Nathan Bayly: Last week, the apostle Paul arrived in Athens in our text. Athens is an impressive city, a sophisticated city for its architecture, for its ways of thinking, its thought leaders, its philosophers. It was the spiritual equivalent of a Buc ee's. It had something for everyone. There is a 100,000 idols in a line, and you could pull up to any one of them.
It was really a wonder of the world. Paul was not impressed though. Not all that glitters is gold and the apostle Paul was not going to be fooled by pagan pyrite that he was surrounded by in the city of Athens. He wasn't captivated nor was he intrigued by the new ideas that were being spread or shared on this or that weekend because this or that famous free thinker was visiting. On the other hand, he wasn't numb to the idolatry that he saw in the city.
He wasn't apathetic. He wasn't callous to it. He was not ambivalent. He didn't have a fatalistic attitude toward the men and women that were all around him smothered in idolatry. I spoke about how Paul last week was productively provoked.
And I said last week that we were going to get more into actually what he said and what he did this morning. And so that's where we're headed. So if you could open your Bibles to Acts chapter 17, we will read 17 verses 16 through the end of the chapter. And why don't we stand for the reading of God's word. Now while Paul was waiting for them at Athens, his spirit was being provoked within him as he observed the city full of idols.
So he was reasoning in the synagogue with the Jews and the God fearing Gentiles and in the marketplace every day with those who happened to be present. And also some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers were conversing with him. Some were saying, what would this idle babbler wish to say? Others, he seems to be a proclaimer of strange deities because he was preaching Jesus and the resurrection. And they took him and brought him to the Areopagus saying, may we know what this new teaching is which you are proclaiming, for you're bringing some strange things to our ears, and we want to know what these things mean.
Now all the Athenians and the strangers visiting there used to spend their time in nothing other than telling or hearing something new. So Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, men of Athens, I observe that you are very religious in all respects. For while I was passing through and examining the objects of your worship, I found an altar with this inscription, to an unknown God. Therefore, what you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you. The God who made the world and all things in it, since he is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all people life and breath and all things.
And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live all on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation. That they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. For in him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own prophet poets have said, for we are his children. Being the children of God, we ought not to think that the divine nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man. Therefore, having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent because he has fixed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness through a man whom he has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising him from the dead.
Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some began to sneer, but others said, we shall hear you again concerning this. So Paul went out of their midst, But some men joined him and believed, among whom were also Dionysus, the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others with them. The word of the lord. Thanks be to god. Let's pray.
Lord Jesus, we thank you for your word, and now we ask that you'd speak to, us from it. Father, I thank you for the faithful who have gone before us and their testimony and their example. We thank you that your word does not return in vain that when it is spoken, when it is shared, it is a it is active. It is described as sharper than a two edged sword, piercing and dividing and removing and killing and and making alive hearts that were formerly dead. Father, your word is power, and I pray that we would be filled with it in our hearts and minds that we would know it and that we would live in accordance with it.
In Jesus' name, amen. You can take a seat. So I said last week that Paul was productively provoked, and he was provoked to teaching and reasoning and preaching and discussing, conversing with all those that he met. If you notice at the beginning of the passage, Paul does what he always does. It's his practice to start in the synagogue.
But he didn't just stay there. He also, we're told every day, went out into the agora or the marketplace. Now the marketplace is more than your garden variety Aldi or Kasmeyer's or or Kroger. There were merchants there. There were things being sold.
People would go there to buy things, but it was more than that. It was the combination of the farmer's market with the little music being played on the side by the by the fiddle bluegrass band, but also the pub or the coffee shop or what have you. The idea here is that it wasn't just a place of pure commerce. It was a place where there was commerce, but there was also conversation. It was a store, so to speak, but it was also where you go to socialize.
There was conversation it was it was a it was a place that you would look forward to going with your friends, walking around slowly, checking things out, talking with your friends, and talking with others. This is more of what the marketplace was than what we might think if we just heard of the marketplace. At a certain point, as he's in the marketplace, not in the synagogue, he catches the attention of a couple different groups of people. They were all philosophers who were there and they at some point engaged him. Now Paul, what I want to just say is at the forefront is Paul is engaged at every level here.
He's not just in the synagogue. He's not just in the marketplace. He's engaged at every level. He is provoked and wholly provoked, totally provoked. So he's in the synagogues on the Sabbath, and then it says every day he was in the marketplace.
And he is conversing. There isn't one person in the synagogue or another. He doesn't he doesn't engage in one way in the synagogue and another put way in the market. He is provoked to speak and to teach, and what we what we hear him say is found in verse 18. We are told this was his message.
Jesus and the resurrection. That's what he's saying in the synagogue. That's what he's speaking to in the marketplace. Jesus and the resurrection. That is his theme.
Those are the two posts of the goalpost at the end of the football field that he's always trying to kick the ball between. Jesus and the resurrection. Those are what he harps on. Now if you look at verse 18, you'll notice that as Paul was in Athens conversing with those who would listen, there are two different philosophical groups that begin conversing with him. And we're told the names of these groups.
And we're told their names for a good reason. The Epicurean and the Stoic philosophers. Paul is preaching Jesus and the resurrection. And these two groups are there and were given their reaction. Their reaction is this, what does this idle babbler wish to say?
Others said he seems to be proclaiming some sort of strange deities. Now in case you didn't pick up on it, this is not an entirely positive response. Our fear of this sort of reception is often what keeps us from engaging at every level as Paul does. This is what keeps us from engaging with the world around us as we should. We may have a a small fire of jealousy for God's honor and God's glory as we look around and see idolatry.
But the fear of the world and the fear of being scorned or reproached or mocked are like an igloo cooler of cold ice water that's poured on our ember. We're held back because we fear that we'll be looked down upon or that we'll be misunderstood. And and it goes like this. Well, I can't explain things very well. I just think they're gonna ask me a question I don't know how to answer.
That is the fear. And notice here that they don't understand Paul either, so you're in good company. If you're misunderstood, just be encouraged that Paul was preaching Jesus in the resurrection. And these well educated men who have the ability to comprehend even complex ideas and a worldly standard say, what is this babbler trying to say? I I don't understand.
We're confused by him. So you're in good company. Do not be held back by your fears. Paul was provoked pro productively provoked to speak. And he persevered, we see, through their insults and their speculations.
Now, they call him an idle babbler. And this word in the Greek is a fun one. It's seed picker. A seed picker. What's that about?
Well, it was used with the condescension that we might have towards the seagull who comes and is trying to tear at your child's peanut butter and jelly sandwich when you're out at the beach for a day? That's the connotation. Who is this guy who this little scavenger runt who goes around trying to see what he can find laying around on the ground? Who is this third rate journalist who's picked up on various stories that he's heard, and now he's in Athens trying to hawk his wares, trying to sell us on some new novel thing that doesn't really seem to be more than a pile of seeds that he's gathered from along the ground. You can kind of hear the condescension in their voices.
Idle babbler doesn't quite convey it. We're told that others responded in a in a slightly different way. More positive, but not necessarily positive. Less negative, not necessarily positive. They say he seems to be a proclaimer of strange deities.
And if you're paying attention to the text, I hope you are, it may strike you that their allegation of Paul is some form of polytheism. Strange deities, not strange deity. And you may wonder what's going on here. Was Paul preaching more than one God? This could be confusing, but if we look at what the author of Acts, the doctor Luke, records in the next phrase, he says that he kind of explains it.
He says, they said he's preaching strange deities because he had been preaching Jesus and the resurrection. Now we understand that Jesus and the resurrection, one of those is a person, the other is not. But in the Greek, the resurrection, Anastasius, has been misunderstood or probably was misunderstood by the hearers as the name of some sort of goddess, some second deity along with Jesus Christ. At least that's what is commonly thought to be the case. You could say that maybe he was talking about the Trinity, but there's no reference to that.
The the note that Luke provides for us is they thought that they were teaching strange deities because he was preaching Jesus and the resurrection. So that seems to be where their holdup was. Despite the skepticism, they decided to take Paul to the Areopagus, that high place that was sort of the epicenter of where all the most intense debate, the most intense scrutiny would be handled. They want to see what he is teaching. And we're going to turn to what the apostle Paul says in a moment.
But first, we need to see that his address to the Areopagus is not delivered in a vacuum. Paul is not giving some canned speech that he goes around and says at every city where he goes. This is not a rehearsed like, okay, here's my here's my stump speech, and I'm just gonna get up here and say what I always say. Pulse start me, and I'll start and I'll just putter through what I always say. No.
This is this is a a particular particular address for a particular audience, for a particular group of people. And this is important. In the pastor's college, every Tuesday, we have pastors that sit out there and a pastor that's or a student in training who stands up here and preaches. And one of the things that we are always seeking to have them do is pre preach to a particular group. If you are always preaching to just some theoretical body that doesn't actually have practical needs and sins and areas where they need encouragement, you're going to be worthless as as a speaker and as a preacher.
And so what we see Paul here doing is modeling his this is a focus toward a particular group. Now listen, it's not a different gospel. Some have made the wrong assumption that he preached a kind of a halfway gospel here because he he doesn't say the name of Jesus in it. And, you know, he he learned better when he went to Corinth. That's hogwash.
That's that that that's not true. It's not true. It's the same gospel. He's preaching Jesus and the resurrection. That's the whole thing that propels him to the Areopagus.
But what we see here is it is a particular message for a particular audience. Not a new gospel, but it is a specific aim. A specific specific he has a specific target in mind, so he adjusts his aim accordingly. So to help us understand what Paul says, we have to understand the aim. We have to understand who he was speaking to.
And this this should be helpful and I think it's very practical for us because though the word Epicurean and Stoic may seem very intimidating to you, I hope that you, by the end of our time, understand a little bit of what these guys were about. And you see that actually these are not just distant philosophies, but they're all over the place. You can get on Facebook right now and scroll if you dare. And you will see Epicurean ways of thought and Stoic ways of thought. I guarantee it.
I guarantee it. So we'll I want to help us understand a little bit of who Paul is addressing. Now, in Paul's day, philosophical schools were not just academic institutions like, oh, I'm going to Owens in the fall or I'm going to BGSU. They were communities that shaped an entire way of life, an entire way of living. Think of the influence, the combined influence of the university and the media and modern psychology, what it teaches us, and political identity, and pop culture.
And you wrap all of those things up into a ball, and you think about the effect all of those things have on a person in our culture today. That's sort of what philosophy was back then. It didn't just change how a person thought. It wasn't detached from life. It changed the way that they that men and women who subscribed to these philosophies lived.
It really did shape you as a person. These schools were rivals. There were various types. So when I say Ohio State and Michigan, what do you think? You don't just think of schools, think of rivalry.
Or Michigan and Notre Dame. Rivalry. And the exact same passion was seen back in this time between schools of philosophy. There was rivalry. They were trying to out argue the other school.
The passion wasn't over the football game though. It was over how to think and how to live. The Epicureans, the first mentioned in our passage, were practical materialists. They believed gods existed and they believed that those gods were very distant, very otherly, very uninvolved and disattached from everything about the world and human affairs. They were far too preoccupied with things that are out of our mind to ever concern themselves with what happens in this world, let alone the everyday events of life.
On the human side of things, what did this mean about the way the Epicureans lived? Well, it meant that they thought that things that happened in this world were not divinely instructed by the gods. They were pure chance. It was just a matter of chance. They also believed that there was really no immortality after this life, and there was no judgment to come.
Again, the gods are disattached. They are uninvolved. They don't really care. And so how what effect did this have on their life? What we believe always affects the way that we live.
Our mind and our heart always affect our feet, hands, our mouth, our eyes, our wallets, our calendar. So what how did how did they therefore live? Well, they believed that God was completely detached, that things were up to pure chance, and so it it wouldn't be surprising if I told you that they thought that you should just live life and get as much pleasure as you possibly could. It was the classic secular hedonistic I want as much pleasure as I possibly can. Now, in the school of philosophy there was evolution over time.
Eventually they learned that getting as much as you possibly can, the ability to drink four cases of Mountain Dew in a day doesn't mean it actually you feel good at the end of the day. Right? So there was evolution even in these schools of thought. And they wised up to some degree and realized, okay, getting as much as I possibly want of something, getting the the five pound ham sandwich at Tony's up in in, you know, in Michigan is not necessarily leaving me feeling good for the rest of my trip. So I'm gonna take as much pleasure in.
I'm gonna consume as much good as I can without it hurting me. Or without it making me feel bad or or or having to fear things. And so there was a little bit of moderation injected into their thought process over time. But even with that, it's all about them. Right?
Even the moderation is about them and the way that they feel. That is central to the Epicureans. Pursue pleasure. Get as much good as you can without making yourself miserable while doing so. Now, the Stoics, they were different and considerably different than the Epicureans.
Although at the end of the day they were they were similar in the fact that they thought about themselves a lot. The Stoics lived for the mind. They were pantheists, which may means that they believe that the physical universe, the cosmos, everything that we can see and feel and touch and smell, all of those things were divinity. That that there was this everything is god, all is god, we all make up a part of god. That's a that's sort of that's a basic general definition of what pantheism is.
For them, God and the world were the same thing. It's like the ocean is water or water is the ocean. It's just all in there together. Now if God is the rational order, that's what they believe. They call it the divine logos, which is a word that we see in the scripture as well.
But the the for them, God was like His His center was being able to be rational. The divine logos. If God is the rational order that holds all things together, and humans are one part of that universe, And they can think and reason. They have logic and can use words to communicate. Then the human mind for them became something that was extraordinary.
It was a peace of God. It was a spark of the divine is the way they would speak of it. So to a stoic, the mind was literally where God lived within a person. That was it was the spark of the divine. The mind was the most divine thing in the world to them because it was the closest thing to what they viewed God as.
And that conviction, again, like the Epicureans, that conviction shaped how they lived. So the goal for them was not just getting the the the Big Mac and shoving it into their mouth all at one time with the thousand island dressing sauce smothering it. They didn't just pursue pleasure. They believed that what life was about was the cultivation of virtue, self control, and inner peace. Tending that divine flame within the mind.
The stoic said, your body gets sick. People on the outside hurt you. Your feelings get hurt. The world is chaotic. But the mind is where God is.
So the goal of life is to go inward, to strengthen your mind, to get control through your mind of everything else. These systems of thought were rivals. Epicureanism, stoic philosophy, they were they were rivals in almost every way. But they did agree that what mattered was life on the earth where you can plant your own two feet. They did agree that it was yourself, either your hedonistic outward sensory indulgences or the mind that you should focus on.
Both of those things being ultimately yourself. And they rejected the idea, they were united in rejecting the idea that there was a resurrection of our bodies. Stoics didn't believe that the body was evil like the Gnostics did later on, but they did believe if the mind is everything, if that's the divine spark, it it did affect the way they treated everything external. So they didn't believe that you would be resurrected at all. They they were united.
Both Epicureans and the Stoics were united on this fact. And what I want to say is, though the terms of identifying these ways of thinking may seem foreign or academic, The fingers of the philosophies, these particular philosophies, have a firm grip on our world today and the culture in which we live. They are pervasive each in their own way. Epicureanism, giving yourself to pleasure. Do whatever makes you feel good.
And so you can just think of lots and lots of cultural catch phrases. I was thinking of of of advertisements. Burger King, have it your way. That was the first one that came to my mind. Sprite, obey your thirst.
Whatever your your body tells you it wants, obey that. Burger King, Live Mas. Like, do take in as much life as you can. Then what was the name of that Mexican restaurant right down the street? We passed on the way in.
Life More More Life or something? Well, Live Mas. I don't there's a new restaurant where Cinco de Mayo was and it struck me that even their name is is something similar to this. Las Vegas Convention Authority. What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas.
Consequence free indulgence. Detached from moral accountability. Advertisers have us pegged. Mattresses promise you good intimacy. Cosmetics promise eternal youth.
Career books promise success, promotion, fulfillment. So then you have stoicism. Okay. Mastering yourself through reason. Don't let anything out of your control.
Self sufficiency through the mind. It doesn't matter to me because I tell myself it doesn't matter. And so you have no influence on me. You can't hurt hurt me. Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me.
Mastering yourself through reason. If you've ever heard someone say things like the answer is inside of you or trust yourself, or you have everything you need within you, or fill in the blank, that's stoicism. It's everywhere. It's in therapy culture. It's in Marvel movies.
It's in motivational speeches and posters. There was a a poster that hung right in front of the bench press in my high school, Christian school. Not that I have a problem with a poster. But the poster says pain is no. Wait.
Pain is weakness leaving the body. Right? Essentially, that's a stoic idea. When a coach says dig deep, a counselor says, you already have the strength. Or be unbothered.
It's a modern idea. Those are all stoic ideas that the divine resource, what you need is not outside of you. It's not up there. You don't need to look up there. It's it's in you already.
You have it. You just have to reach deep and grab for it. Four hundred years before the day that Paul lived in, there was a famous philosopher named Plato. And he had built the greatest system of truth that the secular world had seen up to that day. And his famous, most famous student was a man named Aristotle.
Aristotle I think was the ended up being the teacher of Alexander the Great. And Aristotle disagreed with the system of truth and thought that Plato had built. And the effect of that was that the common man said that if Plato and Aristotle can't agree, the two greatest minds in the world, if they cannot agree on what is ultimate truth, like what is the thing that is above us, that is overarching, that that our minds can't fathom. If they can't, if they cannot agree on what lies beyond us in the universe. What is ultimate truth?
What is transcendent truth? Fill in whatever word you want. What they said is, if they can't understand it, nobody can understand it. It can't be found. And so what happened after that time was an era of skepticism.
And as I've just explained, hopefully these puzzle pieces are kind of starting to fit together. As I've explained, people stop reaching for transcendent truth. They stop trying to seek the truth that that is not within us, that's not under our feet, that can't be held in our in our in our chubby mitts. They started saying the only thing that matters is what I can see and know and feel and experience and think here in this life. It's what I can if there's nothing out beyond us, I'm just gonna live for the here and now.
So both of the philosophical schools that I've sort of tried to educate us a little bit about were locked in on this idea. It's the here and now in their own way either through external pleasure or the mind. It's here and now. This is what matters. Protect yourself.
Be the best person you can. You have it within you. That's where things were. Now that is what Paul is dealing with. That's his audience.
One or or the other of those two things is who Paul is looking in the eyeballs of as he speaks in the Areopagus. So how does Paul interact with them? That's how we're going to finish our time together this morning. What example does he provide us with as he takes his stand in the Areopagus as a Christian? And how are we to live based on that example?
What are you to learn from Paul? How do you need to be instructed? So there are two points that I want to make with the remainder of our time as we think about what Paul said and did before that group. The first is this, that Paul went out of his way to establish common ground with his audience. And I'm going to highlight the ways in which he did this.
The second is that he confronts his audience with the Gospel. Common Ground and then confrontation. And these two things, I know what you're thinking. You're probably thinking those two things seem like opposites. Those two things seem like they're on train tracks headed in opposite directions.
But what we see here is that Paul's doing a little Indiana Jones action and he's got his feet straddling the the the two trains, one on each train and they're going in the same direction. These things are not opposites. They're not in tension with each other. But we often live like they are. We often settle for wanting to make common ground with people.
Or we often settle for confrontation and sort of a hoorah, I'm just going to say it the way it is, without any actual compassion or desire to want them to understand. And often I think we I think I would've been thinking about this this week. Leigh and I were talking about it earlier today. I would say that a handful of years ago, many in the church were just seeking common ground, seeking nuance, seek seeking contextualization of everything. Pastors led the way for us.
Famous pastors were trying to convert New York City and were on the New York Times and and and celebrated as great thought thinkers and and faithful pastors by heathens. But I think in the Trump era, it's kind of swung the other way. And I think that there's some degree where I'm just gonna say it, I'm gonna vomit it all over and I don't care. Or maybe where we're at as a congregation is we kind of feel like, you know, we'll with the people who say it the way it is, but then we'll also not speak up and not confront. You know, we kinda get a little of bar both both ways.
So I'm here to dislodge us from whatever position you're in. Everyone's a winner this morning, folks. Everyone's getting a so I hope to dislodge you from wherever you're at. That's a Oprah reference, but I don't watch Oprah. That doesn't help when you're preaching a sermon like this, actually.
Alright. Regroup. So the first is that Paul tries to establish common ground with his audience. Look at verse 22. He commends them on just how religious they are.
You are very religious in all respects. He's impressed. But he goes on to say that as he was walking around the city, he couldn't help but notice something. And there's this particular altar, and there's this inscription he noticed. And it says to the to the unknown God.
Now, the back story on this is it's thought that about June in the age of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, Athens had been afflicted with a plague. This is what we're told from history. And they couldn't do anything to resolve it. All the gods of Athens were completely powerless and impotent to resolve the plague that was in sieging. It was laying siege to the city.
So so so this high priestess of the Temple Of Apollo, Pythanes or Pythena, depending on who you talk to, told them to send for Epimenides. Now that word should in your mind be connected to to Epicurean. Right? Epimenides of Crete to do whatever he said. Epimenides came and instructed the Athenians to build an altar to the unknown god sacrifice to him.
And they did that in the days of Jeremiah and the plague stopped and the altar remained. And so six hundred years later, there it stands with an inscription that's still legible to the Apostle Paul as he walks by. Paul said that he was there to declare the God that they themselves admitted they didn't know. The God who had saved them and their forefathers from that plague. After a few centuries, this mysterious God who they had prayed to and made an altar to and who had saved them, this mysterious God who had stopped the plague was about to be proclaimed to them.
What's he doing? He's trying to establish common ground. Paul began by citing their own altar to the unknown God, especially essentially rather taking them at their word and their own confession and holding them to it. Launching from this first piece of common ground, he makes several statements about this unknown God. And so you can follow along through verses 24 through 27.
He goes through, and he makes a number of statements here. I'm not going read it verbatim. And I just want to explain, based on what we've talked about, these Epicurean and these Stoic philosophies, I want us to think about the range of reactions that they might have had as they hear him speak. So Paul's first claim was that there was a God who made the world and all things in it. Now the Epicureans would be uncomfortable with this because they believed that there were gods above them, but they were completely disattached from the world around them.
They they believed the universe had been formed at random. The Stoics on the other hand would have mostly agreed at face value with what Paul's saying. They believed that the Logos ordered all things, though they would have understand stood Lord as an impersonal force, not as a personal sovereign. It's a big difference there. But they, at some level, would have probably said, yeah, that sounds right.
When Paul spoke of God's transcendence, him not dwelling in temples made with human hands, both schools of thought would have agreed with him on that. For the Epicureans, remember gods were very distant. They were uninvolved. They were unimpressed by whatever humans might try to do. For the Stoics, God is the universe.
And so confining him to a temple made with human hands would seem absurd. When Paul spoke of God not needing anything, again both groups probably to some level, and I'm claiming I know exactly their response, but they probably could have gone along with that to a degree. For the Epicureans, the gods were self sufficient. And again, they were indifferent to worship. For the Stoics, the divine logos, word, ration, reason, was complete in itself, and it was made up of everything and and complete in itself.
Now when Paul began talking about God giving life and breath to all things, his involvement with mankind, here's where the Epicureans would really start feeling the friction. Again, they believed that their gods were removed and uninvolved. The Stoics would have largely agreed with this. They believed in in that everything was the result of something, but they believed that it was an impersonal force, that sustenance came through some sort of impersonal fate that was it was not a a fatherly provision. But they would have sort of gone halfway and agreed with Paul on what he was saying.
The same is true as Paul spoke about God having made from one man every nation of mankind to live on the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and their boundaries of their habitation. The Epicureans here would have balked. They would have just really? This guy. Here's another one of these guys.
Take him away. He's not saying anything we have not heard before and have already disproved in our own minds. The Stoics believed in fate, that everything unfolded according to the divine logos, reason. But again again, the difference here is that the logos was an impersonal force, not a personal god. So at this point, in verse 27, he's starting to deviate from the things that these philosophers would hold to.
And I I'm making the case to you that Paul's, again, is not a canned stump speech. He knows who he's speaking to. This is not the first time that Paul has tried to play one group against another group. I'm on trial today for the resurrection. And he sees the the the the Pharisees and the Sadducees just start going at it.
Paul is no fool. And so he's starting to build a case for the unknown God. And he's teaching them truth about this unknown God. But he continues and at a certain point, he starts to deviate from the things that these philosophers would hold to. The Epicureans believed that the gods were only transcendent, only distant, only otherly, and and so far removed.
The Stoics believed that God God controlled all things but was not a person. Rather, the world was injected with the divine spirit. Paul goes on in verse 27 and says that God is a personal relational being who seeks relationship with his creatures. God has done this. He has made man.
He has put man in a specific spot on the earth and he controls all things so that man might grope for him. Look around, search, reach, feel, and find him. Brilliantly, I think that this is worth noting. Paul, yet again, is able to seek common ground here with them in his argument by quoting from Epimenides' own hymn to Zeus. So in in Epimenides' hymn to Zeus, he says, in Him, God, we live and move.
And you'll notice he quotes that. And then right after that, he offers another attribution to not an Epicurean philosopher, a stoic philosopher, Eratus. And he says, we are also his children. And so Paul's getting to the point where of of lift off the plane here. Things are starting to shake in the cabin.
There's friction. And at this point, he again seeks common ground by reaching out and grabbing from two different philosophies that would apply to each of these groups and saying God is a personal God who's created all things. He's put you here and he wants you to find him and he wants you to have a relationship with him. And he quotes one group's philosopher and another group's philosopher to anchor his point in. So he cited an altar against them.
Now he is quoted from two separate hymns to the false god Zeus. And he's getting into deeper water, things that they're going to have a problem with. He's quoting their own altars and their own poet philosophers as he's making a case for Christ. And the further he gets into this territory, the more he knows that they are going to to to bulk more at what he's saying. He chooses to use more of their own voices.
Now I'd like to say that if you and I were in the Areopagus up to this point, you would go from being worried and concerned about what Paul was going to say to being sort of proud as he takes and pulls from their own libraries and uses it against them. I'm not saying that's a good response, but I think, man, if I was to stop there with Paul sort of mic dropping their own philosophers against them for his own point, you'd sort of stick out your chest and stand a little bit high, have a little more confidence. Wow. It seems like things are going well after all. I shouldn't have doubted Paul.
The depth of Paul's knowledge and his rhetorical skills are on full display here and it seems very powerful. It it is powerful and it and it's not to be divorced from the Holy Spirit working within him. He's not only able to teach these Athenians about the true God, but he's also able to quote their own prophets to do so. Paul's contextualization is perfect. His attempt to finding common ground is just masterful.
Some of us love this sort of thing and we're all about finding common ground. Everything was going so well, so perfect. I hope you feel that as I as I read and explain some of this to you. A few more brush strokes and quotations from their own secular poets, it would seem that Paul would convince them even today to become saved and to put their faith in this unknown God's identity. But here's what I want to say.
And this is the the the the yang to the ying. He doesn't stop on common ground. That's not his destination. He isn't satisfied by just saying isn't it nice we can all get along and even your poets have sort of given a an ignorant nod to real truth. It all falls apart right after this.
Let's look at it. At least that's how it looks that it falls apart. I wanna I wanna take us now to well, here he goes. Paul's been brilliant. He's quoted their own altars and poets.
He's earned a hearing. And then what does he say? He says, repent. There's that word. You know?
Do we really have to pack that word in the suitcase? I didn't think it was gonna be that kind of trip. Repent. Can't we find something more palatable? Something more at home in the Areopagus?
Something that doesn't sound so fundamentalist. It's a bit stiff if you know what I mean. It seems as though Paul now has sort of forgotten where he was at. Verse 29. Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the divine nature, I'll just point out, he says divine nature and that's another he uses that word for a reason.
Where else does God Paul speak of God being the divine nature? He's talking to Stoics, and he says the divine nature. Alright? He is still trying to find common ground with them for their good. We ought not to think that divine nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art or thought of man.
Therefore having looked overlooked these times ignorance, God is now today, right now, through me declaring to men of all people everywhere that they should repent. Because he has fixed a day, here's the reason why you have to repent, he's fixed a day where he's going to judge the world. And not according to your standards or your philosophies, but according to his righteousness. So the train is coming to the end of the station and at that station there's a judge. And there's going to be a judgment handed down, therefore repent.
And the proof of all of this, the proof why you should listen to me, and I know I sound crazy, but here's here's the kicker. The real reason you need to believe what I'm saying to you is that Jesus was resurrected from the dead. And after all that contextualization and that quoting from their own prophets, If we're honest, some of us are tempted to believe that right here Paul just blew it. He was doing so well quoting their own prophets. He had them going.
They were really starting to think about what he was saying. He should have quit while he was ahead. He should have gone a little bit slower. He should have been a little bit more careful. He should have been a little bit more nuanced.
He should have been more sensitive to the needs of the audience. And we're not alone in thinking this way. As I already said, we're you know, I think back over the last fifteen years and contextualism and nuance and winning the culture through sophistication have been a model that have been held up to the church like this is where the power is. We have pastors who've made personalities for themselves, gotten on New York Times best seller list, praised by article outlets like The Atlantic, respected by the very culture that they're trying to reach. And in our hearts, many of us love that approach.
I think that actually there's a part of all of us that love that approach. We love it. But not for the reason that Paul did it. We love it because we like the sophistication. We like people thinking, wow, he knows his stuff.
He gets us. He's cultured. He he understands. The problem is not in finding common ground. The problem is in the motivation.
The problem is in once we find common common ground, we don't wanna leave it. It's like we've arrived. This is where we're trying to get to. Paul doesn't use common ground as an on ramp. I'm sorry.
Paul used common ground as an on ramp rather. We treat it like the destination itself. We think that by getting to the place where they like us, they're listening to us, that we've arrived, that we've crossed the finish line. And the train's at the end of the station and all is good. Paul never intended to stay at the common ground.
Common ground was never the main point. It was the footing that he needed. The footing that he wanted for their sake so that as he swung at them with the truth, he would have firm ground to stand on. He quoted their altars and their poets so that when he got to the thing that they would most resist, he had already made some advances. And what is the thing that they would most resist?
What is it that he knew that they would be resistant to? He knew that they would be resistant to being confronted with the gospel. Notice how Paul lays out the gospel here. I said it's not the the it's not the classic textbook. Jesus loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life and say this prayer.
He preaches the gospel, and here's how it goes. He confronts their idolatry directly. Since we are children of God, we ought not to think that the divine nature is like gold or silver or stone or any of the stuff that this whole culture is built upon. For all their learning, for all their sophistication, they had gotten it wrong. You are idolaters.
Second, he calls them to repent. We've already talked about that word. Not to consider, not to debate, not to evaluate, not to explore, to repent. This is not a dis a suggestion of some sort of distant transcendent impersonal deity. This is a command from the Almighty God to them specifically.
All people everywhere, including the most educated in the ancient world, those who thought they were perhaps the most significant, they were to get on their knees and kiss the sun lest he be angry and they perish in the way, as Psalm two says. Third, he tells them why they must repent. And it again is that God has appointed that the train is going to stop at the last station line, the day of judgment. And that day of judgment is the day when righteousness will be used as the standard, not men's vain philosophies, and that there's been a man appointed to be the judge. And the proof of all that, as I said earlier, is that the man who is going to be their judge is the man that was raised from the dead.
And now what I'd like you to understand is that Paul has moved beyond all accommodation from the philosophers. Whatever footing he had, he's lost it now. As some of these things he started with were agreeable. He did a masterful job seeking to find common ground. But now he's gone too far and they are not willing to hear him anymore.
This council, may I remind you, was founded upon the conviction, the uniting idea that actually these different philosophies agreed on is the very thing that Paul is contradicting them on. They all agreed that actually after this life there was no more. When you died your body your blood drained from your body into the ground and that was it. Now this guy's saying that we need to repent or we're gonna be judged by God and the proof, the only thing he the clincher, the thing he brings in is the fact that some guy a thousand miles east of us raised from was was raised from the dead? Are you kidding me?
Come on. But this is in fact exactly what the Apostle Paul was saying. Paul sought common ground and he confronted them with the gospel. He did both. He did the first so that he had footing so that he could confront them with the truth.
He worked to earn that capital and then he spent it to the glory of God. We work to earn capital, and we savor it for our own glory. And we must do our own repenting. So I wanna end by saying this. The gospel is foolishness to those that are perishing.
And yet it is the tonic that we've been sent out with into the front line of battle. It is the life saving potion that we have at our disposal given to us by God to care for the wounded that are all around us. You must be willing to declare the resurrection in Areopagus. Not just to find common ground, not just to hope your personality is winsome enough and likable enough, not just to live a good life and trust that other people will notice. Many of us may not say that we want to be sophisticated.
If you want to be sophisticated, you're living in the wrong state. All right? Move to New York City or to LA or to somewhere more respectable. But we all want to live that respectable looking middle class life of the suburbs. We all want to live lives where we are totally in tune with the culture, and we just sit in judgment on it.
We don't really succumb to it. But we know everything. You know, we're we're not all that different from anybody else. We're just better than everybody else. We tell ourselves, we'll help the cause of Christ by having living our good looking lives wherever you might be.
We find common ground, but some of us stop there. You must confess Christ. In your home, in your church, in the public square, you must confess Christ. It is not your respectability that changes people. It is not your ability to put to quote poets back to the culture.
You it's not your knowledge of pop culture or being in tune with the culture. Your savior changes people, and he has given you the gospel that you are to declare. And if the gospel doesn't have an edge in Athens, in the Athens of your life, the the reality is you're just not wielding the sword. The sword has an edge. If it doesn't have an edge in Athens, the problem ain't with the word.
It's with the user. Wielding a sword gets a reaction. If you never have any reaction to the Word that governs your life, that you claim carries you for, then you just aren't wielding the Gospel. The Word of God is a sword and it does what swords do. For some, it pierces, and it brings repentance.
The old heart dies, and a new heart is comes forth. For others, it cuts, and and and people gnash their teeth at it. They hate it. They sneer. They mock.
They jeer. They walk away. They hate the message. And we see most of the philosophers in Paul's Areopagus setting do that. You want the world to think well of you if you never wield a sword.
You want to be impressive, respected, accepted. You're not willing to throw that away for the sake of someone else hearing the truth. But Paul was not that man. He didn't seek to make common ground only but for the purpose of using that to hopefully confront them with the gospel that they might be saved. He's not fighting them because he dislikes them.
He's seeking to confront them because he loves his Savior and he loves them. And he doesn't want them to wind up at the end of the station sitting before a judge only able to offer their own vain philosophies in the light of his judgment, in the under the standard of his righteousness. So how are you gonna live? I wanna say finally and last, just very briefly, there are some of you here who are just totally Epicurean in your lifestyle. You're not Christian.
You're living for the pleasures of this world, and you have it as your main goal to shove that Big Mac into your mouth to get as much happiness with Thousand Island dressing as you possibly can. Your vision does not go beyond the grave. And so I end this morning by simply saying to you what Paul said. Repent. There is coming a day when the God of creation will bring everything that you have lived for to an end.
That's the reality. And you will stand before his judgment seat. Whether through your own natural death or through his second coming, you'll stand before the son of man. And if you've lived for pleasure, for the enjoyments of this world, for the country club, pop culture, Instagram, money, if that is the the zenith, the height of what you've sought, you'll be found wanting. And the punishment of God's wrath will is infinitely eclipsing to the greatest pleasure that you have ever known in this life.
That's what the scripture says. So repent. Seek the Lord who gave his life and who was resurrected, as Paul said, so that you might be saved from the wrath to come. Let's pray.