Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Acts 17:32
And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this [matter.]
32 34. Effect of St Paul’s speech. Some mocked, but others believed
32. some mocked ] Just as (Act 2:13) did some men on the day of Pentecost. To the Epicurean this life was all, and the Stoic’s teaching, that all should finally be absorbed into the Godhead, forbade the belief that the dead should rise again. So of these men the Epicureans would most likely be the mockers, the Stoics might be expected to give more heed; and theirs perhaps would be the decision to hear the Apostle again. The Greek of the best accepted MSS. makes the last clause run, “ We will hear thee yet again concerning this ”
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Some mocked – Some of the philosophers derided him. The doctrine of the resurrection of the dead was believed by none of the Greeks; it seemed incredible; and they regarded it as so absurd as not to admit of an argument, It has nor been uncommon for even professed philosophers to mock at the doctrines of religion, and to meet the arguments of Christianity with a sneer. The Epicureans particularly would be likely to deride this, as they denied altogether any future state. It is not improbable that this derision by the Epicureans produced such a disturbance as to break off Pauls discourse, as that of Stephen had been by the clamor of the Jews, Act 7:54.
And others said – Probably some of the Stoics. The doctrine of a future state was not denied by them; and the fact, affirmed by Paul, that one had been raised up from the dead, would appear more plausible to them, and it might be a matter worth inquiry to ascertain whether the alleged fact did not furnish a new argument for their views. They therefore proposed to examine this further at some future time. That the inquiry was prosecuted any further does not appear probable, for:
(1) No church was organized at Athens.
(2) There is no account of any future interview with Paul.
(3) He departed almost immediately from them, Act 18:1. People who defer inquiry on the subject of religion seldom find the favorable period arrive. Those who propose to examine its doctrines at a future time often do it to avoid the inconvenience of becoming Christians now, and as a plausible and easy way of rejecting the gospel altogether, without appearing to be rude, or to give offence.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Act 17:32-34
And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked.
Mocking at the truth
This has been one of the worst nights, says Mr. Bampton, an Indian missionary, I ever endured. Mockery! mockery! cruel mockery, almost unbearable! I talked for a while, and was heard by some, on the blessings to be enjoyed by faith in Christ, when a man came with a hell-hardened countenance, and that peculiar constant laugh which I can hardly bear. The burden of his cry was Juggernaut is the foundation! Juggernaut is completely God! Victory to Juggernaut! He clapped his hands, he shouted, he laughed, and induced the rest, or a great part of them, to do the same. On the ground of reason I fear no one, and rage I commonly bear very well; but these everlasting laughing buffoons are nearly too much for me. It is my own great care, that amidst a reviling, laughing crowd, I do not seem abashed. (Biblical Museum.)
Sneering
is the natural fault of the predominance of the mere intellect unaccompanied by any corresponding growth and liveliness of the moral affections, particularly admiration of moral excellence. (T. Arnold, D. D.)
We will hear thee again of this matter.
Fatal procrastination
In the cathedral at Genoa there is an emerald vase which is said to have been one of the gifts of the Queen of Sheba to Solomon. Its authentic history goes back eight hundred years. The tradition is that when King Solomon received it he filled it with an elixir which he alone knew how to distil, and of which a single drop would prolong human life to an indefinite extent. A miserable criminal, dying of slow disease in prison, besought the king to give him a drop of this magic potion. Solomon refused. Why should I prolong so useless a life? he said. I will give it to those whose lives will bless their fellow men. But when good men begged for it the king was in an ill-humour, or too indolent to open the vase, or he promised and forgot. So the years passed until he grew old, and many of the friends whom he loved were dead; and still the vase had never been opened. Then the king, to excuse himself, threw doubt upon the virtues of the elixir. At last he himself fell ill. Then his servants brought the vase that he might save his own life. He opened it. But it was empty. The elixir had evaporated to the last drop. Did not the rabbi or priest who invented this story intend to convey in it a great truth? Have we not all within us a vessel more precious than any emerald, into which God has put a portion of the water of life? It is for our own healing–for the healing of others. We hide it, we do not use it–for false shame, or idleness, or forgetfulness. Presently we begin to doubt its efficacy. When death approaches, we turn to it in desperate haste. But the neglected faith has left the soul. The vase is empty.
The effects of the sermon
Learn—
1. That whatever might be the diversity in the positions, talents, and sentiments of men, the doctrines of the true religion are important to all. To the Jews, Epicureans, and Stoics, the apostle proclaimed the same doctrines.
2. That whatever might be the power with which the great verities of the true religion are urged, a necessary and uniform result is not to be expected. The same tool, wielded by the same hand, and with the same force and skill, could produce the same effect upon the same species of stone, metal, or timber; but the same doctrines urged by the same man, at the same time produce widely different results in the same place upon the same congregation. Here are three moral classes:–Some amongst his audience heard him–
I. With derisive incredulity. Some mocked. The Epicureans would especially do this. They denied a future state, and regarded death as an eternal sleep. Three things would probably induce them to ridicule this doctrine.
1. It stood opposed to their preconceived notions. Many a sceptic rejects Christianity on this same ground. How foolish, how arrogant is this! Are their little notions the measure, the sum of all truth?
2. It was apparently improbable to them. Are not the generations of men reduced to dust? Have not the particles of which their bodies were composed been wrought into the texture of every species and form of plant and of animal life? Where are the symptoms of a resurrection? But how foolish this The men who saw the priests endeavouring to level the walls of Jericho, by blowing in the rams horn, would probably mock them on this account, but the wails fell notwithstanding. Lot seemed as one that mocked unto his sons-in-law, when he warned them of the approaching judgment; but the tempest of fire came albeit, etc.
3. He who proclaimed the doctrine to them was not a recognised teacher. He did not belong to their school. He was a poor Jew. What did he, therefore, know about these things?
II. With a procrastinating resolve. Others said, We will hear thee again of this matter. Probably these were some of the Stoics, who believed in a future state, and who were disposed to give the subject a little attention at some future time. This procrastinating of the subject of religion is exceedingly foolish, because–
1. It is, of all subjects, the most important.
2. Because an important step towards its reception has been taken when an interest has been created.
3. Any portion of future time is very uncertain, and even should it be vouchsafed, the existing interest may never be renewed. A more convenient season may never come.
III. With practical faith. Howbeit certain men clave unto him, etc. These two names suggest–That Christianity is alike suited to both sexes. Let the woman stand as the representative of the intuitional power, and the man as the logical. Or let the woman stand as the representative of those who have to attend to the more private and domestic duties, and the man as the representative of those who have to be out in the open world–in the field, the market, the shop, the senate house–battling with difficulties. Christianity is great enough for the greatest, and simple enough for the simplest. Conclusion: From the whole we may learn–
(1) That the gospel is moral in its influence upon the world. It does not bear man down by violence and force.
(2) That the gospel is not to be restricted to any class.
(3) That ministers should not despair for want of success. Though some deride and some procrastinate, some will believe. (D. Thomas, D. D.)
So Paul departed from among them.–
Pauls adieu to Athens
He leaves Athens–
I. Having considerably altered its spiritual condition.
1. He left it a new stimulus to thought. He gave to their understandings a new theory of the universe, a new method to happiness, a new manifestation of God.
2. He increased its responsibility. Responsibility is measured by privileges. Athens had been highly favoured; but Paul gave more of the Divine in thought to them than all their philosophers. O Athens, better a thousand times that Paul had never entered thee than that thou shouldst fail in the new-imposed responsibility!
II. With a heightened estimate of Christianity. The apostle made a great experiment in taking the gospel to Athens. He had undoubtedly heard about their great sages, and was perhaps acquainted with their systems of thought. He had no doubt received a deep impression of the inventiveness, energy, and aesthetics of their intellect in the architecture and statuary of their city. How will such men, he may have asked, regard the tale I have to tell them of Jesus of Nazareth? But after his sermon on Mars Hill, all these misgivings would give place to an unbounded confidence in the glory of his message. Christianity has been tested by every school of philosophy, every grade of intellect, and by every system of religion, and it has always come forth the triumphant power. How unbounded, therefore, should be our confidence!
III. Never perhaps to visit it any more. There is something very affecting in a parting of this kind. It was affecting to see Moses leaving Pharaoh to meet him no more until the judgment; the young lawyer leaving Christ, going away sorrowful; and now Paul leaving Athens. Though he would not return to them again–
1. He had discharged his conscience, and was clear of their blood.
2. He would be engaged in the diffusion of the gospel. He was off to Corinth, and thence on, for his gospel was a gospel for humanity.
3. Though he would not return to them again, he would anticipate meeting them at the retribution. He had told them of a day of judgment, and on that day he would meet them. (D. Thomas, D. D.)
.
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 32. When they heard of the resurrection, c.] Paul undoubtedly had not finished his discourse: it is likely that he was about to have proclaimed salvation through Christ crucified but, on hearing of the resurrection of the body, the assembly instantly broke up; the Epicureans mocking, , began to laugh; and the Stoics saying they would take another opportunity to hear him on that subject. And thus the assembly became dissolved before the apostle had time to finish his discourse, or to draw all the conclusions he had designed from the premises he had laid down. St. Stephen’s discourse was interrupted in a similar manner. See Ac 7:54, and the note there.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Some mocked; the Epicureans, whom Paul had spoken against in his doctrine of the resurrection from the dead, and judgment to come.
Others said, We will hear thee again of this matter; it is thought the Stoics, who did not think the resurrection to be impossible, but did acknowledge rewards and punishments in the world to come; yet, though this seem most likely, the grace of God is free and powerful, and can subdue any unto itself. We are sure that there are different soils into which the seed of the word is cast, Mat 13:1.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
32-34. when they heard of theresurrection of the dead, some mockedAs the Greek religion wasbut the glorification of the present life, by the worship of all itsmost beauteous forms, the Resurrection, which presupposes the vanityof the present life, and is nothing but life out of the death of allthat sin has blighted, could have no charm for the true Greek. Itgave the death blow to his fundamental and most cherished ideas; noruntil these were seen to be false and fatal could the Resurrection,and the Gospel of which it was a primary doctrine, seem otherwisethan ridiculous.
others said, We will hearthee again of this“an idle compliment to Paul and anopiate to their consciences, such as we often meet with in our ownday. They probably, like Felix, feared to hear more, lest they shouldbe constrained to believe unwelcome truths” (Ac24:25; and compare Mt 13:15)[WEBSTER and WILKINSON].
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
When they heard of the resurrection of the dead,…. Of a certain man that the apostle said God had raised from the dead, though they knew not who he was:
some mocked; at him, and at the doctrine he preached: these very likely were of the Epicurean sect, who disbelieved a future state; though, as Tertullian observes b, the doctrine of the resurrection was denied by every sect of the philosophers: it is a doctrine of pure revelation, and what the light of nature never taught men, and by which men being only guided, have declared against, and have treated it with the utmost ridicule and contempt. Pliny c reckons it, among childish fancies, and calls it vanity, and downright madness to believe it; as does also Caecilius in Minutius Felix d, and who even calls it a lie, and places it among old wives’ fables; and Celsus in Origen e represents it as exceeding detestable, abominable, and impossible.
And others said, we will hear thee again of this matter; some think these were of the Stoic sect, who held a future state, and that the soul would live after the body, and had some notions which looked inclining to this doctrine: however, these thought there might be something in what the apostle said; they could not receive it readily, and yet could not deny it; they were willing to take time to consider of it; and were desirous of hearing him again upon that subject; in which they might be very open and upright; and this might not be a mere excuse to shift off any further hearing at that time, like that of Felix, in Ac 24:1.
b De praescript. Heret. c. 7. p. 232. c Nat. Hist. l. 7. c. 55. d Octav. p. 10. e Contra Cals. l. 5. p. 240.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
| Paul at Athens. |
| |
32 And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter. 33 So Paul departed from among them. 34 Howbeit certain men clave unto him, and believed: among the which was Dionysius the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others with them.
We have here a short account of the issue of Paul’s preaching at Athens.
I. Few were the better: the gospel had as little success at Athens as any where; for the pride of the philosophers there, as of the Pharisees at Jerusalem, prejudiced them against the gospel of Christ. 1. Some ridiculed Paul and his preaching. They heard him patiently till he came to speak of the resurrection of the dead (v. 32), and then some of them began to hiss him: they mocked. What he had said before was somewhat like what they had sometimes heard in their own schools, and some notion they had of a resurrection, as it signifies a future state; but, if he speak of a resurrection of the dead, though it be of the resurrection of Christ himself, it is altogether incredible to them, and they cannot bear so much as to hear of it, as being contrary to a principle of their philosophy: A privatione ad habitum non datur regressus–Life when once lost is irrecoverable. They had deified their heroes after their death, but never thought of their being raised from the dead, and therefore they could by no means reconcile themselves to this doctrine of Christ’s being raised from the dead; how can this be? This great doctrine, which is the saints’ joy, is their jest; when it was but mentioned to them they mocked, and made a laughing matter of it. We are not to think it strange if sacred truths of the greatest certainty and importance are made the scorn of profane wits. 2. Others were willing to take time to consider of it; they said, We will hear thee again of this matter. They would not at present comply with what Paul said, nor oppose it; but we will hear thee again of this matter, of the resurrection of the dead. It should seem, they overlooked what was plain and uncontroverted, and shifted off the application and the improvement of that, by starting objections against what was disputable, and would admit a debate. Thus many lose the benefit of the practical doctrine of Christianity, by wading beyond their depth into controversy, or, rather, by objecting against that which has some difficulty in it; whereas, if any man were disposed and determined to do the will of God, as far as it is discovered to him, he should know of the doctrine of Christ, that it is of God, and not of man, John vii. 17. Those that would not yield to the present convictions of the word thought to get clear of them, as Felix did, by putting them off to another opportunity; they will hear of it again some time or other, but they know not when; and thus the devil cozens them of all their time, by cozening them of the present time. 3. Paul thereupon left them for the present to consider of it (v. 33): He departed from amongst them, as seeing little likelihood of doing any good with them at this time; but, it is likely, with a promise to those that were willing to hear him again that he would meet them whenever they pleased.
II. Yet there were some that were wrought upon, v. 34. If some would not, others would. 1. There were certain men that adhered to him, and believed. When he departed from amongst them, they would not part with him so; wherever he went, they would follow him, with a resolution to adhere to the doctrine he preached, which they believed. 2. Two are particularly named; one was an eminent man, Dionysius the Areopagite, one of that high court or great council that sat in Areopagus, or Mars’ Hill–a judge, a senator, one of those before whom Paul was summoned to appear; his judge becomes his convert. The account which the ancients give of this Dionysius is that he was bred at Athens, had studied astrology in Egypt, where he took notice of the miraculous eclipse at our Saviour’s passion,–that, returning to Athens, he became a senator, disputed with Paul, and was by him converted from his error and idolatry; and, being by him thoroughly instructed, was made the first bishop of Athens. So Eusebius, lib. 5, cap. 4; lib. 4, cap. 22. The woman named Damaris was, as some think, the wife of Dionysius; but, rather, some other person of quality; and, though there was not so great a harvest gathered in at Athens as there was at other places, yet, these few being wrought upon there, Paul had no reason to say he had laboured in vain.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
The resurrection of the dead ( ). Rather, “a resurrection of dead men.” No article with either word. The Greeks believed that the souls of men lived on, but they had no conception of resurrection of the body. They had listened with respect till Paul spoke of the actual resurrection of Jesus from the dead as a fact, when they did not care to hear more.
Some mocked ( ). Imperfect active of , a common verb (from , jesting, mockery). Only here in the N.T. though late MSS. have it in 2:13 (best MSS. ). Probably inchoative here, began to mock. In contempt at Paul’s statement they declined to listen further to “this babbler” (verse 18) who had now lost what he had gained with this group of hearers (probably the light and flippant Epicureans).
But others ( ). A more polite group like those who had invited him to speak (verse 19). They were unconvinced, but had better manners and so were in favour of an adjournment. This was done, though it is not clear whether it was a serious postponement or a courteous refusal to hear Paul further (probably this). It was a virtual dismissal of the matter. ” It is a sad story–the noblest of ancient cities and the noblest man of history–and he never cared to look on it again” (Furneaux).
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Resurrection. This word was the signal for a derisive outburst from the crowd.
Mocked [] . From cleuh, a jest. Only here in New Testament, though a compound, diacleuazw, mock, occurs, according to the best texts, at ch. 2 13. The force of the imperfect, began to mock, should be given here in the translation, as marking the outbreak of derision. In this remarkable speech of Paul are to be noted : his prudence and tact in not needlessly offending his hearers; his courtesy and spirit of conciliation in recognizing their piety toward their gods; his wisdom and readiness in the use of the inscription “to the unknown God,” and in citing their own poets; his meeting the radical errors of every class of his hearers, while seeming to dwell only on points of agreement; his lofty views of the nature of God and the great principle of the unity of the human race; his boldness in proclaiming Jesus and the resurrection among those to whom these truths were foolishness; the wonderful terseness and condensation of the whole, and the rapid but powerful and assured movement of the thought.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
THREE RESPONSES TO THE MIGHTY MESSAGE V. 32-34
1. The mocker.
2. The procrastinator.
3. The believer.
1) “And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead,” (akousantes de anastasin nekron) “Then (as soon as) they heard of a resurrection of dead persons,” of Jesus and those He raised from the dead, Act 2:24; Act 2:32; Act 4:10; 1Co 15:15; Joh 5:28-29; Heb 9:27-28.
2) “Some mocked,” (hoi men echleuazon) “Some (among them) scoffed,” some of those having held to the Epicurean and Stoic philosophies, those who doted on a good time for this life alone, the gratification of present desires for temporary pleasures, that last for but a season, Heb 11:25; 1Jn 2:15-17. Only fools mock at sin or make mock of God and His message, Pro 1:26; Pro 14:9; Act 2:13.
3) “And others said, we will hear thee again of this matter” (hoi de epin akousometha sou peri toutou kai palin) “Then others said, we will also hear you again (later) concerning this God matter.” These procrastinated, boasted of another chance, another opportunity to just consider the matter of repentance and faith in Jesus Christ later, Pro 27:11; 2Co 6:2; Heb 3:7-8; Heb 4:7; Pro 1:22-29; They despised or “took lightly” the voice, call, and goodness of God to repentance, Rom 2:4-5; 2Co 7:10.
PROCRASTINATION
A sponge is in one period of its history, a soft thing; but sponges become flints by a peculiar process. There are in sponges particles of flint or silex; these are ever attracting particles to themselves, until in process of time, the whole mass is an aggregate of siliceous matter and the once soft sponge has become perfectly hard. So it is with the hardening of the tender conscience; every sin, every delay to repent, takes away the softness, and brings a fresh secretion to the gathering hardness which unresisted sin cannot fail to make.
– Bowes
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
−
32. Some mocked. By this we see how great the carelessness of men is, whom neither the tribunal-seat of God, nor the majesty of the highest [supreme] Judge, doth make afraid, ( Act 26:23.) We have said that this is a most sharp prick, wherewith men’s minds are pricked forward to fear God, when his judgment is set before their eyes; but there is such unspeakable hardness in the contemners, that they are not afraid to count that a fable or lie which is spoken concerning the giving of an account of our life once. − (305) Notwithstanding, there is no cause why the ministers of the gospel should omit. − (306) the preaching of the judgment which is enjoined them. Though the wicked do laugh and mock, yet this doctrine, which they go about to make of none effect, shall so gird them, that they shall at length perceive that they have striven in vain with their snare. − (307) And no marvel if this point of Paul’s doctrine were derided at Athens; for it is a mystery hid from men’s minds, whereon the chiefest philosophers did never think, neither can we otherwise comprehend it, than when we lift up the eyes of faith unto the infinite power of God. And yet Paul’s sermon was not altogether without fruit; because there were some of the hearers which were desirous to profit and go forward. For when they say that they will hear him again, their meaning is, that though they were not as yet thoroughly persuaded, yet had they some taste, which did provoke them to be desirous to profit. Surely this desire was contrary to loathsomeness. − (308) −
(305) −
“
De reddenda semel vitae ratione,” about one day rendering an account of our lives.
(306) −
“
Supersedant,” supersede.
(307) −
“
Laqueo,” snare or fetter.
(308) −
“
Fastidio,” fastidiousness or disdain.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(32) Some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again.The word mocked implies look and gesture, as well as words, of derision. (See Note on Act. 2:13.) We may venture to assume that the mockers were found chiefly among the Epicureans, and that the inquirers, perhaps putting off the inquiry to a more convenient season, were Stoics, who wished to hear more from a teacher with whom they found themselves in sympathy on so many points of contact with their own system. Whether they carried on their inquiry we are not told. The words that follow imply a certain indignation on the part of the Apostle. He would not stay to expose the name or the work of his Lord to the jests of scoffers.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
32. Some mocked others said The whole assembly forthwith divides itself into two classes. The first mocks, but seems inclined to stay. The second smoothly excuses itself and departs, postponing the further hearing indefinitely. Of the two the uncivil ones who stay, and the civil ones who go the apostle prefers the latter, and departs also. He soon departs for Corinth, with what feelings Luke does not intimate. But certain it is, from his own account, that for some reason he entered Corinth under a sense of most profound humiliation, 1Co 2:1-3. He felt at Thessalonica the treatment he had experienced at Philippi; did he feel at Corinth the pressure of his failure at Athens?
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked; but others said, “We will hear you concerning this yet again.” ’
Central to Paul’s message had continually been the resurrection, and it was on this point that his hearers were divided. Some mocked at the idea (for previous mockery of the Apostles compare Act 2:13). Others said that they wanted to hear more. We can compare the latter with those in Act 13:42 where the Gentiles again had asked to hear more. We should not see such a request as simply a means of dismissing the truth. In Act 13:42 it was certainly very genuine. The parallels between Act 13:14-42 and Act 17:16-34 have already been noted in the analysis introducing chapter 13. Both give detailed summary speeches made by Paul, both result in continuing interest among Gentiles (Act 13:42; Act 17:32), in both the response of the Jews is not described (Act 13:42; Act 17:17). However, with regard to that lack of mention of response we must always beware of reading in from silence, for otherwise we would assume no conversions in Cyprus at all where there is also no mention of response (Act 13:5). It is Luke’s practise to highlight what he wants to highlight, and to be silent otherwise. Here then also the non-mention of response need not be significant, and indeed Act 17:34 may be intended to cover all.
So Athens in its wisdom is here seen as paralleling the rest of the world. The resurrection, proclaimed through the power of the Holy Spirit, is what has divided men from the beginning of the Apostolic ministry (Act 2:24-36; Act 3:15; Act 3:26; Act 4:10; Act 5:31; Act 10:40-41; Act 13:30-37). It continues to do so, for it is central to the Christian message. It lies at the very heart of what the Good News is all about, salvation, and life, and hope. And only through belief in the resurrection (with its accompanying sacrificial death) can eternal life be found. It is that which divides up mankind.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Act 17:32. When they heard of the resurrection St. Paul, from the article of the one true God in a general point of view, was sliding gently into the other grand article of the Christian faith, namely, that Jesus of Nazareth in particular, was the Lord, Saviour, and Judge of all; one principal proof whereof was his resurrection from the dead. But the vain and conceited auditory would hear no more. Upon the mention of the resurrection from the dead, some mocked, and laughed outvery probably the Epicureans, who believed no resurrection, nor any future state, or judgment to come; while others said, We shall be glad to hear you again upon this subject. Most likely these were the Stoics, who had some notions of a judgment to come, and of the conflagration and renovation of the world, as well as of a future state of rewards and punishments; though with respect to the doctrine of the resurrection of the body, every sect of philosophers was no less ignorant of it, than highly contemptuous respecting it, when revealed to them. See Act 17:18.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Act 17:32 . As yet Paul has not once named Jesus , but has only endeavoured to gather up the most earnest interest of his hearers for this the great final aim of his discourse; now his speech is broken off by the mockery of some, and by a courteous relegation to silence on the part of others.
] a resurrection of dead persons , as Paul had just asserted such a case. The plural denotes the category; comp. on Rom 1:4 . To take it of the general rising of the dead at the day of judgment , is quite at variance with the context. That, moreover, the were all Epicureans , and the Stoics , as Grotius, Wolf, and Rosenmller supposed, cannot be proved. Calvin, Grotius, Wolf, Rosenmller, Alford, and others hold . as meant in earnest. But would not Paul, if he had so understood it, have remained longer in Athens? See Act 18:1 .
The repellent result, which the mention of the resurrection of Jesus brought about, is by Baur (comp. Zeller) supposed to be only a product of the author, who had wished to exhibit very distinctly the repulsive nature of the doctrine of the resurrection for educated Gentiles; he thinks that the whole speech is only an effect fictitiously introduced by the author, and that the whole narrative of the appearance at Athens is to be called in question “a counterpart to the appearance of Stephen at Jerusalem, contrived with a view to a harmless issue instead of a tragical termination,” Zeller. But with all the delicacy and prudence, which Paul here, in this (Thucyd. epigr ., see Jacobs, Anthol. I. p. 102), had to exercise and knew how to do so, he could not and durst not be silent on the resurrection of Jesus, that foundation of apostolic preaching; he could not but, after he had done all he could to win the Athenians, now bring the matter to the issue , what effect the testimony to the Risen One would have. If the speech had not this testimony, criticism would the more easily and with more plausibility be able to infer a fictitious product of the narrator; and it would hardly have neglected to do so.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
Chapter 64
Prayer
Almighty God, thou art our Shepherd in Jesus Christ thy Son, through whose sweet name we now come to thee, as through an open gate on which thou hast written all the welcome of thy love. We love to be thought of as a flock. Thou makest thy flock to lie down at noon; thou leadest thy flock by the still waters and the green pastures; thou carriest the lambs in thy bosom; thou art merciful as well as mighty. We need the shepherdliness of heaven amid all the bleakness and sore travail and labour of earth. It is sweet to think of the descending heavens and of their warmth and comfort and tenderness, and to know that they come down to take us up as into strong arms, which will hold us lovingly in eternal security. We bless thee for this vision in Christ. He said we would see heaven opened and the Son of man descending upon us. Our hearts long to see no other figure; they love the Saviour. They would see Jesus only all beautiful sights in one the glory of God, the Light of heaven, the Jewel of eternity. We bless thee for a Word that touches our life’s necessity and pain; a Word that is no burden, but a morning light, a summer hope, a gladness that has no comparison. May that Word enter into our life and make us young again! May that sweet Word sing in us like an angel sent down from God to comfort and cheer the heart! We know thy Word; there is none like it, there is no counterfeit. It comes to us with its own authority of sweetness and power and joy in the Holy Ghost. We have come to hear it, to believe it, yea, to devour it, as hungering men devour bread. May we now know that the festival is spread for our soul’s delight, and may thy banner over us be Love! We want to live as thou wouldst have us to live. Thou didst make us, and not we ourselves, and thou wilt account to us as to thyself for our individuality. Thou hast a set purpose in each life; we are all thine, jewels thou wilt number, and not one of us in Christ Jesus thy Son our Saviour can ever be lost. Thou hast made our life into night and day. Thou hast set the one against the other. Thou hast made the day partly ours and the night mostly thine own. Thou dost set us up in the presence of light, and thou dost lay us down to sleep that we may get back our youth and strength and hope and begin another day’s work with yesterday’s experience. Thou hast also given us the bright day, so full of light, so full of joy, a gleam of heaven, a hint of the world in which there is no darkness at all. Help us to understand this variety of night and day, and to feel that it is a parable full of Gospel meaning to those who have the pure heart. We commend one another and all our interests and relations to thy tender care. Be unto us all in all; bind us together in the bond of eternity. Save us from despair, from sin, from death. Fill our hearts with life that shall say, “O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?” May the life of thy Son be in us abundantly, and more abundantly, like wave upon wave of waters that cannot be measured! Regard the traveller and the stranger, the friendly visitor, and those who would enlarge our prayers by the addition of their own. Regard the dear young ones and save them from the cold wind, the cruel tempter, and the snare cunningly laid; and help the old to believe that onward ness in age is progress towards youth. Be with the dying, and grant unto them the power to wave the banner of triumph and to speak the fearless and hopeful word. Help every good man to be better, every faithful servant to be more industrious, every sufferer to be more patient, and every waiter for the kingdom of heaven to stand still with a deeper and happier contentment. Our sins thou wilt deal with, for we cannot; they will not baffle thee. Thou hast opened a fountain of blood. Where sin aboundeth grace doth much more abound. Thou dost magnify thyself against our enemy, and show thyself to be greater than all that can be against us. We fall into thy hands in this great sweet faith. We are quite strong; no cloud is before our eyes, the earth is a solid rock, and the heaven an eternal security, whilst this faith that is in Christ Jesus reigns and rules in our souls. The Lord’s love be our Sabbath blessing and the Lord’s light our Sabbath glory. Amen.
Act 17:32-34
32. Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked; but others said, We will here thee concerning this yet again [expression incompatible with the view of some Evangelical commentators, who argue from the name of Jesus not having been spoken that Paul was interrupted before his intended close].
33, 34. Thus Paul went out from among them. But certain men clave unto him, and believed: among whom also was Dionysius the Areopagite [one of the council], and a woman called Damaris. and others with them.
The Point of Departure
WE have heard of Paul’s great sermon, and yet that sermon would be called by very hard names if it were preached today. Consider that Paul was never at Athens before, and that Paul never went back to Athens any more; and consider that this is his deliverance to Athenian hearers on a great and historical occasion. Having put these points before your mind, tell me where is what we too narrowly call the Gospel? There is a theory popular with those who have never considered it that in every discourse there ought to be a clear and complete view of the way of personal salvation. The theorist founds his theory upon the probability, or at least the possibility, that some hearer may hear only once and nevermore. That theory found no respect in the Sermon on the Mount, or in the sermon preached by Paul on Mars’ Hill. Life must be taken in averages; life must be taken in breadths of time. We can only address ourselves with intelligence and effect to the broader possibilities and probabilities of the case, and not to exceptional circumstances, which are of a kind that would, ii attended to exclusively, upset the whole policy and scheme of civilized life.
Paul began adroitly by beginning where the Athenians themselves were prepared to begin. They wanted a god he said he could declare or reveal the very god they were seeking after. That is sublime preaching! sitting down beside a man and asking him where he, poor groping soul, can begin. Christianity goes about asking men themselves for the starting-point. The religion of benevolence, the religion of love, the religion of the heart of Christ, is willing to give us a chance by saying to us, with tender graciousness, “What is your uppermost question?” or “What is your special and most urgent desire? Tell me all about it, and let us sit down on this green hillock and talk it all ov. Tell me what is in your troubled heart? for I have with me balm and light and true wisdom and grace, sympathy and help. Now, poor heart, begin.” That is not a ruthless religion, forcing itself upon reluctant attention, but taking up our poor weaving and completing the web, or disentangling the piece that has been woven, and saying, “Now let us both begin together and see if we cannot do something better.” These are the traits of the religion of the Cross which lift it above the necessity of all patronage and all vindication.
Paul addressed at Athens the very congregation which every preacher addresses today. The congregation never changes. If it is “The king is dead Long live the king!” it is also the same with the congregation. There is but one assembly, for there is but one blood among all the nations of the earth. Paul’s assembly was divided sharply into Epicureans and Stoics the very men who are here today! Do not let us put off the Epicureans and Stoics on account of their peculiar names, and think of them as Grecian antiquities. Nothing of the kind. We are the Epicureans and Stoics, though mayhap we did not know it. The Epicureans glorified lust ; the Stoics glorified suicide so do we! Any protest you may lodge against the suggestion is an affair of weak words. Centrally, substantially, protoplastically, we do precisely what was done by Epicurean and Stoic. The Epicurean would have what he liked not this dish, but that. He would tarry long at his pleasures; he would pay any price for a new sensation. He awoke in the morning to find a new delight; he lay down in the darkness to dream of a novel pleasure. He lived in his palate, he lived in his taste; and his posterity is with us unto this day. The Stoic was a fatalist His great ambition was to suppress all feeling, to retire within an impervious shell, to regard all the events of life with equal indifference, and to put an end to intolerable agony, concealed and suppressed, by suicide. He took matters into his own hands; and are not we committing suicide every day? An etymological definition of suicide would be a childish answer to that tremendous impeachment. Do not play off against this terrific indictment some little knowledge of the Latin language. Suicide is not one act. Self-murder we perpetrate every day. We say we will “put an end to this”; in higher anger we say “this shall not go any farther”; in madness we declare that a line shall be drawn, and the affair shall be determined, cost what it may. What if we escape the charge of etymological suicide, and yet be convicted of having committed self-slaughter in the deepest sense of that term every day in the revolving year?
Christianity creates a third class. Whatever the third class may be in any congregation, it is the specific creation of Christian teaching. Christianity says, “Do not live in your pleasures.” Christianity says, “Do not take cases into your own hands as if you had no Father in heaven. Sacrifice is better than indulgence, and resignation is better than suicide.” So, though it is true that humanity, and substantially the congregation, is made up of Epicureans and Stoics, it is true doctrinally and spiritually that there is a third quantity the Christian life, the Christian hope, the Christian victory, for which God’s name and Christ’s Cross be praised!
If Paul began adroitly, he proceeded, as the subject unrolled itself before his spiritual vision, to touch upon distinctively Christian points. He came to the Man not named. That was a touch of happy and permissible cunning of a rhetorical kind. The anonymous is often more influential in the case of the ignorant than the avowed and duly-testified declaration. Paul refers to his Master as “that Man whom God hath ordained.” Paul will touch attention; he will excite wonder; he will compel those people to listen to him. Had he begun by thrusting a Jew’s name upon their attention, they would have turned away from him and left him to address the empty air. He kept his bolt to the last. If he did fail, he would fail as only a great general can do. He will get his men well in order; he will watch his opportunity; with that wonderful eye which saw behind and beyond the near and the tangible, he watched the working and beating of every heart, and when the moment came he launched the grand appeal. He failed, but he failed magnificently. There was no blundering in the generalship; there was no flaw in the inspiration; he failed, but he failed as only a great soul can fail. Some failures are better than some victories. Sometimes weakness is strength.
“When they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter.” But they never did! That is precisely what we are doing today. Were I to give an account of any Christian congregation, I should give it in the very words of the thirty-second verse. Congregations now listen as long as their fancy is pleased, and no longer. If a preacher can dominate by intellectual lordship, or moral supremacy, the public crowd, he will hold his position. The public do not listen to him longer than fancy is titillated or some selfish desire is gratified. The poor deluded preacher sometimes imagines that the public I am not now speaking of the inner circle of friendship and love, but the promiscuous public care something for him personally. They would leave him to-morrow if his throat failed! Some of them would not mind taking up their hats in the middle of his feeble discourse and going out to seek some other man to kill! Why will preachers delude themselves by such folly? Do not preach on that ground, young aspiring brother, but preach for Christ’s sake and in Christ’s name, and find your compensation, not in pecuniary wages, but in your Lord’s “Well done!”
The Athenians left the discourse at the point of moral pressure. So long as Paul played the part of a Jewish Socrates they were willing to hear him. They said, with Athenian contemptuous-ness, “This seed-pecker seems to have picked up some new and strange god I wonder what it is.” But the moment Paul flamed into moral earnestness, left the intellectual plane and came down to struggle with the heart and question it with hard interrogation, then the Athenians mocked, or with partial civility nodded to him a promise that they might come again to-morrow. Is it not exactly at that point that the congregations leave the preacher now? After the beautiful anecdotes; after the exquisite language, so pearly, so translucent, so charming; after the strong smell of scrap-book, then comes the moral appeal, and the people say they will not be lectured! They will devour any amount of rhetoric, and they will listen to any number of anecdotes, but the moment the preacher becomes the messenger of God with immediate charges from heaven the people go out not physically, that would be vulgar; not uproariously, that would be discourteous and indecent; but sympathetically, attentively the soul seals up its hearing and will listen no more. That is the cause of failure on the part of Christ’s Gospel today. We do not want to hear its essence. It was the same with Jesus Christ himself. We are told that “the common people heard him gladly,” but that was not so. Many a minister’s heart has been made sore by the misquotation of that passage. The common people do nothing of the kind. The common people then were like the common people now, and like the common people of every age. The passage has been used to show that if we would speak as Christ spoke, in parables and and in images, and in sweet, beautiful sentences, “the common people” would understand words of one syllable. The common people do not care for words of one syllable or ten syllables. Do not suppose that the common people of any great city are lying outside the Church this day, fretting and sighing for some man who will come and talk in words of one syllable. It is preposterous! The common people heard him gladly so long as He had anything to give away, and on one occasion he said, “Let us be frank now. You have come, not because of the words, but because of the loaves and fishes. Do not imagine that you are taking me in. I will still go on doing you good, but do not suppose that I give you credit for a good motive.” How terrible he was! What rebuke was that! How they might have withered up! For a man to tell you to your face the exact motive which moves you, and for you to know that he has found you out! The common people! the moment he began to be spiritual they turned away in crowds. The moment he began to say, “You must eat my flesh and drink my blood,” they said, “This is a hard saying; who can hear it?” They had come to eat and drink, but not to eat and drink his flesh and his blood. He had lured them, as Paul afterwards lured the Athenians, on from point to point. He healed their sick, gave bread to their hungry, and was kind to them in what they would term a practical manner. But all the time he was leading them up to its application, and when he said, “You must eat my flesh and drink my blood. If a man eat not my flesh and drink not my blood, he hath no life in him,” the common people, whom you thought to be worshippers of the god-monosyllable, turned right round to seek some other giver of loaves and fishes. Do not torment the preacher’s heart by telling him that if he would speak words of one syllable, his church would be too small to contain the great crowds that would thrust down the most substantial walls.
The Athenians mocked and procrastinated. It is easy to mock. We mock the preacher’s manner, and think that that excuses us from attending to the preacher’s doctrine. We say, We will come again to-morrow. So we may, but Paul may not be there! I dare not say that the Epicureans and Stoics did not return to Areopagus, but if they did, they would wait in vain for the man they had called “babbler” or “seed-pecker.” “So Paul departed from among them.” If they had beaten him, he would have been there to-morrow. If they had been angry with him, he would have invited their attention a second time, or he would have returned some distant day. He never was afraid to go back to a city where he had been beaten or stoned or imprisoned; but to be mocked, to be treated with indifference that kills the heart! To pour out one’s blood for the people, and then for their very next remark to be one about the weather that kills a man, though he be mailed with great strength and have a lion’s heart within him. To suffer, to live, to die for your hearers, and then simply to be mocked that is DEATH!
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker
32 And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter .
Ver. 32. Some mocked ] Three sorts of hearers, some derided, others doubted, a few believed, as Dennis and Damaris, but no Church here founded. They were too wise to go to heaven. Not a scholar in Oxford would look upon the good Bishops Ridley and Cranmer, prisoners in Bocardo, that college of the quondams or disposed, as it was then called.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
32. . . ] Perhaps here, ‘ when they heard of a resurrection of dead men ,’ viz. of that of Christ, being generic. But the same words are used in ref. 1 Cor. ; so that I would rather take them here to mean that they inferred the general possibility of the resurrection of the dead, as a tenet of Paul’s, from the one case which he mentioned.
. ] We must not allot these two parties as some have done, the former to the Epicureans, the latter to the Stoics: the description is general.
The words . need not be taken as ironical. The hearing not having taken place is no proof that it was not intended at the time: and the distinction between these and the mockers seems to imply that they were in earnest.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Act 17:32 . . : verb only here in N.T., implies outward gesture as well as words of scorn ( , , cf. , ). We usually think of the as the Stoics, and the as the Epicureans; e.g. , Wetstein after describing the Epicureans adds = Stoici: cf. Cicero, De Natura Deorum , ii., 17, and Plutarch, De Or. Def. , 32. But if the Epicureans ridiculed a resurrection and judgment to come, the Stoics also were separated by a wide gulf from the teaching of St. Paul. Even if it may be said that in general they approximated towards the doctrine of personal existence after death, some of their most famous representatives departed from it; Capes, Stoicism , p. 173; Wallace, Epicureanism , p. 121; Ueberweg, Hist. of Phil. , i., p. 196; E.T. Rendall, Marcus Antoninus , Introd., pp. 107, 108. “On one point alone were the professors of this school [Stoic] agreed; an external existence of the human soul was out of the question,” Lightfoot, Philippians , p. 323. The idea of retribution beyond the grave would have been equally alien to the Stoic as to the Epicurean, and both Stoic and Epicurean alike would have ridiculed the idea of a resurrection of the body. Zckler, in loco , while referring the without hesitation to the Epicureans, thinks that possibly Platonists rather than Stoics may be represented by the . If St. Paul was addressing not only a philosophical but a popular audience, as we have seen reason to believe, it is quite possible that while the majority would laugh at his closing words, Juvenal, Sat. , ii. 149, there may have been others who clung to the popular mythology and its crude conceptions, and the Apostle’s prediction of a judgment to come may have sufficiently interested them to prompt a desire for further disclosures. ( , R.V., neuter, we can hardly refer it to the of Act 17:31 ). The words are often taken to imply a polite rejection of the Apostle’s appeal, a courteous refusal to hear anything further; or at all events to express a very cold interest in his announcement. But if we adopt the reading (see critical note) “yet again,” R.V., the words rather indicate that a real interest had been excited in some of the hearers (so Calvin, Grotius, Weiss, Alford) and that the marked and defined division of opinion was not merely a dramatic device of the author.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Acts
PAUL AT ATHENS
Act 17:22 – Act 17:34
‘I am become all things to all men,’ said Paul, and his address at Athens strikingly exemplifies that principle of his action. Contrast it with his speech in the synagogue of Pisidian Antioch, which appeals entirely to the Old Testament, and is saturated with Jewish ideas, or with the remonstrance to the rude Lycaonian peasants Act 14:15 , etc., which, while handling some of the same thoughts as at Athens, does so in a remarkably different manner. There he appealed to God’s gifts of ‘rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons,’ the things most close to his hearers’ experience; here, speaking to educated ‘philosophers,’ he quotes Greek poetry, and sets forth a reasoned declaration of the nature of the Godhead and the relations of a philosophy of history and an argument against idolatry. The glories of Greek art were around him; the statues of Pallas Athene and many more fair creations looked down on the little Jew who dared to proclaim their nullity as representations of the Godhead.
Paul’s flexibility of mind and power of adapting himself to every circumstance were never more strikingly shown than in that great address to the quick-witted Athenians. It falls into three parts: the conciliatory prelude Act 17:22 – Act 17:23; the declaration of the Unknown God Act 17:24 – Act 17:29; and the proclamation of the God-ordained Man Act 17:30 – Act 17:31.
I. We have, first, the conciliatory prelude.
It is incredible that Paul should have begun his speech to so critical an audience by charging them with excessive superstition, as the Authorised Version makes him do. Nor does the modified translation of the Revised Version seem to be precisely what is meant. Paul is not blaming the Athenians, but recording a fact which he had noticed, and from which he desired to start. Ramsay’s translation gives the truer notion of his meaning-’more than others respectful of what is divine.’ ‘Superstition’ necessarily conveys a sense of blame, but the word in the original does not.
We can see Paul as a stranger wandering through the city, and noting with keen eyes every token of the all-pervading idolatry. He does not tell his hearers that his spirit burned within him when he saw the city full of idols; but he smothers all that, and speaks only of the inscription which he had noticed on one, probably obscure and forgotten, altar: ‘To the Unknown God.’ Scholars have given themselves a great deal of trouble to show from other authors that there were such altars. But Paul is as good an ‘authority’ as these, and we may take his word that he did see such an inscription. Whether it had the full significance which he reads into it or not, it crystallised in an express avowal that sense of Something behind and above the ‘gods many’ of Greek religion, which found expression in the words of their noblest thinkers and poets, and lay like a nightmare on them.
To charge an Athenian audience, proud of their knowledge, with ignorance, was a hazardous and audacious undertaking; to make them charge themselves was more than an oratorical device. It appealed to the deepest consciousness even of the popular mind. Even with this prelude, the claims of this wandering Jew to pose as the instructor of Epicureans and Stoics, and to possess a knowledge of the Divine which they lacked, were daring. But how calmly and confidently Paul makes them, and with what easy and conciliatory adoption of their own terminology, if we adopt the reading of Act 17:23 in Revised Version ‘What ye worship . . . this,’ etc., which puts forward the abstract conception of divinity rather than the personal God.
The spirit in which Paul approached his difficult audience teaches all Christian missionaries and controversialists a needed and neglected lesson. We should accentuate points of resemblance rather than of difference, to begin with. We should not run a tilt against even errors, and so provoke to their defence, but rather find in creeds and practices an ignorant groping after, and so a door of entrance for, the truth which we seek to recommend.
II. The declaration of the Unknown God has been prepared for, and now follows, and with it is bound up a polemic against idolatry.
Every word of Paul’s proclamation strikes full and square at some counter belief of his hearers. He begins with creation, which he declares to have been the act of one personal God, and neither of a multitude of deities, as some of his hearers held, nor of an impersonal blind power, as others believed, nor the result of chance, nor eternal, as others maintained. He boldly proclaims there, below the shadow of the Parthenon, that there is but one God,-the universal Lord, because the universal Creator. Many consequences from that fact, no doubt, crowded into Paul’s mind; but he swiftly turns to its bearing on the pomp of temples which were the glory of Athens, and the multitude of sacrifices which he had beheld on their altars. The true conception of God as the Creator and Lord of all things cuts up by the roots the pagan notions of temples as dwelling-places of a god and of sacrifices as ministering to his needs. With one crushing blow Paul pulverises the fair fanes around him, and declares that sacrifice, as practised there, contradicted the plain truth as to God’s nature. To suppose that man can give anything to Him, or that He needs anything, is absurd. All heathen worship reverses the parts of God and man, and loses sight of the fact that He is the giver continually and of everything. Life in its origination, the continuance thereof breath, and all which enriches it, are from Him. Then true worship will not be giving to, but thankfully accepting from and using for, Him, His manifold gifts.
So Paul declares the one God as Creator and Sustainer of all. He goes on to sketch in broad outline what we may call a philosophy of history. The declaration of the unity of mankind was a wholly strange message to proud Athenians, who believed themselves to be a race apart, not only from the ‘barbarians,’ whom all Greeks regarded as made of other clay than they, but from the rest of the Greek world. It flatly contradicted one of their most cherished prerogatives. Not only does Paul claim one origin for all men, but he regards all nations as equally cared for by the one God. His hearers believed that each people had its own patron deities, and that the wars of nations were the wars of their gods, who won for them territory, and presided over their national fortunes. To all that way of thinking the Apostle opposes the conception, which naturally follows from his fundamental declaration of the one Creator, of His providential guidance of all nations in regard to their place in the world and the epochs of their history.
But he rises still higher when he declares the divine purpose in all the tangled web of history-the variety of conditions of nations, their rise and fall, their glory and decay, their planting in their lands and their rooting out,-to be to lead all men to ‘seek God.’ That is the deepest meaning of history. The whole course of human affairs is God’s drawing men to Himself. Not only in Judea, nor only by special revelation, but by the gifts bestowed, and the schooling brought to bear on every nation, He would stir men up to seek for Him.
But that great purpose has not been realised. There is a tragic ‘if haply’ inevitable; and men may refuse to yield to the impulses towards God. They are the more likely to do so, inasmuch as to find Him they must ‘feel after Him,’ and that is hard. The tendrils of a plant turn to the far-off light, but men’s spirits do not thus grope after God. Something has come in the way which frustrates the divine purpose, and makes men blind and unwilling to seek Him.
Paul docs not at once draw the two plain inferences, that there must be something more than the nations have had, if they are to find God, even His seeking them in some new fashion; and that the power which neutralises God’s design in creation and providence is sin. He has a word to say about both these, but for the moment he contents himself with pointing to the fact, attested by his hearers’ consciousness, and by many a saying of thinkers and poets, that the failure to find God does not arise from His hiding Himself in some remote obscurity. Men are plunged, as it were, in the ocean of God, encompassed by Him as an atmosphere, and-highest thought of all, and not strange to Greek thought of the nobler sort-kindred with Him as both drawing life from Him and being in His image. Whence, then, but from their own fault, could men have failed to find God? If He is ‘unknown,’ it is not because He has shrouded Himself in darkness, but because they do not love the light. One swift glance at the folly of idolatry, as demonstrated by this thought of man’s being the offspring of God, leads naturally to the properly Christian conclusion of the address.
III. It is probable that this part of it was prematurely ended by the mockery of some and the impatience of others, who had had enough of Paul and his talk, and who, when they said, ‘We will hear thee again,’ meant, ‘We will not hear you now.’ But, even in the compass permitted him, he gives much of his message.
Now the hint in the previous part is made more plain. The demand for repentance implies sin. Then the ‘ignorance’ was not inevitable or innocent. There was an element of guilt in men’s not feeling after God, and sin is universal, for ‘all men everywhere’ are summoned to repent. Philosophers and artists, and cultivated triflers, and sincere worshippers of Pallas and Zeus, and all ‘barbarian’ people, are alike here. That would grate on Athenian pride, as it grates now on ours. The reason for repentance would be as strange to the hearers as the command was-a universal judgment, of which the principle was to be rigid righteousness, and the Judge, not Minos or Rhadamanthus, but ‘a Man’ ordained for that function.
What raving nonsense that would appear to men who had largely lost the belief in a life beyond the grave! The universal Judge a man! No wonder that the quick Athenian sense of the ridiculous began to rise against this Jew fanatic, bringing his dreams among cultured people like them! And the proof which he alleged as evidence to all men that it is so, would sound even more ridiculous than the assertion meant to be proved. ‘A man has been raised from the dead; and this anonymous Man, whom nobody ever heard of before, and who is no doubt one of the speaker’s countrymen, is to judge us, Stoics, Epicureans, polished people, and we are to be herded to His bar in company with Boeotians and barbarians! The man is mad.’
So the assembly broke up in inextinguishable laughter, and Paul silently ‘departed from among them,’ having never named the name of Jesus to them. He never more earnestly tried to adapt his teaching to his audience; he never was more unsuccessful in his attempt by all means to gain some. Was it a remembrance of that scene in Athens that made him write to the Corinthians that his message was ‘to the Greeks foolishness’?
Fuente: Expositions Of Holy Scripture by Alexander MacLaren
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Act 17:32-34
32Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some began to sneer, but others said, “We shall hear you again concerning this.” 33So Paul went out of their midst. 34But some men joined him and believed, among whom also were Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them.
Act 17:32 “when they heard of the resurrection of the dead” The Greeks, except the Epicureans, believed in the immortality of the soul, but not of the body. The resurrection was the major stumbling block for the Greeks (cf. Act 17:18; 1Co 1:23).
“sneer” This term is used only here in the NT, but the intensified form appears in Act 5:30; Act 26:21. Its root (chleusma or chleusmos) is used in the Septuagint several times for “derision” or “mockery” (cf. Job 12:4; Psa 79:4; Jer 20:8).
“but others said, ‘We shall hear you again concerning this'” Paul’s message of God’s love and care for all people was so radically new that these hearers were attracted, but not fully convinced.
Act 17:34 “some men joined him and believed, among whom also were Dionysius” There are three possible responses to the gospel:
1. rejection, “some began to sneer” (Act 17:32)
2. delayed decision, “we shall hear you again concerning this (Act 17:32)
3. belief, “some joined Paul and believed” (Act 17:34; 1Th 1:9-10)
This parallels the parable of the sower (cf. Matthew 13).
“Dionysius the Areopagite” He must have been a regular attender of these philosophical discussions on Mars Hill. At least one intellectual became a believer.
Eusebius, Eccl. His. 3:4:6-7 and 4:23:6 says he became the first bishop of Athens or Corinth. If true, what a great transformation! The gospel is in the transformation business!
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
And, &c. = But having heard.
of the dead. Greek. nekron. App-139.
mocked = were mocking. Greek. chleuazo. See note on Act 2:13. To Epicureans and Stoics alike a resurrection of dead persons was a madman’s dream. Only those whose “hearts the Lord opened” (Act 17:34) could receive it. Compare Act 16:14.
of = con erning. Greek. peri. App-104.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
32. . .] Perhaps here, when they heard of a resurrection of dead men, viz. of that of Christ, being generic. But the same words are used in ref. 1 Cor. ; so that I would rather take them here to mean that they inferred the general possibility of the resurrection of the dead, as a tenet of Pauls, from the one case which he mentioned.
. ] We must not allot these two parties as some have done, the former to the Epicureans, the latter to the Stoics: the description is general.
The words . need not be taken as ironical. The hearing not having taken place is no proof that it was not intended at the time: and the distinction between these and the mockers seems to imply that they were in earnest.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Act 17:32. , some mocked) interrupting Paul. They took as a stumbling-block of offence what is the principal motive of faith, owing to the pride of reason; and having thus fastened on this one point, they reject all the rest.-, others said) with more readiness of mind.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
some: Act 17:18, Act 2:13, Act 13:41, Act 25:19, Act 26:8, Act 26:24, Act 26:25, Gen 19:14, 2Ch 30:9-11, 2Ch 36:16, Luk 22:63, Luk 23:11, Luk 23:36, 1Co 1:23, 1Co 4:10, Heb 11:36, Heb 13:13
We will: Act 24:25, Luk 14:18, 2Co 6:2, Heb 3:7, Heb 3:8
Reciprocal: 2Ch 30:10 – they laughed Job 12:4 – the just Psa 123:4 – with the scorning Pro 23:9 – he Isa 28:22 – be ye Jer 20:7 – I am Mat 13:19 – and understandeth Mar 4:15 – these Mar 5:40 – they Joh 6:52 – How Joh 11:24 – I know Joh 18:38 – What Act 4:2 – preached Act 18:1 – departed Act 18:17 – And Gallio Rom 1:28 – as they did 1Co 1:18 – foolishness 1Co 2:14 – they Col 2:8 – philosophy 1Th 2:13 – because Heb 6:2 – resurrection
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
THREE CLASSES OF HEARERS
Some mocked: and others said, We will hear Thee again of this matter. Howbeit certain men clave unto Him, and believed.
Act 17:32; Act 17:34
Since Christ spoke, this address of St. Pauls at Athens is the most skilful utterance in the history of religious pleading. There was no anger, no scorn, no contempt. In Act 17:28 he even quotes Aratus, one of their own poets, though he were a heathen. To put the matter in a sentenceSt. Paul preaches Jesus and the Resurrection to this cultured audience of Athenian philosophers.
He went so far as to praise the men of Athenshe said they were very religious. They had built among their many altars one to an Unknown God in the pious fear they might omit one. Does this not plainly show it is not religion we want: it is the Living Christ.
Now note the result. Athens was the most unpromising placefrom a human standpointto preach the Gospel, but there are saints in Csars household.
I. Some mocked.So it is now. They have no reverence for sacred things. They say there is no heavenly vision because they have never seen it themselves.
II. Others procrastinated.They do not say they will never obey the Gospel, but not now. As Shakespeare saysNow I, to comfort him, bid him a should not think of God; I hoped there was no need to trouble himself with any such thoughts as yet. But God has given us to-day and not to-morrow.
III. Some believed.Nothing is done unless men are led to make the great venture and trust in Christ alone. It is faith which purifies the heart, and overcomes the world, and works by love.
Rev. F. Harper.
Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary
2
Act 17:32. The Athenians were interested in philosophical subjects only, as they regarded them, and the resurrection from the dead did not come under that classification in their estimation. Some of them made fun of the matter, but others were a little more polite and promised to give it their attention at some other time.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Act 17:32. And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked, and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter. It has been suggested that those that mocked were followers of Epicurus, and that the men who wished to adjourn the question were of the school of Zeno. The Areo-pagites seem to have been divided, some openly mocking Paul and his doctrines; some in doubt seemingly wishing to hear him again, after probably his strange revelation had been discussed in private. The mockers, however, and the men who feared lest their interests should suffer if these new things were publicly taught, prevailed; for in the next verse we read:
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Here we have the success of Paul’s sermon declared; it was various and different: some of his hearers derided, others doubted, and a few believed.
Those that derided and mocked, it is very probable, were Epicureans, who denied that the world was either created or governed by God; as also that there were any rewards or punishments for men after death: therefore they ridiculed St. Paul’s doctrine of the resurrection of the dead.
The sublimest doctrines, and most comfortable truths of the gospel are matter of derision and mockery to sensual minds.
Those that doubted, probably were the Stoics, who did own the resurrection and a state of rewards and punishments in another world; and therefore for obtaining better satisfaction to their doubts, desired to hear the apostle again discoursing farther of that matter.
Those that believed are few indeed, if no more than are here mentioned, which are Dionysius and Damaris, with some others.
Dionysius was a famous person, one of the great council, mentioned ver. 19 whose conversion probably might afterwards have a great influence upon many others; and it was no small honour and advantage to the gospel to be owned by such an honourable person as this Dionysius was: not many wise, not many noble, were called.
Blessed be God that any were, that any are, that any of the great ones of the world stoop to the sceptre of Jesus Christ, and pay their homage and subjection to him.
Thus ends the apostle’s divine sermon at the famous university of Athens, which yielded few, very few converts, to St. Paul; for we read of no church founded here, as we did before at Philippi, and in the next chapter at Corinth.
What reason can be assigned but this, That these grave philosophers, profound scholars, venerable senators and citizens, who had a name for wisdom throughout the world were too wise to be saved by the foolishness of preaching!
As the wisdom of the world is foolishness with God, so the wisdom of God in the gospel is accounted foolishness by the wise men of the world; according to that of the apostle, 1Co 1:21. “When the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching, to save them that believe.
We preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling-block, and unto the Greeks foolishness, but unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God; because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.”
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
32, 33. (32) “And when they heard of a resurrection of the dead, some mocked; but others said, We will hear you again concerning this matter. (33) So Paul departed from among them.” There are two strange features in the conduct of this audience. First, That they listened so patiently while Paul was demonstrating the folly of their idolatrous worship, which we would expect them to defend with zeal. Second, That they should interrupt him with mockery when he spoke of a resurrection from the dead, which we would have expected them to welcome as a most happy relief from the gloom which shrouded their thoughts of death. But the former is accounted for by the prevailing infidelity among philosophic minds in reference to the popular worship, rendering formal and heartless with them a service which was still performed by the masses with devoutness and sincerity. Their repugnance to the thought of a resurrection originated not in a preference for the gloomy future into which they were compelled to look, but in a fondness for that philosophy by which they had concluded that death was an eternal sleep. Their pride of opinion had crushed the better instincts of their nature, and led them to mock at the hope of a future life, which has been the dearest of all hopes to the chief part of mankind. Thus the devotees of human philosophy, instead of being led by it to a knowledge of the truth, were deceived into the forfeiture of a blessed hope, which has been enjoyed by ruder nations, amid all their ignorance and superstition.
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
17:32 {16} And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this [matter].
(16) Men, to show forth their vanity, are affected and moved differently by the very same Gospel, which nonetheless does not cease to be effectual in the elect.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
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 (1Co 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 1Co 1:18 to 1Co 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 (Act 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 Act 12:25 to Act 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 Act 12:25 to Act 21:16 chiasm, as Meisner saw it, is Paul’s sermon in Act 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 [Act 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 (Act 19:21), and at Jerusalem (Act 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.