Mars Hill - Acts 17:26-34

The message of Paul to the citizens of Athens is much different than what he preaches to fellow Jews when he addresses them. When he arrives in a new city, Paul goes to the local synagogue and teaches those already familiar with Judaism about Jesus Christ as the Messiah. With them he uses mainly scriptures to demonstrate how the coming of Christ had been prophesied of for thousands of years and how his life, ministry, and atonement have been the core element of human purpose from the beginning. But with other Gentile audiences, they don’t share that same background or the same culture, so teaching the same information would be completely confusing and wouldn’t give the feelings of eternal significance that is needed.

So Paul, being the great orator that he is, found some common beliefs on which he could build his case for Jesus. This begs the question, if Paul said different words to different groups of people, which group is he lying to? To say it like this makes it sound stupid, but there are many people out there who believe that Joseph Smith lied about the first vision because he told four different groups of people four different sets of words about the event. I mean, there is a difference between saying, “God spoke to me” and “a large lizard sat on my shoulder and whispered in my ear,” those are two completely different messages. But to have the general overall concept be the same between all the audiences, but use different words and details in the description doesn’t necessarily mean “someone is lying,” it can mean “different people with different understandings.” Just something to think about.
Paul had begun teaching the Athenians that the “Unknown God” that they worshipped was his God, who created the heavens and the earth and all living things. He continues, “and hath made of one blood all nations of men for to swell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation.” So not only is he creator of everything and can be found everywhere all the time, he also knows his people and has put them where they are on purpose.
The phrase “bounds of their habitation” is an interesting one, and the IM quotes President Joseph Fielding Smith as comparing Acts 17:26 to Deuteronomy 32:7-8 and taught, “Clearly indicate that the numbers of the children of Israel were known and the bounds of their habitation fixed, in the days of old when the Lord divided to the nations their inheritance. We conclude, therefore, that there must have been a division of the spirits of men in the spiritual world, and those who were appointed to be the children of Israel were separated and prepared for a special inheritance.”
I don’t really understand this too much, but it seems like it is saying that those who were to be given the gospel in this life were trained to fulfill the specific responsibilities that come along with that gift. It doesn’t mean that one group was better or not, clearly because God loves us all the same, but it just seems that different groups had different jobs, both in this life and in the next.
Paul continues that not only is God our creator, but “as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.” I really like the teaching that truth is truth no matter where it is found. I think it’s important to acknowledge when people have the truth. If we come out to anyone and say, “you’re wrong and I’m right” they are automatically turned off to your message before you even start. But if you build on “your belief in this concept is the same as my belief in that concept” then you can build from a place of mutual understanding and respect. This is what builds good and strong relationships, that no one cares how much you know until they know how much you care.
The IM comments, “In his famous address on Mars Hill, Paul quoted from the Phaenomena, a work by Aratus, a Cilician poet: ‘As certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.’ Nearly identical words occur in the ‘Hymn of Zeus’ written by the earlier poet Cleanthes. Both Aratus and Cleanthes were Stocis. In citing these poets, Paul was establishing beliefs that he had in common with his listeners and attempting to persuade them by citing courses they considered authoritative.” Many general authorities, especially President Monson, would reference secular teachers or writings to help illustrate their message to the people. This is one of the reasons that I think it’s important to be well rounded in education, knowledge, and culture.
Paul continues that this “Unknown God” who created the universe and all of us “now commandeth all men every where to repent.” This might have been a new concept to these Greeks, but then again, the word “repent” probably wouldn’t have had the negative connotation that it has today, so he could very well just be saying, “this God now wants everyone to come follow him.” It would mean the same thing, but the words would have been different. This God commands the people he has created to change their ways because a time is coming when “that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead,” will “judge the world in righteousness.”
Paul has been very careful not to name Jesus just yet, and really, he’s not only speaking of him but also Heavenly Father. This whole teaching is kind of hard to understand with the way that Paul is speaking, but overall I think what his message is saying is, “The God that you believe is Unknown created the entire universe and every living thing and all of us. He is not constrained by the limits you believe he is, and he has appointed someone, who was dead but had been raised from the dead, to be the judge of all men.”
The concept of resurrection was a deal breaker for some of the people, who “mocked.” Why would the resurrection be the breaking point for some of those people? The IM says, “After Paul finished his address on Mars Hill, some Greeks mocked his teaching about the resurrection of the dead. During the first century A.D., popular Greek philosophy held that the physical body was part of what made the soul of man impure. According to Platonic dualism, the soul of man was imprisoned in a body of flesh. Hence, the teaching that Jesus Christ had a resurrected physical body would have seemed foolish to many Greeks because they believed God to be pure and perfect. They might ask, ‘Why would a god receive back the limitations of a physical body?’ Also, Plato’s idea of divine impassibility (God’s inability to suffer or feel pain) would make it difficult for many Greeks to accept Jesus as God’s Son, one who came to earth in a corruptible body that was subject to sickness, disease, and death and who lived as a servant to mankind.”
This belief has much truth to it and that shared truth is a great place to start a conversation. First, we also believe that the “spirit is willing but the flesh is weak,” in that our spirits are somewhat limited by what our bodies can do. Second, we also believe that human nature, or the “natural man” is an enemy to God and the goal in life is to rid ourselves of our subservience to our bodies and become like God. So ultimately, the intent of these two beliefs are the same but the application is different.
But Paul’s results weren’t all negative, there were some people who said, “we will hear thee again of this matter… Howbeit certain men clave unto him, and believed: among the which was Dionysius the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others with them.” The IM says, “Dionysius was one of those who believed Paul’s teaching. He was called ‘the Areopagite,’ probably meaning he was a member of the Areopagus, the judicial council that met at Mars Hill. According to tradition, he became a bishop in the Church in Athens. In later years a church named after Dionysius was built on the north slope of the hill, remains of which can be seen today.”