|
The Meaning of
Deisidaimon (“Religious”) in Paul’s Areopagus Speech in Acts 17
By Prince Conteh
Introduction
More than any other passage in the Book
of Acts, the Areopagus speech (Acts 17:22-31) appears to have attracted
the attention of scholars[i]
and non-scholars alike. The interpretation of the word deisidaimon
(“religious”) in verse 22, which in the Greek text is presented in the
comparative form deisidaimonesterous
(“very religious”), has provoked a
difference of opinion among scholars because of the semantic range of
the term. What did Paul actually mean when he referred to the Athenians
as being very religious? Does this seemingly complimentary statement
imply that Paul was endorsing the practice of the Athenians as
worshipers of the one true God?
While ministering in Africa, I
encountered several African Christians[ii]
who, on the basis of verses 22-23, have claimed that Paul was endorsing
the religiosity of the Athenians and that African traditional religious
practices are therefore also valid and should be placed at par with
Christianity.
In the context of Acts 17, the Greek
language usage, and Paul’s religious background, this paper tries to
find an answer to the lingering question: “What does the word
deisidaimon
(“religious”) in verse 22 actually
mean?
The Areopagus Speech
Paul’s speech is presented in response to
the objection, raised in verse 18, that he was proclaiming strange and
foreign gods to the Athenians. Paul was taken to the Areopagus[iii]
to explain his “new teaching”. After addressing his audience (v.22b),
Paul reported his observation about the religiosity of the Athenians:
“I observe that you are very
religious in every respect” (v. 22c). The religiosity of the Athenians
was well attested.[iv]
They are considered particularly religious because of their temples and
idols.[v]
Deisidaimon
may convey either a positive or a negative sense.[vi]
In the rarer[vii]
positive sense, it denotes “religious” or “pious.”[viii]
The more frequent negative sense denotes “superstitious, bigoted.”[ix]
The range of deisidaimon, can be compared to the Greek word
threskeia
(“religion”),
which is used for bizarre cults as well as for worship of the true God
(Jas 1:26-27).[x]
In light of Acts 17:16, it seems unlikely
that Paul is using deisidaimon in a positive sense. He grew
exasperated at the sight of the city full of idols. In the New
Testament (NT), idolatry is understood as putting anything in the place
that God alone should occupy as the proper focus of obedience and
worship (e.g. Col 3:5).[xi]
The term deisidaimon carries the same negative connotation when
used by Festus in discussing Paul’s case with King Agrippa (25:19). The
Athenians are religious, but that religiosity is uninstructed,[xii]
based on superstition and ignorance of the true God. This led the
Athenians to an open-ended idol system, just in case there was a deity
that had been overlooked.
It seems Paul used the term in Athens to
capture the attention of his audience, without alienating them. This
subtle approach is in line with the rhetorical strategy used when
dealing with a critical audience.[xiii]
In classical rhetoric, the introduction of a speech serves to make the
audience receptive to the speaker.[xiv]
This should not be taken as a compliment. Bruce has rightly cautioned
that “too much stress should not be laid on the likelihood of Paul’s
commencing his address with a compliment; according to Lucian (De
gymn. 19), complimentary exordia to secure the good will of the
Areopagus court (sic were) discouraged.”[xv]
Nor would Paul begin his address with an insult.[xvi]
It would have been counter-productive for him to have begun his speech
in a tone of reproach. A conscientious speaker would treat his hearers
with respect and try to meet them at the highest level of their
understanding; however misguided he may perceive their ideas and
practices to be.[xvii]
Therefore, Paul appropriately started his speech with a strong desire to
win the attention of hearers. His pattern has been to build bridges
rather than walls between him and his hearers.
This strategy is completely in accordance
with Paul’s own declaration of his flexibility, in order that he might
bring salvation to some (1 Cor 9:19-23).[xviii]
For Paul and his fellow Jews in this context deisidaimon
carries a negative connotation. But for Greeks, the word, apart from
qualification, is essentially neutral.
In verse 23a, Paul gives his reason for
addressing the Athenians as being “very religious” by referring to an
altar he saw dedicated to an Unknown God. While he was moving about the
city and observing the “objects of worship” (sebasmata), the
altar to an unknown God struck his attention the most. In this context,
sebasmata will include altars as well as images (as in Wis 14:20;
15:17).[xix]
It is further used for reference to objects of idolatrous worship,[xx]
which, seems to be the point in this instance. In all likelihood, when
coming from Paul, the term sebasmata would have a negative
connotation. He stated in his letter to Rome that it is wrong to
worship the creature rather than the creator (Rom 1:25).
In addition to these objects of worship,
Paul came across “an altar” (Bomos) which caught his
attention. Acts 17:23 is the only place in the NT where the word
Bomos is used. This is in complete contrast to the 23 times the
word thusiasterion,[xxi]
“altar of the God of the Bible,”[xxii]
appears in the NT. The term Bomos has its background in the
Septuagint (LXX), where it is mostly used to refer to non-Israelite
altars and objects of worship,[xxiii]
as in the case of 17:23. On the contrary, Jewish writers like Philo and
Josephus did not follow the LXX. They used Bomos
freely for the altar in Jerusalem. I Maccabees 1:59 makes a distinction
between
thusiasterion
and Bomos
On this
Bomos
in Athens there was an inscription,
“to the
Unknown God.” Paul used the altar-inscription as a way of introducing
his proclamation of his knowable God. This enabled him to emphasize the
ignorance of the Athenians concerning the true identity of God and clear
himself from the accusation of introducing strange deities. “Paul,
under the disagreeable suspicion of introducing alien deities to
Athens... first praises the Athenians for being ‘very religious’, and
then, using the altar inscription ‘Unknown God’ as a starting point,
clears himself of the suspicion of attempting to introduce new deities
to Athens.”[xxiv]
Paul’s reference to “an unknown god” does not equate this god with the
true God, nor does he mean that his hearers were consciously worshiping
the true God. Rather, he identifies the source of the phenomena for
which they believed the “unknown god” was responsible.[xxv]
In verse 23b, Paul declares the purpose
of his discourse: “What therefore you worship as unknown this I proclaim
to you.” Paul starts with the Athenians’ misplaced belief in an
impersonal divinity, and leads them to an understanding about the true
living God. Paul is inferring that by their actions, the Athenians
suspect that such a god exists, but they neither really know nor
properly acknowledge this god (cf. Rom 1:20-23). The Athenians are
religious, but their religiosity is faulty and misdirected (cf. Rom
10:2). Paul now proclaims what they need to know if their worship is to
be true.[xxvi]
What, in the practice of their religion, they did not know (namely, the
true God; see 1 Thess 4:5; Gal 4:8), he proclaimed to them.[xxvii]
By proclaiming the “unknown god” from a local inscription, Paul was able
to establish a common ground with his audience.[xxviii]
From this point the speech takes an epistemological turn from the
unknown god to the God who can now be known through the one he (God) has
appointed.
The core of the speech (vv. 24-29)
contains a series of assertions about who God is and the implications of
God’s relationship to humankind. Notions that were familiar to the
Athenians (v.28) are used and given a Jewish-Christian flavor. They were
used as points of contact to make a proclamation of the one true God.
These assertions are interspersed with negations (vv. 24b, 25a, 29b)
explicitly condemning idolatry. The attack on idolatry, should come as
no surprise to readers because Paul as a Jew (Acts 21:39; 26:4; Phil
3:9; also Acts 19:34) would naturally be disturbed by idols, which were
considered an abomination to God and to every devout Jew (2 Kgs
21:20-21; 2 Chr 15:8; 34:7; Ezek 14:6; 16:36-39). Later, Paul
confronted idolatry in Ephesus (19:24-41) and in Corinth (1 Cor 8:4;
10:20). These series of negations place the Athenians under judgment for
the objects of their worship (v. 23; cf., v. 16).[xxix]
They portray the misconceptions of the Athenians about God. The attack
on idols can be compared to what is recorded in 1 Thessalonians 1:9-10.
Lifeless idols cannot represent the living God.
Verse 29 critiques the error of thinking
that God can be associated with material objects. This is the ignorance
Paul wishes to correct. The Athenians’ wrong thinking was evident all
over the city (v. 16).[xxx]
Such action constitutes an act of “being ignorant.” This follows up the
agnountes (ignorance) of verse 23.[xxxi]
This ignorance, which distorts the worship that accompanies it, has been
going on for a long time because from nature the Greeks have developed
not natural theology, but natural idolatry.[xxxii]
That God permitted this practice to go on so long shows the forbearance
and love of the God (cf. Rom 3:25).[xxxiii]
It was not God’s intention for humankind to continue endlessly in
ignorant idolatry.[xxxiv]
God has always objected to the idolatrous practice of the heathen. Now
Paul has made this plain to the Athenians. In each of the assertions
found in the main argument of the speech, Paul uses the general
philosophic critique of temples, sacrifices, and idols.[xxxv]
By doing so he is exposing the faulty logic of the Athenians. Their
religion does not live up to the insights of their own philosophers and
poets.[xxxvi]
In all this, he maintains a common ground.
Paul is a bridge-builder. There is
nothing he has said so far that would appear ridiculous to the
philosophers or that violates the conscience of a Hellenistic Jew.[xxxvii]
Paul concluded his speech (vv. 30-31) by
stating that in the past, “God has overlooked the times of human
ignorance” (v.30a). In the past God had allowed the Gentiles to do
things their own way (14:16). He did not approve or suppress their
ignorant idolatrous worship; he overlooked it[xxxviii]
(see Rom 3:25b; 1 Pet 1:14; Heb 9:7). All is changed now that Christ
has come with the full knowledge of God.[xxxix]
He now commands that all humanity everywhere must repent (v.30b). There
is no exemption or excuse. Everyone must repent and so reconcile with
God (2:38; 3:19; 14:15).
The concept “repent” was the message of
Peter (2:38; 3:19) and of Paul (26:20). In the OT prophetic tradition,
repentance means “turning towards Yahweh with all one’s being, an
absolutely serious reckoning with him as Israel’s God in all decisions (Neh
9:24; Isa 1:2; Amos 4:6-8; Jer 1:16).”[xl]
In the NT it denotes a radical change of attitude and life.[xli]
In this speech it means turning from idolatry and worshiping the one
true God. Now is the time for the Athenians to return to the true God
(see 1 Thess 1:9).
The call for repentance would have been
needless if the audience was not guilty of false worship. Why would
Paul want them to turn to the true God if they already knew him? The
Athenians need to repent to be reconciled to God through Jesus Christ.
By preaching the message of repentance, Paul is obeying the commission
of the resurrected Christ, “that repentance and forgiveness of sins
should be preached in his name to all nations...” (Luke 24:47).
The reason for the call to repentance is
that God “has fixed a day on which he will have the world judged in
righteousness by a man whom he has appointed” (v. 31a). God has set the
day in his wisdom and he will fulfill it in his own time (24:25; see
also Rom 2:5, 16; 1 Thess 5:2, 4). There is an impending judgment that
no one will escape (2:20, 3:19). This judgment will be conducted by a
man God has appointed (see 10:42). There is no mention made of the
appointee’s name. But the reference to the resurrection in the next half
of the verse indicates that Paul must undoubtedly be referring to Jesus
Christ. God has confirmed this appointment by raising Christ from the
dead (v.31b). The resurrection is the heart of the Christian message (1
Cor 15:3-5, 12-19). Paul knew the resurrection to be true because he
himself had encountered the risen Christ (Acts 9). In Acts 13:30-36,
Paul cited three OT references (Ps 2:7; Isa 55:3; Ps 16:10) to explain
the importance of the resurrection of Christ. Paul has now come full
circle from their misapprehension about “Jesus and the resurrection"
(verse 18 see also 2:24; 10:40: 13:33) and their misdirected idolatry.
Conclusion
The Areopagus speech from beginning to
end is very much like classical rhetoric.[xlii]
Paul skillfully started with an acknowledgment of the Athenian
religiosity as a means to captivate their attention and took his point
of departure by making reference to an altar to an “Unknown God” which
he informs and transforms into the Creator of all things and of all
people. This “No longer Unknown God” is the one who rules over the whole
world and who now demands repentance from all people. He has revealed
his will about a day of reckoning when Jesus Christ will be Judge. He
has proclaimed a sovereign creator, the one and only God, who has
determined, a judgment day. Jesus is the appointed Judge, as shown by
his Resurrection. There is no room here for the charge against Paul of
promoting new deities. Paul has given the proof of all his claims in the
address that seemed new and strange to them. At the end of
the speech, two converts were identified. It was necessary for them to
have believe and to convert to Christianity because they were not
already serving the same God Paul has just finished telling them about.
We have argued that Deisidaimon
was used in a rhetorical fashion to captivate the attention of the
audience and was not meant to endorse the religion of the Athenians. The
existence of an altar dedicated to an “Unknown God,” which occasioned
the use of the word Deisidaimon, is not proof of authentic
worship of the true God. There are indications in the text that suggest
that Paul was using the term in a negative, but diplomatic sense. In all
this, Paul did not compromise his monotheistic faith.
[i] Evidence of
this claim can be seen in A. J. and M. B. Mattill, A
Classified Bibliography of Literature on the Acts of the
Apostles (ed. Bruce M. Metzger; NTTS 7; Leiden: Brill,
1966), 430-39, and Günter Wagner, ed. An Exegetical
Bibliography of the New Testament: Luke and Acts (Macon, GA:
Mercer University Press, 1985), 494-502, where each, excluding
the years after their publication to the present, compiled over
100 publications devoted to either the entire account of Paul’s
visit to Athens (Acts 17:16-34) or selected portions of it
according to the interest or focus of the writer.
[ii] An African
Christian is a dual religionist who claims to be Christian and
still maintains his/her traditional beliefs.
[iv] F. F Bruce,
The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text with
Introduction and Commentary (Grand Rapid, MI: Eerdmans,
1990), 380; C. K. Barrett, The Acts of the Apostles: A
Critical and Exegetical Commentary (2 vols; ICC Edinburgh: T
& T Clarke, 1994-98), 2.836.
[v] E. Haenchen,
The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary (Oxford: Basil
Blackwell, 1971), 520.
[vi] W. A. Bauer,
Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early
Christian
Literature
(2nd English Ed. trans. and aug. By W. F. Arndt, F.
W. Gingrich and F. W. Danker. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1979), 173. See also Liddell-Scott-Jones,
Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon, 1930), 153; Ceslas
Spicq, Theological Lexicon of the New Testament (3 Vols.
trans. and ed. by James D. Ernest; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson,
1994), 1. 305.
[vii] Barrett,
Acts, 2.835.
[viii] LSJ, 177;
Barrett, Acts, 2.835; Bruce, Acts, 380. For a
detailed study of deisidaimon see Spicq, TLNT, 1.
305-8; Barrett, Acts, 2.835-36.
[x] Spiqc, TLNT,
1. 308. Regarding the usage of the English word cult and the
Greek threskeia for aberrant cults, Spiqc quotes Col
2:18; Wis 11:16; 14:17, 18, 27 as references.
[xii] Barrett,
Acts, 2.839.
[xiii] Karl Olav
Sandnes, “Paul and Socrates: The Aim of the Areopagus Speech,”
JSNT 50 (1993), 15.
[xiv] Dean Zweck,
“The Exordium of the Areopagus Speech, Acts 17:22, 23,” NTS
35 (1989) 101.
[xvii] C. J. Hemer,
“The Speeches of Acts: 11. The Areopagus Address,” TynBul
40 (1989) 250.
[xx] Josephus,
Ant., 18.344.
[xxi] Pieter W. van
der Horst, ANRW, 1452; thusiasterion,
literally refers to the altars in the temple at Jerusalem, Lev
4:7; the altar of burnt offering, Matt 5:23,24; 23:18-20,35;
Luke 11:51; 1 Cor 9:13; 10:18; altar of incense, Exod 30:1;
40:5; Luke 1:11.
[xxii]
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, (Trans. G. W.
Bromiley 10 Vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdsman, 1964-76),
3.182-83.
[xxiii] Horst,
ANRW, 1452; TDNT, 3.182-83;
Bomos is
used in the LXX 44 times.
[xxv] Marshall,
Acts, 286.
[xxviii] James M.
Scott, “Luke’s Geographical Horizon” in The Book of Acts in
Its Graeco-Roman Setting, ed. Bruce Winter, The Book of
Acts in Its First Century Setting 2 ( Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdman, 1994), 541.
[xxix] G. Walter
Hansen, “The Preaching and Defence of Paul,” in Witness to
the Gospel: The Theology of Acts (eds. I. Howard Marshall
and David Peterson; Grand Rapids, MI/ Cambridge: U.K. Eerdmans,
1998), 316.
[xxx] Barrett,
Acts, 2.850.
[xxxv] C. H.
Talbert, Reading Acts: A Literary and Theological Commentary
on the Acts of the Apostles (New York: The Crossroad, 1997),
164.
[xxxviii] Barrett,
Acts, 2.851; Talbert, Reading Acts, 164.
[xlii] Zweck,
“Exordium,” 94-103.
|
