God as Creator in Acts 17:24

An Historical-Exegetical Study

Creamer

• Publisher: Wipf and Stock
• Year: 2017
• eBook ISBN: 9781532615375
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Biblical Criticism & Interpretation

The Areopagus speech of Acts provides a helpful study of how Paul both engaged and confronted the contemporary culture of his day to present the message of Christianity to his hearers in Athens. How does Paul, as a Jew, contextualize the message for his audience of Stoic and Epicurean philosophers in Athens on the topic of God as Creator in Acts 17:24? Paul touches on a subject of contentious debate between Stoics and Epicureans when he identifies God as Creator. Stoics believed in a creating deity, something akin to Plato's demiurge of the Timaeus. Epicureans ridiculed such an idea. By using the identification of God as Creator, Paul engages a common controversy between schools of philosophy.

Chapter 1

Introduction

Contextualization is a subject of great debate among those who labor in a global context. Many difficult questions arise that do not have easy answers. When it comes to engaging contemporary culture in cross-cultural communication, how far is too far? How far is not far enough? The Areopagus speech of Acts makes a helpful study of how Paul (as recorded by Luke) both engaged and confronted the contemporary culture of his day in order to present his message.

Although many (including Gärtner, 1955:66–72; Keener, 2014:2564–2680; Schnabel, 2012:715–748; Winter, 2005:38–59; Witherington, 1998:511–535) have discussed the question of how the speaker of the Areopagus address may have been interacting with the contemporary culture, there is no major work that focuses on the role of God as Creator in Paul’s communication. This work aims to make a contribution by addressing this gap.

Two monographs have made a great impact in the academic world and are frequently referred to in commentaries and articles. Martin Dibelius, in his 1939 essay, “Paul on the Areopagus” (Dibelius, 1956:26–77), made a case for the speech being rooted squarely in Greek thought, in such a way as to depart from both Old and New Testament theology. Dibelius acknowledged that the creation motif in Acts 17:24 originates from the Old Testament (1956:41), but then develops his argument that the speech is Hellenistic, and not Christian, in language and content (1956:57). He asks the question of whether “the apostle Paul could have made this speech” (1956:58). At the heart of Dibelius’s argument is an alleged incongruity between the theology of Paul in Romans and the theology of the speaker of the Areopagus speech (1956:58–64). In his view, “Luke strayed too far from the Paul who was the theologian of the paradoxes of grace and faith” (1956:77). Dibelius concluded that the speech in Athens was not historical, but symbolic in nature (1956:77).

Some years later, Bertil Gärtner responded with a major work, The Areopagus Speech and Natural Revelation (1955). Gärtner argued in favor of the Old Testament and Jewish foundations of the Areopagus speech, while also affirming the Hellenistic environment into which it was spoken. His research includes an investigation of the role of natural revelation in Acts 17 and Romans 1–2 (1955:73). Gärtner (1955:82–83) asks the question, “Is the background to the Pauline ideas to be sought in Old Testament, in Jewish, or in Stoic texts?” Gärtner demonstrates that the Old Testament employed creation as an argument against idolatry (1955:88–89, 101). Both Romans 1–2 and Acts 17 are shown to carry an anti-idolatry context, consolidating his point that Paul’s theology finds its roots in the Old Testament and Jewish thought. Further, the Stoic view of god is irreconcilable with the personal God of the Judeo-Christian tradition (1955:170–171). Against the claims of Dibelius, Gärtner concludes that the theology of Acts 17 is not contrary to that of Romans 1–2 (1955:249) and that the Areopagus speech “links up with a Jewish pattern” (1955:251).

More recent studies focus on various aspects of the speech, but still, little is said regarding the proclamation of God as Creator in verse 24. The rhetorical aspects of the speech are explored in some detail by several authors (Given, 1995:357–369; Sandnes, 1993:13–25; Zweck, 1989:94–103).1 The nature of God has been discussed as it relates to the Stoic and Epicurean schools (see especially Gärtner, 1955:81; Schnabel, 2005:179–180; Winter, 2005:48–53).2 Many have made note of the rejection of idolatry being an important theme (Barrett, 1974:74–75; Gärtner, 1955:203–228; Keener, 2014:2575–2578; Litwak, 2004:208–210; Pardigon, 2008:192–313; Peterson, 2009:487–492; Polhill, 1992:376; Schnabel, 2005:181–183; 2012:722–723).3 Gärtner (1955:203–204) devoted several pages of his monograph to the critique of idolatry found in Greek literature. Recent scholarship has given some attention to Roman authors of the period who may have also been known in Athens. Juhana Torkki (2004:56–68) discusses Cicero’s De Natura Deorum with respect to the philosophical backgrounds of the Areopagus speech.4 Bruce Winter (2005:49–52) discusses both Cicero and Seneca with regard to the nature of God.5 Gärtner (1955:171–174) has briefly discussed the concept of Paul’s proclamation of God as maker of the world in light of contemporary (ancient) views of the cosmos,6 as have F.F. Bruce (1990:382) and C.K. Barrett (1998:840), in their commentaries on Acts, but little in-depth work has been done on this important topic.

The central question for this work is as follows: How does Paul, as a Jew, contextualize the message of the gospel for his audience of Stoic and Epicurean philosophers in Athens on the topic of God as Creator in Acts 17:24? In order to answer this question, the problem will be broken down into four subsequent questions. The research will address the following problems:

1. What have scholars suggested regarding the understanding of God as Creator in Acts 17:24?

2. How does an understanding of the literary setting and context help elucidate Acts 17:24?

3. How does an understanding of the semantic context help elucidate Acts 17:24?

4. What were the Stoic and Epicurean understandings of God as Creator and Lord, and how does Paul’s view compare and contrast with them?

The main aim of this study is to investigate Paul’s methods of contextualization (according to Luke) on the topic of God as Creator in Acts 17:24. In order to r...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Preface
• Chapter 1: Introduction
• Chapter 2: Literary Setting and Context of Acts 17:24
• Chapter 3: Semantic Study of “The God Who Made the Heaven and Earth” in Biblical and Extra-Biblical Jewish Literature
• Chapter 4: Greek Views of the Creation of the Universe as it Relates to the Deity or Deities in Philosophical Writings Influential in the First Century A.D.
• Chapter 5: Conclusion
• Appendix: Greek Text and Translation of Acts 17:16–34
• Bibliography