Acts 17:18

‘And certain also of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers encountered him.'

In the marketplace he met among others certain Epicurean and Stoic philosophers. The founder of Epicureanism (Epicurus) saw the world as being a result of the totally random movement and combination of ‘atoms'. This being so the Epicureans saw everything generally as totally random and not affected in any way by the gods. The aim of their system was therefore to achieve happiness by serene detachment from the world and its clamour and wants and desires, allowing random activity to determine how their lives went. They were not atheists. They believed that the gods enjoyed this serene detachment by enjoying their own world and having nothing to do with this world. In the same way the Epicurean also, by detachment from the world as a result of limiting desire, and by finding solace in friendship and companionship, could also find contentment. And finally on death our atoms are dispersed. Thus they believed that there was nothing beyond death.

While they taught the pursuit of ‘pleasure', it was not hedonism but a pleasure that was to be found in a life of tranquillity, a life free from pain and disturbing passions, and above all from superstitious fears. It was only later that the pursuit of extravagant pleasure through the satisfaction of carnal desires began to characterise Epicurean philosophers, a final natural result of their refusal to believe in an afterlife, and we should not read that into those who listened to Paul. But we can understand from this why on the whole they rejected the teaching of the resurrection, and of a God Who intervened in the affairs of life, and while their teaching certainly did enable people to find a certain level of contentment, it was purely negative and in its own way selfish. In a way it was a denial of the fullness of life and of our responsibility for our fellowman.

The Stoics on the other hand sought deliverance from life by seeking to align themselves with the eternal reason which was inherent in the Universe, the Logos. They believed that the Universe was a kind of fire, and that in each man was a spark of the eternal reason which had to be encouraged. Man, they believed, will be happy when he does not want things to be other than they are, but accepts and responds to the cycle of nature and the cycle of history and cultivates a willing acceptance of them. He must respond to the outworking of the universal Reason by allowing himself to be carried along by it, and by himself living ‘reasonably'. He must therefore be satisfied with all that comes his way, accepting it stoically without complaint and without fighting against it. Life and death, pleasure and pain, were equally unimportant.

Furthermore he saw it as his inevitable responsibility to serve his fellow-man, not out of love but out of disinterested duty and reason, and stoic philosophers like Seneca, Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius developed high levels of theoretical morality. But it should be noted that his theoretical morality was not such as prevented Marcus Aurelius, for example, from pursuing the persecution of Christians, and condemning them to suffer horrible deaths. He despised them because of their positive attitude towards life, and could not understand how they could have joy in suffering. To him suffering was something to be endured without emotion, as a result of the working out of Reason. Thus he considered that they brought their sufferings, for which he was largely responsible as emperor, on themselves. So in the end his morality was limited to those whom he felt deserved it and he had no compunction about causing suffering to those whom he saw as unworthy.

Their beliefs enabled Stoics to bear the vicissitudes of life without complaint, and to be dutiful in their lives, and they at least believed in a higher ‘force' which was active among men. But their way was a way that was empty of joy, and deliberately so. Indeed they saw joy as a denial of what they believed in, which was the life of quiet reason and non-resistance. And it resulted in their seeking nothing beyond the grave. Their reason would simply be absorbed back into the eternal reason. Indeed they believed that periodically the world would be destroyed by a great conflagration, after which a new cycle would begin. Neither the Epicureans nor the Stoics had any hope beyond this life.

‘And some said, “What would this babbler say?” Others, “He seems to be a setter forth of strange gods”, because he preached Jesus and the resurrection.'

We can see then why these philosophers had a sceptical attitude towards what Paul was teaching. The word rendered ‘babbler' was applied to ‘seed-picking birds', and then to people who picked up random and second hand ideas without any consistency of thought or real understanding. In their conceit the idea of these philosophers was that others like Paul, were like birds who went around picking up a seed here and there at random, without having a consistent system and logic. They were smug in their own understanding.

Others were amused because he seemed to set forth ‘strange gods', because he spoke of ‘Jesus' and ‘Anastasis' (‘Resurrection'). There were in Athens many altars, not only dedicated to gods, but to ideas, to philosophy and beneficence, to rumour and shame. Thus the personalising of the term ‘Resurrection' would tie in with these ideas, and some may have seen that idea as being presented here. But this appears rather to be an after-comment by Luke, which militates against this interpretation. Luke's point is rather that they were reacting to Jesus Himself, as presented, and then especially to the idea of resurrection (compare Acts 17:32). The charge of bringing ‘strange gods' had also been made against Socrates. It may simply be a way of expressing disapproval of what they did not understand. As his ideas did not tie in with theirs, he must clearly be introducing ‘strange gods'. Neither Epicureans nor Stoics thought of any such gods as relevant to life.

In contrast this especially brings out what Paul's emphases were. His first emphasis was Jesus. He ‘preached Jesus' (compare Acts 8:35). This would have included all the different emphases as described previously including his life and death. His second emphasis was on the resurrection. And he kept stressing both. Thus he proclaimed the full central message that he always preached. Indeed he could not have proclaimed the resurrection without the cross. Thus we do him wrong if we suggest that here he did not preach the cross.