23<\/strong>. For as I passed by<\/em> ( along<\/strong>)] The word refers to the whole of the Apostle’s walk about the city.<\/p>\n and beheld your devotions<\/em> ] Better, “ and noticed the objects of your worship<\/strong>.” (With R. V.<\/em>) The verb is that which in the previous verse is translated “I perceive,” only that here it is strengthened by a preposition which gives it the force of “fully observe.” The Apostle had not only seen the statues but read the inscriptions. The noun can only mean “a thing that is worshipped” not “the act of worship” as is the sense of the A. V.<\/p>\n I found an altar<\/em> ] The Greek has an emphatic conjunction, which might be represented by “ I found<\/em> also<\/strong> an altar,” i.e. beside other things which I noticed.<\/p>\n TO THE UNKNOWN GOD<\/em> ] The original has no article and would be correctly rendered “ To<\/em> an unknown God<\/em>.” But it is not always correct to omit the article in English because it does not appear in the original: here however it does not influence the meaning. When the altar was erected, it was in consequence of some visitation of which the cause was not apparent, and which could be ascribed to none of the existing divinities. We may conceive the Athenians speaking of the power which caused the visitation either as “an unknown God” or as “the unknown God” whose wrath they would deprecate, and, in an inscription, representing all that was intended without the article. We have abundant evidence of the existence in Athens of such altars as that to which St Paul alludes. But the words in which they are described generally run in the plural number, and speak of “the unknown gods.” Thus Pausanias (i. i. 4) describing one of the ports of Athens tells us that there were there “altars to gods styled unknown<\/em> ” and Philostratus in his Life of Apollonius<\/em> says “at Athens there are erected altars for unknown<\/em> gods.” There is a like allusion in (pseudo) Lucian’s Philo-patris<\/em>, but it is doubtful whether that is not drawn from this passage of the Acts. And Jerome writing on Tit 1:12<\/span>, says “The inscription on the altar was not, as Paul stated, ‘To the unknown God’ but ‘To the unknown gods of Asia and Europe and Africa, to unknown and foreign Gods.’ But, because Paul required to speak of only one unknown God, he used the word in the singular.” But it is better to suppose that St Paul saw what he says he saw, and as evidence that such an inscription was not improbable, we may quote the Latin inscription found on an altar at Ostia, now in the Vatican, representing a sacrificial group in connexion with the worship of Mithras, the Sun-god of the later Persian mythology (Orelli, Inscr. Gel<\/em>. ii. 5000), “Signum indeprehensibilis dei” which is a very near approach in Latin to what the Greek inscription to which the Apostle alludes would mean. The word “unknown” must not be pressed too far into the sense of “unknowable,” because of what comes after. Paul says that “he is prepared to set forth to them that power which they were worshipping; in ignorance.” So though man by searching cannot find out God yet he would desire to teach the Athenians, what he says elsewhere, that “the everlasting power and divinity of God may be clearly seen through the things that are made” (Rom 1:20<\/span>).<\/p>\n Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship<\/em> ] The best MSS. give the relative in the neuter. The better rendering therefore is What<\/strong> therefore ye worship<\/em> in ignorance<\/strong>. (As R. V.<\/em>) The A. V. seems to convey the sense that the worship was of an ignorant character: whereas what the Apostle intends to say is not any reflection on the nature of their worship, but only that they offered it in ignorance, and this he was ready to dispel. He accepts their religious character, takes his stand on their own confession that they are in ignorance about God, and so offers his teaching.<\/p>\n him declare I unto you<\/em> ] Of course in harmony with the previous clause the pronoun is here also neuter. “ This set I forth unto you<\/strong>.” (As R. V.<\/em>) In the verb which he employs the Apostle takes up their own word (Act 17:18<\/span>) when they said “He seemeth to be a setter forth<\/em> of strange gods.” It is well that the similarity of word should be retained in the English.<\/p>\n For as I passed by – <\/B>Greek: For I, coming through, and seeing, etc.<\/P> And beheld – <\/B>Diligently contemplated; attentively considered <\/SPAN><\/span> anatheoron. The worship of an idolatrous people will be an object of intense and painful interest to a Christian.<\/P> Your devotions – <\/B> <\/SPAN><\/span> ta sebasmata. Our word devotions refers to the act of worship – to prayers, praises, etc. The Greek word used here means properly any sacred thing; any object which is worshipped, or which is connected with the place or rites of worship. Thus, it is applied either to the gods themselves, or to the temples, altars, shrines, sacrifices, statues, etc., connected with the worship of the gods. This is its meaning here. It does not denote that Paul saw them engaged in the act of worship, but that he was struck with the numerous temples, altars, statues, etc., which were reared to the gods, and which indicated the state of the people. Syriac, the temple of your gods. Vulgate, your images. Margin, gods that ye worship.<\/P> I found an altar – <\/B>An altar usually denotes a place for sacrifice. Here, however, it does not appear that any sacrifice was offered; but it was probably a monument of stone, reared to commemorate a certain event, and dedicated to the unknown God.<\/P> To the unknown God – <\/B> <\/SPAN><\/span> agnosto Theo. Where this altar was reared, or on what occasion, has been a subject of much debate with expositors. That there was such an altar in Athens, though it may not have been specifically mentioned by the Greek writers, is rendered probable by the following circumstances:<\/P> (1) It was customary to rear such altars. Minutius Felix says of the Romans, They build altars to unknown divinities.<\/P> (2) The term unknown God was used in relation to the worship of the Athenians. Lucian, in his Philopatris, uses this form of an oath: I swear by the unknown God at Athens, the very expression used by the apostle. And again he says (chapter xxix. 180), We have found out the unknown God at Athens, and worshipped him with our hands stretched up to heaven, etc.<\/P> (3) There were altars at Athens inscribed to the unknown gods. Philostratus says (in Vita Apol., Rom 6:3<\/span>), And this at Athens, where there are even altars to the unknown gods. Thus, Pausanius (in Attic., chapter i.) says, that at Athens there are altars of gods which are called the unknown ones. Jerome, in his commentary Tit 1:12<\/span>, says that the whole inscription was, To the gods of Asia, Europe, and Africa; to the unknown and strange gods.<\/P> (4) There was a remarkable altar raised in Athens in a time of pestilence, in honor of the unknown god which had granted them deliverance. Diogenes Laertius says that Epimenides restrained the pestilence in the following manner: Taking white and black sheep, he led them to the Areopagus, and there permitted them to go where they would, commanding those who followed them to sacrifice <\/SPAN><\/span> <\/span><\/SPAN><\/span> <\/span><\/SPAN><\/span> to prosekonti theoto the god to whom these things pertained or who had the power of averting the plague, whoever he might be, without adding the name and thus to allay the pestilence. From which it has arisen that at this day, through the villages of the Athenians, altars are found without any name (Diog. Laert., book i, section 10). This took place about 600 years before Christ, and it is not improbable that one or more of those altars remained until the time of Paul. It should be added that the natural inscription on those altars would be, To the unknown God. None of the gods to whom they usually sacrificed could deliver them from the pestilence. They therefore reared them to some unknown Being who had the power to free them from the plague.<\/P> Whom therefore – <\/B>The true God, who had really delivered them from the plague.<\/P> Ye ignorantly worship – <\/B>Or worship without knowing his name. You have expressed your homage for him by rearing to him an altar.<\/P> Him declare I unto you – <\/B>I make known to you his name, attributes, etc. There is remarkable tact in Pauls seizing on this circumstance; and yet it was perfectly fair and honest. Only the true God could deliver in the time of the pestilence. This altar had, therefore, been really reared to him, though his name was unknown. The same Being who had interposed at that time, and whose interposition was recorded by the building of this altar, was He who had made the heavens; who ruled over all; and whom Paul was now about to make known to them. There is another feature of skill in the allusion to this altar. In other circumstances it might seem to be presumptuous for an unknown Jew to at tempt to instruct the sages of Athens. But here they had confessed and proclaimed their ignorance. By rearing this altar they acknowledged their need of instruction. The way was, therefore, fairly open for Paul to address even these philosophers, and to discourse to them on a point on which they acknowledged their ignorance.<\/P><\/p>\n Act 17:23<\/span><\/p>\n I found an altar with this inscription, To the unknown God.<\/em><\/p>\n Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, Him declare I unto you. <\/p>\n Before the altar of the unknown God<\/strong><\/p>\n 1<\/strong>. <\/em><\/strong>What was there in Athens to which Paul could appeal? To Jewish prophecy? No one held them in esteem. Should he begin with repentance, faith, Jesus, and judgment? No one would understand his message. Ought he now to overthrow these altars? But destruction is not construction. Ought the nothingness of the gods to be exposed to ridicule? Enlightenment that presents the stone of unbelief for the husks of superstition may train its subjects to doubt, but not to hope. To the apostle the heathen world seemed the groping of a man who is blind. But no man of feeling ever makes sport of a blind mans groping, or strikes the last coin out of a beggars hand. Paul sought through the streets of Athens to see whether, somewhere, he could not still discover a trace of the footsteps of the living God, some pieces of the golden thread by which to lead these misled wanderers back into communion with God–and, behold, he has found something: here is an altar with the inscription, To the unknown God: a discovery which affords him as much joy as when he once picked up the words of the Greek poet we find him quoting here. That had seemed to him a feather which the angel, flying through heaven with the gospel, dropped into heathen lands. To the weak as weak, a Greek to the Greeks, the apostle explains this inscription to his hearers with most becoming deference.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>This altar is a testimony to a grave defection, a longing that impels to seek, a hope fulfilled in Christ. Let us ask–<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>The features have been almost obliterated, but whose image has been stamped upon the souls of men?–Not from the clod, nor from the ape–we are also of His offspring! God hath made of one blood all nations of men, etc. One blood, therefore one family, one origin, one conscience, one hope: to seek God, everyones mission; to find God, everyones goal!<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>But if we live, and move, and have our being in Him, and if creation manifests His invisible power and Divinity–whence all this uncertain groping, until, brought to a stand, children of men cling to wood and stone? Whence the blindness that changes the clear mirror of nature into a thick veil, whence the insanity that desires to imprison the God over all heaven and earth within temples and images? Paul describes the lamentable process in Rom 1:21-24<\/span>. Moral aberration always precedes the spiritual. Sinful inclinations in the heart are the fruitful lap of error. Doubt is a tendency of the character. Strange that amidst this jumble of rage, sensuality, love of money, etc., any room should remain for an altar dedicated even to the unknown God!<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>It is an hour of fatigue at midnight, the candle has burned down low, and an investigator is dipping into the depths and not finding the goodly pearl, and growing more and more weary, cries, Boundless Nature, where shall I comprehend thee? Ye sources of all life, for which my withered breast so longs–ye flow, ye quench, and yet I thirst in vain! Such imploring, outstretched arms–what are they but an altar erected to the unknown God?<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>Now enter yon brilliant room. Surely no sorrow can obtrude here. Nevertheless sighs from an inner chamber announce that Death has no respect for riches. A child is lying here sick unto death. Why has the anxious father no eye for the pictures that look down from the walls? Why does he not open some of his favourite poets? Why does he avoid that book which convinced him yesterday that there is room for neither miracles nor prayer? The anguish-stricken father throws himself on his knees–before whom? Which god can support him to bear this threatened loss? Oh ye pictures, books, money piles, ye idols that have eyes but no pupils, arms but no help!–at this moment, an altar rises in a corner of the room, faintly traced, To the unknown God!<\/p>\n 3. <\/strong>Stranger, you have strayed into this house of God–do you know to what end? Do you know that your wandering and your sojourning, your childhood and your manhood, your solitude and your society, your sorrows and your joys, have all been working together to lead you to seek the Lord if haply you might feel and find Him, and to make that dusty altar to the unknown God in the corner of your heart one of reminder and of prophecy?<\/p>\n The unknown God<\/strong><\/p>\n 1<\/strong>. <\/em><\/strong>Athens was a city illustrious for its learning. But during the century or two preceding the Christian era, intellectual decay had set in, and instead of investigating the true, the people were raving after the new. The distinction between true and false philosophy in every age consists mainly in this–the one loves the new more than the true, the other loves the true more than the new. At this time Paul went to Athens, and the everlasting gospel with him; and in it there is a perfect combination of the true and the new. He declares unto them the unknown God:–<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>As Creator of the universe. The Greek mind had often but ineffectually grappled with the mysterious problem of the origin of the world. Every school of ancient thought believed in the eternity of matter. Of a creation out of nothing the ancient heathen had not the crudest idea. Mankind seemed to be entirely indebted to Divine revelation for it. God created–<\/p>\n (1)<\/strong> The matter of the world. Plato recognised God as the Arranger of the Hyle. But whence issued the Hyle? Plato is mute. But St. Paul teaches that God not only built the world, but made the materials likewise. A child may learn more in five minutes in the first verse of the Bible than recondite sages in their protracted studies. Through faith we understand the worlds were framed by the word of God.<\/p>\n (2)<\/strong> Its laws. Laws are so many windows through which we can glance at God. But over these windows infidelity draws the blinds. Men praise each other for discovering these laws, but are slack to give glory to God for making them. But what is the discovery of a law compared with its invention?<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>Having created the world, God is still present in it as its Sovereign Lord and Director. Seeing He giveth to all life and breath and all things. The Stoics did not theoretically deny the Divine existence, but they did deny the Divine government. They believed in fate; hence their reckless indifference to all the ills and favours of life. In our day also, law does everything, God nothing. Ancients and moderns alike, after putting the extinguisher on the sun, feel constrained to light a candle. The Bible teaching, however, is clear and unambiguous. Whilst we must insist upon the radical distinction between God and the world, we must beware lest we make this distinction separation. From these truths two valuable lessons are deduced–<\/p>\n (1)<\/strong> That God dwelleth not in temples made with hands.<\/p>\n (2)<\/strong> That He is not worshipped or served with mens hands as though He needed anything. We do not give to Him, He gives to us. Every good gift and every perfect gift, etc.<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>God made man–a truth strikingly new to the Greeks. The Greeks thought that they had grown from the soil. The idea of God cannot be degraded without at the same time debasing the idea of man. The same theory practically is advocated now. God is involved in nature according to the fashionable Pantheism of the age; and man is evolved out of nature according to its anthropology. The apostle further proclaims the unity of the human race. The Greeks viewed themselves as the aristocracy of the world, separated even in origin from all other nations, whom they contemptuously treated as barbarians.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>God rules men. He did not fling them upon the world to be the sport of chance, but determined the times before appointed and the bounds of their habitation. The one object, however, was that men might seek the Lord, if haply they might find Him. All events were so disposed as to be helpful to mankind in their search after God. We imagine that were the circumstances arranged a little differently, it would result in the spiritual advantage of the nations. But St. Paul declares otherwise.<\/p>\n 3. <\/strong>God is the Father of man (verse 28). God is only the Maker of nature. The white man carries about him Gods image in ivory, and the coloured man in ebony, but none the less an image for that. How striking the genealogy in Luk 3:1-38<\/span> the son of David the Son of God. From this homogeneity of nature between man and God the apostle makes a practical inference (verse 29). Athens abounded in idols, but none of them properly represented God. The Divine likeness cannot be stamped on gross matter, it must have intelligence for its canvas. Consequently mans fault has always been in seeking God among material objects. But inasmuch as we are partakers of His nature, it cannot be that He is far from any one of us.<\/p>\n (1)<\/strong> As to place. There is a sense in which the sun is over ninety millions of miles distant; but there is a sense in which it is nearer us than any other created object. Its beams pierce our frame, its light enters the eye, its warmth pervades the body. In it we live and move and have our being. In like manner God may be affirmed to be infinitely removed from us; but there is a sense in which He is nearer every one of us than any other being can possibly be (verses 27, 28).<\/p>\n (2)<\/strong> As to His nature. His spirituality and not His omnipresence is the leading idea. In our own spirituality can we best understand the nature of the Deity.<\/p>\n 4. <\/strong>God is the Redeemer of men. From the Fatherhood to the Redeemership the stride is not so very great. And the times of this ignorance God overlooked–i.e.<\/em>, did not directly interfere. Not that He entirely disregarded the heathen world. That would be a flat contradiction of verse 26. God often interposed in their geographical and political history, but He left them to work out their religious problems for themselves. The now is significant of a change of policy. It is not a matter of no consequence whether you embrace Christianity or not. He commandeth you. The gospel comes with all the authority of law. You have broken other commandments, will you persist in breaking this also? Pauls hearers had been all their lifetime endeavouring to atone for sin; now, however, they are bidden not to atone but to repent. Every man everywhere. The gospel embraces every human being. None are too high to need repentance; none are too low to have it.<\/p>\n 5. <\/strong>God is the Judge of men (verse 31). Paul was now standing on the site of the most venerable court in the whole world. Here Mars and Orestes were tried, and here Socrates was unjustly condemned. What therefore more natural than that Paul should wind up his oration by a solemn reference to the judgment seat of Christ? Yes, there is an awful hereafter, notwithstanding the creed of Epicureans. Oh, the madness of those who spend their day of grace in reckless indifference, saying, Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die! (J. Cynddylan Jones, D. D.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The unknown God<\/strong><\/p>\n In this paragraph we have a graphic though brief description of the character of the men of Athens. For all the Athenians and strangers which were there, spent their time in nothing else but either to tell or to hear some new thing. And when the love of the new gains ascendancy over the love of the true, degeneration is inevitable. The distinction between true and false philosophy, in every age, consists mainly in this: the one loves the new more than the true, the other loves the true rather than the new. But the religious aspect of the city is depicted in more lamentable colours still the city was wholly given to idolatry (on the margin, full of idols). Idolatry was also flourishing in this city; but it seemed now as though it had received a new impulse. Why? Because their faith in idols was stronger? No; but because it was weaker. What if they are only the creation of my own over-heated imagination? The suspicion was so humiliating, so blasting in its effects, so awfully barren and withering, that he strenuously attempted to conceal it from himself; he tried to forget his religious bankruptcy in spiritual intoxication. That motto awakes a distinct echo in the heart of every unregenerate man; there also is an altar with the inscription To the unknown God! At this time Paul went to Athens, and the everlasting gospel with him; and in it there is a perfect combination of the true and the new. Glad tidings, true news, is its distinctive appellation. He declares unto them the unknown God–<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>In His relation to nature.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>In His relation to man.<\/p>\n These two relations exhaust our knowledge of God; we know Him in none other. These were the topics held in dispute by the philosophers, and to which the Athenians now listen with abated breath.<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>He is the Creator of nature. God made the world and all things therein. On this point he directs his remarks more especially against the Epicureans–they denied creation. God made the world. As we look around us we observe that nature is divisible into matter and laws, matter and truths. The Athenian mind had been often grappling with the mysterious problem touching the origin of all things; but notwithstanding all the energy and time expended to solve it, it continued to be shrouded in as much darkness as ever. History, indeed, seems to testify that the human mind, left to its own resources, could never grasp the idea of creation, properly so called. The Epicureans denied creation, and looked upon the world as the effect of the fortuitous concourse of atoms, and these atoms they believed to be uncreated and eternal. Of a creation out of nothing, the ancient heathens had not the crudest idea. Indeed, mankind are indebted to the Bible entirely for it. Not only the work but the idea of creation is Divine. And the truth with which Paul encountered the Epicurean philosophers of old, in the market and on the hill, requires to be reiterated again and again. There is a theory afloat, vindicated by men of unquestionable repute, that sets creation out of nothing among the impossibilities. According to this theory, everything is born. The sun is born, the moon is born, the earth is born. It is averred We cannot conceive, either on the one hand, nothing becoming something, or on the other, something becoming nothing (Sir W. Hamilton). The world, therefore, is a Divine evolution? No: says the Bible, it is not an evolution, but a creation. We cannot conceive such an act, say they. Mans conceptions are not Gods boundary lines, says the Bible. We cannot explain the process, say they. Then believe the act, says the Bible. Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things that are seen were not made of things which do appear. God made the world. It existed nowhere before, nor in God, nor in space; it existed in no shape before, nor in germ, nor in development. It is an act of pure creation. As already hinted laws form another important division of nature. Not only God made the matter of the universe, but also its laws.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>He is the Lord of nature. He is Lord of heaven and earth. This truth is addressed more especially to the Stoics–they denied Divine government. They did not deny the existence of the gods; but they held that all human affairs were governed by fate. Neither did they believe that any good was received from the hands of their gods. This atheistic view the apostle refutes by the heart-inspiring truth that God is the Lord of nature and providence. As the servant is dependent on his master, so is nature on her Lord. What does this imply? That she is not her own governess. Not her own will, but His she follows. Not her own thoughts, but His she expresses. Everything in nature is a manifestation of some thought; but who is it that thinks? Nature herself? No. Fate? No. Who then? God. The sun rises every day to the right moment–who is the thinker? The sun? No; but God. Nature has no thought, no will of her own; she is entirely under the control of God. Neither is she her own support. She lives on the bounty of God, as a child on the table of its father. Nature can originate nothing; she must receive all. Left to her own resources, she would reduce herself to penury in one day. But these truths had a more practical end in view than the refutation of the fallacious theories of philosophers; they were calculated to undermine the idolatrous practices of the populace. He dwelleth not in temples made with hands. He is the Creator and Lord of nature. What is there in a temple of stones for Him to covet? Were He a forlorn fugitive, an impoverished God, He might be glad of a shelter anywhere. But this is not His condition. He is Lord of heaven and earth, and has the resources of both at His command. He is not worshipped with mens hands as though He needed anything. The Athenians, in common with all idolaters, supposed religious rites to be established and enacted for God and not for man–for His advantage and not for our benefit. The mistake of the Stoics about God, in respect to nature, was that of all idolaters in respect to religion. They thought it was His prerogative to receive; the apostle teaches it was His property and function to give. Neither is He worshipped with mens hands as though He needed anything. No; it is not giving, but receiving. As a creature you receive; as a worshipper you receive too. What is your sin? Is it giving too little? No; but receiving too little.<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>He is the Father of man. We are His offspring. God is the Maker of nature, He is the Father of man; He is the Creator of the brute, He is the Father of man. The popular opinion among the Athenians was, that they were the aboriginals of mankind. But where did they come from? They grew from the earth. According to one of their own writers, the first men sprung up in Attica, like radishes. And some moderns cherish the opinion, forsooth, that mankind are developed from a tribe of monkeys! Our ancestry has its root in Godhead. Adam is not our first nor our best father, but God. Based on mans Divine sonship are two very important considerations. The first is the universal brotherhood of man. God hath made of one blood all nations of men. The second truth is the nature of God. Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone. There is a certain resemblance between parent and child; therefore God must be more like men, His children, than any other created object whatsoever. Man possesses reason, will, and intelligence; therefore God must have them in infinite perfection.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>God is the Saviour of man. And the times of this ignorance God winked at (overlooked, passed by); but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent.<\/p>\n 3. <\/strong>He is the judge of man. For He hath appointed a day, in the which He will judge the world in righteousness by that Man whom He hath ordained. (J. Cynddylan Jones, D. D.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The unknown God<\/strong><\/p>\n When he saw that the city was wholly given to idolatry, i.e.<\/em>, literally covered with idols– referring to the place, not to the people–his spirit was roused; he could no longer keep silence and refrain from proclaiming the message he had come to deliver. Then it chanced that some of the members of the two great philosophic sects, the Epicureans and Stoics, encountered him. Part of these called him a babbler (), literally a picker-up of small seeds, like a bird, i.e., <\/em>a collector and retailer of insignificant scraps of information; and others charged him with setting forth strange gods, foreign divinities.<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>The unknown god of the ancients. It is by no means clear how this altar came to be erected at Athens. By some, it is supposed that Polytheism had made so many gods by the deification of every human passion, that no more could be thought of; and hence, to cover the whole ground, an additional altar was erected to an unknown god at the shrine of which the worship should ascend to any possible deity that might have been overlooked. Others suppose that some special benefits had been received by the people, which could not be traced to any of the known gods–hence an altar to the unknown. More probably, however, it arose from some dim conception of a Supreme Being higher than all the gods of mythology, who, while He satisfied a yearning want of the heart, took no hold on the intellect. This would seem to be apparent from Pauls words, that he would declare the very God thus worshipped. In any case, that altar was a tacit but terrible confession of the failure of heathendom. Nowhere perhaps had the intellect risen so high as at Athens.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>The unknown God of the moderns. Herbert Spencer prates most glibly of the Unknowable, and Huxley worships at its shrine. Tyndal calls religions forms of force which must not be permitted to intrude on the region of knowledge. Matthew Arnold terms God a stream of tendency by which all things fulfil the law of their being, as though there could be a stream without a source, or things could fulfil any purpose where there was no plan.<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>Worship. This, in some form or other, is universal. In all ages men have worshipped something. In fact it is difficult to find a stronger instinct in human nature than this one. We have–<\/p>\n (1)<\/strong> Worship in ignorance. This is what the Athenians were guilty of. They worshipped without ascribing to the object any definite qualities whatever.<\/p>\n (2)<\/strong> Worship of nature. An atheist writing recently in one of the Secularistic journals proposed verbal prayer to nature, and says, May we not pray or invoke the powers of nature for aid, without any reference to a personal God, calling that power the unconditioned, unknowable Absolute, or what you will; or no name at all? I think so. It is difficult to see what is the object of this prayer, since it is clear that blind forces can neither hear nor answer. But it proves the tendency to worship, even in the atheist. A more mystic form of worship, of an atheistic character, was proposed by the late Professor Clifford, under the name of Cosmic Emotion. The term originated with Mr. Henry Sedgwick; but Professor Clifford used it as a sort of substitute for religion. By it he simply meant the emotion which is called up in the soul when contemplating itself and its moral nature on the one hand, and the mysteries of the universe on the other. But such a worship as this–if worship it can be called–has no cult, and therefore cannot meet the condition required. It is a hollow semblance, nothing more.<\/p>\n (3)<\/strong> Worship of abstractions. The Positivists profess to worship humanity in the abstract. What this is, it is difficult very clearly to understand. Humanity in the concrete we know something of, and it is neither exalted enough nor pure enough to satisfy, as an object of worship, the religious nature of man. This form of worship professes to find a cultus in dead heroes and sages. But, to say the least of it, this is a miserable substitute for an Almighty and loving Father in heaven. The worship of nature, or of abstractions, is, after all, but idolatry. Men do not now make their idols of wood or stone, but cut of their own wild imaginings.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>Responsibility. The moral law needs a personal God for its basis. The unknown is no foundation on which to raise a superstructure of ethics.<\/p>\n 3. <\/strong>Immortality. Most of those, however, who assert that God is unknown do not believe in a personal immortality at all, but speak of the immortality of the race or of a mans reputation that he may leave behind him. There is no guarantee that the race will remain forever, if God be taken away; and if there were, such a fact would not meet the wants of humanity. We long for, and aspire after, an eternal personal conscious existence, and nothing less than that can satisfy the soul.<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>The Scriptures. Gods real character can only be learnt from the Bible.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>The Incarnation. This is the only means by which God can be really and truly known. No man hath seen God at any time: the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him. He hath declared Him in such a manner that the simplest may understand. Do you want to know what God is like? I point you to Christ. There is the revelation and the Revealer blended in one. (George Sexton, LL. D.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The unknown God<\/strong><\/p>\n The astronomers Le Verrier and Adams, in separate countries at the same time, observing certain motions among the spheres which could not be accounted for by any known cause, concluded that there must be a body not yet discovered somewhere in the regions of space in which the disturbances were observed. Seeking in the direction thus indicated they found the far distant and hitherto unknown world. So Greek philosophy was able, from the appetites and vacancies of the human mind, which all the idols could not satisfy, to determine that there must be some God hitherto from them concealed, to whom these appetites pointed, and without whom they could not be satisfied. Their skill could discover in a general way their need, but they could not by their searching find the missing portion for a human soul. (W. Arnot, D. D.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The unknown God<\/strong><\/p>\n God is unknown–<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>To those who think themselves wise.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>To those who perform the external acts of worship without seeking God Himself.<\/p>\n 3. <\/strong>To those who do not live in Him, but in the world and its lusts.<\/p>\n 4. <\/strong>To those who do not desire to find God in Christ. (Langbein.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n The unknown God revealed<\/strong><\/p>\n Observe–<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>That there was originally an adequate revelation of God is not properly to be doubted (Rom 1:20<\/span>; Psa 19:1-2<\/span>). In addition to the silent testimony of nature were direct and verbal communications to patriarchs, etc.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>Nevertheless, the knowledge of God became beclouded, and errors encrouched with fearful rapidity and success. There was a depraved principle in the heart of man urging him to devices, whereby God might be banished from his mind, and his passions set free from control. From this source sprang up idolatry. They did not like to retain God, etc. (Rom 1:21-23<\/span>; Rom 1:25<\/span>).<\/p>\n 3. <\/strong>This fatal principle which led to the loss of the knowledge of God, prevented it from being restored. Having extinguished the light, it perpetuated the darkness. There were many centuries during which the human intellect was able to open all its resources, and to practise all its powers, but none retraced their steps to the Divine Being. The world by wisdom knew not God; the age of reason was an age of idolatry, pollution, and despair.<\/p>\n 4. <\/strong>With reference to subsequent ages, and our own, the fact and its explanation are the same, as India, China, Africa, etc., testify. If, however, we are pointed to the writings of Deistical philosophers who have professed to argue the existence of God from the light of reason, we are not to be misled by the pretensions of unprincipled plagiarists who have but borrowed the guidance of revelation, without having had the honour to acknowledge it.<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>That the revelations of God in Christianity are furnished in connection with a method of redemption, from which their clearness and lustre are derived. The purpose of the gospel is to explain and apply a scheme of sovereign mercy by which man is to be redeemed from his apostasy. The existence of such a scheme had been announced immediately after the fall, and was shadowed forth in type and prophecy, and employed, harmonised, and displayed the perfections of God. Hence our Saviour frequently spoke of His work as glorifying the Father. In the Cross Mercy and Truth meet together, Righteousness and Peace kiss each other, and in that Cross we see that God is love.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>That these revelations are designed for diffusion through the world. The earlier dispensations were systems rather of defence than attack, of conservation than conquest. But the gospel was good tidings to all people. Prophecy announced it as such, the propitiation for the sins of the whole world made it such, and the apostles were sent to preach it as such.<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>Reasons which are uniform and permanent in their appeals. The work of promulgating the truth–<\/p>\n (1)<\/strong> Has been committed by Christ to His Church as its specific duty.<\/p>\n (2)<\/strong> Vindicates and in the highest measure secures the Divine honour.<\/p>\n (3)<\/strong> Imparts exalted happiness to mankind.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>Reasons which are derived from the peculiarities of our own times–the extraordinary facilities which are now provided for the dissemination of Christian truth. (J. Parsons.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n Three books relating to the knowledge of God<\/strong><\/p>\n Revelation and nature: their witness to God<\/strong><\/p>\n Suppose a scholar searching in some old library were to discover two MSS., which had lain unknown for generations on different shelves. The discoverer examines their contents and is struck with certain peculiarities in the handwriting, which are common to both documents. He also finds that in both there are words and phrases–such as seem the expression of a writers individuality. Still further, he discovers that many ideas are common to the two pamphlets, and that though different in subject, there is a substratum of thought identical in both. Could he do other than infer that they were the products of the same author? Mere coincidence might account for one or two of these resemblances, but could never explain the great variety and number that are found here. Now the object we have in view is somewhat similar.<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>The unity of God.<\/p>\n (1)<\/strong> This doctrine runs through the pages of Scripture like a stream of light illumining all things else. Now–<\/p>\n (2)<\/strong> Judging from the many religions in the world, one might suppose that nature leads to the conception of many gods. But Polytheism betrays as profound an ignorance of nature as it does of the Divine Being. Let us turn from pagan conceptions to the interpretations of science. All recent discovery is tending to set up one conception of the universe, and that is that one plan is to be discovered, and that one power is working under divers forms.<\/p>\n (a) <\/strong>See how the two kingdoms, animal and vegetable, correspond, meet each the others needs, and are evidently parts of one plan. With every breath that we exhale we pour into the atmosphere a gas destructive of animal life. With every inspiration we consume a portion of that element of the atmosphere which is vital to us. But then every vegetable–tree, grass, flower–is absorbing from the air the poisonous carbonic acid and breathing out the vital oxygen.<\/p>\nFuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
I. <\/strong>By what means the living God became unknown?<\/p>\n
II. <\/strong>When is an altar erected to the unknown God? Just as in an impoverished family some jewel is preserved as a reminder of better days, so, in Athens, this one altar was a testimony of impoverishment. Israel could erect an Ebenezer: but this altar is only a monument, confessing: Hitherto have we gone astray. Its erection indicates home-sickness. According to a tradition, the Athenians built this altar when a plague seemed to threaten never to leave their walls:–there must, they concluded, be some other god whose anger is dangerous, whose favour of importance, to whom therefore it was necessary to rear an altar.<\/p>\n
III. <\/strong>In whom does God make Himself known? Who shall win earth back to heaven, and reconcile and harmonise divinity with humanity? who is the man in whom the fulness of the Godhead dwells, and whose body is a temple, the only one worthy of Divinity? Through Christ the weather-beaten inscription, To the unknown God, is changed for To the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. You are advancing to meet this unknown God as a revealed God in Christ Jesus. How? As a Saviour or a Judge? (R. Koegel, D. D.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
I. <\/strong>In relation to nature.<\/p>\n
II. <\/strong>In his relation to man.<\/p>\n
I. <\/strong>God in relation to nature.<\/p>\n
II. <\/strong>God in relation to man.<\/p>\n
I. <\/strong>The unknown god. There is an unknown God today, as certainly as there was in Pauls time; and it is the business of the Christian teacher to declare Him, or set Him forth. In one sense God must always be unknown. The mind of man is finite, and can therefore never comprehend the Infinite.<\/p>\n
II. <\/strong>The relation of the unknown God to man. It is difficult to understand what relationship we can sustain to the unknown, or at least to learn what the relationship is, if any such there be. Yet those who teach that God is unknown and unknowable recognise some sort of relationship to this unknown Being. The possible relationship may be considered under three distinct heads.<\/p>\n
III. <\/strong>The revelation of the unknown God. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, Him declare I unto you, or set forth unto you. This was Pauls work, to reveal or make known the unknown God. This he was enabled to do by means of–<\/p>\n
I. <\/strong>That man, when left to the efforts of his own reason, never discovers the character of the true God. The most probable explanation of the inscription is the carefulness of the Athenians not to exclude any God.<\/p>\n
II. <\/strong>That it is the office of Christianity to place the character of the true God in full and distinct revelation. The circumstances just illustrated constituted a necessity for a revelation. Proceeding on this necessity manifestations were given to the patriarchs of the supremacy and grace of the Most High. Then followed the calling of the Jews, the giving of their law, the solemn warnings against idolatry, institutions designed to preserve them from the infection of surrounding nations, and the ministry of the prophets. At length, when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son, and then came the ministry of the apostles. Recognising all this, note–<\/p>\n
III. <\/strong>That it becomes the disciples of Christianity to exert themselves for the promulgation and triumph of their religion. The conduct of Paul, whose spirit was stirred within him not only to indignation but to service, is an example to all. Consider–<\/p>\n
I.<\/strong> <\/em><\/strong>The book of the world with its two parts–nature and history (verses 24-26).<\/p>\n
II. <\/strong>The book of the heart with its two parts–reason and conscience (verses 27, 28).<\/p>\n
III. <\/strong>The book of Scripture with its two parts–reason and conscience (verses 30, 31). (K. Gerok.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
I. <\/strong>The sake attributes which Scripture ascribes to God are to be traced also in nature.<\/p>\n