Original Meaning
Ministry in Athens (17:16–21)
WHEN PAUL SAW these exquisite works of pagan art, he was “greatly distressed” (v. 16). As in 16:18, Luke uses a strong, though different, word (paroxynomai) for Paul’s reaction to seeing the city so full of idols. This word has been defined as “to be provoked or upset at someone or something involving severe emotional concern.”6
Though Paul was in a rage when he saw the idols, he acted with restraint and respect in his outward behavior among the idolaters. Thus, “he reasoned in the synagogue . . . as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there” (v. 17). “Reasoned” here is dialegomai (cf. comments on 17:2–4), which probably involved proclamation but left room for discussion at the end. The “marketplace” he spoke at was the agora, the main public place in the city, adorned with public buildings and colonnades. It was the economic, political, and cultural heart of the city.7 An ancient description of Socrates has him in the marketplace when it was most crowded, where he conversed with whomever he met.8 When Paul evangelized this city of Socrates, he used the method of Socrates.
Paul debated with “a group of Epicurian and Stoic philosophers” (v. 18). The Epicurians were “a philosophical school that valued pleasure (the absence of pain and disturbance) and disbelieved in the gods of ancient myths.”9 “They were influential only in the educated upper classes, and their views about God were similar to deism (he was uninvolved in the universe and irrelevant).”10 Stoicism was “the most popular form of Greek philosophy in Paul’s day. Although most people were not Stoics, many Stoic ideas were widely disseminated.”11 Though they believed in a supreme God, it was in a pantheistic way. The Stoics saw the world as determined by fate and advocated that “human beings must pursue their duty, resigning themselves to live in harmony with nature and reason, however painful this might be, and develop their own self-sufficiency.”12
From the time of Chrysostom13 interpreters have suggested that some Athenians thought Paul was proclaiming two gods: Jesus and Anastasis (anastasis means “resurrection”; v. 18b). This is typical of how people with a different worldview misunderstand us as we proclaim the gospel.14 The accusation against Paul (v. 18) reminds us of a similar charge against Socrates, which resulted in his being taken to the Areopagus and condemned to death.15
The Areopagus was the main administrative body and the chief court of Athens.16 We are not sure whether Paul was taken (v. 19) into this council for a proper trial or just to the location of the hill after which the council was named.17 These Athenians seem to have been curious philosophically (v. 21), and thus they were willing to give the “strange ideas” of Paul an official hearing (vv. 19–20).
Bridging Contexts
A FAILED MISSION?26 There are many who consider this effort in Athens a failure and therefore an example to avoid rather than to follow. They claim that in his effort to be relevant to the philosophical Athenians, Paul compromised the gospel and did not present a clear-cut Christian message.27 Especially missing was the cross. These scholars claim that this is why he wrote regarding his ministry in Corinth (his next stop on this journey): “I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom. . . . For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified” (1 Cor. 2:1–2). They also assert that the low number of converts indicates the error of Paul’s strategy at Athens.
I maintain, however, that the record of Paul’s ministry in Athens suggests that it was not one of compromise but of forthright confrontation with idolatry. Though the cross is missing in this summary report of his talk, the death of Christ must have been mentioned for him to mention the resurrection, and there is nothing to say that this was not clearly presented during his reasoning with the people of Athens prior to this event. It could also be that Paul was hoping to talk about the cross (which was “foolishness to Gentiles,” 1 Cor. 1:23) after presenting the victory of the resurrection; but he could not get to that point because of the response of his audience.
Note, too, that those who work with non-Christians know that even a small number of converts from a highly intellectual audience can be considered a huge success. One of those converted was actually from the Areopagus, the cream of Athenian society. Converts from this segment of society are few and far between in the church worldwide. As Keener points out, “modern readers who judge Paul’s work in Athens a failure on the basis of 1 Corinthians 2:1 have missed Luke’s point entirely. . . . The emphasis on Acts is on his success, and the original readers of Acts could not simply turn to 1 Corinthians.”28
In this study we will use Paul’s ministry as an example of effective evangelism among people without a biblical heritage (i.e., Gentiles who were not God-fearers). Finding ways of evangelizing such people has always been important to Christians in non-Christian lands. But now it has become equally important in the so-called post-Christian West, where many people from non-Christian lands now reside and where many descendants of Christians are more pagan than Christian in their beliefs.
In Athens we find Paul ministering in three important arenas.29 (1) He ministered in the synagogue to those with a biblical background, which is somewhat equivalent to evangelism today among Jews and, in broader applications, among Muslims and nominal Christians. (2) He ministered in the marketplace, in what we might call street evangelism. (3) He witnessed to what might be called the academy—the leaders of a highly intellectual town. We are impressed by the way Paul adapted his method and strategy to the audiences he faced.
Attitudes toward non-Christians. When Paul reacted so strongly to the idols he saw (v. 16), he was reflecting God’s reaction to idolatry. In Isaiah 65:3 God describes Israel as “a people who continually provoke me to my very face, offering sacrifices in gardens and burning incense on altars of brick.” When human beings made in the image of God dishonor him by doing the exact opposite to what he created them to do—trust in him—it should infuriate us, for three reasons: (1) Human beings are missing the reason for which they were created. (2) God is greatly dishonored by this blatant defiance of his will. God said, “I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not give my glory to another or my praise to idols” (Isa. 42:8). (3) The consequences of unbelief in this world and the next are terrible (see Rom. 1:18–32).
This provocation, then, comes as a result of holiness and love: holiness that responds to the unholiness of unbelief and idolatry, and love that responds to the dishonoring of God and the demeaning of humanity. Of course, we must add that we may not always react with the same emotional intensity as Paul. This passage does not insist that all react precisely as Paul did, but his reaction is instructive in pointing to the seriousness of unbelief and idolatry.
Though Paul’s spirit was provoked by idols, his behavior was restrained by wisdom and respect (vv. 17–19). That too is a biblical attitude toward unbelief. True, this was not the attitude of the Old Testament prophets, but they were ministering among a people who had received a clear revelation from God. They should have known better, so they are severely rebuked. But the Gentiles to whom Paul was speaking had not been influenced by God’s special revelation. They had to be presented God’s message, and a display of anger would have forfeited an opportunity to win a hearing among them. Paul did ultimately call these people to repentance, but he approached the issue without thundering accusations against the people.
Into this mix of restrained provocation must come the recognition of those things that we can agree with in other religions. Paul agreed with what he could agree in those faiths and used those elements as stepping-stones to presenting the gospel. Such points of agreement can be traced back to general revelation.30 In fact, if we are to be effective in reaching those of other faiths, we must study their religions—preferably by reading their own writers, by observing their practices, and by talking to their adherents. Here Paul quotes from a Greek writer, Aratus, and uses it as a point of contact even though he does not agree with the philosophical system Aratus advocated. We too can agree with certain elements without compromising the gospel. As Bruce points out, we “may quote appropriate words from a well-known writer or speaker without committing ourselves to their total context or background of thought.”31 And we must also remember that the arguments Paul used in his Areopagus address had been used by other Jews before him. We too can gain much from the apologetic writings of Christians who have sought to respond to other religions.
I should reemphasize, however, that while Paul may have agreed with features in other faiths, he did not agree with their overall systems. If Christianity and other religions are represented by circles, the centers of the circles are distant and the points of intersection are only on peripheral matters. For example, there is much admirable material in the ethical discipline of Buddhism with which we can agree and which we can use as stepping-stones in sharing the gospel. But we must remember that these good features can be used by Satan to keep people from the truth. By finding satisfaction in trying to earn their own salvation, Buddhists can assuage the conviction of sin and guilt and of their need for a Savior and thus resist the invitation to respond to God’s gracious offer of salvation.
Contextualization. In the city of Socrates, Paul adapted to his audience both in style and content. His speech to the philosophical members of the Areopagus was, as John Wesley aptly remarked, “a divinely philosophical discourse.”32 He began by referring to a need his audience was conscious of (which necessitated setting up a temple to an unknown God). Though his substance was entirely biblical, he did not quote from the Scriptures as he did when he spoke to Jews and God-fearers. In fact, he quoted from the writings of their own philosophers (v. 28). We call such adapting contextualization. Paul explains how he did this in 1 Corinthians 9:19–23, where he climaxes his description with these words: “I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some.” Contextualization occurs when the presentation and outworking of the gospel is done in a manner appropriate to the context in which it is found.
We are sobered by the fact that with all his contextualization Paul’s message was misunderstood by some of his hearers (v. 18b). It points to the urgent need to work hard at communicating the gospel to those outside our faith. At the same time, we must also avoid the pitfall of syncretism (see below). What is most important is faithfully to proclaim the gospel. If we can find points of contact with our audience along the way, we should use them, but the gospel is always what is primary.
Acceptable aspiration or acceptable worship? When Paul said that he proclaimed what the Athenians worshiped as unknown (v. 23b), he was not saying, as some have claimed, that God accepted their worship of the anonymous god. The Indian theologian Raimundo Panikkar, in his influential book The Unknown Christ of Hinduism, uses this passage to explain his theory that Hindus really worship God and that Christ is at work in the Hindus even though he is not known by them.33 But N. B. Stonehouse has pointed out that the emphasis here is on the ignorance, not on the worship.34 At this stage of his message, Paul was not making any value judgments. He did this subsequently with his forthright attack on idolatry (v. 29) and his comment that such “ignorance” was no longer excusable, making it necessary for “all people everywhere to repent” (v. 30). Throughout Acts the evangelists focused on felt needs and legitimate aspirations and then presented Christ as the answer to those needs.
There are other legitimate aspirations addressed in this message. Verse 27 refers to the incurable religiosity of the human being. God’s actions in creation cause people to “seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him.” This must have been an important theme in Paul’s evangelistic preaching for he also used it in Lystra (14:17).
Some have claimed Paul was implying that through this feeling after God that people could find him and be saved apart from the gospel. Gempf argues that this is unlikely because the verb “finding” is weakened in three ways. (1) “The first is the grammatical construction: the use of the optative mood in Greek introduces a tone of uncertainty, coupled with a phrase (ei ara ge) which is best translated ‘if perhaps.’ The finding is by no means certain.” (2) “The force of the verb is weakened by being paired with the colorful verb ‘groping’ (pselaphao), a verb used in such sources as Homer’s Odyssey (9.416) and the Greek version of Deuteronomy (28:29) to mean a ‘blind feeling around.’ ” (3) “The verb phrase is followed by the clause ‘although he is not far.’ The concessive nature of this clause only makes sense if a groping is not successful.”35
In other words, Paul is not saying here that people can find God solely by following their felt needs and aspirations. They need the gospel, which alone truly fulfills those needs and aspirations. Christians must be sensitive to people’s needs and aspirations, see how Christ meets them, and use them as stepping-stones for communicating the gospel.
Establishing the fact of God. Paul’s practice, followed in Lystra and Athens, of beginning his exposition of the gospel by introducing God (14:15–17; 17:24–29) must surely become standard procedure when we preach the gospel to people without a biblical worldview.36 It is so important to establish the fact of God before we share the message of Christ. It is not an accident that the Bible and the evangelistic tract written by John to trigger belief (John 20:31) starts with a description of God as Creator of everything (Gen. 1; John 1:1–3).
Familiar evangelistic themes. The Gentile audience of Athens required evangelistic themes that were not needed when preaching to audiences of Jews and God-fearers, such as the reality of the supremacy of God and the futility of idolatry. But in this message we find some familiar themes, which appeared in the earlier addresses and have been already discussed: the centrality of Christ (v. 31), the summons from God to repent (v. 30),37 the value of the resurrection as an accreditation of the gospel (v. 31),38 and the key place that judgment has in building a case for Christianity and in appealing to people to turn to God (vv. 30–31).39 These points come at the latter part of the message. We must know where people are in their understanding of the biblical worldview. Once the foundational truths have been established, we can proceed to present the heart of the gospel, which is God’s work in and through Jesus Christ.
Contemporary Significance
REACHING ALL SEGMENTS of society. The importance of reaching all segments of society and of creative strategizing in order to do this stands out in this passage. Blessed is the nation that has people with such versatility as Paul, who could reach such a wide spectrum of people. If we do not have one person who can do as much as Paul did, we should ensure that different people are engaging all segments of society with the gospel. Just as Paul evangelized synagogue worshipers, we need people who will evangelize the Jews and Muslims as well as nominal Christians within the church.
We also need people who will hit the streets with the gospel. Stott says, “The equivalent of the agora will vary in different parts of the world. It may be a park, city square or street corner, a shopping mall or market place, a ‘pub,’ neighborhood bar, café, discothèque or student cafeteria, wherever people meet when they are at leisure.”40 And we must reach the intelligentsia. Let one of this generation’s great mentors of such people, John Stott, speak again:
There is an urgent need for more Christian thinkers who will dedicate their minds to Christ, not only as lecturers, but also as authors, journalists, dramatists and broadcasters, as television script-writers, producers and personalities, and as artists and actors who use a variety of art forms in which to communicate the gospel.41
Paul was undoubtedly one of the greatest intellects the church has been gifted with. He devoted his mind to the cause of the gospel—to penetrating the unreached with the message of Christ. This is not the only type of person God uses, but such people are needed to develop strategies to reach unreached groups of people. It is no accident that some of the best minds in the history of the Western world were released for this vital task—such as Henry Martyn, Stephen Neill, Lesslie Newbigin, and Stanley Jones.42 Particularly lacking is the penetration of the highest (and lowest) strata of society. The church should be challenging people to engage the intellectuals of our day so that, as in the early church, there would be converts like Dionysius.
Restrained provocation today. Paul’s strong reaction to idolatry found expression in the life of the great missionary to Muslims, Henry Martyn, who has been called one of the most heroic figures of nineteenth-century British history. After doing brilliant work at Cambridge University, he shunned various possibilities for advancement in life through marriage and employment in order to go as a missionary to India. When he arrived in India, his friends wanted him to stay in the city of Calcutta to minister with the Westerners, but he wanted to go where the unreached were. He wrote in his diary about this dilemma: “I almost think that to be prevented from going among the heathen as a missionary would break my heart. . . . I feel pressed in spirit to do something for God. . . . I have hitherto lived to little purpose more like a clod than a servant of God; now let me burn out for God.”43
During this time he went to see a Hindu procession, and he describes his response to this in his diaries: “Before the stumps of images, for they were not better, some of the people prostrated themselves, striking the ground twice with their foreheads.” And his response? “This excited more horror in me than I can well express. . . . I thought that if I had words I would preach to the multitudes all day if I lost my life for it.” With such passion Martyn persevered as a missionary to the Muslims. In his lifetime he probably saw only one person openly converted through his ministry. But he translated the Bible into what was then called the Hindustani44 language and then into the Persian language. He also left an amazing legacy through his personal diaries, which were used to motivate large numbers of people to respond to the missionary call.
Paul’s and Martyn’s reaction to idolatry contrasts widely with that of many Christians today. When they are confronted with the same expressions of devotion, they may admire such devotion without reflecting on the fact that it is wrong for people created in the image of God to be worshiping idols. But both Paul and Martyn reasoned with the people they met. They expressed what I have called restrained provocation. They also studied these religions and were familiar with the way of life and thought of the people whom they sought to lead to Christ.
This issue of studying other religions has come into special focus in recent times. The past 150 years has seen a fresh discovery in the Western world of the cultural and religious heritage of many non-Christian cultures. As Stephen Neill puts it, “As these ‘treasures of darkness’ penetrated the consciousness of educated men and women, something of a gasp of astonishment arose. Surprise was followed by appreciation and even admiration.”45
I have seen two unbiblical reactions to non-Christian religions in the West. (1) One borders on paranoia in that it sees non-Christians only as being under the grip of demonic powers, thus making social interchange impossible. Such people cannot identify with non-Christians in order to open the door for witness. When we meet non-Christians and find things that we can admire in them, we should not need to be afraid to acknowledge it. Christians in the West can actually learn from their neighbors who have come from another land. For example, they can learn many things from features of family life that have evolved in an Eastern culture, especially in view of the crisis in family life in the West.
(2) The second unbiblical attitude to these faiths is what we might call uncritical approval. I have detected an attitude among some in the West that tends to accept anything that comes from the Eastern religions while being critical of much that has to do with Christianity. Our measure of truth must always be the Scriptures. If the Bible agrees with something that another religion teaches, we do not need to be afraid about affirming it. But if Scripture disagrees, we must respectfully say so and seek to show why it is wrong, as Paul did in Athens.
But many are afraid to enter into these spheres and engage the non-Christian mind. They fear that if they affirm the good in other faiths, they will deny the supremacy of Christ. In answer, I suggest that a proper view of the glory of God’s revelation, especially his revelation in Christ, will take away that fear. God’s special revelation is so glorious that if we have discovered it, all other truths are but a poor shadow. These people also fear compromise. They point to many people who, after studying other faiths in recent years, have ended up as pluralists or syncretists. Syncretism takes place when, in the presentation and outworking of Christianity, elements essential to the gospel are dropped or elements incompatible with the gospel are taken on in our efforts to identify with non-Christians.
If we are to maintain our fervor for biblical mission while we engage other religions in study and encounter, we should have three disciplines that we regularly practice in our lives. (1) We must live under the Scriptures. The biblical attitude to life is so different to the world’s attitudes that we can easily get drawn into the world’s way of thinking unless we are regularly impacted by the Scriptures. A healthy trust in the authority and sufficiency of Scripture along with comprehensive regular input from all the segments of Scripture into our lives will enable us to remain scriptural in our attitudes.
(2) We need the discipline of community. When we live under the yoke of spiritual accountability within a community, we find ourselves challenged by others if we try something new. While such challenges may be difficult to endure, it is healthy for our spiritual stability. Our friends can confront us if we veer away from the path of biblical Christianity.
(3) We must live under the discipline of witness. There are few things that energize the soul and enable us to maintain our passion for the gospel as much as an evangelistic lifestyle. When we get close to people, see their lives, and yearn for their salvation, we realize afresh how vital the gospel is for their salvation and we experience afresh the power of energizing for witness by the Spirit (1:8). Such cutting-edge living is an effective safeguard against compromise.46
The challenge of contextualization.47 Churches seeking to be faithful to Christ’s call to go to the unreached must take the challenge of contextualization seriously. When we made a conscious decision in our ministry to focus on non-Christian youth rather than only on nominal Christians, we found ourselves ill-equipped for the task. Thus, we began to study the Buddhist, Hindu, and Muslim cultures. We realized that though youth could be effectively reached through drama and music, our styles of drama and music were different from theirs. We therefore sent our staff to learn these art forms from non-Christians. We began to write our own music and stage plays. We stopped using the games we played, which the non-Christians did not enjoy, and learned new games that they enjoyed. We went to political meetings, especially when good orators were speaking, in order to learn their art of oratory. We were uncomfortable with some of these things. During the early years we would have liked to do ministry differently. But gradually our ministry was transformed into one that began to reach large numbers of non-Christians for Christ. We have had to keep changing our methods because the youth culture has kept changing.
Each context into which Christians are called differs. It may be the Greek culture of Athens or the Afro-American culture of New York or the Sinhala Buddhist culture of rural Sri Lanka. Each culture has unique challenges that call for a creative departure from the comfort zones of the Christian witness. All this calls for a passion for God and for people, which will give us the courage to try new things and to pay the price of doing so. That passion comes when we draw near to the heart of our missionary God, and it is maintained through a close personal tie with God and his Word. If we remain near to God’s Word, we know that our contextualization will not degenerate into syncretism.
Emphasizing felt needs and aspirations. I have already shown how important it is for evangelists to focus on felt needs and aspirations and to show that Christ answers those needs.48 Once we have won the attention of people and their interest in following Christ by showing how Christ meets these needs, we can proceed to other burning issues that they may not consciously acknowledge as needs, such as the need for forgiveness and acceptance by a holy God.
Let us examine some of the felt needs that we may encounter today. For several years it has been acknowledged that in the so-called Third World countries fear is an important felt need in the lives of most people—fear of demons, of sickness and death, of the future, of the “evil eye” of jealous people, of reprisals by gods who have been neglected or rejected, and of powerful people in society. But recently fear has become a dominant emotion in the affluent West too; fear of the unknown (esp. the future) is leading many people to turn to astrology or to go to witches and mediums for advice. More recently there is the rampant fear because of insecurity in the workplace. These fears provide us with an opportunity to present God as sovereign over history and more powerful than all the forces of this world.
The growing interest in spirituality in the West (cf. esp. New Age spirituality and the charismatic movement) is an indication that people have realized that mere technology is not enough. This is an expression of the incurable religiousness of the human being (cf. v. 27). The quest for a meaningful spiritual experience is a key aspect of the shift from modernism (with its ultra-rationalism) to postmodernism (with its rejection of rationalism). Unfortunately many see the church as a child of modernism and infer that it will not meet this need. But we know that the legitimate aspiration for authentic spiritual existence can be fulfilled only in Christ, who came that we might have life to the full (John 10:10). Included in this full life is the fulfillment of all legitimate human aspiration. In other words, we must rediscover biblical spirituality, which alone fulfills the human thirst for the divine.
Christ fulfills the acknowledged human need for meaning in life, for living a righteous life, for having a clear conscience, and for victory over weakness and illness. He meets the need for peace, joy, and love. The church must face the challenge to love people enough to observe them carefully so that we may know what their felt needs and aspirations are. Once we know them, we must seek to make the connection between what they are looking for and what Christ can and will give them. We must point out that without Christ they are missing the purpose of life; the resulting unfulfillment can be satisfied only by Christ.
God’s of this age or God of the ages?49 It is vital to lay the foundation of who God is early in our gospel presentation to those who do not have a biblical worldview. How can people realize the need for a Savior from sin unless they realize the seriousness of sin and its consequences? And how can they realize the seriousness of sin unless they know about the holy God against whom our sin is committed? How can they appreciate what Christ did for them unless they understand God’s horror over sin and the price he paid to redeem us? Why should they go through the hassle of changing religions unless they realize that to turn to God is to turn to the supreme Creator and Lord of the universe?
If this is who God is, then the wisest thing his creatures can do is to align themselves with the Lord God. Threats of reprisals from false gods and from family and friends keep people from accepting the gospel. This deterrent to commitment will lose its power if people realize that displeasing the sovereign Creator and Lord of the universe is far more serious than displeasing mere creatures. So Paul’s wisdom in presenting God as the Creator and Lord of all is evident.
As we take the gospel out today, we will encounter a wide variety of erroneous understandings of God. Secular humanists think that the idea of God is a crutch, perhaps needed by weak people, but not by self-made people like themselves. Atheists and scientific materialists claim that science has proved that there is no God and that the existence of the world can be accounted for without bringing God into the equation. Many Buddhists think of the gods as inferior to the Buddha, perhaps needed to perform small favors but certainly not worthy of the position of Lord of their lives. Animists and polytheists see several gods responsible for different aspects of life, who can be appeased by following magic-like formulas. Many Buddhists and Hindus, and even some Roman Catholics, have given God-like status to images of their gods or to holy men. Muslims see God as so transcendent and distant from humanity that we can only be slaves, depending on his mercy, not children basking in his love. Pantheistic Hindus and New Age adherents see God as being in everything, including oneself.
Even those in contact with the church may not fully apprehend the gospel because of a false idea of God. The children of tyrannical or unfaithful fathers may recoil from the idea of the fatherhood of God and be repelled by our presentation of God. A person attracted to Christianity through a felt need that God satisfied through prayer may relate to God as one relates to a doctor. They will go to him with their needs but not think of yielding to his lordship over their lives. The person introduced to the love of God without an understanding of his holiness may take sin lightly and be unafraid to keep on sinning and going back to God to receive forgiveness.
The above list of misconceptions about God shows us again that we have much homework to do to ensure that in sharing the gospel we build our message on the right foundation. The seriousness of our evangelistic task and the need to dedicate ourselves to it with all our energies and creative powers are themes seen throughout the book of Acts. Paul’s ministry in Athens is particularly vivid in presenting us with these challenges.
Original Meaning
The Areopagus Speech and Its Results (17:22–34)
PAUL’S SPEECH BEFORE the Areopagus remains a model of sensitive but forthright confrontation of an intellectual audience with the claims of the gospel. “Very religious” in Paul’s opening statement (v. 22) is a general word that can mean several things depending on the context. It could be a criticism, as is implied by the KJV translation: “Ye are too superstitious,” though this is an unlikely way to start an evangelistic speech. It was probably not a compliment, for according to an ancient writer Lucian, “complimentary exordia [beginnings] to secure the goodwill of the Areopagus court were discouraged.”18 Most likely, therefore, it was a simple observation, opening the way for Paul’s comment about the altar to the unknown god (v. 23a).
Ancient literature contains references to altars to unknown gods.19 Gempf points to a writing by Diogenes Laertius that presents the practice of anonymous worship as a “safety precaution. . . . The thinking was that if the gods were not properly venerated they would strike the city. Hence, lest they inadvertently invoke the wrath of some god in their ignorance of him or her, the city set up these altars to unknown gods (Diogenes 1.110–113).”20 Paul, then, is highlighting an acknowledged need of the Athenians, and he presents the God whom he proclaims as the answer to that need (v. 23b).
Paul introduces his God and offers a critique of the Athenian gods, which took the form of idolatry (vv. 24–29). His basic statement is that God is the Creator of everything in the world and that he is Lord of heaven and earth (v. 24).21 His comments about God are calculated to not only show the futility of idolatry, but also to demonstrate that God is the supreme Lord of creation and therefore worthy of our allegiance.
Against idolatry Paul insists that God does not live in temples (v. 24) and does not need our insignificant offerings for he himself is the provider of everything (v. 25). The apostle continues by focusing both on God’s sovereignty over the affairs of the human race (v. 26) and on his creation in human beings of an innate thirst to find him, an incurable religiosity (v. 27). Since God is the immanent sustainer of creation, everyone’s life depends on him (v. 28).
All these points lead to the conclusion (note “therefore” in v. 29) that idolatry is unnecessary and give weight to Paul’s call to repentance that follows (v. 30). If this God is indeed the supreme Lord of creation, the wisest thing to do is to turn to him. This turning to God is not an optional extra that merely adds a new dimension to one’s life. It is a command that goes out to all people everywhere. But the wisdom of such a step becomes all the more evident when we realize that this God is someday going to judge the world (v. 31).
Along the way Paul has answered another question that would have arisen in the mind of a philosophically oriented person. If there is a God who is supreme, why does he allow people to live in such open defiance of him without punishing them? His answer has three aspects: God overlooked their ignorance in the past, but now he “commands all people everywhere to repent” (v. 30), and a judgment day is coming (v. 31a). In other words, God will not tolerate sin forever, for he is indeed just. The wicked who openly defy God may prosper for a time, but one day they will have to pay for their sin if they do not repent.
Paul has made some astounding claims—especially that the representative of this supreme God through whom he will accomplish his work is a man called Jesus. How does Paul know that these things are true? What proof does he have of these claims? Paul answers that this supreme God “has given proof of this to all men by raising [Jesus] from the dead” (v. 31b).
This basic feature of the Christian message brings the growing sense of unease within some in Paul’s audience to a head, and they begin to sneer at him (v. 32). Others, however, want to hear more, and the gathering ends on that note (v. 33). Luke rounds off the story with a report about some of the results of Paul’s ministry in Athens (v. 34). A member of the Areopagus, Dionysius, is among those converted, as is a woman named Damaris, who must have been converted through Paul’s earlier ministry in Athens (women were traditionally not invited to meetings of the Areopagus).22
Paul’s strategy of reasoning for the gospel with the Athenians is instructive. His message does not contain direct quotations or appeals to the Old Testament as did his talks to Jews and God-fearers. Such appeals would have meant nothing to hearers who did not accept the authority of the Scriptures. But in spite of that, the message was thoroughly scriptural. As Bruce writes, “His argument is firmly based on biblical revelation; it echoes throughout the thought, and at times the very language, of the Old Testament.”23 Interestingly, Paul quoted from writers whom the Athenians looked up to (v. 28). Of the two statements in verse 28 there is a question whether the first is actually a quotation, but the second certainly is.24 Paul would not, of course, have agreed with the philosophical system out of which the statement arose, but he did agree with this individual statement and thus used it to buttress his argument.
It is helpful to know that Paul did not create his arguments in this speech ex nihilo. Keener observes that “defenders of Judaism had worked for centuries to make their faith philosophically respectable, and here, as in his letters, Paul draws heavily on his Jewish predecessors’ arguments.”25 As a scholar schooled in the highest educational structures that Judaism could offer, Paul had access to this Jewish wisdom of the ages. He made use of that when developing the case for Christianity to present to the pagan mind.
Bridging Contexts
A FAILED MISSION?26 There are many who consider this effort in Athens a failure and therefore an example to avoid rather than to follow. They claim that in his effort to be relevant to the philosophical Athenians, Paul compromised the gospel and did not present a clear-cut Christian message.27 Especially missing was the cross. These scholars claim that this is why he wrote regarding his ministry in Corinth (his next stop on this journey): “I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom. . . . For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified” (1 Cor. 2:1–2). They also assert that the low number of converts indicates the error of Paul’s strategy at Athens.
I maintain, however, that the record of Paul’s ministry in Athens suggests that it was not one of compromise but of forthright confrontation with idolatry. Though the cross is missing in this summary report of his talk, the death of Christ must have been mentioned for him to mention the resurrection, and there is nothing to say that this was not clearly presented during his reasoning with the people of Athens prior to this event. It could also be that Paul was hoping to talk about the cross (which was “foolishness to Gentiles,” 1 Cor. 1:23) after presenting the victory of the resurrection; but he could not get to that point because of the response of his audience.
Note, too, that those who work with non-Christians know that even a small number of converts from a highly intellectual audience can be considered a huge success. One of those converted was actually from the Areopagus, the cream of Athenian society. Converts from this segment of society are few and far between in the church worldwide. As Keener points out, “modern readers who judge Paul’s work in Athens a failure on the basis of 1 Corinthians 2:1 have missed Luke’s point entirely. . . . The emphasis on Acts is on his success, and the original readers of Acts could not simply turn to 1 Corinthians.”28
In this study we will use Paul’s ministry as an example of effective evangelism among people without a biblical heritage (i.e., Gentiles who were not God-fearers). Finding ways of evangelizing such people has always been important to Christians in non-Christian lands. But now it has become equally important in the so-called post-Christian West, where many people from non-Christian lands now reside and where many descendants of Christians are more pagan than Christian in their beliefs.
In Athens we find Paul ministering in three important arenas.29 (1) He ministered in the synagogue to those with a biblical background, which is somewhat equivalent to evangelism today among Jews and, in broader applications, among Muslims and nominal Christians. (2) He ministered in the marketplace, in what we might call street evangelism. (3) He witnessed to what might be called the academy—the leaders of a highly intellectual town. We are impressed by the way Paul adapted his method and strategy to the audiences he faced.
Attitudes toward non-Christians. When Paul reacted so strongly to the idols he saw (v. 16), he was reflecting God’s reaction to idolatry. In Isaiah 65:3 God describes Israel as “a people who continually provoke me to my very face, offering sacrifices in gardens and burning incense on altars of brick.” When human beings made in the image of God dishonor him by doing the exact opposite to what he created them to do—trust in him—it should infuriate us, for three reasons: (1) Human beings are missing the reason for which they were created. (2) God is greatly dishonored by this blatant defiance of his will. God said, “I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not give my glory to another or my praise to idols” (Isa. 42:8). (3) The consequences of unbelief in this world and the next are terrible (see Rom. 1:18–32).
This provocation, then, comes as a result of holiness and love: holiness that responds to the unholiness of unbelief and idolatry, and love that responds to the dishonoring of God and the demeaning of humanity. Of course, we must add that we may not always react with the same emotional intensity as Paul. This passage does not insist that all react precisely as Paul did, but his reaction is instructive in pointing to the seriousness of unbelief and idolatry.
Though Paul’s spirit was provoked by idols, his behavior was restrained by wisdom and respect (vv. 17–19). That too is a biblical attitude toward unbelief. True, this was not the attitude of the Old Testament prophets, but they were ministering among a people who had received a clear revelation from God. They should have known better, so they are severely rebuked. But the Gentiles to whom Paul was speaking had not been influenced by God’s special revelation. They had to be presented God’s message, and a display of anger would have forfeited an opportunity to win a hearing among them. Paul did ultimately call these people to repentance, but he approached the issue without thundering accusations against the people.
Into this mix of restrained provocation must come the recognition of those things that we can agree with in other religions. Paul agreed with what he could agree in those faiths and used those elements as stepping-stones to presenting the gospel. Such points of agreement can be traced back to general revelation.30 In fact, if we are to be effective in reaching those of other faiths, we must study their religions—preferably by reading their own writers, by observing their practices, and by talking to their adherents. Here Paul quotes from a Greek writer, Aratus, and uses it as a point of contact even though he does not agree with the philosophical system Aratus advocated. We too can agree with certain elements without compromising the gospel. As Bruce points out, we “may quote appropriate words from a well-known writer or speaker without committing ourselves to their total context or background of thought.”31 And we must also remember that the arguments Paul used in his Areopagus address had been used by other Jews before him. We too can gain much from the apologetic writings of Christians who have sought to respond to other religions.
I should reemphasize, however, that while Paul may have agreed with features in other faiths, he did not agree with their overall systems. If Christianity and other religions are represented by circles, the centers of the circles are distant and the points of intersection are only on peripheral matters. For example, there is much admirable material in the ethical discipline of Buddhism with which we can agree and which we can use as stepping-stones in sharing the gospel. But we must remember that these good features can be used by Satan to keep people from the truth. By finding satisfaction in trying to earn their own salvation, Buddhists can assuage the conviction of sin and guilt and of their need for a Savior and thus resist the invitation to respond to God’s gracious offer of salvation.
Contextualization. In the city of Socrates, Paul adapted to his audience both in style and content. His speech to the philosophical members of the Areopagus was, as John Wesley aptly remarked, “a divinely philosophical discourse.”32 He began by referring to a need his audience was conscious of (which necessitated setting up a temple to an unknown God). Though his substance was entirely biblical, he did not quote from the Scriptures as he did when he spoke to Jews and God-fearers. In fact, he quoted from the writings of their own philosophers (v. 28). We call such adapting contextualization. Paul explains how he did this in 1 Corinthians 9:19–23, where he climaxes his description with these words: “I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some.” Contextualization occurs when the presentation and outworking of the gospel is done in a manner appropriate to the context in which it is found.
We are sobered by the fact that with all his contextualization Paul’s message was misunderstood by some of his hearers (v. 18b). It points to the urgent need to work hard at communicating the gospel to those outside our faith. At the same time, we must also avoid the pitfall of syncretism (see below). What is most important is faithfully to proclaim the gospel. If we can find points of contact with our audience along the way, we should use them, but the gospel is always what is primary.
Acceptable aspiration or acceptable worship? When Paul said that he proclaimed what the Athenians worshiped as unknown (v. 23b), he was not saying, as some have claimed, that God accepted their worship of the anonymous god. The Indian theologian Raimundo Panikkar, in his influential book The Unknown Christ of Hinduism, uses this passage to explain his theory that Hindus really worship God and that Christ is at work in the Hindus even though he is not known by them.33 But N. B. Stonehouse has pointed out that the emphasis here is on the ignorance, not on the worship.34 At this stage of his message, Paul was not making any value judgments. He did this subsequently with his forthright attack on idolatry (v. 29) and his comment that such “ignorance” was no longer excusable, making it necessary for “all people everywhere to repent” (v. 30). Throughout Acts the evangelists focused on felt needs and legitimate aspirations and then presented Christ as the answer to those needs.
There are other legitimate aspirations addressed in this message. Verse 27 refers to the incurable religiosity of the human being. God’s actions in creation cause people to “seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him.” This must have been an important theme in Paul’s evangelistic preaching for he also used it in Lystra (14:17).
Some have claimed Paul was implying that through this feeling after God that people could find him and be saved apart from the gospel. Gempf argues that this is unlikely because the verb “finding” is weakened in three ways. (1) “The first is the grammatical construction: the use of the optative mood in Greek introduces a tone of uncertainty, coupled with a phrase (ei ara ge) which is best translated ‘if perhaps.’ The finding is by no means certain.” (2) “The force of the verb is weakened by being paired with the colorful verb ‘groping’ (pselaphao), a verb used in such sources as Homer’s Odyssey (9.416) and the Greek version of Deuteronomy (28:29) to mean a ‘blind feeling around.’ ” (3) “The verb phrase is followed by the clause ‘although he is not far.’ The concessive nature of this clause only makes sense if a groping is not successful.”35
In other words, Paul is not saying here that people can find God solely by following their felt needs and aspirations. They need the gospel, which alone truly fulfills those needs and aspirations. Christians must be sensitive to people’s needs and aspirations, see how Christ meets them, and use them as stepping-stones for communicating the gospel.
Establishing the fact of God. Paul’s practice, followed in Lystra and Athens, of beginning his exposition of the gospel by introducing God (14:15–17; 17:24–29) must surely become standard procedure when we preach the gospel to people without a biblical worldview.36 It is so important to establish the fact of God before we share the message of Christ. It is not an accident that the Bible and the evangelistic tract written by John to trigger belief (John 20:31) starts with a description of God as Creator of everything (Gen. 1; John 1:1–3).
Familiar evangelistic themes. The Gentile audience of Athens required evangelistic themes that were not needed when preaching to audiences of Jews and God-fearers, such as the reality of the supremacy of God and the futility of idolatry. But in this message we find some familiar themes, which appeared in the earlier addresses and have been already discussed: the centrality of Christ (v. 31), the summons from God to repent (v. 30),37 the value of the resurrection as an accreditation of the gospel (v. 31),38 and the key place that judgment has in building a case for Christianity and in appealing to people to turn to God (vv. 30–31).39 These points come at the latter part of the message. We must know where people are in their understanding of the biblical worldview. Once the foundational truths have been established, we can proceed to present the heart of the gospel, which is God’s work in and through Jesus Christ.
Contemporary Significance
REACHING ALL SEGMENTS of society. The importance of reaching all segments of society and of creative strategizing in order to do this stands out in this passage. Blessed is the nation that has people with such versatility as Paul, who could reach such a wide spectrum of people. If we do not have one person who can do as much as Paul did, we should ensure that different people are engaging all segments of society with the gospel. Just as Paul evangelized synagogue worshipers, we need people who will evangelize the Jews and Muslims as well as nominal Christians within the church.
We also need people who will hit the streets with the gospel. Stott says, “The equivalent of the agora will vary in different parts of the world. It may be a park, city square or street corner, a shopping mall or market place, a ‘pub,’ neighborhood bar, café, discothèque or student cafeteria, wherever people meet when they are at leisure.”40 And we must reach the intelligentsia. Let one of this generation’s great mentors of such people, John Stott, speak again:
There is an urgent need for more Christian thinkers who will dedicate their minds to Christ, not only as lecturers, but also as authors, journalists, dramatists and broadcasters, as television script-writers, producers and personalities, and as artists and actors who use a variety of art forms in which to communicate the gospel.41
Paul was undoubtedly one of the greatest intellects the church has been gifted with. He devoted his mind to the cause of the gospel—to penetrating the unreached with the message of Christ. This is not the only type of person God uses, but such people are needed to develop strategies to reach unreached groups of people. It is no accident that some of the best minds in the history of the Western world were released for this vital task—such as Henry Martyn, Stephen Neill, Lesslie Newbigin, and Stanley Jones.42 Particularly lacking is the penetration of the highest (and lowest) strata of society. The church should be challenging people to engage the intellectuals of our day so that, as in the early church, there would be converts like Dionysius.
Restrained provocation today. Paul’s strong reaction to idolatry found expression in the life of the great missionary to Muslims, Henry Martyn, who has been called one of the most heroic figures of nineteenth-century British history. After doing brilliant work at Cambridge University, he shunned various possibilities for advancement in life through marriage and employment in order to go as a missionary to India. When he arrived in India, his friends wanted him to stay in the city of Calcutta to minister with the Westerners, but he wanted to go where the unreached were. He wrote in his diary about this dilemma: “I almost think that to be prevented from going among the heathen as a missionary would break my heart. . . . I feel pressed in spirit to do something for God. . . . I have hitherto lived to little purpose more like a clod than a servant of God; now let me burn out for God.”43
During this time he went to see a Hindu procession, and he describes his response to this in his diaries: “Before the stumps of images, for they were not better, some of the people prostrated themselves, striking the ground twice with their foreheads.” And his response? “This excited more horror in me than I can well express. . . . I thought that if I had words I would preach to the multitudes all day if I lost my life for it.” With such passion Martyn persevered as a missionary to the Muslims. In his lifetime he probably saw only one person openly converted through his ministry. But he translated the Bible into what was then called the Hindustani44 language and then into the Persian language. He also left an amazing legacy through his personal diaries, which were used to motivate large numbers of people to respond to the missionary call.
Paul’s and Martyn’s reaction to idolatry contrasts widely with that of many Christians today. When they are confronted with the same expressions of devotion, they may admire such devotion without reflecting on the fact that it is wrong for people created in the image of God to be worshiping idols. But both Paul and Martyn reasoned with the people they met. They expressed what I have called restrained provocation. They also studied these religions and were familiar with the way of life and thought of the people whom they sought to lead to Christ.
This issue of studying other religions has come into special focus in recent times. The past 150 years has seen a fresh discovery in the Western world of the cultural and religious heritage of many non-Christian cultures. As Stephen Neill puts it, “As these ‘treasures of darkness’ penetrated the consciousness of educated men and women, something of a gasp of astonishment arose. Surprise was followed by appreciation and even admiration.”45
I have seen two unbiblical reactions to non-Christian religions in the West. (1) One borders on paranoia in that it sees non-Christians only as being under the grip of demonic powers, thus making social interchange impossible. Such people cannot identify with non-Christians in order to open the door for witness. When we meet non-Christians and find things that we can admire in them, we should not need to be afraid to acknowledge it. Christians in the West can actually learn from their neighbors who have come from another land. For example, they can learn many things from features of family life that have evolved in an Eastern culture, especially in view of the crisis in family life in the West.
(2) The second unbiblical attitude to these faiths is what we might call uncritical approval. I have detected an attitude among some in the West that tends to accept anything that comes from the Eastern religions while being critical of much that has to do with Christianity. Our measure of truth must always be the Scriptures. If the Bible agrees with something that another religion teaches, we do not need to be afraid about affirming it. But if Scripture disagrees, we must respectfully say so and seek to show why it is wrong, as Paul did in Athens.
But many are afraid to enter into these spheres and engage the non-Christian mind. They fear that if they affirm the good in other faiths, they will deny the supremacy of Christ. In answer, I suggest that a proper view of the glory of God’s revelation, especially his revelation in Christ, will take away that fear. God’s special revelation is so glorious that if we have discovered it, all other truths are but a poor shadow. These people also fear compromise. They point to many people who, after studying other faiths in recent years, have ended up as pluralists or syncretists. Syncretism takes place when, in the presentation and outworking of Christianity, elements essential to the gospel are dropped or elements incompatible with the gospel are taken on in our efforts to identify with non-Christians.
If we are to maintain our fervor for biblical mission while we engage other religions in study and encounter, we should have three disciplines that we regularly practice in our lives. (1) We must live under the Scriptures. The biblical attitude to life is so different to the world’s attitudes that we can easily get drawn into the world’s way of thinking unless we are regularly impacted by the Scriptures. A healthy trust in the authority and sufficiency of Scripture along with comprehensive regular input from all the segments of Scripture into our lives will enable us to remain scriptural in our attitudes.
(2) We need the discipline of community. When we live under the yoke of spiritual accountability within a community, we find ourselves challenged by others if we try something new. While such challenges may be difficult to endure, it is healthy for our spiritual stability. Our friends can confront us if we veer away from the path of biblical Christianity.
(3) We must live under the discipline of witness. There are few things that energize the soul and enable us to maintain our passion for the gospel as much as an evangelistic lifestyle. When we get close to people, see their lives, and yearn for their salvation, we realize afresh how vital the gospel is for their salvation and we experience afresh the power of energizing for witness by the Spirit (1:8). Such cutting-edge living is an effective safeguard against compromise.46
The challenge of contextualization.47 Churches seeking to be faithful to Christ’s call to go to the unreached must take the challenge of contextualization seriously. When we made a conscious decision in our ministry to focus on non-Christian youth rather than only on nominal Christians, we found ourselves ill-equipped for the task. Thus, we began to study the Buddhist, Hindu, and Muslim cultures. We realized that though youth could be effectively reached through drama and music, our styles of drama and music were different from theirs. We therefore sent our staff to learn these art forms from non-Christians. We began to write our own music and stage plays. We stopped using the games we played, which the non-Christians did not enjoy, and learned new games that they enjoyed. We went to political meetings, especially when good orators were speaking, in order to learn their art of oratory. We were uncomfortable with some of these things. During the early years we would have liked to do ministry differently. But gradually our ministry was transformed into one that began to reach large numbers of non-Christians for Christ. We have had to keep changing our methods because the youth culture has kept changing.
Each context into which Christians are called differs. It may be the Greek culture of Athens or the Afro-American culture of New York or the Sinhala Buddhist culture of rural Sri Lanka. Each culture has unique challenges that call for a creative departure from the comfort zones of the Christian witness. All this calls for a passion for God and for people, which will give us the courage to try new things and to pay the price of doing so. That passion comes when we draw near to the heart of our missionary God, and it is maintained through a close personal tie with God and his Word. If we remain near to God’s Word, we know that our contextualization will not degenerate into syncretism.
Emphasizing felt needs and aspirations. I have already shown how important it is for evangelists to focus on felt needs and aspirations and to show that Christ answers those needs.48 Once we have won the attention of people and their interest in following Christ by showing how Christ meets these needs, we can proceed to other burning issues that they may not consciously acknowledge as needs, such as the need for forgiveness and acceptance by a holy God.
Let us examine some of the felt needs that we may encounter today. For several years it has been acknowledged that in the so-called Third World countries fear is an important felt need in the lives of most people—fear of demons, of sickness and death, of the future, of the “evil eye” of jealous people, of reprisals by gods who have been neglected or rejected, and of powerful people in society. But recently fear has become a dominant emotion in the affluent West too; fear of the unknown (esp. the future) is leading many people to turn to astrology or to go to witches and mediums for advice. More recently there is the rampant fear because of insecurity in the workplace. These fears provide us with an opportunity to present God as sovereign over history and more powerful than all the forces of this world.
The growing interest in spirituality in the West (cf. esp. New Age spirituality and the charismatic movement) is an indication that people have realized that mere technology is not enough. This is an expression of the incurable religiousness of the human being (cf. v. 27). The quest for a meaningful spiritual experience is a key aspect of the shift from modernism (with its ultra-rationalism) to postmodernism (with its rejection of rationalism). Unfortunately many see the church as a child of modernism and infer that it will not meet this need. But we know that the legitimate aspiration for authentic spiritual existence can be fulfilled only in Christ, who came that we might have life to the full (John 10:10). Included in this full life is the fulfillment of all legitimate human aspiration. In other words, we must rediscover biblical spirituality, which alone fulfills the human thirst for the divine.
Christ fulfills the acknowledged human need for meaning in life, for living a righteous life, for having a clear conscience, and for victory over weakness and illness. He meets the need for peace, joy, and love. The church must face the challenge to love people enough to observe them carefully so that we may know what their felt needs and aspirations are. Once we know them, we must seek to make the connection between what they are looking for and what Christ can and will give them. We must point out that without Christ they are missing the purpose of life; the resulting unfulfillment can be satisfied only by Christ.
God’s of this age or God of the ages?49 It is vital to lay the foundation of who God is early in our gospel presentation to those who do not have a biblical worldview. How can people realize the need for a Savior from sin unless they realize the seriousness of sin and its consequences? And how can they realize the seriousness of sin unless they know about the holy God against whom our sin is committed? How can they appreciate what Christ did for them unless they understand God’s horror over sin and the price he paid to redeem us? Why should they go through the hassle of changing religions unless they realize that to turn to God is to turn to the supreme Creator and Lord of the universe?
If this is who God is, then the wisest thing his creatures can do is to align themselves with the Lord God. Threats of reprisals from false gods and from family and friends keep people from accepting the gospel. This deterrent to commitment will lose its power if people realize that displeasing the sovereign Creator and Lord of the universe is far more serious than displeasing mere creatures. So Paul’s wisdom in presenting God as the Creator and Lord of all is evident.
As we take the gospel out today, we will encounter a wide variety of erroneous understandings of God. Secular humanists think that the idea of God is a crutch, perhaps needed by weak people, but not by self-made people like themselves. Atheists and scientific materialists claim that science has proved that there is no God and that the existence of the world can be accounted for without bringing God into the equation. Many Buddhists think of the gods as inferior to the Buddha, perhaps needed to perform small favors but certainly not worthy of the position of Lord of their lives. Animists and polytheists see several gods responsible for different aspects of life, who can be appeased by following magic-like formulas. Many Buddhists and Hindus, and even some Roman Catholics, have given God-like status to images of their gods or to holy men. Muslims see God as so transcendent and distant from humanity that we can only be slaves, depending on his mercy, not children basking in his love. Pantheistic Hindus and New Age adherents see God as being in everything, including oneself.
Even those in contact with the church may not fully apprehend the gospel because of a false idea of God. The children of tyrannical or unfaithful fathers may recoil from the idea of the fatherhood of God and be repelled by our presentation of God. A person attracted to Christianity through a felt need that God satisfied through prayer may relate to God as one relates to a doctor. They will go to him with their needs but not think of yielding to his lordship over their lives. The person introduced to the love of God without an understanding of his holiness may take sin lightly and be unafraid to keep on sinning and going back to God to receive forgiveness.
The above list of misconceptions about God shows us again that we have much homework to do to ensure that in sharing the gospel we build our message on the right foundation. The seriousness of our evangelistic task and the need to dedicate ourselves to it with all our energies and creative powers are themes seen throughout the book of Acts. Paul’s ministry in Athens is particularly vivid in presenting us with these challenges.