By Chase Reed
For centuries, mankind has tried to understand the world around him, his place in the world, who created him, and what his purpose is. Over the years, new philosophies would rise and fall in an attempt to better understand such subjects. They would permeate the minds of the greatest scholars in several notable societies of the antiquity era, namely in empires such as Greece, Rome, and Egypt. Even if one is not a professional scholar in philosophy, they have most likely heard of ancient philosophers such as Socrates, Plato, or Aristotle. As philosophers such as these ones grew in their popularity, it was only a matter of time before the people who carried out their teachings would cross paths with early Christians in the first century post-resurrection of Christ.
In one of the many biblical accounts written by Gospel-author Luke, he details in Acts 17 an encounter between the Apostle Paul and a group of philosophers belonging to the Stoic and Epicurean camps of philosophy in the city of Athens. Stoicism was first practiced by Zeno, Cleanthes, and Chrysippus during the 3rd and 4th centuries BC. Stoics see philosophy as a way of life and place a high importance in understanding themselves and the world, as well as for self-transformation (Baltzly). Epicureanism was created by Epicurus (341-270 BC) and involves a goal of pleasure in human life, as well as an emphasis on personal sensations and empirical evidence. Epicureans view their goal in life as trying to eliminate fear in one’s life and pursue pleasure and peace with as much effort in all aspects of daily life (Konstan). Both camps of philosophers are conversing with one another when they become confused at the teaching coming from Paul’s mouth. Philosophical discussions and debates were constant in the agora and a staple of Athenian life, so Paul’s words would have been both exciting and perplexing for those listening (Schnabel 100). The men then take the apostle to the Areopagus and ask him to explain his teaching. Their demand for him to explain was not meant to be hostile but was considered polite for their day (102). Here, Luke records one of the many famous Pauline speeches that the apostle uses to communicate the Gospel to the Athenian Gentiles. In order to fully grasp the importance of the second half of Acts 17, one must first understand the Stoic and Epicurean philosophers’ views on the topics of God, sin, and salvation as they relate to what Paul believes and ends up preaching to those questioning him.
Views of God
The first topic to understand is how both the philosophers and Paul comprehend God, His nature, and His relation to humanity. In the first century, nearly all of the people in Athens and the surrounding land would have affirmed the belief in the Greek pantheon of gods. Zeus, Athena, Hades, and Poseidon would have been household names for many families and scholars alike. Those that practiced Stoicism and Epicureanism would have either believed in the Greek gods or in a single monotheistic God as the ones in Luke’s account do (English Standard Version, Acts 17.23). Although each group held a view of “god,” the way they worshipped and perceived its activity varied amongst them.
For the Stoics, it was common for them to be panentheists (Witherington 514). They believed that there was at least one God or supreme being that created and ruled the universe. They believed that any lesser gods that existed were just “powers” manifested by the supreme being (Stead 106). For example, if Zeus was the supreme God over all, then gods like Apollo and Athena would just be extensions of his power. As for its nature, Stoics perceive God as eternal, yet limited in his spatial extension. Despite this, they do affirm that God was the “ultimate cause” of reality (Miller 13). Stoics believe God is present throughout all of reality and rules his creation just as one’s soul rules one’s body (Sharples 45). Stoics use three main ideas to identify God. The first is “eternal reason,” the second, “an intelligent designing fire, and the third, a “breath” (Baltzly). In relation to people, Stoics believe that God or the gods set a plan for humans called “fate” that occurs in the person’s life. Besides that, they believe that whatever higher power exists mostly stays out of the individual’s life.
For the Epicureans, their belief in God was diametrically opposed to the Stoics, beginning with the fact that they were usually pantheists. When Epicurus created his philosophy, his view of the gods was simply that they had no concern for the wellbeing or actions of humanity and largely stayed out of people’s lives (Konstan). If the gods were not involved in human life, then they could not add to one’s pursuit of pleasure. Epicurus also adds in his core doctrines that if there is a supreme God ruling the universe, then he is not to be feared by the Epicurean (Sharples 7). Followers of Epicurus would say that the gods can be proven to exist because humans can feel the simulacra that gods give off, but their overall nature remains obscure (Konstan). However, Epicurus argues that it is by these simulacra that humans can experience and appreciate pleasure given to them by the gods (Konstan).
When the Apostle Paul enters the scene in Acts 17, he provides a completely different view of God for his captivated audience. He starts his speech by addressing an altar he sees that says, “TO THE UNKNOWN GOD” (23). Tradition has held over the years that the ancient Cretan seer, Epimenides, placed similar altars Areopagus when he attempted to cleanse Athens of a plague (Rothschild 7). Paul affirms that he is not trying to add another God to the Greek pantheon, but rather explaining what the true God is like (Schnabel 103). He begins telling of God’s nature by saying that God did indeed create the universe and all of mankind (Acts 17.24-26). He then explains that God is all-powerful and uncreated, as He doesn’t need to be served or given a home like the handmade idols that permeated the city (17.24-25). The wise apostle goes on to state that God can in fact be known and that He isn’t far, as He desires for humanity to seek Him earnestly (17.27). He concludes this beginning section by telling his audience that some of their own scholars and literary masters believed that humans are God’s children (17.28). Because of this, Paul states, they shouldn’t believe that God was made or imagined by Man but is in fact uncreated (17.29). What Paul tells the philosophers shakes their worldview. The God they’re being told about is not as unknown as they believe, but in fact wants them to seek Him. The God Paul introduces them to is one, eternal, self-sufficient, and simple enough to be known be smaller beings such as humans (Holsteen & Svigel, Revelation, Scripture, and the Triune God, 147). Although several of the ideas that were affirmed by the Stoics and Epicureans were affirmed by Paul, they still had to come to terms that God wasn’t in need of humanity but still desired a relationship with them. Paul continues to astound the Stoics and Epicureans in the remainder of his speech by discussing the problem and solution with the existence of the God he describes.
Views of Sin
The second topic to understand is how both groups perceive sin and wickedness in the world around them. When the events of the Acts 17 narrative occur, the people of Athens would have certainly noticed that all was not right with the world. For example, war was one of the problems that plagued the nation throughout Greek history. Surely the scholars that Paul spoke to would have known of the Greco-Persian war, the Peloponnesian War, and the Macedonian wars. Such events must have been caused by some greater evil in humanity. Despite the idea of “sin” being something alien to the philosophers, they did hold convictions on topics of evil and how it should be dealt with at the individual and societal levels.
In the Stoic worldview, evil makes up half of the four classes of passions. Hellenistic philosophy scholar John Miller writes, “These four classes define the generic passions of pleasure (present good), appetite (future good), distress (present evil), and fear (future evil)” (85). Evil is then understood to be the cause of both distress and fear in a person. In Stoic ethics, something is evil if it has nothing to do with what is good or if it’s a vice. Ideas that are considered good to the Stoic include characteristic excellencies or virtues, wisdom, justice, courage and moderation, and other related qualities (Baltlzy). Due to their value of justice, Stoics would see fit that a person who commits evil or robs another of their characteristic value must be punished. The idea of God administering punishment to a person due to their wickedness wouldn’t have made sense as they believed God had laid out a person’s fate already (Sharples 50).
In the Epicurean worldview, evil is defined by sensations and experiences. They believe that the human mind provides the fundamental guides to what is good and bad, since all living things are naturally attracted to one and repelled by the other (Konstan). In Epicurean ethics, something is evil if it detracts from one’s pursuit of pleasure and overall happiness. Epicurus himself saw that those that were evil tended to be treated better in society and noted that evils like poverty, exile, and death always befell those he deemed good and innocent (Miller 92). He viewed the source of evil and wickedness being empty desires and fears (Konstan). Epicurus would also have been confused at the idea of God being the one to punish the evil and wicked people of the world. He and his followers would have seen evil as something that the government or individual would have to work out on their own (Sharples 117).
The apostle Paul takes the subject of sin very seriously as seen throughout Scripture, and he acts no different in this Lukan narrative. In the middle of his speech, he gives his audience a warning that the time to ignore the commands of God have passed. This is because, as Paul believes, Christ the Messiah is coming back to judge the earth (Acts 17.30-31). He reminds his audience that the Lord demands sincere repentance (17.30). By saying this, Paul is offering a way to purify the city of its evil and twisted ways (Rothschild 75). Paul makes it clear that he disagrees with the Stoics and Epicureans on the severity of sin. Neither group would have understood the value of repentance like Paul did as neither of their worldviews demanded it. The apostle then goes on to explain that God has “fixed a day on which He will judge the world,” displaying that he affirms humanity’s depravity as something that God must take care of (Acts 17.31). Since God is the Lawgiver and the perfect Judge, He cannot simply overlook humanity’s sin. Upon hearing this news of a coming judgement that will deal with the world’s sin, the philosophers start to break into two groups: one that mocks Paul and another that listens to his words. Having addressed the idea of God and the problem of sin in the life of a person, Paul wraps up his message with the theme of hope as he always does.
Views of Salvation
The third and arguably most important topic to understand is how both groups view salvation, or in other words, what the end goal is one should strive to obtain. In the age of antiquity, the most common goal for a person was simply living a long life and making money through the means of work. Life spans were far shorter in those days compared to now, so most people began working and having families at younger ages. This did not stop the philosophers from asking the big question of life, such as, “What comes after all of this?” or “What is the meaning behind my work?” The Stoics and Epicureans attempted to define questions like these by defining an end goal for a person to accomplish in life. It was believed that one found “salvation” not from sin or evil, but from a lack of purpose. The most striking point that the apostle Paul would make in his speech is that it actually was and still is evil and sin that causes a person to need salvation. He would then go on to explain that it was the “unknown God” that the philosophers made an altar to that sent a savior for them that would both deliver and judge the world.
Salvation from the view of a Stoic was believed to be something that occurred in life, not death. Stoics posited that one must provide for themselves a specification of the goal or end (telos) of living (Baltzly). Because self-improvement was of such high value to the Stoic, they would have constantly had to work to achieve their goals, or otherwise live a life of dread and regret. This is similar to the Aristotelian view that the main goal of life is growth controlled by conscious intelligence in the living being (Stead 34). Besides the main goal of self-improvement, Stoics also found a sort of “salvation” in living rightly with human nature. Stoics held firmly to the belief that human nature had a set of laws attributed to it, and that anyone that lived according to such laws was deemed “truly free” (Miller 126). The presence of both goals, seeking self-improvement and seeking to follow human nature, reveal that “salvation” in the eyes of a Stoic was incredibly man-centered and had little to nothing to do with the god or gods that one believed in.
Salvation from the view of the Epicurean was also thought to be obtained in life rather than in the next life. Instead of working towards self-improvement or aligning with natural human behavior, the Epicurean seeks pleasure and happiness above all else as their “salvation.” For Epicurus, he desired for his followers to understand that constant pleasure and happiness is not the way to tranquility, but rather that the limit of pleasure is the removal of pain (Sharples 84). Pain was seen as the object that a person needed to be “saved from,” so therefore Epicurus viewed salvation in pain being removed and that pleasure cannot increase when it that happens (85). It is interesting to note that Epicurus taught that the pursuit of the removal of pain should not come at the cost of others and that only pleasures that don’t harm others should be sought after (Stead 40-41). Despite points such as this, the Epicurean view of “salvation” is still very man-centered and even more materialistic than the Stoic approach.
As mentioned above, Paul would have startled his philosophical audience with his words that salvation was not found from within, by self-improving or by seeking pleasure. To Paul, the doctrine of salvation can be defined in but one word: grace (Holsteen & Svigel, Creation, Fall, and Salvation, 135). It’s by God’s grace that he decides to have mercy on the repentant on the day of judgement (Acts 17.30-31). It’s also by His grace that those who are saved will be resurrected and given new bodies (17.31). Paul desires for his audience and throughout his speech he attempts to lead them away from their false idols and vain attempts at achieving inward salvation (Witherington 519). Although Paul would agree with the Stoics that a person should improve themselves, he would propose that a person should align themselves with the teachings of Scripture rather than just human nature. As for the Epicureans, there would be far more disagreement as Paul detested materialism and is seen writing about how pain and suffering should not be avoided as they build a person up. Ultimately, Paul disagrees with both philosophical views on salvation and instead looks to the perfect work of Jesus Christ alone for his salvation.
Summary
Upon understanding the perspectives of both Stoicism and Epicureanism in relation to the subjects of God, sin and evil, and salvation and man’s purpose, one can greater understand the interaction between Paul and his audience in Acts 17. Paul begins by addressing the altar to the unknown God and explains that God can and should be known. He then moves to a more somber topic stating that humanity will one day be judged by this God for their sin and wickedness. Thankfully, the apostle does not leave his audience with this terrifying statement. He concludes that God had sent a savior, Jesus Christ, who will one day resurrect His people and live with them eternally in God’s kingdom. The question then remains, “Was Paul successful in his attempt to explain and relate Christianity to the Gentile philosophers?” Luke tells the reader the answer is “yes.” In the final three verses, Luke writes that although some had begun to mock Paul, several people not only believed what he said but even began to join his journey. This result displays Paul’s prowess as an orator not only to the common Gentile, but even to the most scholarly of the day. Paul understood the philosophies that the Athenians followed and knew exactly how to undermine them. All he simply had to do was offer them the truth of the Gospel, which in turn offered more to the philosophers that their philosophies ever could. Paul showed them that God did in fact care about His creation. He showed them that sin is a far bigger issue than mere desire and fear. And lastly, he showed them that Man cannot attain salvation through constant improvement or the pursuit of pleasure, but in only through trusting the One who died for him.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
- Baltzly, Dirk. “Stoicism.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, plato.stanford.edu/entries/ stoicism/.
- Eckhard, Schnabel J. Paul the Missionary: Realities, Strategies, and Methods. InterVarsity Press USA, 2008.
- Holsteen, Nathan D. & Michael J. Svigel. Exploring Christian Theology: Creation, Fall, and Salvation. Bethany House Publishers, 2015.
- —. Exploring Christian Theology: Revelation, Scripture, and the Triune God. Bethany House Publishers, 2014.
- Konstan, David. “Epicurus.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, plato.standford.edu/entries/ epicurus/. Accessed 10 May 2021.
- Miller, John & Brad Inwood. Hellenistic and Modern Philosophy. Cambridge University Press, 2003.
- Rothschild, Clare K. Paul in Athens: The Popular Religious Context of Acts 17. Mohr Siebeck, 2014.
- Sharples, R. W. Stoics, Epicureans and Sceptics: An Introduction to Hellenistic Philosophy. Taylor and Francis Group, 1996.
- Stead, Christopher. Philosophy in Christian Antiquity. Cambridge University Press, 1994.
- The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. Crossway, 2016.
- Witherington III, Ben. The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998.
Leave a comment