# Exegete Acts 17:16â€“34? The Unknown God Passage



## Puritanhead (Sep 13, 2005)

Exegete Acts 17:16"“34?

Any keen and incisive exegetical insights? What thoughts from the pious Puritans and reforming Reformers?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Sep 13, 2005)

This entire passage is extremely rich and contains many nuggets to be mined. Concerning the unknown God -- 

Matthew Henry:



> We have here St. Paul's sermon at Athens. Divers sermons we have had, which the apostles preached to the Jews, or such Gentiles as had an acquaintance with and veneration for the Old Testament, and were worshippers of the true and living God; and all they had to do with them was to open and allege that Jesus is the Christ; but here we have a sermon to heathens, that worshipped false gods, and were without the true God in the world, and to them the scope of their discourse was quite different from what it was to the other. In the former case their business was to lead their hearers by prophecies and miracles to the knowledge of the Redeemer, and faith in him; in the latter it was to lead them by the common works of providence to the knowledge of the Creator, and the worship of him. One discourse of this kind we had before to the rude idolaters of Lystra that deified the apostles (ch. xiv. 15); this recorded here is to the more polite and refined idolaters at Athens, and an admirable discourse it is, and every way suited to his auditory and the design he had upon them.
> 
> I. He lays down this, as the scope of his discourse, that he aimed to bring them to the knowledge of the only living and true God, as the sole and proper object of their adoration. He is here obliged to lay the foundation, and to instruct them in the first principle of all religion, that there is a God, and that God is but one. When he preached against the gods they worshipped, he had no design to draw them to atheism, but to the service of the true Deity. Socrates, who had exposed the pagan idolatry, was indicted in this very court, and condemned, not only because he did not esteem those to be gods whom the city esteemed to be so, but because he introduced new demons; and this was the charge against Paul. Now he tacitly owns the former part of the charge, but guards against the latter, by declaring that he does not introduce any new gods, but reduce them to the knowledge of one God, the Ancient of days. Now,
> 
> ...



Matthew Poole:



> To the unknown God: it is storied, that in a plague time, when the Athenians had wearied themselves with their supplications unto all the gods of their country, they were advised by Epaminondas (a devout man amongst them) to erect an altar unto that god who had the power over that disease, whosoever he was; which because they did not know, and would be sure not to omit in their devotions, they erected an altar unto him under the name of The unknown God. Some say, there was a more general inscription, To the gods of Asia, Europe, and Africa, to the unknown and strange gods; though the inscription the apostle mentions in the singular number, might be usual too: for the Athenians, who entertained all manner of gods, fearing lest there should be any which they had not heard of, for their greater security, as they imagined, would have an altar for such also. Now this unknown God, St. Paul says, which was worshipped by them, was the true God: for, 1. They had an apprehension that Christ was the true God, whilst that wonderful eclipse at his death was effectually considered amongst them. Hence it is said, that Dionysius cried out, Deus ignotus in carne patitur. Now the unknown God suffers in the flesh. 2. The God of the Jews, whose name the Jews took to be so ineffable that they would not undertake to speak it, and who was not wholly unknown to Plato and Pythagoras, and who is truly invisible and incomprehensible, might upon that account be thus styled amongst them.



John Calvin:



> 23. To the unknown God. I can well grant that this altar was dedicated to all strange gods; yet I cannot yield to that which Jerome saith, that Paul did, by a certain holy wiliness, attribute that to one God which was written of many. For seeing the superscription [inscription] was common in every man's mouth, there was no place for subtilty, [craft;] why did he then change the plural number? Surely, not that he might deceive the men of Athens, but because the matter did so require, he said, that he brought doctrine concerning an unknown god. And after he hath showed that they are deceived, because they knew not what god thee ought to worship, and had no certain godhood in a great leap of gods, he doth now insinuate himself, and doth purchase favor for his doctrine. Because it was an unjust thing to reject that which was uttered concerning a new god, to whom they had already given over themselves; and it was far better first to know him, than rashly to worship him whom they knew not. Thus doth Paul return again to that principle, that God cannot be worshipped rightly unless he be first made known.
> 
> But here may a question be moved: how he saith that God was worshipped at Athens, who doth refuse all worshippings which are not agreeable to the prescript of his law, yea, he pronounceth that all that is idolatry which men invent without his Word? If God allow no worship but that which is agreeable to his Word, how doth Paul give this praise to men, who did dote without measure that they worshipped God? For Christ, in condemning the Samaritans, is content 7 with this one principle, in that they worship God without knowledge, (John 4:22); and yet they did boast that they worshipped the God of Abraham. Then, what shall we say of the men of Athens, who, having buried and quite put out the remembrance of the true God, had put in place of him Jupiter, Mercury, Pallas, and all that filthy rabble? I answer, that Paul doth not in the place commend that which the men of Athens had done; but taketh from their affection, though it were corrupt, free matter for teaching.



Stephen Charnock, William Guthrie, and John Brown of Haddington are among those who have taken note of this passage, usually when writing of the attributes and knowledge of God.

Also see the Christian anthropological treatise by Don Richardson called _Eternity in Their Hearts_, which explores the Epaminondas background to the Mars Hill speech.

Also note that Acts 17.23 is cited as a proof text in the Westminster Larger Catechism's treatment of the first commandment (105) and third commandment (113). 

V. 29 has a great deal of reference to second commandment issues as has been noted in other threads.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Sep 13, 2005)

The popular notion is that the Athenians were so "superstitious" that they were, in essence, attempting to cover all their bases by including this statue to "an unknown God" just in case there was some god that they didn't know about.
Phooey.
The great philosophers of Greek culture had done a pretty good job of showing the silliness of polytheism. In fact, some had even come to the notion that there must be a god above all other gods - yet in true Platonic fashion, this god was unknowable as it must exist in the world of forms.
So this statue is more likely a nod in that direction - a statue to the god above all other gods, whose existence philosophy had "proven," yet the very nature of this god made him unknowable. 
So Paul - much like later Christian apologists - set out to establish that Christians worship this God, the God who is above all other gods.


----------

