Acts 17:18

King James Version (KJV)

Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection.

Adam Clarke
Bible Commentary

Certain philosophers of the Epicureans - These were the followers of Epicurus, who acknowledged no gods except in name, and absolutely denied that they exercised any government over the world or its inhabitants; and that the chief good consisted in the gratification of the appetites of sense. These points the Epicureans certainly held; but it is not clear that Epicurus himself maintained such doctrines.

And of the Stoics - These did not deny the existence of the gods; but they held that all human affairs were governed by fate. They did not believe that any good was received from the hands of their gods; and considered, as Seneca asserts, that any good and wise man was equal to Jupiter himself. Both these sects agreed in denying the resurrection of the body; and the former did not believe in the immortality of the soul.

Epicurus, the founder of the Epicurean sect, was born at Athens, about a.m. 3663, before Christ 341.

Zeno, the founder of the Stoic sect, was born in the isle of Cyprus, about thirty years before Christ. His disciples were called Stoics from the Στοα, a famous portico at Athens, where they studied. Besides these two sects, there were two others which were famous at this time; viz. the Academics and the Peripatetics. The founder of the first was the celebrated Plato; and the founder of the second, the no less famous Aristotle. These sects professed a much purer doctrine than the Epicureans and Stoics; and it does not appear that they opposed the apostles, nor did they enter into public disputations with them. Against the doctrines taught by the Epicureans and Stoics, several parts of St. Paul's discourse, in the following verses, are directly pointed.

What will this babbler say? - The word σπερμολογος, which we translate babbler, signifies, literally, a collector of seeds, and is the "name of a small bird the lives by picking up seeds on the road." The epithet became applied to persons who collected the sayings of others, without order or method, and detailed them among their companions in the same way. The application of the term to prating, empty, impertinent persons, was natural and easy, and hence it was considered a term of reproach and contempt, and was sometimes used to signify the vilest sort of men.

A setter forth of strange gods - Ξενων δαιμονιων, Of strange or foreign demons. That this was strictly forbidden, both at Rome and Athens, see on Acts 16:21; (note).

There was a difference, in the heathen theology, between θεος, god, and δαιμων, demon: the θεοι, were such as were gods by nature: the δαιμονια, were men who were deified. This distinction seems to be in the mind of these philosophers when they said that the apostles seemed to be setters forth of strange demons, because they preached unto them Jesus, whom they showed to be a man, suffering and dying, but afterwards raised to the throne of God. This would appear to them tantamount with the deification of heroes, etc., who had been thus honored for their especial services to mankind. Horace expresses this in two lines, 2 Epist. i. 5: -

Romulus, et Liber pater, et cum Castore Pollux,

Post ingentia facta, deorum in templa recepti.

"Romulus, father Bacchus, with Castor and Pollux, for their eminent services, have been received into the temples of the gods."

Was this helpful?

Albert Barnes
Notes on the Whole Bible

Then certain philosophers - Athens was distinguished, among all the cities of Greece and the world, for the cultivation of a subtle and refined philosophy. This was their boast, and the object of their constant search and study, 1 Corinthians 1:22.

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

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

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

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

What will this babbler say? - Margin, “base fellow.” Greek: σπερμολόγος spermologosThe word occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. It properly means “one who collects seeds,” and was applied by the Greeks to the poor persons who collected the scattered grain in the fields after harvest, or to gleaners; and also to the poor who obtained a precarious subsistence around the markets and in the streets. It was also applied to birds that picked up the scattered seeds of grain in the field or in the markets. The word came hence to have a twofold signification:

(1) It denoted the poor, the needy, and the vile the refuse and offscouring of society; and,

(2) From the birds which were thus employed, and which were troublesome by their continual unmusical sounds, it came to denote those who were talkative, garrulous, and opinionated those who collected the opinions of others, or scraps of knowledge, and retailed them fluently, without order or method. It was a word, therefore, expressive of their contempt for an unknown foreigner who should pretend to instruct the learned men and philosophers of Greece. Doddridge renders it “retailer of scraps.” Syriac, “collector of words.”

Other some - Others.

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

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

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

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

Was this helpful?

Matthew Henry
Concise Bible Commentary

Athens was then famed for polite learning, philosophy, and the fine arts; but none are more childish and superstitious, more impious, or more credulous, than some persons, deemed eminent for learning and ability. It was wholly given to idolatry. The zealous advocate for the cause of Christ will be ready to plead for it in all companies, as occasion offers. Most of these learned men took no notice of Paul; but some, whose principles were the most directly contrary to Christianity, made remarks upon him. The apostle ever dwelt upon two points, which are indeed the principal doctrines of Christianity, Christ and a future state; Christ our way, and heaven our end. They looked on this as very different from the knowledge for many ages taught and professed at Athens; they desire to know more of it, but only because it was new and strange. They led him to the place where judges sat who inquired into such matters. They asked about Paul's doctrine, not because it was good, but because it was new. Great talkers are always busy-bodies. They spend their time in nothing else, and a very uncomfortable account they have to give of their time who thus spend it. Time is precious, and we are concerned to employ it well, because eternity depends upon it, but much is wasted in unprofitable conversation.

Was this helpful?

SDA Bible Commentary (limited)
Volume 1-7

18. Philosophers. Literally, “lovers of wisdom,” a term used of those who were given to the pursuit of wisdom, or learning.

Epicureans. The two philosophic schools, the Epicureans and the Stoics, were at this time the great representatives of Greek thought. Epicureanism took its name from its founder, Epicurus, who lived a long and quiet life at Athens, from about 342 to 270 b.c. In harmony with its founder’s will, meetings were held in a garden, and hence the Epicureans were sometimes known as the School of the Garden. The speculations of Epicurus included both a physical and an ethical solution of the problems of the universe. In company with most thoughtful men of the time, he rejected the popular polytheism, which he did not yet dare openly renounce, and taught that the gods in their serenity were too far removed from men to be bothered about men’s sorrows or sins. They needed no sacrifices and answered no prayers. The great evil of the world was superstition, which was enslaving the minds of most men, and was the source of most crime and misery. Man’s goal was the attainment of happiness, and the first step toward it was emancipation from the idea of future punishment. The next step was to recognize that happiness consisted in pleasurable emotions. Experience showed that what some call pleasure is frequently more than offset by the pain that follows; consequently he taught that one should avoid sensual excesses. The life of Epicurus himself seems to have been marked by self-control, kindliness, generosity, piety, and patriotism (Diogenes LaÃƒÂ«rtius x. 10). But he regarded human laws as merely conventional arrangements, and found no place for a higher moral law. Each man was therefore left to arbitrate on the lawfulness of his own pleasures, and most men chose a life of ease and self-indulgence. Sometimes, but all too rarely, careful thinking balanced an Epicurean’s tendency to sink into animalism. More often those who devoted themselves to the indulgence of the sense of taste, on the one hand, and of sexual freedom, on the other, provided sorry exhibits of the depth of degradation to which such a philosophy permitted men to sink.

Epicurus has been credited with foreseeing some of the so-called discoveries of modern science in the world of physics. He excluded the idea of both creation and control. He taught that matter had existed from eternity, and that the infinite atoms of which matter was composed had by a process of attraction and repulsion entered into manifold combinations, out of which had issued the world of nature as men see it. The poem of Lucretius, De Rerum Natura, is perhaps the loftiest expression of this negative and virtually atheistic system, for it does possess a certain nobility of indignant protest against the superstition that so firmly gripped the pagan world.

Epicurean poetry gives characteristic examples of the ethical teaching of this system. Says Horace: “Cease to ask what the morrow will bring forth, and set down as gain each day that Fortune grants” (Odes i. 9; Loeb ed., 29).

“Show wisdom. Strain clear the wine; and since life is brief, cut short far-reaching hopes! Even while we speak, envious time has sped. Reap the harvest of to-day, putting as little trust as may be in the morrow!” (ibid. 11; Loeb ed., p. 33).

Paul was now brought face to face with this philosophy. In vs. 22-31 we learn how he dealt with it. He asserted the personality of the living God, as Creator, Ruler, Father; the binding force of a divine law written in the heart; the nobility of a life raised above a frantic search for pleasure, and spent, not for itself, but for others and for God. Finally, he pointed to man’s moral accountability in the light of the resurrection and the judgment. Such teaching set the apostle apart from the pagan professors of higher philosophy.

Stoicks. This school of philosophy took its name, not from its founder Zeno (c. 340-c. 260 b.c.), of Citium in Cyprus, but from the Stoa PoikilÃ„â€œ, the painted porch in the agora at Athens, where Zeno used to teach. Josephus (Life 2 [12]) states that there are points of similarity between the Stoics and the Pharisees. Indeed it may be said that their attitude toward the moral life of heathenism at this time presented many features similar to that of the Pharisees. They taught that true wisdom consists in being the master, and not the slave, of circumstances. The things that are not in our power are neither to be coveted nor avoided, but are to be accepted with equanimity. The seeker after wisdom was taught to be indifferent alike to pleasure or pain, and to maintain an intellectual neutrality. Stoic theology was nobler than that of the Epicureans. The Stoics conceived of a divine mind pervading the universe and ordering its affairs. They recognized its authority in the affairs of nations and in the lives of individual men, yet held a practical belief in freedom of man’s will. The Manual of Ethics, a record of the philosophy of Epictetus, the ex-slave, and the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius, the emperor, show how the slave and the emperor are, in a sense, considered as equals according to this system of philosophy. The writings of Seneca show that the ethics of the Stoics were similar to those of Christians. Many of the Stoics became tutors for the sons of noble families, and exercised influence comparable to that of Jesuit confessors in Europe in the 17th and 18th centuries.

There were several drawbacks to the ethical effectiveness of their philosophy: (1) In aiming at unconcern for themselves they also lost sympathy for others; (2) in aspiring to ethical perfection through the operation of their own will, they falsely assumed of their own will, they falsely assumed that men are able to work out their own salvation; (3) in stressing the perfect life, the high idealâ€”like the Phariseesâ€”they made it a mask for selfish and corrupt lives. Like the Pharisees, they were too often “hypocrites” (or, “play-actors”), acting a part before the world to which their inward character did not correspond. In the language of the satirist:

“People who ape the Curii and live like Bacchanals dare talk about morals” (Juvenal Satires ii. 2, 3; Loeb ed., p. 17).

Obviously there were numerous points of similarity between the better representatives of this school of thought and Paul, nevertheless, even for them the basic principles that he represented would seem to them an idle dream. When Paul spoke of Jesus and the resurrection, and of a judgment to come, the Stoics shrank from the thought that they needed pardon and redemption.

Encountered. Gr. sumballÅÂ, “to bring together,” not necessarily with bad intent, but as a casual meeting.

Babbler. Gr. spermologos, literally, “seed picker,” often used of birds that picked up stray seeds. Here the philosophers applied the term to Paul, as one who, having picked up stray scraps of knowledge, was overready to instruct those who were better informed.

Strange gods. That is, foreign deities. The Greek word here translated “gods” (daimonia) is used by NT writers for “demons,” or “devils” (see on Mark 1:23), malign supernatural beings, unworthy of man’s worship. But pagan writers used daimonia for an inferior order of divine beings, not necessarily evil, who claimed men’s adoration. It was one of the accusations brought against Socrates, the charge on which he was condemned, that he introduced new daimonia (Xenophon Memorabilia i. 1. 1, 2). But the intellectual atmosphere at Athens had changed since the prosecution of Socrates, for it was not anger but curiosity that prompted Paul’s challengers. They were not assailing Paul for his teaching; amid the abundance of idols they probably felt no difficulty in allowing Jesus a place, provided that He would not seek to overthrow their own divinities.

It has been thought by some that the Athenians, by using the plural word “gods,” understood that “Jesus” was one new divinity and Anastasis (Greek for “resurrection”) another. The Athenians had dedicated temples and altars to Concord, and Epimenides had bidden them erect altars to Insolence and Disgrace (Cicero De Legibus ii. 11), the two demons they blamed for bringing their city to ruin. It would be natural for the Greeks to think of the Christian preacher as a setter forth of new “divinities.” They also saw that he had more to say that they had yet heard.

Jesus. The Saviour was the constant theme of apostolic preaching (cf. chs. 2:22; 3:13; 5:30, 42; 8:5, 35; 9:20; 11:20; 13:23; etc.). Paul boldly proclaims the same Jesus to the skeptical intellectuals of Athens.

Resurrection. This was also a central theme in the preaching of the early church (cf. chs. 2:24; 3:15; 4:2, 10; 10:40; etc.). Paul had personal experience to prove Christ’s resurrection, for he had conversed with the risen Lord (ch. 9:4-6). But the apostle was also teaching the final resurrection of all men (cf. on Acts 17:32; 1 Cor. 15:51; 1 Thess. 4:14-16), and this is what startled the philosophers of Athens. They already believed in the immortality of the soul, but were astonished to hear anyone teaching the literal resurrection of the body. In 1 Cor. 15:35-44 we see the nature of the objections raised to this doctrine, and the manner in which Paul answered them.

Was this helpful?

Ellen G. White
The Acts of the Apostles, 233-42

Thus persecution followed the teachers of truth from city to city. The enemies of Christ could not prevent the advancement of the gospel, but they succeeded in making the work of the apostles exceedingly hard. Yet in the face of opposition and conflict, Paul pressed steadily forward, determined to carry out the purpose of God as revealed to him in the vision at Jerusalem: “I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles.” Acts 22:21. AA 233.1

Paul's hasty departure from Berea deprived him of the opportunity he had anticipated of visiting the brethren at Thessalonica. AA 233.2

On arriving at Athens, the apostle sent the Berean brethren back with a message to Silas and Timothy to join him immediately. Timothy had come to Berea prior to Paul's departure, and with Silas had remained to carry on the work so well begun there, and to instruct the new converts in the principles of the faith. AA 233.3

Read in context »

Was this helpful?

Ellen G. White
The Acts of the Apostles, 462

In former years the apostle had publicly proclaimed the faith of Christ with winning power, and by signs and miracles he had given unmistakable evidence of its divine character. With noble firmness he had risen up before the sages of Greece and by his knowledge and eloquence had put to silence the arguments of proud philosophy. With undaunted courage he had stood before kings and governors, and reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come, until the haughty rulers trembled as if already beholding the terrors of the day of God. AA 462.1

No such opportunities were now granted the apostle, confined as he was to his own dwelling, and able to proclaim the truth to those only who sought him there. He had not, like Moses and Aaron, a divine command to go before the profligate king and in the name of the great I AM rebuke his cruelty and oppression. Yet it was at this very time, when its chief advocate was apparently cut off from public labor, that a great victory was won for the gospel; for from the very household of the king, members were added to the church. AA 462.2

Nowhere could there exist an atmosphere more uncongenial to Christianity than in the Roman court. Nero seemed to have obliterated from his soul the last trace of the divine, and even of the human, and to bear the impress of Satan. His attendants and courtiers were in general of the same character as himself—fierce, debased, and corrupt. To all appearance it would be impossible for Christianity to gain a foothold in the court and palace of Nero. AA 462.3

Read in context »

Was this helpful?

Ellen G. White
Education, 67

See Paul at Athens before the council of the Areopagus, as he meets science with science, logic with logic, and philosophy with philosophy. Mark how, with the tact born of divine love, he points to Jehovah as “the Unknown God,” whom his hearers have ignorantly worshiped; and in words quoted from a poet of their own he pictures Him as a Father whose children they are. Hear him, in that age of caste, when the rights of man as man were wholly unrecognized, as he sets forth the great truth of human brotherhood, declaring that God “hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth.” Then he shows how, through all the dealings of God with man, runs like a thread of gold His purpose of grace and mercy. He “hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; that they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after Him, and find Him, though He be not far from every one of us.” Acts 17:23, 26, 27. Ed 67.1

Hear him in the court of Festus, when King Agrippa, convicted of the truth of the gospel, exclaims, “Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.” With what gentle courtesy does Paul, pointing to his own chain, make answer, “I would to God, that not only thou, but also all that hear me this day, were both almost, and altogether such as I am, except these bonds.” Acts 26:28, 29. Ed 67.2

Thus passed his life, as described in his own words, “in journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren; in weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness.” 2 Corinthians 11:26, 27. Ed 67.3

Read in context »

Was this helpful?

Ellen G. White
The Ministry of Healing, 214

The experience of the apostle Paul in meeting the philosophers of Athens has a lesson for us. In presenting the gospel before the court of the Areopagus, Paul met logic with logic, science with science, philosophy with philosophy. The wisest of his hearers were astonished and silenced. His words could not be controverted. But the effort bore little fruit. Few were led to accept the gospel. Henceforth Paul adopted a different manner of labor. He avoided elaborate arguments and discussion of theories, and in simplicity pointed men and women to Christ as the Saviour of sinners. Writing to the Corinthians of his work among them, he said: MH 214.1

“I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God. For I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.... My speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.” 1 Corinthians 2:1-5. MH 214.2

Again, in his letter to the Romans, he says: MH 215.1

Read in context »

Was this helpful?

More Comments

Cross References

philosophers

encountered