Christmas Arrangement
The Gospel in a Pagan Society
- Get link
- X
- Other Apps
Prior, Kenneth. The Gospel in a Pagan Society. Downers Grove: Intervarsity, 1975.
The author's may not be a name well known, but his little 120 page book is perhaps the best examination of Acts 17:16-34 to date. Kenneth Prior does not merely deliver a concise commentary on the passage, rather he gives his readers a guided tour through the mindset of the Ancient Near East and helps to discover principles for application for preaching the good news of Jesus in our modern setting.
First, Prior contrasts the results of Paul’s missionary activity with what we may consider successful missionary activity today. In contrast to the events of Pentecost, Paul would not be considered to be a success, for there were no streams of converts pouring into the church. We are challenged to realize the difference between sowing and reaping and how, since the prophets, sowing the gospel is a process that will not see immediate results. Furthermore, we are caused to remember that nothing grows until the ground is first plowed! Hearts must be prepared to receive the seed of the sower.
Next, the author helps us learn the attitude toward art forms and idols. Here we find a Jew in Athens. Jewish attitude is marked by a history of loathing for idolatry (Ex 20:2-6) though the books of History detail the failure of loathing alone and the subsequent participation in idolatry on the part of the Israelites. Simply said, the Exile helped Israel learn their lesson and return to true worship of the living God. The distain for idolatry is seen in Paul and Barnabas recoil in horror in Lystra when people want to worship them as gods ( Acts 14:15). Prior says, “It would be pointless to preach Jesus as Lord if he were merely to be thought of as an addition to an already over-crowded pantheon.” The present situation is no different from Paul’s:
“Before we swallow the assumption that the worship of idols is beneath sophisticated twentieth century minds, we ought to appreciate that idols do not have to be physical objects. It is just as possible to have idols in our minds as we create mental images of the kind of God we like to conceive. This is the very things that people do when they introduce their idea of God with expressions as, “I like to think . . .” It is often used to introduce an easy-going God, whose love is assumed to preclude him from punishing sin. In this way it is possible to invent our own God, who may be far removed from the God who has made himself known through Christ and the Bible.”
So we find that before Paul says anything to the Athenians, the idolatry of that culture had already spoken volumes to Paul: people are ignorant about God and have created for themselves a god of their own understanding. And an “unknown god,” just in case they didn’t get it right.
Third, we see how Paul started in the synagogue with the Jews and Gentiles (“devout persons”) who were attracted to the Jewish religion, and how Paul moved through the OT to show necessity of Christ. Next we see how Paul turns his attention to the non-Jewish world that also needs to hear the gospel. He went to where they were, from the synagogue, first to the market then to Mars Hill. Here we find Paul addressing this different crowd in a different way: he argued and in so-doing does not bypass the fallen mind, but addresses the mind distorted by sin and enlightens it by exposing the irrationality of their thinking.
Prior helps us see how Luke then introduces his readers to Paul’s audience, the Epicureans and Stoics. Luke bothers us with this information to demonstrate the necessity of getting to know the ones to whom we are speaking, to listen to them and apply the gospel to their sin root. Prior does his readers the service of introducing the backgrounds of these philosophers: who these people are, their ethics, their theology, and view of life. F.F. Bruce is quoted to say, “Stoicism and Epicurianism represent alternative attempts in pre-Christian paganism to come to terms with life, especially in times of uncertainty and hardship, and post-Christian paganism has not been able to devise of anything appreciably better.”
Prior takes us now to the heart of the message: Jesus and the Resurrection. We don’t know exactly what Paul was saying (he had to have said much more than was actually recorded), but we can infer from Luke’s account that he was preaching Jesus and the Resurrection, at the very least. Though Christ is at the center of all apostolic preaching (especially for Paul) some differences in his preaching style begin to be made evident: when speaking to the Gentiles, Paul makes no reference to the OT specifically, though he still argues about Jesus. The implications of this are huge. Nevetheless, Paul references the resurrection twice to validate the truth of his message.
So what’s new about all this? The way people react to the gospel reveals a great deal about them. Remarks do not change the value of the gospel (any more than critiquing art changes its value), but actually truly reveals the person making the remarks. Paul was bringing a very strange teaching to their ears and his hearers had some clear presuppose-tions that had to be challenged. What Paul was preaching had nothing in common with death-and-birth myths of the mystery religions. It was foolishness to them. Notice Luke’s explanation: 17:20-21. They were “neophiliacs” or, lovers of what is new. What Paul was preaching was established at the foundation of the world.
Paul had moved from a gathering of religious people, familiar with scripture to a gathering of minds where scripture, seemingly, would have no authority. Prior shows how Paul assessed his hearers and not only determined their religiosity, but demonstrates how their ignorance was evidenced in the midst of their love for wisdom. Once he got their attention by making a rather scathing statement of worship in ignorance, he then proceeds to introduce a knowable God. Prior now shows the weight of Paul’s statements in the context of an understanding that proves the Greeks were wrong in many more areas, specifically, their failure as scientists. Guthrie, “ . . . the philosophers tried to explain nature while shutting their eyes.” We learn that when Paul argues how Jesus was more than a man, and they examine the evidence of the resurrection, he is showing them grounds for believing in the existence and nature of God, who cannot be found any other way. More specifically, God not only revealed Himself to man in Jesus and the resurrection, but also revealed Himself to Paul and appointed him a witness of these great events. Now we begin to extrapolate Paul’s evangelistic methodology: He used the principle of scripture, but no proof-texts; and, how the pagan world was being exposed to what was becoming the NT, even being addressed by one of its’ writers.
“If God has answered our natural ignorance about him, by revealing himself through ‘Jesus and the resurrection’, our next question must surely be concerned with what God has shown himself to be like.” What kind of God was Paul proclaiming? First, those who saw Jesus in the flesh were expected to have learned something about God who was disclosing himself through him (Jn 14:9-10; Heb 1:1-2). Second, the God of the OT Jesus revealed was proclaimed by Paul in OT language (Acts 17:24a sounds like Exodus 20:11 and 1 Ki 8:27). We understand what a transcendent yet immanent God does to the minds of these Athenians because he is a personal God who has a particular relationship with His creatures.
Once one understands who God is, he may now ask what man is. Prior walks us through the views of basic Greek understanding and it’s modern equivalents with ethical implications seem in the fields of psychology, genetics and racism. Here is a person who is a Jew (there are only two kinds of people: Jews and Gentiles), speaking to Greeks (there are only two kinds of people: Greeks and barbarians), specifically, Athenians (there are only two kinds of people: Athenians and everyone else). What does it mean “we are his offspring?” Is there a master race? Are Christians calling for global same-ness? Prior demonstrates through Paul’s explanation how God had a reason for creating man and ordering his affairs: that they should seek Him (Acts 17:27) If man is in fact God’s creation, it is natural to suppose that he will be concerned to find his paternal creator; i.e., be “inherently religious.”
Man does not seek out God and God demands that he repent! Paul goes on to address the problem of those who have never heard the gospel: “In whatever we may understand the attitude of God towards man’s former ignorance, once Jesus has come and has been made known to men, God calls for their repentance.” The problem for many . . . is not about those who have never heard the Gospel, but those who have heard it, and what they intend to do about it. If they choose to ignore it, there is no doubt about their standing before the One by whom they will finally be judged. The principle of inevitability becomes clear, “Here is the ultimate issue to be faced at the final judgment b those who have had the opportunity to respond to the gospel. Those who will be eternally punished will not just be ‘those who did not know God’, but ‘those who do not obey the Gospel of our Lord Jesus.’”
Inevitability needs to be the strongest apologetic in our witnessing! The Day of Judgment is coming, no matter what the Epicureans or Stoics think. Einstein and Wells could see the impending doom! This day is not a random day of chance, but a fixed day of the determined will of God in which man will be held accountable. This day is not a day of gods and their unrighteousness, but a day of one righteous God who judges with truth and equity, and Paul closes the point by bringing his audience right back to where he began, with Jesus and the resurrection!
Prior gives us these conclusions for our consideration for ministry:
The author's may not be a name well known, but his little 120 page book is perhaps the best examination of Acts 17:16-34 to date. Kenneth Prior does not merely deliver a concise commentary on the passage, rather he gives his readers a guided tour through the mindset of the Ancient Near East and helps to discover principles for application for preaching the good news of Jesus in our modern setting.
First, Prior contrasts the results of Paul’s missionary activity with what we may consider successful missionary activity today. In contrast to the events of Pentecost, Paul would not be considered to be a success, for there were no streams of converts pouring into the church. We are challenged to realize the difference between sowing and reaping and how, since the prophets, sowing the gospel is a process that will not see immediate results. Furthermore, we are caused to remember that nothing grows until the ground is first plowed! Hearts must be prepared to receive the seed of the sower.
Next, the author helps us learn the attitude toward art forms and idols. Here we find a Jew in Athens. Jewish attitude is marked by a history of loathing for idolatry (Ex 20:2-6) though the books of History detail the failure of loathing alone and the subsequent participation in idolatry on the part of the Israelites. Simply said, the Exile helped Israel learn their lesson and return to true worship of the living God. The distain for idolatry is seen in Paul and Barnabas recoil in horror in Lystra when people want to worship them as gods ( Acts 14:15). Prior says, “It would be pointless to preach Jesus as Lord if he were merely to be thought of as an addition to an already over-crowded pantheon.” The present situation is no different from Paul’s:
“Before we swallow the assumption that the worship of idols is beneath sophisticated twentieth century minds, we ought to appreciate that idols do not have to be physical objects. It is just as possible to have idols in our minds as we create mental images of the kind of God we like to conceive. This is the very things that people do when they introduce their idea of God with expressions as, “I like to think . . .” It is often used to introduce an easy-going God, whose love is assumed to preclude him from punishing sin. In this way it is possible to invent our own God, who may be far removed from the God who has made himself known through Christ and the Bible.”
So we find that before Paul says anything to the Athenians, the idolatry of that culture had already spoken volumes to Paul: people are ignorant about God and have created for themselves a god of their own understanding. And an “unknown god,” just in case they didn’t get it right.
Third, we see how Paul started in the synagogue with the Jews and Gentiles (“devout persons”) who were attracted to the Jewish religion, and how Paul moved through the OT to show necessity of Christ. Next we see how Paul turns his attention to the non-Jewish world that also needs to hear the gospel. He went to where they were, from the synagogue, first to the market then to Mars Hill. Here we find Paul addressing this different crowd in a different way: he argued and in so-doing does not bypass the fallen mind, but addresses the mind distorted by sin and enlightens it by exposing the irrationality of their thinking.
Prior helps us see how Luke then introduces his readers to Paul’s audience, the Epicureans and Stoics. Luke bothers us with this information to demonstrate the necessity of getting to know the ones to whom we are speaking, to listen to them and apply the gospel to their sin root. Prior does his readers the service of introducing the backgrounds of these philosophers: who these people are, their ethics, their theology, and view of life. F.F. Bruce is quoted to say, “Stoicism and Epicurianism represent alternative attempts in pre-Christian paganism to come to terms with life, especially in times of uncertainty and hardship, and post-Christian paganism has not been able to devise of anything appreciably better.”
Prior takes us now to the heart of the message: Jesus and the Resurrection. We don’t know exactly what Paul was saying (he had to have said much more than was actually recorded), but we can infer from Luke’s account that he was preaching Jesus and the Resurrection, at the very least. Though Christ is at the center of all apostolic preaching (especially for Paul) some differences in his preaching style begin to be made evident: when speaking to the Gentiles, Paul makes no reference to the OT specifically, though he still argues about Jesus. The implications of this are huge. Nevetheless, Paul references the resurrection twice to validate the truth of his message.
So what’s new about all this? The way people react to the gospel reveals a great deal about them. Remarks do not change the value of the gospel (any more than critiquing art changes its value), but actually truly reveals the person making the remarks. Paul was bringing a very strange teaching to their ears and his hearers had some clear presuppose-tions that had to be challenged. What Paul was preaching had nothing in common with death-and-birth myths of the mystery religions. It was foolishness to them. Notice Luke’s explanation: 17:20-21. They were “neophiliacs” or, lovers of what is new. What Paul was preaching was established at the foundation of the world.
Paul had moved from a gathering of religious people, familiar with scripture to a gathering of minds where scripture, seemingly, would have no authority. Prior shows how Paul assessed his hearers and not only determined their religiosity, but demonstrates how their ignorance was evidenced in the midst of their love for wisdom. Once he got their attention by making a rather scathing statement of worship in ignorance, he then proceeds to introduce a knowable God. Prior now shows the weight of Paul’s statements in the context of an understanding that proves the Greeks were wrong in many more areas, specifically, their failure as scientists. Guthrie, “ . . . the philosophers tried to explain nature while shutting their eyes.” We learn that when Paul argues how Jesus was more than a man, and they examine the evidence of the resurrection, he is showing them grounds for believing in the existence and nature of God, who cannot be found any other way. More specifically, God not only revealed Himself to man in Jesus and the resurrection, but also revealed Himself to Paul and appointed him a witness of these great events. Now we begin to extrapolate Paul’s evangelistic methodology: He used the principle of scripture, but no proof-texts; and, how the pagan world was being exposed to what was becoming the NT, even being addressed by one of its’ writers.
“If God has answered our natural ignorance about him, by revealing himself through ‘Jesus and the resurrection’, our next question must surely be concerned with what God has shown himself to be like.” What kind of God was Paul proclaiming? First, those who saw Jesus in the flesh were expected to have learned something about God who was disclosing himself through him (Jn 14:9-10; Heb 1:1-2). Second, the God of the OT Jesus revealed was proclaimed by Paul in OT language (Acts 17:24a sounds like Exodus 20:11 and 1 Ki 8:27). We understand what a transcendent yet immanent God does to the minds of these Athenians because he is a personal God who has a particular relationship with His creatures.
Once one understands who God is, he may now ask what man is. Prior walks us through the views of basic Greek understanding and it’s modern equivalents with ethical implications seem in the fields of psychology, genetics and racism. Here is a person who is a Jew (there are only two kinds of people: Jews and Gentiles), speaking to Greeks (there are only two kinds of people: Greeks and barbarians), specifically, Athenians (there are only two kinds of people: Athenians and everyone else). What does it mean “we are his offspring?” Is there a master race? Are Christians calling for global same-ness? Prior demonstrates through Paul’s explanation how God had a reason for creating man and ordering his affairs: that they should seek Him (Acts 17:27) If man is in fact God’s creation, it is natural to suppose that he will be concerned to find his paternal creator; i.e., be “inherently religious.”
Man does not seek out God and God demands that he repent! Paul goes on to address the problem of those who have never heard the gospel: “In whatever we may understand the attitude of God towards man’s former ignorance, once Jesus has come and has been made known to men, God calls for their repentance.” The problem for many . . . is not about those who have never heard the Gospel, but those who have heard it, and what they intend to do about it. If they choose to ignore it, there is no doubt about their standing before the One by whom they will finally be judged. The principle of inevitability becomes clear, “Here is the ultimate issue to be faced at the final judgment b those who have had the opportunity to respond to the gospel. Those who will be eternally punished will not just be ‘those who did not know God’, but ‘those who do not obey the Gospel of our Lord Jesus.’”
Inevitability needs to be the strongest apologetic in our witnessing! The Day of Judgment is coming, no matter what the Epicureans or Stoics think. Einstein and Wells could see the impending doom! This day is not a random day of chance, but a fixed day of the determined will of God in which man will be held accountable. This day is not a day of gods and their unrighteousness, but a day of one righteous God who judges with truth and equity, and Paul closes the point by bringing his audience right back to where he began, with Jesus and the resurrection!
Prior gives us these conclusions for our consideration for ministry:
- Some mocked, others called for another hearing (Acts 17:32);
- A small group believed, whoever they were;
- Paul could use what they were thinking without agreeing or embracing it because his argument was Jesus and the resurrection;
- We live in an Acts 17 world where substandard “Christian” behavior is the norm;
- We have a pioneer missionary opportunity on our doorstep. Persevere with the same message and method which grew up and proved effective for Paul—acting in the Holy Spirit: Start in the synagogue (re-evangelize the evangelized because of the amount of lip-service to Christ); move to the marketplace; go the “the hill.” Success will be measured in effectiveness, not numbers.
- We need Men: rely less on “come and see” and do more “go and tell;”
- We need Method: Express truth in intelligible language;
- We need Message: though the language we use may change in context with those to whom we speak, the message should not. Paul spoke the OT to those who new it; also, Paul did not speak of the scriptures to those who did not; To both, Paul declared the living and personal God of Christian revelation, singling out His control of nature.
- Paul took risks: Emphasizing the resurrection risked ridicule from the Athenians who were repulsed by the concept; Introduced a unknown God to them as transcendent and immanent; Convinced men of the inevitability of judgment and the necessity of repentance.
- Get link
- X
- Other Apps
Popular posts from this blog
The Smooth-flowing Life
Legend has it that the astronomer Ptolemy (1st century A.D.) suggested that falling stars were caused by the gods moving in the heavens, thus knocking stars out of their places. Somehow people reasoned that that if the gods were moving, they must be getting close to earth so they would lift their "prayers" or "wishes" (literally, "desires") whenever they saw the stars falling in hopes the gods would notice and grant a favorable answer. But how does one wish on falling star? Once you see it, it's gone before the wish or prayer can be made! The answer is simple: meteor shower. That's how to get your wish. Mrs. Ann Hodges had a wish fall right into her lap. Sort of. In 1954 Mrs. Hodges was sleeping on the couch when a 8 1/2 pound meteorite fell through her house and into her living room where it bounced off the radio and struck her left hip leaving her with a bruise. Not sure what she was wishing, but that's not how to do it. Epictetus hel...
