Acts 17:22-34

CRITICAL REMARKS

Acts 17:22. Too superstitions.—Somewhat superstitious (R.V.); better, more god-fearing, more religious (sc., than others)—i.e., unusually religious; though the word has both senses. Your devotions should be objects of devotion, as temples, images, altars, and the like.

Acts 17:23. To the (or, an) unknown God.—Not a singular for a plural as Jerome (ad. Tit., i. 12) asserts: “Inscriptio aræ non ita erat ut Paulus asseruit: ignoto Deo; sed ita: Diis Asiæ et Europæ et Africæ, Diis ignotis et peregrinis. Verum quia Paulus non pluribus Diis ignotis indigebat sed uno tantum ignoto Deo, singulari verbo usus est.” The accuracy of Paul’s statement is confirmed by the testimony of Pausanias, I. i. 4, and Philostratus, Apoll., vi.

2. who both report the existence at Athens of altars to unknown divinities. Whom … Him.—Rather, what … this.

Acts 17:26. Blood.—Omitted by the best authorities. Times before appointed, προτεταγμένους, should be times appointed, προστεταγμένους.

Acts 17:28. The quotation, For we are also His offspring, is verbally taken from Aratus, a native of Tarsus, B.C. 270, who composed astronomical poems, and in one of the only two extant, the Phœnomena, wrote τοῦ γὰρ καὶ γένος ἐσμέν; though substantially, also, it is contained in the words ἐκ σοῦ (Διὸς) γὰρ γένος ἐσμέν of Cleanthes of Assos in Troas, B.C. 300. Other traces of Paul’s acquaintance with Greek poetry may be found in 1 Corinthians 15:33; Titus 1:12.

Acts 17:31. Because, διότι. Better, inasmuch as, καθότι Giving the reason why the heathen are required to repent. The world means “the inhabited earth.” That man should be “the” or “a man”—viz., Jesus, of whose appointment to the office of judge God had given assurance, or confirmation—lit., offered faith, or a sufficient ground for faith (“Quia res erat vix credibilis argumentum adfert eximium”—Grotius), unto all men by raising Him from the dead.

Acts 17:32. Some mocked.—Perhaps Epicureans. Others, perhaps Stoics (Grotius) or Platonists (Zöckler), said—whether seriously (Calvin, Grotius, Alford) or only courteously, as a polite refusal (De Wette, Meyer), remains uncertain—we will hear thee again of this matter, or less happily person.

Acts 17:34. Dionysius, the Areopagite.—Obviously a man of note, though nothing further in known concerning him—at least with certainty. According to tradition he became the first bishop of Athens (Euseb, H. E., iii. 4, iv. 23) and suffered martyrdom under Domitian (Nicephorus, H. E., iii. 11). Damaris.—Conjecturally regarded by Chrysostom to have been the wife of Dionysius, and by Stier unnecessarily supposed to have been a courtesan.

Note.—On the historic credibility of Paul’s visit to Athens and oration before the Areopagus.

I. The usual objections to the narrative on the ground of miracle narrations are in this case awanting, as the apostle is not credited with having performed so much as one wonder in the capital of Achaia.

II. The special difficulties set forth by the Tübingen critics (Baur, Zeller, Overbeck, Hausrath, and others) are so unreasonable that they can hardly claim a refutation. Weizsäcker, indeed, without offering any reasons, dismisses the story of Paul at Athens, as of “no historical value,” and looks upon the speech before the Areopagus as simply “the author’s conception of Paul’s manner of preaching to the heathen.” By those who give reasons it is alleged:

1. That the narrative is so obviously full of purpose and reflection that it must have been manufactured in order to bring out as strongly as possible the contrast between Christianity and Heathenism.
2. That the apostle could not have introduced his mention of the resurrection in so sudden and objectionable a manner as is represented, and in fact in a way so admirably fitted to make the worst possible impression upon his hearers.
3. That the apostle should have alluded to the Athenians’ characteristic irony as well as to their peculiar curiosity.
4. That there was no altar to an unknown God in Athens, but only “to the gods unknown.”
5. That if Paul had been brought before the Areopagus, he must have undergone a judicial trial—which he did not.
6. That the glory of Paul’s “hearing” before the Areopagus, or highest Greek tribunal, was simply invented as a parallel to the account given of Stephen’s appearance before the highest Jewish court.
7. That the last section of the oration breaks off so suddenly as to show that the composer has been without accurate information about what actually occurred. So far as these and other similar difficulties require explanation, that is furnished either in the “Critical Remarks” or under the “Homiletical Analysis”; but their purely arbitrary and subjective character shows the straits to which the opponents of the credibility are reduced.

III. The sufficient answer to all that can be urged against Luke’s narrative is that it bears on its surface evident marks of its truthfulness.

1. The Pauline conceptions and expressions it contains, which are too numerous to have been invented. Compare, eg., Acts 17:27 with Romans 1:19; Acts 17:26 with Romans 5:12; 1 Corinthians 15:45; Acts 17:30, “times of ignorance,” with Romans 3:25; Acts 17:31, “the judgment of the world through Christ,” with 2 Corinthians 5:10.

2. The exact acquaintance which it shows with the thoughts and manners of the Athenians, as these are borne witness to by classical writers—as, e.g., with

(1) the habit of the Athenians to ask after new things;
(2) the devotion of the Athenians to idolatry;
(3) the existence in Athens of a worship of unknown gods; and
(4) the belief which prevailed in Athens of the superior origin of their progenitors (see on these points the “Critical Remarks” and “Homiletical Analysis”)—an acquaintance much more easily explained by supposing Luke’s narrative to have proceeded from an eye and ear witness such as Paul, than from a second century fabulist.
3. The possibility of Luke obtaining accurate information about the whole Athenian visit, either from Paul himself or from Dionysius and Damaris, all of whom may have preserved written notes of what took place.

4. The difficulty of discovering how a second century writer could have manufactured the incident and far less the discourse. The suggestion that these were freely constructed out of Paul’s first epistle to the Thessalonians is totally inadequate as a solution of the problem.

HOMILETICAL ANALYSIS.—Acts 17:22

Paul on Areopagus; or, Preaching to Philosophers

I. The courteous exordium.—

1. A respectful salutation. “Ye men of Athens,” the style of address with which their renowned orators had made them familiar. Had Paul been defending himself before judges he would probably have said: ἄνδρες δικασταί.

2. A complimentary ascription. Possible that he characterised his hearers as “too” or “somewhat superstitious” (R.V.), but more likely that he called them more religious—i.e., more occupied with and devoted to religion than others (see “Critical Remarks”). As a mere matter of good taste he could hardly have expected to gain their ears by reproaching them as superstitious; the course of his subsequent remarks shows he regarded their devotion to religion as something in itself good, which only needed to be instructed and guided to become better.

3. A pleasing intimation. That he had been wandering through their streets, closely observing, not their devotions (A.V.), but the objects of their devotion, such as their temples, images, altars, and the like, and in particular that he had noted one altar more remarkable than the rest, on account of its inscription, which ran: “To the (or to an) unknown God” (see “Critical Remarks”).

4. A startling declaration. That he, whom they had just denounced as a babbler, was prepared to acquaint them with the true personality and character of that divinity they were ignorantly worshipping. What with all their wisdom they had not been able to attain to (1 Corinthians 1:21), a just knowledge of the true God, he was ready and willing to impart. By no means a modest pretension; yet splendidly fulfilled.

II. The weighty sermon.—Three main divisions.

1. The relation of God to the world (Acts 17:24). The Supreme Being was exhibited in five different aspects.

(1) As Creator of the world. A truth denied by both sects of the philosophers who listened to the apostle, but frequently affirmed by the apostle (Acts 14:15; Romans 11:36; 2 Corinthians 5:18; Ephesians 3:9), and other New-Testament writers (Hebrews 3:4; Revelation 4:11).

(2) As Lord of heaven and earth (Matthew 11:25; compare Genesis 14:22); the absolute ownership of the universe flowing of necessity from God’s relationship to it as Creator (Romans 10:12).

(3) As filling immensity with His presence, and therefore as incapable of being confined like idols in temples made with hands (compare Acts 7:49). That the heathen failed to distinguish between the Deity and His image, see Acts 19:26.

(4) As self-sufficient and therefore as independent of His creatures. Incapable of being profited by any service that might be rendered by man’s hands, God was equally removed above the necessity of requiring such service (Psalms 50:9). In both respects He transcended the divinities they worshipped, who not only inhabited and were confined to their shrines, but were supposed to be in need of and to be benefited by the sacrifices laid upon their altars (compare Iliad, i. 37).

(5) As the source of life and blessing to His dependent creatures. “Seeing He Himself giveth to all life and for the continuance of the same breath, and all things they require (compare Acts 14:17; Psalms 104:14; Psalms 104:27; Psalms 145:15; Matthew 5:45; 1 Timothy 6:17).

2. The dignity and destiny of man (Acts 17:26).

(1) As forming a divinely constituted brotherhood, all nations, or every nation, of men having been made of one blood, or simply of one (stock, or blood must be supplied), for to dwell on all the face of the earth. A magnificent conception, abundantly asserted in Scripture (Genesis 1:26; Deuteronomy 4:32; Psalms 86:9; Malachi 2:10), and confirmed by the best science, which must have struck at the pride of Paul’s hearers, who regarded themselves as the flower and cream of humanity, while all others were designed to be their slaves (Aristotle, Pol., I. ii. 6); which still opposes itself like an immovable rock or impregnable fortress to all modern theories which deny man’s descent from a common stock, and on the ground of that (supposed) fact to establish the original, radical, and essential superiority of civilised to savage, or of white to black races; and which warrants the hope and expectation that a day is yet coming when this transcendent truth will receive universal recognition, and when the Scottish poet’s dream will be realised—

“When man to man the world o’er,
Shall brithers be and a’ that.”—Burns.

(2) As guided in all their movements by an invisible hand. That of Him who had called them into existence, and who, so far from being indifferent to and unobservant of their fortunes, had “determined their appointed seasons and the bounds of their habitations”—i.e., fixed the periods of their rising, flourishing, and decaying, “and the limits of their territory” (Deuteronomy 32:8), beyond which they could no more pass than could the waves of the sea overstep the sand barriers by which their fury was restrained (compare Job 12:23). The truth thus announced was well adapted to humble his hearers, whose city’s greatness had already passed its meridian, and whose territory was year by year becoming narrower, and to remind them of the wisdom of listening to a message from Him who so manifestly held them in His hand (Psalms 22:28; Daniel 4:25).

(3) As designed to come to a true knowledge of God and of their obligations to Him. That they did not possess such a knowledge originally, in themselves and on the platform of creation (1 Thessalonians 4:5), was a clear testimony to their fallen and sinful character and condition (1 Corinthians 1:21). Nevertheless it was God’s will and desire that they should grope about after Him, like blind men feeling their way in the dark, in the hope of finding Him who was not beyond their reach by being at a distance from them, but was near to every individual composing them,

“Closer is He than breathing, and nearer than hands and feet.”—Tennyson.

for “in Him we live and move and have our being,” or live and move (or are moving), and are—i.e., every moment depend on Him for life, activity, and being. And that this was no self-invented dogma, but an old and acknowledged truth which their own gifted seers had discerned, he demonstrated to them by citing in its support the similar sentiment of one of their own poets (Aratus, a Cilician poet, B.C. 270), who wrote: “For we are also His offspring,” clearly showing he regarded man as dependent on the Deity for life, activity, and existence.

(4) As convicted of unreason in thinking that the Godhead could be like to gold, or silver, or stone graven by art and device of man. The argument was irresistible. Was man the offspring of God? Then God could in no sense be the handiwork of man. Was man God’s child? Then God must at least be possessed of a nature resembling man’s, and if like man’s then unlike that of molten or graven idols.
3. The doctrine of Christ and His salvation (Acts 17:30). This third main division of discourse, entered upon, was not finished. So far as it had proceeded it had announced four things.

(1) A new dispensation on the part of God. Whereas God had winked at or overlooked the past ages of ignorance, left them alone without either gracious revelation or stern rebuke, suffering men to go their own ways (Acts 14:16), He had now interposed with a word of command that men everywhere should repent—i.e., change their minds, about God and His holiness, about themselves and their sin, about the present world and the next.

(2) A new duty published to men, not in one nation; but in all nations to obey this command instantly, thoroughly, permanently, honestly, cheerfully.
(3) A new argument for the enforcement of that duty. Binding upon men everywhere and at all times without further reasoning, this duty was rendered the more imperative and urgent by the fact of an impending judgment day, on which all would be arraigned at God’s tribunal and reckoned with for their performance or neglect of that duty, the judge already appointed being that man whom he had come to proclaim.
(4) A new certificate provided both for the fact of the judgment day, and for the certainty that Christ would be the judge—viz., His resurrection from the dead. If that was true, as Paul was prepared to show, then Christ could be no other than God’s Son, and if God’s Son sent into the world to redeem men, it was inconceivable that there should not be a day of judgment, at, and on which, He would adjudicate upon the final destinies of men, according as they had repented and believed the gospel, or died in unbelief and sin.

III. The disappointing result.

1. The preacher was abruptly interrupted. Never before had either Stoic or Epicurean listened to sentiments so sublime, or to an orator more worthy of attention. Yet at the mention of the resurrection of the dead—a doctrine which both denied—they felt it impossible to longer remain silent or allow the speaker to proceed. Did they do so, they might seem to grant that such a thing as a resurrection was possible, while according to their philosophy it was not; if, however, on the other hand, it was possible, then the whole contention of the speaker would require to be admitted.

2. The teaching of the sermon was variously regarded.

(1) Some mocked. At the resurrection chiefly, but also at the other tenets of Paul’s gospel concerning God and concerning man. “The Greek was more irrational than the savage, when religion was philosophised about. He laughed when he heard of the resurrection of the dead, for the doctrine was not a fashionable one; but when he was told that our souls would one day pass into cows, oxen, donkeys, etc., he was less opposed to it, for this idea did not seem so new or strange to him, the Pythagoreans having taught it” (Michaelis).

(2) Some procrastinated—deferred coming to a conclusion on the momentous themes which had been submitted to their judgment—saying like Felix (Acts 24:25), “We will hear thee concerning this yet again.”

(3) Some believed—credited Paul’s teaching as true, and embraced with their hearts the gospel it contained. Among those who thus received the truth, besides others unnamed, were Dionysius the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, of neither of whom is anything certain known, though Eusebius (Hist., iii. 4, iv. 23), and other writers report that Dionysius afterwards became bishop of the Church at Athens, and that Damaris was his wife (Chrysostom), for neither of which statements however exist solid grounds of belief.

3. The preacher was obliged shortly after to leave the city. How long he stayed within its precincts after the incident just recorded is unknown; only this much can be told as certain, that no tidings survive of his having ever again preached the gospel in or visited the brilliant but idol-loving metropolis of Greece. That none of his epistles speak of a Christian Church at Athens does not prove that his work there was absolutely fruitless, or that he did not leave behind him a believing community.

Learn.—

1. That advocates of Christianity should both maintain a respectful bearing towards and cherish a charitable view of those whose confidence and conversion they seek.
2. That preachers of the gospel cannot take too comprehensive a view or firm a grasp of the truth they recommend to others.
3. That the ablest and most eloquent discourse will not succeed in converting all who listen to it.

HINTS AND SUGGESTIONS

Acts 17:22. Superstition.—Define the meaning of the original adjective, and then state the sense in which the word “superstition” is employed now. It is the preponderance of terror in the religious life.

I. Its causes.—

1. Erroneous views of the attributes of God.
2. Ignorance of the nature of personal religion.
3. Crude conceptions of the works and laws of nature.
4. A desire to have systems of religion and worship of human invention.

II. Its forms.—

1. Idolatry.
2. Corrupted Christianity.
3. Pietistic errors.
4. Popular illusions. Witchcraft, astrology, fortune-telling, warnings.

III. Its evils.—

1. It degrades human nature.
2. It saps the foundations of morality.
3. It lessens the sum of human enjoyment.
4. It hinders the progress of the Gospel.—G. Brooks.

Acts 17:22. The Areopagus Oration; or, a Sermon for Philosophers.

I. The doctrines it proclaimed.—

1. The personality, self-existence, omnipotence, and unity of God.
2. The reality, universality, and efficiency of Divine providence.
3. The spirituality and non-externality of Divine worship.
4. The unity and brotherhood of the human race.
5. The possibility of a true natural religion.
6. The dignity and dependence of man.
7. The absurdity of idols and idol-worship.
8. The essential graciousness of God’s dealings with the race of man.
9. The duty of immediate and universal repentance.
10. The certainty of a day of judgment.
11. The exaltation of Jesus Christ to the office of supreme Judges
12. The reality of a future life.

II. The errors it corrected.—

1. Atheism, or the dogma that there is no God.

2. Pantheism, or the theory that the all is God.

3. Materialism, or the notion that the world is eternal.

4. Fatalism, or the superstition that no intelligence presides over the universe, but all things come to pass either by necessity or chance.

5. Polytheism, or the fancy that there are, or can be, many gods.

6. Ritualism, or the imagination that God can be honoured by purely external performances.

7. Evolutionism (in its extreme form), or the hypothesis that man is a product of force and matter.

8. Indifferentism, or the creed that man should seek after nothing and no one higher than himself.

9. Optimism, or the delusion that this is the best possible world, and man has no sin of which to repent.

10. Unitarianism, or the tenet that Christ was an ordinary member of the race.

11. Annihilationism, or the belief that after death is nothing.

12. Universalism, or the sentiment that all will be saved.

III. The lessons it taught.—

1. The duty of renouncing idolatry and worshipping only God.
2. The obligation to cultivate a spirit of love towards others.
3. The necessity of repentance and reformation.
4. The wisdom of preparing for the great assize.

Acts 17:22. The Great Sermon on Mars’ Hill.

I. The wise men (of Athens) charged with superstition (Acts 17:22).

II. The nature of God and the method of His worship established by natural arguments (Acts 17:24).

III. The stupidity of men who, though created that they might recognise their Maker, nevertheless walk in darkness (Acts 17:26).

IV. The absurdity of supposing that God could resemble idols (Acts 17:29).

V. The doctrine of Christ and the resurrection of the dead (Acts 17:30).—From Calvin.

Paul at Athens! A more striking picture than Luther in Rome or Calvin in Paris. Note—

I. The sensations with which the apostle tarries in the city of the Athenians.—

1. He does not shut his eyes to the monuments of the most ingenious art.
2. He does not permit himself to be captivated by their sensuous beauty.
3. A deep feeling of compassion for the error of the human spirit remains as the keynote of his innermost feelings.

II. The testimony which he there bears.—Three great truths opposed to three great falsehoods.

1. Creation out of nothing as opposed to Naturalism.
2. The personality of God as opposed to Pantheism.
3. The nature of sin as opposed to Antinomianism and Rationalism.

III. The result.—

1. Not very consolatory. Prejudices too deeply rooted thwarted the apostolic word.
2. Yet not without comfort. A single convert already weighs heavily in the balance of the kingdom of God.—From Krummacher.

Acts 17:23. “To the (or an) unknown God.”—The Athenian altar a significant testimony to three things—

I. The insufficiency of human wisdom.—If any people under heaven could have attained to a knowledge of God by philosophy those people were the Athenians.

II. The unsearchableness of the Divine nature.—After all man can learn from creation, providence, and revelation about the supreme being, he must still acknowledge that he knows only in part, and exclaim with Zophar (Job 11:7) and with Elihu (Job 37:23) that the infinite and eternal One can never be fully understood by man.

III. The incomparable glory of Christ.—“That which can be known of God” is by the gospel more clearly and fully revealed than by either creation or providence. The central figure of the gospel records was the image of the invisible God, the brightness of His Father’s glory, and the express image of His person.

Ignorant Worshippers of God.—Such were the Athenians, the philosophers amongst them no less than the vulgar herd. Both alike were ignorant—

I. Of God’s exalted nature.—As a personal intelligence and spiritual essence. Epicureans and Stoics, indeed, spoke of God or of gods. Yet neither in one system nor the other was there room for God, the Epicureans being practically Atheists and the Stoics Pantheists. Paul’s argument that God must be a personal intelligence rested on two premises:

(1) that molten or carved images could not be God, seeing they lacked mind; and
(2) that God must resemble man, if man is God’s offspring.

II. Of God’s real character.—As

1. The maker of the universe. According to the Epicureans and Stoics matter existed from eternity. The Hebrews held that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

2. The governor of the nations. The Greek philosophers had no true conception of the moral and spiritual rule of the Divine being. This idea, which was known to the Hebrews, received its proper and complete development under Christianity.

5. The preserver of His creatures. “He Himself giveth to all life and breath and all things.” Opposed to the Epicureans and Stoics, who equally believed that the gods, if any existed, were indifferent to men.

4. The judge of men. Neither of the philosophic schools had the smallest idea of a future judgment. Whatever evil they dreaded was present. Immortality found a place in neither of their creeds. Paul’s sermon opened up to them a new thought.

III. Of God’s gracious purpose.—That men should seek after Him and find Him. How did God propose to carry out this?

1. By His providential goodness. “Giving to all life,” etc. (Acts 17:25). “Filling their mouths with food and gladness” (Acts 14:17). “The goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance” (Romans 2:4).

2. By His governmental restraints. Leading men and nations to see that they had to do with a higher power than themselves, that they might seek after and find Him (Acts 17:27).

3. By His longsuffering treatment of them. “The times of this ignorance God winked at” (Acts 17:30). “Account the longsuffering of our God salvation” (2 Peter 3:15).

4. By His announcement of a new commandment. That men should repent. That men must change their minds. That men can no longer be allowed to go on in sin. Whatever doubt may have existed previously as to man’s duty, now there can be none.

5. By public certification of a future assize. Through Christ’s resurrection from the dead, which showed both who Christ was and to what dignity and power He had been exalted.

Acts 17:23. God’s Three Great Books about Himself.

I. The book of the world.—In two parts.

1. Nature (Acts 17:24).

2. History (Acts 17:26).

II. The book of the heart.—Also in two parts.

1. Reason (Acts 17:27).

2. Conscience (Acts 17:28).

III. The book of Scripture.—Again in two parts,

1. Law (Acts 17:30).

2. Gospel (Acts 17:31).—Gerok.

Acts 17:26. Made of One; or, the Unity of the Race.

I. One in origin.—Created by God.

II. One in nature.—One blood and one spirit.

III. One in character.—All equally fallen, sunk in sin, and under condemnation.

IV. One in salvability.—All included in the offers and provisions of the gospel; none, at least, while alive, beyond the reach of grace.

V. One in responsibility.—All alike will be held accountable to God not only for their actions and words, but for their treatment of His gospel.

Acts 17:27. Seeking after God.

I. It is God’s desire that men should seek after Him.—He had so constructed the world in which men live, and arranged men’s environment in the same, that they should feel themselves impelled to do this.

II. Men’s interest should lead them to seek after God.—It being inconceivable that men should be capable of attaining happiness apart from God, without a knowledge of His character or without the enjoyment of His favour.

III. Those who seek after God have the greatest possible encouragement.—

1. That if they seek in earnest they are sure to find. And
2. That God is so near to them that seeking should be easy.

Acts 17:29. God’s Offspring; or, the Dignity of Man.

I. The sublime truth announced.—That man is God’s offspring.

1. Anticipated by heathen poets. The best pre-Christian and extra-Jewish thought had some dim apprehension of man’s true origin.

2. Revealed by inspired Scripture. In the Old Testament (Genesis 1:26; Numbers 16:22; Malachi 2:10). In the New Testament (Matthew 5:48; Hebrews 12:9).

3. Confirmed by modern science. Indirectly at least; first, through its failure to explain man’s mental and moral nature through evolution; and second, through the circumstance that, however eager to establish a paternity for man among the lower animals, it has never been able to more than set forth an unproved hypothesis.

II. The consoling inferences implied.—

1. That God must be a personal intelligence. Neither a senseless image, nor a blind force, nor impersonal matter, but a living personality.

2. That God must be the father of men. Not simply their creator and Lord, their preserver and judge, but their all-wise and loving parent, who regards them with pity and affection.

3. That men, as God’s children, must be brethren. Not members of different races, but children of the same parent, and therefore members of the same family.

Acts 17:30. Repentance of Sin.

I. An imperative duty.—Commanded by God.

II. A universal necessity.—Required by all.

III. An immediate obligation.—Admitting of no delay.

IV. A saving grace.—Without which none can stand in the day of judgment.

Acts 17:30. Past and Present. The Cross of Christ, the dividing line between these.

I. The past.—

1. Times of ignorance. Before the meridian light of gospel-day had come.

2. Times of wickedness. Else repentance would have been unnecessary.

3. Times of forbearance. Otherwise the nations must have been cut off.

II. The present.—

1. Times of illumination. The full light of Divine revelation now shines.

2. Times of commandment. Mankind everywhere enjoined to repent—change their minds and amend their sinful lives.

3. Times of responsibility. Whereas the past dispensation closed with a transcendent discovery of Divine mercy in the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ (the first advent), the present age will terminate in a sublime exercise of judgment, at the glorious appearing of the Son of man (the second coming).

Acts 17:31. The World’s Assize; or, the Great Day of Judgment.

I. The fact announced.—God will judge the world.

II. The day fixed.—He hath appointed a day.

III. The judge designated.—That man whom He hath ordained, or set apart for this work.

IV. The standard indicated.—In righteousness. Every verdict will accord with equity and truth.

V. The proof given.—The resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Acts 17:31. The Doctrine of a Future Judgment as a Doctrine of Reason.—

1. The character of God requires it.
2. The analogy of the laws of nature indicates it.
3. There are facts in our own experience that foreshadow it. Incipient strivings toward retribution in the present state.
4. There is a general expectation of it among men.
5. Our history would be incomplete without it. Let it not be imagined that by rejecting the claims of revelation we shall escape the doctrine of a future judgment.—G. Brooks.

Acts 17:32. Man’s Treatment of the Gospel.

I. Derision.—“Some mocked.”

II. Delay.—“We will hear thee again of this matter.”

III. Decision.—“Certain men clave unto him and believed.”

Chap. Acts 7:2 with Acts 17:22; or, Stephen and Paul, the Two Apologies of Christianity towards Judaism and towards Heathenism.

I. Both agree in some of their principal expressions.
II. Stephen’s was delivered before the Sanhedrim, whose office it was to protect customs and morals in Jerusalem; Paul’s before the Areopagus, which performed the like service in Athens.
III. Stephen was accused of destroying the old religion, Paul of introducing a new one.
IV. Stephen told his countrymen that the temple worship must cease, Paul the Athenians that God dwelt not in temples made with hands.
V. Stephen extolled the beneficence of God to Israel in His dealings with them as a people, Paul the revelation given by God to men in nature.
VI. Stephen, through the warmth of his eloquence, called forth a storm of violence against him; Paul’s oration took a turn which, in an unexpected fashion, broke up the assembly.—From Holtzmann, who looks on these resemblances as unfavourable to the historicity; whereas, rightly viewed, they confirm it, being fully and satisfactorily explained by remembering that most likely Paul heard Stephen’s defence.