When they heard Paul speak about the resurrection of the dead, some laughed in contempt, but others said, “We want to hear more about this later.” That ended Paul’s discussion with them, but some joined him and became believers. Among them were Dionysius, a member of the council, a woman named Damaris, and others with them.
Acts 17:32-34
What an interestingly short conclusion. As I indicated in previous Gem, it is also a matter of what Paul did not say. There is no extensive description of Jesus at all. In most cases Paul and Peter make it clear who Jesus is. Before the Areopagus, Paul simply referred to a man resurrected. When they heard about the resurrection of a man (literally) they fell apart laughing. The Epicureans believed in the dissolution of the atoms at death. i.e. man dissolves into a puff of dust. The Stoics believed in some kind of after life of the soul but certainly they never conceived of the immortality of the body. That the physical part of a person could come back from the dead was inconceivable. Hence they fell apart laughing at the very idea. Notice that Paul didn’t try to convince them otherwise. He left them laughing.
The word [chleuazo] means to sneer, make fun of, mock, ridicule or have contempt for something; mainly an idea or proposition. It contains the idea of words of scorn and derision with gestures as well, which make fun of the idea in focus. Paul makes no attempt to give proof or tell his story any further. I imagine any one of us in a similar situation would resort to using the proofs for the resurrection of Christ. Paul makes no attempt to so. I think that Paul was simply putting forth the idea for discussion before the Areopagus. After all this is what that body of leading lights were there for. They were responsible for any and all religious thought or practice which entered the city of Athens. This was the body responsible for the introduction of any new religion or belief system. They had no way in their thinking to conceive of the resurrection of the body – past, present or future. Yet Christianity is founded on the idea.
Most look at Paul’s sermon on Mars Hill as being a failure. Most critics or commentators talk of Paul’s attempt to approach the Areopagus (and the Agora) on the basis of intellectualism. His use of the Stoic poets and the words used in his “presentation” they say show that Paul was trying to convince his audience using the skills of the orators and the arguments of intellectualism. The inference is that this failed and Paul in other places indicates he won’t use flowery words again but will only preach Christ and his resurrection. Failure!
But hang on a minute. I don’t think that is what Paul was doing at all and I don’t think that is what Luke is telling us either. I think Paul was challenging the thinking of these learned men of the Areopagus and putting some challenging new thoughts before them. That is what the Agora was all about. The people had heard him in the Agora. As a result of that Paul had been invited to speak to the Areopagus. His views or teaching ran so counter to the thinking of the Epicureans and the Stoics. Paul was telling them things they had never conceived possible to be included under the banner of this Unknown God. It ran so counter to all they had heard to date. But isn’t that the point of God and Jesus. It is totally inconceivable that the God of the Universe would appear in human form, as a baby, in a stable for animals. Unbelievable! And that is the point and the nature of our God.
Paul was prompting this esteemed body of thinkers to step outside the box. Concerning the things he said, any one of his points ought to have prompted them to ask more questions. In fact that is what they were there to do. What Paul had to say would have already blown their minds enough for them to have asked “to hear more about that”. That was the point. Luke divides the responses into two – Those who ridiculed and mocked and those who asked to hear more. Either way it was successful. God doesn’t defend His outlandish plan for salvation before mankind – it just is. Get used to it. It either prompts you to want to know more or is assigned to “the ridiculous bin”. That’s the nature of it. Even among these illustrious philosophers of the Areopagus who had heard all manner of belief systems in existence there were some who embraced what Paul had to say.
Oh yes there is also a hint that the words: “We want to hear more about this later” was a fob off. “We’ll hear you talk about this some other time.” {God’s Word Version] is almost like the kind of thing we might say to the JW’s at the door. Indicating there is no intention to hear more at all. We have had enough and don’t want to talk about it further but we are just being polite. There is even an indication in the words here that at the point where some mocked was the moment the meeting of the Areopagus broke up. I.e. the mockers got up to leave. This ended the discussion with Paul. But hang on, there wasn’t much discussion at all. Be careful you don’t relegate the LORD of the Universe to the ridiculous bin; you will live (or be resurrected again) to regret it.
Luke’s closing point brings this whole scenario back into balance. The Areopagus included only those of highest status in this university community, so the conversion of Dionysius is significant. The modern critics who judge Paul’s work in Athens a failure on the basis of 1 Cor 2:1 have missed Luke’s point entirely (the emphasis of Acts is on Paul’s success). There were converts even from this rather unlikely body of intellectuals. Dionysius is called the Areopagite, which infers he was a member of the inner Council of the Areopagus, one of the twelve judges of the Athenian court. This man was highly significant. He was one of those who joined Paul and became a believer [kollao] – to follow, to glue yourself to (similar to the Jewish idea of following closely behind your rabbi and covering yourself in the dust of his feet.) The use of the verb [kollao] indicates this group followed Paul and became disciples. But we have no other mention of them in Scripture to indicate a church developed as a result in this time frame.
The other feature in the text worth commenting on is the mention of the woman named Damaris. It is unlikely that women would have been permitted in a meeting of the Areopagus. Some commentators put forward the idea that Damaris was Dionysius’ wife, but if that were the case there should be the “his” in the text to indicate that Damaris was related in some way to Dionysius. Others suggest Damaris (and others like her) became a convert after listening to Paul in the Agora. Anything is possible but it seems from the words in the text that Luke associates her with the meeting of the Areopagus and not as the fruit of Paul’s talks in the Agora. I will leave you to decide that one. Or wait until you meet her in Glory and ask, “Are you the Damaris mentioned in Acts seventeen?
The Infinite squeezed Himself down to the size of an infant.
Deron Spoo
No matter how cool, talented, educated or rich you think you are you still have to make room in your thinking that God would do something so outrageous as to appear as a human baby.
Ian Vail
The word carnation means “flesh-coloured”. Incarnation is another way of saying “in the colour of the flesh”.
Ian Vail
God clothed Himself in flesh, tabernacled among us and died for you. What are you going to do about it?
Ian Vail