Acts of the Apostles 17:16-34 Antique Commentary Notes

A.T. Robertson
Act 17:16
Now while Paul waited for them in Athens (En de tais Athēnais ekdechomenou autous tou Paulou). Genitive absolute with present middle participle of ekdechomai, old verb to receive, but only with the sense of looking out for, expecting found here and elsewhere in N.T We know that Timothy did come to Paul in Athens (1Th_3:1, 1Th_3:6) from Thessalonica and was sent back to them from Athens. If Silas also came to Athens, he was also sent away, possibly to Philippi, for that church was deeply interested in Paul. At any rate both Timothy and Silas came from Macedonia to Corinth with messages and relief for Paul (Act_18:5; 2Co_11:8.). Before they came and after they left, Paul felt lonely in Athens (1Th_3:1), the first time on this tour or the first that he has been completely without fellow workers. Athens had been captured by Sulla b.c. 86. After various changes Achaia, of which Corinth is the capital, is a separate province from Macedonia and a.d. 44 was restored by Claudius to the Senate with the Proconsul at Corinth. Paul is probably here about a.d. 50. Politically Athens is no longer of importance when Paul comes though it is still the university seat of the world with all its rich environment and traditions. Rackham grows eloquent over Paul the Jew of Tarsus being in the city of Pericles and Demosthenes, Socrates and Plato and Aristotle, Sophocles and Euripides. In its Agora Socrates had taught, here was the Academy of Plato, the Lyceum of Aristotle, the Porch of Zeno, the Garden of Epicurus. Here men still talked about philosophy, poetry, politics, religion, anything and everything. It was the art centre of the world. The Parthenon, the most beautiful of temples, crowned the Acropolis. Was Paul insensible to all this cultural environment? It is hard to think so for he was a university man of Tarsus and he makes a number of allusions to Greek writers. Probably it had not been in Paul’s original plan to evangelize Athens, difficult as all university seats are, but he cannot be idle though here apparently by chance because driven out of Macedonia.

Was provoked (parōxuneto). Imperfect passive of paroxunō, old verb to sharpen, to stimulate, to irritate (from para, oxus), from paroxusmos (Act_15:39), common in old Greek, but in N.T. only here and 1Co_13:5. It was a continual challenge to Paul’s spirit when he beheld (theōrountos, genitive of present participle agreeing with autou (his), though late MSS. have locative theōrounti agreeing with en autōi).

The city full of idols (kateidōlon ousan tēn polin). Note the participle ousan not preserved in the English (either the city being full of idols or that the city was full of idols, sort of indirect discourse). Paul, like any stranger was looking at the sights as he walked around. This adjective kateidōlon (perfective use of kata and eidōlon is found nowhere else, but it is formed after the analogy of katampelos, katadendron), full of idols. Xenophon (de Republ. Ath.) calls the city holē bomos, holē thuma theois kai anathēma (all altar, all sacrifice and offering to the gods). These statues were beautiful, but Paul was not deceived by the mere art for art’s sake. The idolatry and sensualism of it all glared at him (Rom_1:18-32). Renan ridicules Paul’s ignorance in taking these statues for idols, but Paul knew paganism better than Renan. The superstition of this centre of Greek culture was depressing to Paul. One has only to recall how superstitious cults today flourish in the atmosphere of Boston and Los Angeles to understand conditions in Athens. Pausanias says that Athens had more images than all the rest of Greece put together. Pliny states that in the time of Nero Athens had over 30,000 public statues besides countless private ones in the homes. Petronius sneers that it was easier to find a god than a man in Athens. Every gateway or porch had its protecting god. They lined the street from the Piraeus and caught the eye at every place of prominence on wall or in the agora.

A.T. Robertson
Act 17:17
So he reasoned (dielegeto men oun). Accordingly therefore, with his spirit stirred by the proof of idolatry. Imperfect middle of dialegō, same verb used in Act_17:2which see. First he reasoned in the synagogue at the services to the Jews and the God-fearers, then daily in the agora or marketplace (southwest of the Acropolis, between it and the Areopagus and the Pnyx) to the chance-comers,

“them that met him” (pros tous paratugchanontas). Simultaneously with the synagogue preaching at other hours Paul took his stand like Socrates before him and engaged in conversation with (pros) those who happened by. This old verb, paratugchanō, occurs here alone in the N.T. and accurately pictures the life in the agora. The listeners to Paul in the agora would be more casual than those who stop for street preaching, a Salvation Army meeting, a harangue from a box in Hyde Park. It was a slim chance either in synagogue or in agora, but Paul could not remain still with all the reeking idolatry around him. The boundaries of the agora varied, but there was always the Poikilē Stoa (the Painted Porch), over against the Acropolis on the west. In this Stoa (Porch) Zeno and other philosophers and rhetoricians held forth from time to time. Paul may have stood near this spot.

A.T. Robertson
Act 17:18
And certain also of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers encountered him (tines de kai tōn Epikouriōn kai Stōikōn philosophōn suneballon autōi). Imperfect active of sunballō, old verb, in the N.T. only by Luke, to bring or put together in one’s mind (Luk_2:19), to meet together (Act_20:14), to bring together aid (Act_18:27), to confer or converse or dispute as here and already Act_4:15 which see.

These professional philosophers were always ready for an argument and so they frequented the agora for that purpose. Luke uses one article and so groups the two sects together in their attitude toward Paul, but they were very different in fact. Both sects were eager for argument and both had disdain for Paul, but they were the two rival practical philosophies of the day, succeeding the more abstruse theories of Plato and Aristotle. Socrates had turned men’s thought inward (Gnōthi Seauton, Know Thyself) away from the mere study of physics. Plato followed with a profound development of the inner self (metaphysics). Aristotle with his cyclopaedic grasp sought to unify and relate both physics and metaphysics. Both Zeno and Epicurus (340-272 b.c.) took a more practical turn in all this intellectual turmoil and raised the issues of everyday life. Zeno (360-260 b.c.) taught in the Stoa (Porch) and so his teaching was called Stoicism. He advanced many noble ideas that found their chief illustration in the Roman philosophers (Seneca, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius). He taught self-mastery and hardness with an austerity that ministered to pride or suicide in case of failure, a distinctly selfish and unloving view of life and with a pantheistic philosophy. Epicurus considered practical atheism the true view of the universe and denied a future life and claimed pleasure as the chief thing to be gotten out of life. He did not deny the existence of gods, but regarded them as unconcerned with the life of men. The Stoics called Epicurus an atheist. Lucretius and Horace give the Epicurean view of life in their great poems. This low view of life led to sensualism and does today, for both Stoicism and Epicureanism are widely influential with people now. “Eat and drink for tomorrow we die,” they preached. Paul had doubtless become acquainted with both of these philosophies for they were widely prevalent over the world. Here he confronts them in their very home. He is challenged by past-masters in the art of appealing to the senses, men as skilled in their dialectic as the Pharisaic rabbis with whom Paul had been trained and whose subtleties he had learned how to expose. But, so far as we know, this is a new experience for Paul to have a public dispute with these philosophical experts who had a natural contempt for all Jews and for rabbis in particular, though they found Paul a new type at any rate and so with some interest in him. “In Epicureanism, it was man’s sensual nature which arrayed itself against the claims of the gospel; in Stoicism it was his self-righteousness and pride of intellect” (Hackett). Knowling calls the Stoic the Pharisee of philosophy and the Epicurean the Sadducee of philosophy. Socrates in this very agora used to try to interest the passers-by in some desire for better things. That was 450 years before Paul is challenged by these superficial sophistical Epicureans and Stoics. It is doubtful if Paul had ever met a more difficult situation.

What would this babbler say? (Ti an theloi ho spermologos houtos legeiṅ). The word for “babbler” means “seed-picker” or picker up of seeds (sperma, seed, legō, to collect) like a bird in the agora hopping about after chance seeds. Plutarch applies the word to crows that pick up grain in the fields. Demosthenes called Aeschines a spermologos. Eustathius uses it of a man hanging around in the markets picking up scraps of food that fell from the carts and so also of mere rhetoricians and plagiarists who picked up scraps of wisdom from others. Ramsay considers it here a piece of Athenian slang used to describe the picture of Paul seen by these philosophers who use it, for not all of them had it (“some,” tines). Note the use of an and the present active optative theloi, conclusion of a fourth-class condition in a rhetorical question (Robertson, Grammar, p. 1021). It means, What would this picker up of seeds wish to say, if he should get off an idea? It is a contemptuous tone of supreme ridicule and doubtless Paul heard this comment. Probably the Epicureans made this sneer that Paul was a charlatan or quack.

Other some (hoi de). But others, in contrast with the “some” just before. Perhaps the Stoics take this more serious view of Paul.

He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods (zenōn daimoniōn dokei kataggeleus einai). This view is put cautiously by dokei (seems). Kataggeleus does not occur in the old Greek, though in ecclesiastical writers, but Deissmann (Light from the Ancient East, p. 99) gives an example of the word “on a marble stele recording a decree of the Mitylenaens in honour of the Emperor Augustus,” where it is the herald of the games. Here alone in the N.T. Daimonion is used in the old Greek sense of deity or divinity whether good or bad, not in the N.T. sense of demons. Both this word and kataggeleus are used from the Athenian standpoint. Xenos is an old word for a guest-friend (Latin hospes) and then host (Rom_16:23), then for foreigner or stranger (Mat_25:31; Act_17:21), new and so strange as here and Heb_13:9; 1Pe_4:12, and then aliens (Eph_2:12). This view of Paul is the first count against Socrates: Socrates does wrong, introducing new deities (adikei Sōkratēs, kaina daimonia eispherōn, Xen. Mem. I). On this charge the Athenians voted the hemlock for their greatest citizen. What will they do to Paul? This Athens was more sceptical and more tolerant than the old Athens. But Roman law did not allow the introduction of a new religion (religio illicita). Paul was walking on thin ice though he was the real master philosopher and these Epicureans and Stoics were quacks. Paul had the only true philosophy of the universe and life with Jesus Christ as the centre (Col_1:12-20), the greatest of all philosophers as Ramsay justly terms him. But these men are mocking him.

Because he preached Jesus and the resurrection (hoti ton Iēsoun kai tēn anastasin euēggelizato). Reason for the view just stated. Imperfect middle indicative of euaggelizō, to “gospelize.” Apparently these critics considered anastasis (Resurrection) another deity on a par with Jesus. The Athenians worshipped all sorts of abstract truths and virtues and they misunderstood Paul on this subject. They will leave him as soon as he mentions the resurrection (Act_17:32). It is objected that Luke would not use the word in this sense here for his readers would not under stand him. But Luke is describing the misapprehension of this group of philosophers and this interpretation fits in precisely.

Albert Barnes
Act 17:18
Then certain philosophers – Athens was distinguished, among all the cities of Greece and the world, for the cultivation of a subtle and refined philosophy. This was their boast, and the object of their constant search and study, 1Co_1:22.

Of the Epicureans – This sect of philosophers was so named from Epicurus, who lived about 300 years before the Christian era. They denied that the world was created by God, and that the gods exercised any care or providence over human affairs, and also the immortality of the soul. Against these positions of the sect Paul directed his main argument in proving that the world was created and governed by God. One of the distinguishing doctrines of Epicurus was that pleasure was the summum bonum, or chief good, and that virtue was to be practiced only as it contributed to pleasure. By pleasure, however, Epicurus did not mean sensual and groveling appetites and degraded vices, but rational pleasure, properly regulated and governed. See Good’s “Book of Nature.” But whatever his views were, it is certain that his followers had embraced the doctrine that the pleasures of sense were to be practiced without restraint. Both in principle and practice, therefore, they devoted themselves to a life of gaiety and sensuality, and sought happiness only in indolence, effeminacy, and voluptuousness. Confident in the belief that the world was not under the administration of a God of justice, they gave themselves up to the indulgence of every passion the infidels of their time, and the exact example of the frivolous and fashionable multitudes of all times, that live without God, and that seek pleasure as their chief good.

And of the Stoics – This was a sect of philosophers, so named from the Greek στοά stoa, a porch or portico, because Zeno, the founder of the sect, held his school and taught in a porch, in the city of Athens. Zeno was born in the island of Cyprus, but the greater part of his life was spent at Athens in teaching philosophy. After having taught publicly 48 years, he died at the age of 96, that is, 264 years before Christ. The doctrines of the sect were, that the universe was created by God; that all things were fixed by Fate; that even God was under the dominion of fatal necessity; that the Fates were to be submitted to; that the passions and affections were to be suppressed and restrained; that happiness consisted in the insensibility of the soul to pain; and that a man should gain an absolute mastery over all the passions and affections of his nature. They were stern in their views of virtue, and, like the Pharisees, prided themselves on their own righteousness. They supposed that matter was eternal, and that God was either the animating principle or soul of the world, or that all things were a part of God. They fluctuated much in their views of a future state; some of them holding that the soul would exist only until the destruction of the universe, and others that it would finally be absorbed into the divine essence and become a part of God. It will be readily seen, therefore, with what pertinency Paul discoursed to them. The leading doctrines of both sects were met by him.

Encountered him – Contended with him; opposed themselves to him.

And some said – This was said in scorn and contempt. He had excited attention; but they scorned such doctrines as they supposed would be delivered by an unknown foreigner from Judea.

What will this babbler say? – Margin, “base fellow.” Greek: σπερμολόγος spermologos. The word occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. It properly means “one who collects seeds,” and was applied by the Greeks to the poor persons who collected the scattered grain in the fields after harvest, or to gleaners; and also to the poor who obtained a precarious subsistence around the markets and in the streets. It was also applied to birds that picked up the scattered seeds of grain in the field or in the markets. The word came hence to have a twofold signification:
(1) It denoted the poor, the needy, and the vile the refuse and offscouring of society; and,
(2) From the birds which were thus employed, and which were troublesome by their continual unmusical sounds, it came to denote those who were talkative, garrulous, and opinionated those who collected the opinions of others, or scraps of knowledge, and retailed them fluently, without order or method. It was a word, therefore, expressive of their contempt for an unknown foreigner who should pretend to instruct the learned men and philosophers of Greece. Doddridge renders it “retailer of scraps.” Syriac, “collector of words.”

Other some – Others.

He seemeth to be a setter forth – He announces or declares the existence of strange gods. The reason why they supposed this was, that he made the capital points of his preaching to be Jesus and the resurrection, which they mistook for the names of divinities.

Of strange gods – Of foreign gods, or demons. They worshipped many gods themselves, and as they believed that every country had its own special divinities, they supposed that Paul had come to announce the existence of some such foreign, and to them unknown gods. The word translated “gods” (δαιμονίων daimoniōn) denotes properly “the genii, or spirits who were superior to human beings, but inferior to the gods.” It is, however, often employed to denote the gods themselves, and is evidently so used here. The gods among the Greeks were such as were supposed to have that rank by nature. The demons were such as had been exalted to divinity from being heroes and distinguished men.

He preached unto them Jesus – He proclaimed him as the Messiah. The mistake which they made by supposing that Jesus was a foreign divinity was one which was perfectly natural for minds degraded like theirs by idolatry. They had no idea of a pure God; they knew nothing of the doctrine of the Messiah; and they naturally supposed, therefore, that he of whom Paul spoke so much must be a god of some other nation, of a rank similar to their own divinities.

And the resurrection – The resurrection of Jesus, and through him the resurrection of the dead. It is evident, I think, that by the resurrection τὴν ἀνάστασιν tēn anastasin they understood him to refer to the name of some goddess. Such was the interpretation of Chrysostom. The Greeks had erected altars to Shame, and Famine, and Desire (Paus., i. 17), and it is probable that they supposed “the resurrection,” or the Anastasis, to be the name also of some unknown goddess who presided over the resurrection. Thus, they regarded him as a setter forth of two foreign or strange gods, Jesus, and the Anastasis, or resurrection.

A.T. Robertson
Act 17:19
And they took hold of him (epilabomenoi de autou). Second aorist middle participle of epilambanō, old verb, but in the N.T. only in the middle, here with the genitive autou to lay hold of, but with no necessary sense of violence (Act_9:27; Act_23:27; Mar_8:23), unless the idea is that Paul was to be tried before the Court of Areopagus for the crime of bringing in strange gods. But the day for that had passed in Athens. Even so it is not clear whether “unto the Areopagus (epi ton Areion Pagon”) means the Hill of Mars (west of the Acropolis, north of the agora and reached by a flight of steps in the rock) or the court itself which met elsewhere as well as on the hills, usually in fact in the Stoa Basilica opening on the agora and near to the place where the dispute had gone on. Raphael’s cartoon with Paul standing on Mars Hill has made us all familiar with the common view, but it is quite uncertain if it is true. There was not room on the summit for a large gathering. If Paul was brought before the Court of Areopagus (commonly called the Areopagus as here), it was not for trial as a criminal, but simply for examination concerning his new teaching in this university city whether it was strictly legal or not. Paul was really engaged in proselytism to turn the Athenians away from their old gods to Jesus Christ. But “the court of refined and polished Athenians was very different from the rough provincial magistrates of Philippi, and the philosophers who presented Paul to their cognizance very different from the mob of Thessalonians” (Rackham). It was all very polite.

May we know? (Dunametha gnōnai). Can we come to know (ingressive second aorist active infinitive).

This new teaching (hē kainē hautē didachē). On the position of hautē see Robertson, Grammar, pp. 700f. The question was prompted by courtesy, sarcasm, or irony. Evidently no definite charge was laid against Paul.

Adam Clarke
Act 17:19
They took him, and brought him unto Areopagus – The Areopagus was a hill not far from the Acropolis, already described, where the supreme court of justice was held; one of the most sacred and reputable courts that had ever existed in the Gentile world. It had its name, Αρειος παγος, Areopagus, or the Hill of Mars, or Ares, from the circumstance, according to poetic fiction, of Mars being tried there, by a court of twelve gods, for the murder of Halirrhothius, son of Neptune: the meaning of which is, that Ares, a Thessalian prince, having slain Halirrhothius, the son of a neighboring prince, for having violated his daughter Alcippe, was here tried by twelve judges, by whom he was honourably acquitted: in the Athenian laws the death of the ravisher was the regular forfeiture for his crime. The justice administered in this court was so strict and impartial, that, it was generally allowed, both the plaintiff and defendant departed satisfied with the decision. “Innocence, when summoned before it, appeared without apprehension; and the guilty, convicted and condemned, retired without daring to murmur.” The place in which the judges sat was uncovered; and they held their sittings by night, to the end that nothing might distract their minds from the great business on which they were to decide; and that the sight of the accused might not affect them either with pity or aversion. In reference to this, all pleaders were strictly forbidden to use any means whatever to excite either pity or aversion, or to affect the passions; every thing being confined to simple relation, or statement of facts. When the two parties were produced before the court, they were placed between the bleeding members of victims slain on the occasion, and were obliged to take an oath, accompanied by horrible imprecations on themselves and families, that they would testify nothing but truth. These parties called to witness the eumenides, or furies, the punishers of the perjured in the infernal world; and, to make the greater impression on the mind of the party swearing, the temple dedicated to these infernal deities was contiguous to the court, so that they appeared as if witnessing the oaths and recording the appeal made to themselves. When the case was fully heard, the judges gave their decision by throwing down their flint pebbles, on two boards or tables, one of which was for the condemnation, the other for the acquittal, of the person in question.

A.T. Robertson Act 17:20
For thou bringest certain strange things (xenizonta gar tina eisphereis). The very verb used by Xenophon (Mem. I) about Socrates. Xenizonta is present active neuter plural participle of xenizō and from xenos (Act_17:18), “things surprising or shocking us.”

We would know therefore (boulometha oun gnōnai). Very polite still, we wish or desire, and repeating gnōnai (the essential point).

Albert Barnes Act 17:21
For all the Athenians – This was their general character.

And strangers which were there – Athens was greatly distinguished for the celebrity of its schools of philosophy. It was at that time at the head of the literary world. Its arts and its learning were celebrated in all lands. It is known, therefore, that it was the favorite resort of people of other nations, who came there to become acquainted with its institutions and to listen to its sages.
Spent their time in nothing else – The learned and subtle Athenians gave themselves much to speculation, and employed themselves in examining the various new systems of philosophy that were proposed. Strangers and foreigners who were there, having much leisure, would also give themselves to the same inquiries.

But either to tell or to hear some new thing – Greek: “something newer” – καινότερον kainoteron. The latest news; or the latest subject of inquiry proposed. This is well known to have been the character of the people of Athens at all times. “Many of the ancient writers I bear witness to the garrulity, and curiosity, and intemperate desire of novelty among the Athenians, by which they inquired respecting all things, even those in which they had no interest, whether of a public or private nature (Kuinoel). Thus, Thucydides (3, 38 ) says of them, “You excel in suffering yourselves to be deceived with novelty of speech.” On which the old scholiast makes this remark, almost in the words of Luke: “He (Thucydides) here blames the Athenians, who care for nothing else but to tell or to hear something new.” Thus, Aelian (5, 13) says of the Athenians that they are versatile in novelties. Thus, Demosthenes represents the Athenians “as inquiring in the place of public resort if there were any news” – τι νεώτερον ti neōteron Meurslus has shown, also, that there were more than 300 public places in Athens of public resort, where the principal youth and reputable citizens were accustomed to meet for the purpose of conversation and inquiry.

A.T. Robertson
Act 17:22
Stood in the midst of the Areopagus (statheis en mesōi tou Areiou Pagou). First aorist passive of histēmi used of Peter in Act_2:14. Majestic figure whether on Mars Hill or in the Stoa Basilica before the Areopagus Court. There would be a crowd of spectators and philosophers in either case and Paul seized the opportunity to preach Christ to this strange audience as he did in Caesarea before Herod Agrippa and the crowd of prominent people gathered by Festus for the entertainment. Paul does not speak as a man on trial, but as one trying to get a hearing for the gospel of Christ.
Somewhat superstitious (hōs deisidaimonesterous). The Authorized Version has “too superstitious,” the American Standard “very religious.” Deisidaimōn is a neutral word (from deidō, to fear, and daimōn, deity). The Greeks used it either in the good sense of pious or religious or the bad sense of superstitious. Thayer suggests that Paul uses it “with kindly ambiguity.” Page thinks that Luke uses the word to represent the religious feeling of the Athenians (religiosus) which bordered on superstition. The Vulgate has superstitiosiores. In Act_25:19 Festus uses the term deisidaimonia for “religion.” It seems unlikely that Paul should give this audience a slap in the face at the very start. The way one takes this adjective here colours Paul’s whole speech before the Council of Areopagus. The comparative here as in Act_17:21means more religions than usual (Robertson, Grammar, pp. 664f.), the object of the comparison not being expressed. The Athenians had a tremendous reputation for their devotion to religion, “full of idols” (Act_17:16).

Albert Barnes
Act 17:22
Then Paul – This commences Paul’s explanation of the doctrines which he had stated. It is evident that Luke has recorded but a mere summary or outline of the discourse; but it is such as to enable us to see clearly his course of thought, and the manner in which he met the two principal sects of their philosophers.

In the midst of Mars’ hill – Greek: Areopagus. This should have been retained in the translation.

Ye men of Athens – This language was perfectly respectful, notwithstanding his heart had been deeply affected by their idolatry. Everything about this discourse is calm, grave, cool, argumentative. Paul understood the character of his auditors, and did not commence his discourse by denouncing them, nor did he suppose that they would be convinced by mere dogmatical assertion. No happier instance can be found of cool, collected argumentation than is furnished in this discourse.

I perceive – He perceived this by his observations of their forms of worship in passing through their city, Act_17:23.
In all things – In respect to all events.

Ye are too superstitious – δεισιδαιμονεστέρους deisidaimonesterous. This is a most unhappy translation. We use the word “superstitious” always in a bad sense, to denote being “over-scrupulous and rigid in religious observances, particularly in smaller matters, or a zealous devotion to rites and observances which are not commanded.” But the word here is designed to convey no such idea. It properly means “reverence for the gods.” It is used in the Classic writers in a good sense, to denote “piety toward the gods, or suitable fear and reverence for them”; and also in a bad sense, to denote “improper fear or excessive dread of their anger”; and in this sense it accords with our word “superstitious.” But it is altogether improbable that Paul would have used it in a bad sense. For:

(1) It was not his custom needlessly to blame or offend his auditors.
(2) It is not probable that he would commence his discourse in a manner that would only excite prejudice and opposition.
(3) In the thing which he specifies Act_17:23 as proof on the subject, he does not introduce it as a matter of blame, but rather as a proof of their devotedness to the cause of religion and of their regard for God.
(4) The whole speech is calm, dignified, and argumentative – such as became such a place, such a speaker, and such an audience. The meaning of the expression is, therefore, “I perceive that you are greatly devoted to reverence for religion; that it is a characteristic of the people to honor the gods, to rear altars to them, and to recognize the divine agency in times of trial.” The proof of this was the altar reared to the unknown God; its bearing on his purpose was, that such a state of public sentiment must be favorable to an inquiry into the truth of what he was about to state.

Adam Clarke
Act 17:23
Beheld your devotions – Σεβασματα, The objects of your worship; the different images of their gods which they held in religious veneration, sacrificial instruments, altars, etc., etc.

To the Unknown God – ΑΓΝΩΣΤΩ ΘΕΩ. That there was an altar at Athens thus inscribed, we cannot doubt after such a testimony; though St. Jerome questions it in part; for he says St. Paul found the inscription in the plural number, but, because he would not appear to acknowledge a plurality of gods, he quoted it in the singular: Verum, quia Paulus non pluribus Diis indigebat ignotis, sed uno tantum ignoto Deo, singulari verbo usus est. Epist. ad Magn. This is a most foolish saying: had Paul done so, how much would such a begging of the question have prejudiced his defense in the minds of his intelligent judges! Oecumenius intimates that St. Paul does not give the whole of the inscription which this famous altar bore; and which he says was the following: Θεοις Ασιας και Ευρωπης και Λιβυης, Θεῳ αγνωϚῳ και ξενῳ, To the gods of Asia, and Europe, and Africa: To The Unknown and strange God. Several eminent men suppose that this unknown god was the God of the Jews; and, as his name יהוה was considered by the Jews as ineffable, the Θεος αγνωϚος may be considered as the anonymous god; the god whose name was not known, and must not be pronounced. That there was such a god acknowledged at Athens we have full proof. Lucian in his Philopatris, cap. xiii. p. 769, uses this form of an oath: νη τον αγνωϚον τον εν Αθηναις, I swear by the Unknown God at Athens. And again, cap. xxix. 180: ἡμεις δε τον εν Αθηναις αγνωϚον εφευροντες και προσκυνησαντες, χειρας εις ουρανον εκτειναντες, τουτῳ ευχαριϚησομεν ὡς καταξιωθεντες, etc. We have found out the Unknown god at Athens – and worshipped him with our hands stretched up to heaven; and we will gave thanks unto him, as being thought worthy to be subject to this power. Bp. Pearce properly asks, Is it likely that Lucian, speaking thus, (whether in jest or in earnest), should not have had some notion of there being at Athens an altar inscribed to the unknown God? Philostratus, in vit. Apollon. vi. 3, notices the same thing, though he appears to refer to several altars thus inscribed: και ταυτα Αθηνῃσι, οὑ και αγνωϚων Θεων βωμοι ἱδρυνται, And this at Athens, where there are Altars even to the Unknown Gods. Pausanias, in Attic. cap. 1. p. 4, edit. Kuhn., says that at Athens there are βωμοι Θεων των ονομαζομενων αγνωϚων, altars of gods which are called, The Unknown ones. Minutius Felix says of the Romans, Aras extruunt etiam ignotis numinibus. “They even build altars to Unknown Divinities.” And Tertullian, contra Marcion, says, Invenio plane Diis ignotis aras prostitutas: sed Attica idolatria est. “I find altars allotted to the worship of unknown gods: but this is an Attic idolatry.” Now, though in these last passages, both gods and altars are spoken of in the plural number; yet it is reasonable to suppose that, on each, or upon some one of them, the inscription αγνωϚῳ Θεῳ, To the unknown god, was actually found. The thing had subsisted long and had got from Athens to Rome in the days of Tertullian and Minutius Felix. See Bp. Pearce and Dr. Cudworth, to whose researches this note is much indebted.

Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship – There is here a fine paronomasia, or play on the words. The apostle tells them that (on their system) they were a very religious people – that they had an altar inscribed, αγνωϚῳ Θεῳ, to the unknown God: him therefore, says he, whom, αγνουντες, ye unknowingly worship, I proclaim to you. Assuming it as a truth, that, as the true God was not known by them, and that there was an altar dedicated to the unknown god, his God was that god whose nature and operations he now proceeded to declare. By this fine turn he eluded the force of that law which made it a capital offense to introduce any new god into the state, and of the breach of which he was charged, Act_17:18; and thus he showed that he was bringing neither new god nor new worship among them; but only explaining the worship of one already acknowledged by the state, though not as yet known.

Albert Barnes
Act 17:23
For as I passed by – Greek: “For I, coming through, and seeing, etc.”

And beheld – Diligently contemplated; attentively considered ἀναθεωρῶν anatheōrōn. The worship of an idolatrous people will be an object of intense and painful interest to a Christian.

Your devotions – τὰ σεβάσματα 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.”

I found an altar – 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.

To the unknown God – ἀγνώστῳ Θεῷ agnōstō Theō. 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:

(1) It was customary to rear such altars. Minutius Felix says of the Romans, “They build altars to unknown divinities.”
(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.”
(3) There were altars at Athens inscribed to the unknown gods. Philostratus says (in Vita Apol., Rom_6:3), “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, says that the whole inscription was, “To the gods of Asia, Europe, and Africa; to the unknown and strange gods.”
(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 τῶ προσήχοντι θεῷ tō prosēkonti theōto 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.

Whom therefore – The true God, who had really delivered them from the plague.

Ye ignorantly worship – Or worship without knowing his name. You have expressed your homage for him by rearing to him an altar.

Him declare I unto you – I make known to you his name, attributes, etc. There is remarkable tact in Paul’s 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.

A.T. Robertson Act 17:24
The God that made the world (Ho theos ho poiēsas ton kosmon). Not a god for this and a god for that like the 30,000 gods of the Athenians, but the one God who made the Universe (kosmos on the old Greek sense of orderly arrangement of the whole universe).

And all things therein (kai panta ta en autōi). All the details in the universe were created by this one God. Paul is using the words of Isa_42:5. The Epicureans held that matter was eternal. Paul sets them aside. This one God was not to be confounded with any of their numerous gods save with this “Unknown God.”

Being Lord of heaven and earth (ouranou kai gēs huparchōn kurios). Kurios here owner, absolute possessor of both heaven and earth (Isa_45:7), not of just parts.

Dwelleth not in temples made with hands (ouken cheiropoiētois naois katoikei). The old adjective cheiropoiētos (cheir, poieō) already in Stephen’s speech (Act_7:48). No doubt Paul pointed to the wonderful Parthenon, supposed to be the home of Athene as Stephen denied that God dwelt alone in the temple in Jerusalem.

Albert Barnes
Act 17:25
Neither is worshipped with men’s hands – The word here rendered “worshipped” (θεραπέυεται therapeuetai) denotes to “serve”; to wait upon; and then to render religious service or homage. There is reference here, undoubtedly, to a notion prevalent among the pagan, that the gods were fed or nourished by the offerings made to them. The idea is prevalent among the Hindus that the sacrifices which are made, and which are offered in the temples, are consumed by the gods themselves. Perhaps, also, Paul had reference to the fact that so many persons were employed in their temples in serving them with their hands; that is, in preparing sacrifices and feasts in their honor. Paul affirms that the great Creator of all things cannot be thus dependent on his creatures for happiness, and consequently, that that mode of worship must be highly absurd. The same idea occurs in Psa_50:10-12;

For every beast of the forest is mine; And the cattle upon a thousand hills. I know all the fowls of the mountain;
And the wild beasts of the field are mine. If I were hungry, I would not tell thee; For the world is mine, and the fulness thereof.

Seeing he giveth – Greek: he having given to all, etc.

Life – He is the source of life, and therefore he cannot be dependent on that life which he has himself imparted.

And breath – The power of breathing, by which life is sustained. He not only originally gave life, but he gives it at each moment; he gives the power of drawing each breath by which life is supported. It is possible that the phrase “life and breath may be the figure hendyades, by which one thing is expressed by two words. It is highly probable that Paul here had reference to Gen_2:7; “And the Lord God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.” The same idea occurs in Job_12:10;

In whose hand is the life (margin) of every living thing; And the breath of all mankind.

And all things – All things necessary to sustain life. We may see here how dependent man is on God. There can be no more absolute dependence than that for every breath. How easy it would be for God to suspend our breathing! How incessant the care, how unceasing the providence, by which, whether we sleep or wake – whether we remember or forget him, he heaves our chest, fills our lungs, restores the vitality of our blood, and infuses vigor into our frame! Compare the notes on Rom_11:36.

A.T. Robertson Act 17:26
And he made of one (epoiēsen te exō henos). The word haimatos (blood) is absent from Aleph A B and is a later explanatory addition. What Paul affirms is the unity of the human race with a common origin and with God as the Creator. This view runs counter to Greek exclusiveness which treated other races as barbarians and to Jewish pride which treated other nations as heathen or pagan (the Jews were laos, the Gentiles ethnē). The cosmopolitanism of Paul here rises above Jew and Greek and claims the one God as the Creator of the one race of men. The Athenians themselves claimed to be antochthonous (indigenous) and a special creation. Zeno and Seneca did teach a kind of cosmopolitanism (really pantheism) far different from the personal God of Paul. It was Rome, not Greece, that carried out the moral ideas of Zeno. Man is part of the universe (Act_17:24) and God created (epoiēsen) man as he created (poiēsas) the all.

For to dwell (katoikein). Infinitive (present active) of purpose, so as to dwell.

Having determined (horisas). First aorist active participle of horizō, old verb to make a horizon as already in ActsAct_10:42 which see. Paul here touches God’s Providence. God has revealed himself in history as in creation. His hand appears in the history of all men as well as in that of the Chosen People of Israel.

Appointed seasons (prostetagmenous kairous). Not the weather as in Act_14:17, but “the times of the Gentiles” (kairoi ethnōn) of which Jesus spoke (Luk_21:24). The perfect passive participle of prostassō, old verb to enjoin, emphasizes God’s control of human history without any denial of human free agency as was involved in the Stoic Fate (Heirmarmenē).

Bounds (horothesias). Limits? Same idea in Job_12:23. Nations rise and fall, but it is not blind chance or hard fate. Thus there is an interplay between God’s will and man’s activities, difficult as it is for us to see with our shortened vision.

John Gill
Act 17:26 And hath made of one blood,…. That is, of one man’s blood; the Vulgate Latin version reads, “of one”; and the Arabic version of De Dieu reads, “of one man”; of Adam, the first parent of all mankind, and who had the blood of all men in his veins: hence the Jews (u) say,

“the first man was דמו של עולם, “the blood of the world”;”

and this by propagation has been derived from him, and communicated to all mankind. They also say (w), that

“the reason why man was created alone (or there was but one man created) was, on account of families, that they might not be stirred up one against another;”

that is, strive and contend with one another about pre-eminence: and they add,

“that the righteous might not say we are the sons of the righteous, and ye are the sons of the wicked.”

And it is a certain truth that follows upon this, that no man has any reason to vaunt over another, and boast of his blood and family; and as little reason have any to have any dependence upon their being the children of believers, or to distinguish themselves from others, and reject them as the children of unbelievers, when all belong to one family, and are of one man’s blood, whether Adam or Noah: of whom are

all nations of men, for to dwell on all the face of the earth; for from Adam sprung a race of men, which multiplied on the face of the earth, and peopled the world before the flood; these being destroyed by the flood, and Noah and his family saved, his descendants were scattered all over the earth, and repeopled it: and this is the original of all the nations of men, and of all the inhabitants of the earth; and stands opposed to the fabulous accounts of the Heathens, which the apostle might have in his view, that men at first grew up out of the earth, or after the flood were formed of stones, which Deucalion and Prometheus threw over their heads; and particularly the Athenians boasted that they sprung out of the earth, which Diogenes ridiculed as common with mice and worms. But the apostle ascribes all to one blood:

and hath determined the times before appointed; how long the world he has made shall continue; and the several distinct periods, ages, and generations, in which such and such men should live, such and such nations should exist, and such monarchies should be in being, as the Assyrian, Persian, Grecian, and Roman, and how long they should subsist; as also the several seasons of the year, as seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, and day and night; and which are so bounded, and kept so distinct in their revolutions, as not to interfere with, and encroach upon each other; and likewise the several years, months, and days of every man’s life; see Job_7:1 to which may be added, the times of the law and Gospel; the time of Christ’s birth and death; the time of the conversion of particular persons; and all their times of desertion, temptation, affliction, and comfort; the times of the church’s sufferings, both under Rome Pagan and Rome Papal; of the holy city being trodden under foot, of the witnesses prophesying in sackcloth, and of their being killed, and their bodies lying unburied, and of their resurrection and ascension to heaven, Rev_2:10 Rev_11:12 the time of antichrist’s reign and ruin, Rev_13:5 and of Christ’s personal coming, and the day of judgment, 1Ti_6:15 and of his reign on earth for a thousand years, Rev_20:4. All these are appointed times, and determined by the Creator and Governor of the world:

and the bounds of their habitation; where men shall dwell, and how long they shall continue there the age or distinct period of time, in which every man was, or is to come into the world, is fixed and determined by God; nor can, nor does anyone come into the world sooner or later than that time; and also the particular country, city, town, and spot of ground where he shall dwell; and the term of time how long he shall dwell there, and then remove to another place, or be removed by death. And to this agrees the Ethiopic version, which renders the whole thus, “and hath appointed his times, and his years, how long they shall dwell”; see Deu_32:8 to which the apostle seems to refer.

(u) Caphtor, fol. 37. 2. (w) T. Hieros. Sanhedrin, fol. 22. 2.

Albert Barnes
Act 17:27
That they should seek the Lord – Greek: to seek the Lord. The design of thus placing them on the earth – of gang them their habitation among his works – was, that they should contemplate his wisdom in his works, and thus come to a knowledge of his existence and character. All nations, though living in different regions and climates, have thus the opportunity of becoming acquainted with God, Rom_1:19-20. The fact that the nations did not thus learn the character of the true God shows their great stupidity and wickedness. The design of Paul in this was doubtless to reprove the idolatry of the Athenians. The argument is this: “God has given to each nation its proper opportunity to learn his character. Idolatry, therefore, is folly and wickedness, since it is possible to find out the existence of the one God from his works.”

If haply – εἰ ἄρα γε ei ara ge. If perhaps – implying that it was possible to find God, though it might be attended with some difficulty. God has placed us here that we may make the trial, and has made it possible thus to find him.

They might feel after him – The word used here ψηλαφήσειαν psēlaphēseian means properly “to touch, to handle” Luk_24:39; Heb_12:18, and then to ascertain the qualities of an object by the sense of touch. And as the sense of touch is regarded as a certain way of ascertaining the existence and qualities of an object, the word means “to search diligently, so that we may know distinctly and certainly.” The word has this sense here. It means “to search diligently and accurately for God, to learn his existence and perfections.” The Syriac renders it, “That they may seek for God, and find him from his creatures.”

And find him – Find the proofs of his existence. Become acquainted with his perfections and laws.

Though he be not far … – This seems to be stated by the apostle to show that it was possible to find him; and that even those who were without a revelation need not despair of becoming acquainted with his existence and perfections. He is near to us:

(1) Because the proofs of his existence and power are round about us everywhere, Psa_19:1-6.
(2) Because he fills all things in heaven and earth by his essential presence, Psa_139:7-10; Jer_23:23-24; Amo_9:2-4; 1Ki_8:27. We should learn then:

(1) To be afraid of sin. God is present with us, and sees all.
(2) He can protect the righteous. He is always with them.
(3) He can detect and punish the wicked. He sees all their plans and thoughts, and records all their doings.
(4) We should seek him continually. It is the design for which he has made us; and he has given us abundant opportunities to learn his existence and perfections.

A.T. Robertson
Act 17:28
For in him (en autōi gar). Proof of God’s nearness, not stoic pantheism, but real immanence in God as God dwells in us. The three verbs (zōmen, kinoumetha, esōmen) form an ascending scale and reach a climax in God (life, movement, existence). Kinoumetha is either direct middle present indicative (we move ourselves) or passive (we are moved).

As certain even of your own poets (hōs kai tines tōn kath’ humās poiētōn). “As also some of the poets among you.” Aratus of Soli in Cilicia (ab. b.c. 270) has these very words in his Ta Phainomena and Cleanthes, Stoic philosopher (300-220 b.c.) in his Hymn to Zeus has Ek sou gar genos esōmen. In 1Co_15:32 Paul quotes from Menander and in Tit_1:12 from Epimenides. J. Rendel Harris claims that he finds allusions in Paul’s Epistles to Pindar, Aristophanes, and other Greek writers. There is no reason in the world why Paul should not have acquaintance with Greek literature, though one need not strain a point to prove it. Paul, of course, knew that the words were written of Zeus (Jupiter), not of Jehovah, but he applies the idea in them to his point just made that all men are the offspring of God.

Albert Barnes
Act 17:28
For in him we live – The expression “in him” evidently means by him; by his originally forming us, and continually sustaining us. No words can better express our constant dependence on God. He is the original fountain of life, and he upholds us each moment. A similar sentiment is found in Plautus (5, 4,14): “O Jupiter, who dost cherish and nourish the race of man; by whom we live, and with whom is the hope of the life of all men” (Kuinoel). It does not appear, however, that Paul designed this as a quotation; yet he doubtless intended to state a sentiment with which they were familiar, and with which they would agree.

And move – κινούμεθα kinoumetha. Doddridge translates this, “And are moved.” It may, however, be in the middle voice, and be correctly rendered as in our version. It means that we derive strength to move from him; an expression denoting “constant and absolute dependence.” There is no idea of dependence more striking than that we owe to him the ability to perform the slightest motion.

And have our being – καὶ ἐσμέν kai esmen. And are. This denotes that our “continued existence” is owing to Him. That we live at all is his gift; that we have power to move is his gift; and our continued and prolonged existence is his gift also. Thus, Paul traces our dependence on him from the lowest pulsation of life to the highest powers of action and of continued existence. It would be impossible to express in more emphatic language our entire dependence On God.

As certain also – As some. The sentiment which he quotes was found substantially in several Greek poets.

Of your own poets – He does not refer particularly here to poets of Athens, but to Greek poets who had written in their language.

For we are also his offspring – This precise expression is found in Aratus (“Phaenom.,” v. 5), and in Cleanthus in a hymn to Jupiter. Substantially the same sentiment is found in several other Greek poets. Aratus was a Greek poet of Cilicia the native place of Paul, and flourished about 277 years before Christ. As Paul was a native of the same country it is highly probable he was acquainted with his writings. Aratus passed much of his time at the court of Antigonus Gonatas, king of Macedonia. His principal work was the “Phoenomena,” which is here quoted, and was so highly esteemed in Greece that many learned men wrote commentaries on it. The sentiment here quoted was directly at variance with the views of the Epicureans; and it is proof of Paul’s address and skill, as well as his acquaintance with his auditors and with the Greek poets, that he was able to adduce a sentiment so directly in point, and that had the concurrent testimony of so many of the Greeks themselves. It is one instance among thousands where an acquaintance with profane learning may be of use to a minister of the gospel.

A.T. Robertson
Act 17:29
We ought not to think (ouk opheilomen nomizein). It is a logical conclusion (oun, therefore) from the very language of Aratus and Cleanthes.

That the Godhead is like (to theion einai homoion). Infinitive with accusative of general reference in indirect discourse. To theion is strictly “the divine” nature like theiotēs (Rom_1:20) rather than like theotēs (Col_2:9). Paul may have used to theion here to get back behind all their notions of various gods to the real nature of God. The Athenians may even have used the term themselves. After homoios (like) the associative instrumental case is used as with chrusōi, argurōi, lithōi.

Graven by art and device of man (charagmati technēs kai enthumēseōs anthrōpou). Apposition with preceding and so charagmati in associative instrumental case. Literally, graven work or sculpture from charassō, to engrave, old word, but here alone in N.T. outside of Revelation (the mark of the beast). Graven work of art (technēs) or external craft, and of thought or device (enthumēseōs) or internal conception of man.

Albert Barnes
Act 17:29
Forasmuch then – Admitting or assuming this to be true. The argument which follows is drawn from the concessions of their own writers.

We ought not to think – It is absurd to suppose. The argument of the apostle is this: “Since we are formed by God; since we are like him, living and intelligent beings; since we are more excellent in our nature than the most precious and ingenious works of art, it is absurd to suppose that the original source of our existence can be like gold, and silver, and stone. Man himself is far more excellent than an image of wood and stone; how much more excellent still must be the great Fountain and Source of all our wisdom and intelligence.” See this thought pursued at length in Isa_40:18-23.

The Godhead – The divinity (τὸ Θεῖον to Theion), the divine nature, or essence. The word used here is an adjective employed as a noun, and does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament.

Is like unto gold … – All these things were used in making images or statues of the gods. It is absurd to think that the source of all life and intelligence resembles a lifeless block of wood or stone. Even degraded pagan, one would think, might see the force of an argument like this.

Graven – Sculptured; made into an image.

Act 17:30
The times of ignorance (tous chronous tēs agnoias). The times before full knowledge of God came in Jesus Christ. Paul uses the very word for their ignorance (agnoountes) employed in Act_17:23.

Overlooked (huperidōn). Second aorist active participle of huperoraō or hupereidō, old verb to see beyond, not to see, to overlook, not “to wink at” of the Authorized Version with the notion of condoning. Here only in the N.T. It occurs in the lxx in the sense of overlooking or neglecting (Ps 55:1). But it has here only a negative force. God has all the time objected to the polytheism of the heathen, and now he has made it plain. In Wisdom Act_11:23 we have these words: “Thou overlookest the sins of men to the end they may repent.”

But now (ta nun). Accusative of general reference, “as to the now things or situation.” All is changed now that Christ has come with the full knowledge of God. See also Act_27:22.

All everywhere (pantas pantachou). No exceptions anywhere.

Repent (metanoein). Present active infinitive of metanoeō in indirect command, a permanent command of perpetual force. See note on metanoeō Act_2:38 and the Synoptic Gospels. This word was the message of the Baptist, of Jesus, of Peter, of Paul, this radical change of attitude and life.

Albert Barnes
Act 17:30
And the times of this ignorance – The long period when people were ignorant of the true God, and when they worshipped stocks and stones. Paul here refers to the times preceding the gospel.

God winked at – ὑπεριδὼν huperidōn. Overlooked; connived at; did not come forth to punish. In Act_14:16 it is expressed thus: “Who in times past suffered all nations to walk in their own ways” The sense is, he passed over those times without punishing them, as if he did not see them. For wise purposes he suffered them to walk in ignorance that there might be a fair experiment to show what people would do, and how much necessity there was for a revelation to instruct them in the true know edge of God. We are not to suppose that God regarded idolatry as innocent, or the crimes and vices to which idolatry led as of no importance; but their ignorance was a mitigating circumstance, and he suffered the nations to live without coming forth in direct judgment against them. Compare the notes on Act_3:17; Act_14:16.

But now commandeth – By the gospel, Luk_24:47.

All men – Not Jews only, who had been favored with special privileges, but all nations. The barrier was broken down, and the call to repentance was sent abroad into all the earth.

To repent – To exercise sorrow for their sins, and to forsake them. If God commands all people to repent, we may observe:
(1) That it is their duty to do it. There is no higher obligation than to obey the command of God.
(2) It can be done. God would not command an impossibility.
(3) It is binding on all. The rich, the learned, the great, the frivolous, are as much bound as the beggar and the slave.
(4) It must be done, or the soul lost. It is not safe to neglect a plain Law of God. It will not be well to die reflecting that we have all our life despised his commands.
(5) We should send the gospel to the pagan. God calls on the nations to repent, and to be saved. It is the duty of Christians to make known to them the command, and to invite them to the blessings of pardon and heaven.

A.T. Robertson
Act 17:31
Inasmuch as (kathoti). According as (kata, hoti). Old causal conjunction, but in N.T. only used in Luke’s writings (Luk_1:7; Luk_19:9; Act_2:45; Act_4:35; Act_17:31).

Hath appointed a day (estēsen hēmeran) First aorist active indicative of histēmi, to place, set. God did set the day in his counsel and he will fulfil it in his own time.

Will judge (mellei krinein). Rather, is going to judge, mellō and the present active infinitive of krinō. Paul here quotes Psa_9:8 where krinei occurs.

By the man whom he hath ordained (en andri hōi hōrisen). Here he adds to the Psalm the place and function of Jesus Christ, a passage in harmony with Christ’s own words in Matthew 25. Hōi (whom) is attracted from the accusative, object of hōrisen (first aorist active indicative of horizō) to the case of the antecedent andri. It has been said that Paul left the simple gospel in this address to the council of the Areopagus for philosophy. But did he? He skilfully caught their attention by reference to an altar to an Unknown God whom he interprets to be the Creator of all things and all men who overrules the whole world and who now commands repentance of all and has revealed his will about a day of reckoning when Jesus Christ will be Judge. He has preached the unity of God, the one and only God, has proclaimed repentance, a judgment day, Jesus as the Judge as shown by his Resurrection, great fundamental doctrines, and doubtless had much more to say when they interrupted his address. There is no room here for such a charge against Paul. He rose to a great occasion and made a masterful exposition of God’s place and power in human history.

Whereof he hath given assurance (pistin paraschōn). Second aorist active participle of parechō, old verb to furnish, used regularly by Demosthenes for bringing forward evidence. Note this old use of pistis as conviction or ground of confidence (Heb_11:1) like a note or title-deed, a conviction resting on solid basis of fact. All the other uses of pistis grow out of this one from peithō, to persuade.

In that he hath raised him from the dead (anastēsas auton ek nekrōn). First aorist active participle of anistēmi, causal participle, but literally, “having raised him from the dead.” This Paul knew to be a fact because he himself had seen the Risen Christ. Paul has here come to the heart of his message and could now throw light on their misapprehension about “Jesus and the Resurrection” (Act_17:18). Here Paul has given the proof of all his claims in the address that seemed new and strange to them.

Adam Clarke
Act 17:31
He hath appointed a day – He has fixed the time in which he will judge the world, though he has not revealed this time to man.

By that man whom he hath ordained – He has also appointed the judge, by whom the inhabitants of the earth are to be tried.

Whereof he hath given assurance – ΠιϚιν παρασχων πασιν, Having given to all this indubitable proof, that Jesus Christ shall judge the world, by raising him from the dead. The sense of the argument is this: “Jesus Christ, whom we preach as the Savior of men, has repeatedly told his followers that he would judge the world; and has described to us, at large, the whole of the proceedings of that awful time, Mat_25:31, etc.; Joh_5:25. Though he was put to death by the Jews, and thus he became a victim for sin, yet God raised him from the dead. By raising him from the dead, God has set his seal to the doctrines he has taught: one of these doctrines is, that he shall judge the world; his resurrection, established by the most incontrovertible evidence, is therefore a proof, an incontestable proof, that he shall judge the world, according to his own declaration.”

A.T. Robertson
Act 17:32
The resurrection of the dead (anastasin nekrōn). 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 (hoi men echleuazon). Imperfect active of chleuazō, a common verb (from chleuē, jesting, mockery). Only here in the N.T. though late MSS. have it in Act_2:13 (best MSS. diachleuazō). Probably inchoative here, began to mock. In contempt at Paul’s statement they declined to listen further to “this babbler” (Act_17:18 ) who had now lost what he had gained with this group of hearers (probably the light and flippant Epicureans).

But others (hoi de). A more polite group like those who had invited him to speak (Act_17:19). 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).

John Gill
Act 17:32 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 Act_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.

A.T. Robertson
Act 17:33
Thus Paul went out from among them (houtōs ho Paulos exēlthen ek mesou autōn). No further questions, no effort to arrest him, no further ridicule. He walked out never to return to Athens. Had he failed?

John Gill
Act 17:33 So Paul departed from among them. As it was high time, when they fell to deriding and scoffing at him; for hereby they judged themselves unworthy of the Gospel ministry: the Ethiopic version adds, “from Athens”; but it does not appear that the apostle went directly out of the city; we read afterwards of his departing from Athens, Act_18:1 but the sense is, that he went out of the Areopagus, from that court of judicature; and from among the judges of it, and the philosophers of every sect, that stood around him in it; they having no more to say to him, nor he to them. And this shows, that he was not brought to be tried and judged, in order to be punished, but only to be heard concerning his doctrine; of which, when they had heard enough, he departed quietly, no one molesting him, unless with scoffs and jeers.

A.T. Robertson
Act 17:34
Clave unto him and believed (kollēthentes autōi episteusan). First aorist passive of this strong word kollaō, to glue to, common in Acts (Act_5:13; Act_8:29; Act_9:26; Act_10:28 ) No sermon is a failure which leads a group of men (andres) to believe (ingressive aorist of pisteuō) in Jesus Christ. Many so-called great or grand sermons reap no such harvest.

Dionysius the Areopagite (Dionusios ho Areopagitēs). One of the judges of the Court of the Areopagus. That of itself was no small victory. He was one of this college of twelve judges who had helped to make Athens famous. Eusebius says that he became afterwards bishop of the Church at Athens and died a martyr.

A woman named Damaris (gunē onomati Damaris). A woman by name Damaris. Not the wife of Dionysius as some have thought, but an aristocratic woman, not necessarily an educated courtezan as Furneaux holds. And there were “others” (heteroi) with them, a group strong enough to keep the fire burning in Athens. It is common to say that Paul in 1Co_2:1-5 alludes to his failure with philosophy in Athens when he failed to preach Christ crucified and he determined never to make that mistake again. On the other hand Paul determined to stick to the Cross of Christ in spite of the fact that the intellectual pride and superficial culture of Athens had prevented the largest success. As he faced Corinth with its veneer of culture and imitation of philosophy and sudden wealth he would go on with the same gospel of the Cross, the only gospel that Paul knew or preached. And it was a great thing to give the world a sermon like that preached in Athens.

John Gill
Act 17:34 Howbeit, certain men clave unto him, and believed,…. There were some who were ordained to eternal life, to whom the Gospel came in power, and they received the love of the truth, and their hearts and affections were knit unto the apostle; and they followed him, and kept to him, and privately conversed with him, and believed his doctrine, and in Jesus Christ, whom he preached unto them; to these the Gospel was the savour of life unto life, when to the scoffers and mockers it was the savour of death unto death: and this is the fruit and effect of the Gospel ministry, wherever it comes:

among the which was Dionysius the Areopagite; a judge in the court of Areopagus: how many judges that court consisted of, is not certain, nor whether there was one who was superior to the rest; if there was such an one, Dionysius seems to have been he, since he is called the Areopagite. The business of this court was not only to try causes of murder, which seems to have been the original business of it; but by these judges the rights of the city were preserved and defended, war was proclaimed, and all law suits adjusted and decided; and they made it their business to look after idle and slothful persons, and inquire how they lived (f): they always heard and judged causes in the night, in the dark, because they would only know facts, and not persons, lest they should be influenced by their afflictions, and be led wrong (g); they were very famous in other nations for their wisdom and skill, and for their gravity and strict justice. Dolabella, proconsul of Asia, having a woman brought before him for poisoning her husband and son, which she confessed, and gave reasons for doing it, referred the matter to a council, who refused to pass sentence; upon which he sent the case to Athens, to the Areopagites, as to judges “more grave” and “more experienced” (h): and hence these words of Julian the emperor (i),

“let an Areopagite be judge, and we will not be afraid of the judgment.”

This Dionysius the Areopagite is said, by another Dionysius, bishop of the Corinthians, a very ancient writer (k), to be the first bishop of the Athenians, which is more likely than that he should be a bishop in France. It is reported of him, that being at Heliopolis in Egypt, along with Apollophanes, a philosopher, at the time of Christ’s sufferings, he should say concerning the unusual eclipse that then was, that “a God unknown, and clothed with flesh, suffered”, on whose account the whole world was darkened; or, as, others affirm, he said, “either the God of nature suffers, or the frame of the world will be dissolved”: it is also related of him that when he was converted by the apostle at Athens, he went to Clemens, bishop of Rome, and was sent by him with others into the west, to preach the Gospel; some of which went to Spain, and others to France, and that he steered his course to Paris, and there, with Rusticus and Eleutherius his “colleagues”, suffered martyrdom (l). The books ascribed unto him concerning the divine names, and ecclesiastical hierarchy, are spurious things, stuffed with foolish, absurd, and impious notions, and seem to have been written in the “fifth” century.

And a woman named Damaris; some of the ancients, and also some modern writers, take this woman to be the wife of Dionysius; but had she been his wife, she would have been doubtless called so; however, by the particular mention of her name, she seems to have been a person of some note and figure: the name is a diminutive from δαμαρ, Damar, which signifies a wife.

And others with them; with these two, as the Arabic version renders it; that is, with Dionysius and Damaris. These laid the foundation of a Gospel church at Athens. Dionysius, as before observed, was the first bishop, or pastor of it; it is also said that Narcissus, one of the seventy disciples, was bishop of this place; See Gill on Luk_10:1. In the “second” century Publius was bishop of the church at Athens, who suffered martyrdom for Christ in the time of Hadrian; and was succeeded by Quadratus (m), who was famous for a writing he presented to the said emperor, in favour of the churches in common, and the success of it, about the year 128; at the same time, Aristides, a famous philosopher and Christian, flourished in the church at Athens, who wrote an apology for the Christian religion; and also Jovius, a presbyter and martyr, and a disciple of Dionysius; likewise Athenagoras, a man of great learning and piety, who wrote also an apology for the Christians, and a treatise concerning the resurrection of the dead, which are still extant; the former was written to the emperors Antoninus and Commodus: in the “third” century mention is made of the church at Athens; and Origen (n) speaks very honourably of it, as meek and quiet, and desirous of approving itself to God. In the “fourth” century it appears that there were Christians there, since Maximus the emperor stirred up wicked men to molest and distress them; and there was a Christian school there, in which Bazil and Gregory Nazianzen were brought up. In the “fifth” century there was a church in this place; and in the “sixth”, a Christian school, in which Boethius Patricius learned the liberal arts; and in the “seventh” century mention is made of a bishop of Athens, who was in the sixth council at Constantinople (o): thus far this church state is to be traced.

(f) Alexander ab Alex. Genial. Dier. l. 3. c. 13. & l. 4. c. 11. (g) Alexander ab Alex. Genial. Dier. l. 3. c. 5. (h) A Gellii noctes Attica, l. 12. c. 7. (i) Orat. 2. p. 112. (k) Apud Euseb. Hist. Eccl. l. 3. c. 4. & l. 4. c. 23. (l) Magdeburg. Hist. Eccles. cent. 1. l. 2. c. 10. p. 491. (m) Euseb. Eccl. Hist. l. 4. c. 23. (n) Contra Cels. l. 3. p. 128. (o) Magdeburg. Hist. Eccles. cent. 2. c. 2. p. 4, 17. & c. 10. p. 151, 152, 153. cent. 3. c. 2. p. 3. cent. 4. c. 7. p. 287. & c. 10. p. 539. cent. 5. c. 2. p. 6. cent. 6. c. 7. p. 205. cent. 7. c. 2. p. 5.