicals claim to be biblical, then the New Testament roots of apologetics are crucial. As Barclay observes, "[If] you do not have a well-developed framework of biblical theology you are at a loss in apologetics, applied theology and ethics." [25]

 

We have seen that Luke presents an apologetic model from apostolic practice in Acts 17:16-34, which has significant implications for apologetics in comparable agora contexts. This demonstrates the biblical legitimacy of apologetics and shows the significance of such New Testament resources for the contemporary science and art of evangelical apologetics. As apologists in the 21^st century, we certainly need to identify, explore and apply these essential biblical resources.

 

 

 

Reference Bibliography

 

 

Alexander, L. 1999. "The Acts of the Apostles As an Apologetic Text". In Apologetics in the Roman Empire: Pagans, Jews and Christians, ed. M. Edwards, M. Goodman, and S. Price, 15-44. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

 

Barclay, O. 1999. Evangelicalism in Britain 1935-1995. A personal sketch. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press.

 

Bruce, F. F. 1977. The Defence of the Gospel in the New Testament. 2nd ed. The Calvin Foundation, Leicester/Grand Rapids: Inter-Varsity Press/Eerdmans.

 

Carson, D. A. 2000. "Athens Revisited". In Telling the Truth: Evangelizing Postmoderns, ed. D. A. Carson, 384-98. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House.

 

Cook, E. D. 1988. "Epistemology" In New Dictionary of Theology, ed. S. B. Ferguson, and D. F. Wright, 225-6. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press.

 

Cook, E. D. 1996. Blind Alley Beliefs. 2nd ed. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press.

 

Craig, W. L. 1994. Reasonable Faith. Christian Truth and Apologetics. Wheaton: Crossway Books.

 

Cunningham, R. 1993. Discovering Christianity When Faith and Reason Are Worlds Apart. A Manual for Evangelism. Leicester: UCCF.

 

Dahle, L. 2001. Acts 17:16-34. An Apologetic Model Then and Now? Milton Keynes: Open University. Ph.D. dissertation.

 

Dahle, L. 2002. “Acts 17 as an Apologetic Model”. In Whitefield Briefing March 2002 (Vol.7, No. 1)

 

Fee, G. D. 1982. "Acts - The Problem of Historical Precedent". In How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth: A Guide to Understanding the Bible, ed. G. D. Fee, and D. Stuart, 87-102. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House.

 

Gempf, C. 1993. "Athens, Paul At" In Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, ed. G. F. Hawthorne, R. P. Martin, and D. G. Reid, 51-4. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press.

 

Guinness, O. 1994. The Dust of Death. The Sixties Counterculture and How It Changed America Forever. 2nd ed. Wheaton: Crossway Books.

 

Keyes, D. 1992. "The Idol Factory". In No God But God: Breaking with the Idols of Our Age, ed. O. Guinness, and J. Seel, 29-48. Chicago: Moody.

 

Lyon, D. 1999. Postmodernity. 2nd ed. Buckingham: Open University Press.

 

Lyon, D. 2000. Jesus in Disneyland: Religion in Postmodern Times. Cambridge/Oxford: Polity Press.

 

McGrath, A. E. 1998. "Biblical Models for Apologetics, Part 3: Apologetics to the Greeks". Bibliotheca Sacra 155 (3): 259-65.

 

McGrath, A. E. 1999. The Unknown God: Searching for Spiritual Fulfilment. Oxford: Lion Publishing.

 

Netland, H. A. 1994. "Truth, Authority and Modernity: Shopping for Truth in a Supermarket of Worldviews". In Faith and Modernity, ed. P. Sampson, V. Samuel, and C. Sugden, 89-115. Oxford: Regnum Books/Lynx Communications.

 

Pollard, N. 1997. Evangelism Made Slightly Less Difficult. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press.

 

Prior, K. 1995. The Gospel in a Pagan Society. 2nd ed. Fearn: Christian Focus Publications.

 

Sandnes, K. O. 1993. "Paul and Socrates: The Aim of Paul's Areopagus Speech". Journal for the Study of the New Testament 50: 13-26.

 

Schaeffer, F. A. 1990. Trilogy. 2nd ed. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press.

 

Skarsaune, O. 1996. "Judaism and Hellenism in Justin Martyr, Elucidated From His Portrait of Socrates". In Frühes

Christentum, ed. C. Cancik, H. Lichtenberger, and P. Schäfer, 585-611. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck).

 

Thiselton, A. C. 1995. Interpreting God and the Postmodern Self: On Meaning, Manipulation and Promise. Edinburgh: T&T Clark.

 

Winter, B. W. 1992. "In Public and in Private: Early Christians and Religious Pluralism". In One God, One Lord: Christianity in a World of Religious Pluralism, ed. A. D. Clarke, and B. W. Winter, 125-48. 2nd ed. Carlisle/Grand Rapids: Paternoster Press/Baker Book House.

 

Winter, B. W. 1996. "On Introducing Gods to Athens: An Alternative Reading of Acts 17:18-20". Tyndale Bulletin 47 (1): 71-90.

 

Witherington, B. I. 1998. The Acts of the Apostle. A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids/Carlisle: Eerdmans/Paternoster.

 

Yeo, K. 1994. "Rhetorical Study of Acts 17:22-31: What Has Jerusalem to Do with Athens and Beijing?". Jian Dao: 75-107.