Acts 17:23

Act_17:23

I found an altar with this inscription, To the unknown God.

Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, Him declare I unto you.

Before the altar of the unknown God

1. What was there in Athens to which Paul could appeal? To Jewish prophecy? No one held them in esteem. Should he begin with repentance, faith, Jesus, and judgment? No one would understand his message. Ought he now to overthrow these altars? But destruction is not construction. Ought the nothingness of the gods to be exposed to ridicule? Enlightenment that presents the stone of unbelief for the husks of superstition may train its subjects to doubt, but not to hope. To the apostle the heathen world seemed the groping of a man who is blind. But no man of feeling ever makes sport of a blind mans groping, or strikes the last coin out of a beggars hand. Paul sought through the streets of Athens to see whether, somewhere, he could not still discover a trace of the footsteps of the living God, some pieces of the golden thread by which to lead these misled wanderers back into communion with God--and, behold, he has found something: here is an altar with the inscription, To the unknown God: a discovery which affords him as much joy as when he once picked up the words of the Greek poet we find him quoting here. That had seemed to him a feather which the angel, flying through heaven with the gospel, dropped into heathen lands. To the weak as weak, a Greek to the Greeks, the apostle explains this inscription to his hearers with most becoming deference.

2. This altar is a testimony to a grave defection, a longing that impels to seek, a hope fulfilled in Christ. Let us ask--

I. By what means the living God became unknown?

1. The features have been almost obliterated, but whose image has been stamped upon the souls of men?--Not from the clod, nor from the ape--we are also of His offspring! God hath made of one blood all nations of men, etc. One blood, therefore one family, one origin, one conscience, one hope: to seek God, everyones mission; to find God, everyones goal!

2. But if we live, and move, and have our being in Him, and if creation manifests His invisible power and Divinity--whence all this uncertain groping, until, brought to a stand, children of men cling to wood and stone? Whence the blindness that changes the clear mirror of nature into a thick veil, whence the insanity that desires to imprison the God over all heaven and earth within temples and images? Paul describes the lamentable process in Rom_1:21-24. Moral aberration always precedes the spiritual. Sinful inclinations in the heart are the fruitful lap of error. Doubt is a tendency of the character. Strange that amidst this jumble of rage, sensuality, love of money, etc., any room should remain for an altar dedicated even to the unknown God!

II. When is an altar erected to the unknown God? Just as in an impoverished family some jewel is preserved as a reminder of better days, so, in Athens, this one altar was a testimony of impoverishment. Israel could erect an Ebenezer: but this altar is only a monument, confessing: Hitherto have we gone astray. Its erection indicates home-sickness. According to a tradition, the Athenians built this altar when a plague seemed to threaten never to leave their walls:--there must, they concluded, be some other god whose anger is dangerous, whose favour of importance, to whom therefore it was necessary to rear an altar.

1. It is an hour of fatigue at midnight, the candle has burned down low, and an investigator is dipping into the depths and not finding the goodly pearl, and growing more and more weary, cries, Boundless Nature, where shall I comprehend thee? Ye sources of all life, for which my withered breast so longs--ye flow, ye quench, and yet I thirst in vain! Such imploring, outstretched arms--what are they but an altar erected to the unknown God?

2. Now enter yon brilliant room. Surely no sorrow can obtrude here. Nevertheless sighs from an inner chamber announce that Death has no respect for riches. A child is lying here sick unto death. Why has the anxious father no eye for the pictures that look down from the walls? Why does he not open some of his favourite poets? Why does he avoid that book which convinced him yesterday that there is room for neither miracles nor prayer? The anguish-stricken father throws himself on his knees--before whom? Which god can support him to bear this threatened loss? Oh ye pictures, books, money piles, ye idols that have eyes but no pupils, arms but no help!--at this moment, an altar rises in a corner of the room, faintly traced, To the unknown God!

3. Stranger, you have strayed into this house of God--do you know to what end? Do you know that your wandering and your sojourning, your childhood and your manhood, your solitude and your society, your sorrows and your joys, have all been working together to lead you to seek the Lord if haply you might feel and find Him, and to make that dusty altar to the unknown God in the corner of your heart one of reminder and of prophecy?

III. In whom does God make Himself known? Who shall win earth back to heaven, and reconcile and harmonise divinity with humanity? who is the man in whom the fulness of the Godhead dwells, and whose body is a temple, the only one worthy of Divinity? Through Christ the weather-beaten inscription, To the unknown God, is changed for To the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. You are advancing to meet this unknown God as a revealed God in Christ Jesus. How? As a Saviour or a Judge? (R. Koegel, D. D.)

The unknown God

1. Athens was a city illustrious for its learning. But during the century or two preceding the Christian era, intellectual decay had set in, and instead of investigating the true, the people were raving after the new. The distinction between true and false philosophy in every age consists mainly in this--the one loves the new more than the true, the other loves the true more than the new. At this time Paul went to Athens, and the everlasting gospel with him; and in it there is a perfect combination of the true and the new. He declares unto them the unknown God:--

I. In relation to nature.

1. As Creator of the universe. The Greek mind had often but ineffectually grappled with the mysterious problem of the origin of the world. Every school of ancient thought believed in the eternity of matter. Of a creation out of nothing the ancient heathen had not the crudest idea. Mankind seemed to be entirely indebted to Divine revelation for it. God created--

(1) The matter of the world. Plato recognised God as the Arranger of the Hyle. But whence issued the Hyle? Plato is mute. But St. Paul teaches that God not only built the world, but made the materials likewise. A child may learn more in five minutes in the first verse of the Bible than recondite sages in their protracted studies. Through faith we understand the worlds were framed by the word of God.

(2) Its laws. Laws are so many windows through which we can glance at God. But over these windows infidelity draws the blinds. Men praise each other for discovering these laws, but are slack to give glory to God for making them. But what is the discovery of a law compared with its invention?

2. Having created the world, God is still present in it as its Sovereign Lord and Director. Seeing He giveth to all life and breath and all things. The Stoics did not theoretically deny the Divine existence, but they did deny the Divine government. They believed in fate; hence their reckless indifference to all the ills and favours of life. In our day also, law does everything, God nothing. Ancients and moderns alike, after putting the extinguisher on the sun, feel constrained to light a candle. The Bible teaching, however, is clear and unambiguous. Whilst we must insist upon the radical distinction between God and the world, we must beware lest we make this distinction separation. From these truths two valuable lessons are deduced--

(1) That God dwelleth not in temples made with hands.

(2) That He is not worshipped or served with mens hands as though He needed anything. We do not give to Him, He gives to us. Every good gift and every perfect gift, etc.

II. In his relation to man.

1. God made man--a truth strikingly new to the Greeks. The Greeks thought that they had grown from the soil. The idea of God cannot be degraded without at the same time debasing the idea of man. The same theory practically is advocated now. God is involved in nature according to the fashionable Pantheism of the age; and man is evolved out of nature according to its anthropology. The apostle further proclaims the unity of the human race. The Greeks viewed themselves as the aristocracy of the world, separated even in origin from all other nations, whom they contemptuously treated as barbarians.

2. God rules men. He did not fling them upon the world to be the sport of chance, but determined the times before appointed and the bounds of their habitation. The one object, however, was that men might seek the Lord, if haply they might find Him. All events were so disposed as to be helpful to mankind in their search after God. We imagine that were the circumstances arranged a little differently, it would result in the spiritual advantage of the nations. But St. Paul declares otherwise.

3. God is the Father of man (verse 28). God is only the Maker of nature. The white man carries about him Gods image in ivory, and the coloured man in ebony, but none the less an image for that. How striking the genealogy in Luk_3:1-38 the son of David the Son of God. From this homogeneity of nature between man and God the apostle makes a practical inference (verse 29). Athens abounded in idols, but none of them properly represented God. The Divine likeness cannot be stamped on gross matter, it must have intelligence for its canvas. Consequently mans fault has always been in seeking God among material objects. But inasmuch as we are partakers of His nature, it cannot be that He is far from any one of us.

(1) As to place. There is a sense in which the sun is over ninety millions of miles distant; but there is a sense in which it is nearer us than any other created object. Its beams pierce our frame, its light enters the eye, its warmth pervades the body. In it we live and move and have our being. In like manner God may be affirmed to be infinitely removed from us; but there is a sense in which He is nearer every one of us than any other being can possibly be (verses 27, 28).

(2) As to His nature. His spirituality and not His omnipresence is the leading idea. In our own spirituality can we best understand the nature of the Deity.

4. God is the Redeemer of men. From the Fatherhood to the Redeemership the stride is not so very great. And the times of this ignorance God overlooked--i.e., did not directly interfere. Not that He entirely disregarded the heathen world. That would be a flat contradiction of verse 26. God often interposed in their geographical and political history, but He left them to work out their religious problems for themselves. The now is significant of a change of policy. It is not a matter of no consequence whether you embrace Christianity or not. He commandeth you. The gospel comes with all the authority of law. You have broken other commandments, will you persist in breaking this also? Pauls hearers had been all their lifetime endeavouring to atone for sin; now, however, they are bidden not to atone but to repent. Every man everywhere. The gospel embraces every human being. None are too high to need repentance; none are too low to have it.

5. God is the Judge of men (verse 31). Paul was now standing on the site of the most venerable court in the whole world. Here Mars and Orestes were tried, and here Socrates was unjustly condemned. What therefore more natural than that Paul should wind up his oration by a solemn reference to the judgment seat of Christ? Yes, there is an awful hereafter, notwithstanding the creed of Epicureans. Oh, the madness of those who spend their day of grace in reckless indifference, saying, Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die! (J. Cynddylan Jones, D. D.)

The unknown God

In this paragraph we have a graphic though brief description of the character of the men of Athens. For all the Athenians and strangers which were there, spent their time in nothing else but either to tell or to hear some new thing. And when the love of the new gains ascendancy over the love of the true, degeneration is inevitable. The distinction between true and false philosophy, in every age, consists mainly in this: the one loves the new more than the true, the other loves the true rather than the new. But the religious aspect of the city is depicted in more lamentable colours still the city was wholly given to idolatry (on the margin, full of idols). Idolatry was also flourishing in this city; but it seemed now as though it had received a new impulse. Why? Because their faith in idols was stronger? No; but because it was weaker. What if they are only the creation of my own over-heated imagination? The suspicion was so humiliating, so blasting in its effects, so awfully barren and withering, that he strenuously attempted to conceal it from himself; he tried to forget his religious bankruptcy in spiritual intoxication. That motto awakes a distinct echo in the heart of every unregenerate man; there also is an altar with the inscription To the unknown God! At this time Paul went to Athens, and the everlasting gospel with him; and in it there is a perfect combination of the true and the new. Glad tidings, true news, is its distinctive appellation. He declares unto them the unknown God--

1. In His relation to nature.

2. In His relation to man.

These two relations exhaust our knowledge of God; we know Him in none other. These were the topics held in dispute by the philosophers, and to which the Athenians now listen with abated breath.

I. God in relation to nature.

1. He is the Creator of nature. God made the world and all things therein. On this point he directs his remarks more especially against the Epicureans--they denied creation. God made the world. As we look around us we observe that nature is divisible into matter and laws, matter and truths. The Athenian mind had been often grappling with the mysterious problem touching the origin of all things; but notwithstanding all the energy and time expended to solve it, it continued to be shrouded in as much darkness as ever. History, indeed, seems to testify that the human mind, left to its own resources, could never grasp the idea of creation, properly so called. The Epicureans denied creation, and looked upon the world as the effect of the fortuitous concourse of atoms, and these atoms they believed to be uncreated and eternal. Of a creation out of nothing, the ancient heathens had not the crudest idea. Indeed, mankind are indebted to the Bible entirely for it. Not only the work but the idea of creation is Divine. And the truth with which Paul encountered the Epicurean philosophers of old, in the market and on the hill, requires to be reiterated again and again. There is a theory afloat, vindicated by men of unquestionable repute, that sets creation out of nothing among the impossibilities. According to this theory, everything is born. The sun is born, the moon is born, the earth is born. It is averred We cannot conceive, either on the one hand, nothing becoming something, or on the other, something becoming nothing (Sir W. Hamilton). The world, therefore, is a Divine evolution? No: says the Bible, it is not an evolution, but a creation. We cannot conceive such an act, say they. Mans conceptions are not Gods boundary lines, says the Bible. We cannot explain the process, say they. Then believe the act, says the Bible. Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things that are seen were not made of things which do appear. God made the world. It existed nowhere before, nor in God, nor in space; it existed in no shape before, nor in germ, nor in development. It is an act of pure creation. As already hinted laws form another important division of nature. Not only God made the matter of the universe, but also its laws.

2. He is the Lord of nature. He is Lord of heaven and earth. This truth is addressed more especially to the Stoics--they denied Divine government. They did not deny the existence of the gods; but they held that all human affairs were governed by fate. Neither did they believe that any good was received from the hands of their gods. This atheistic view the apostle refutes by the heart-inspiring truth that God is the Lord of nature and providence. As the servant is dependent on his master, so is nature on her Lord. What does this imply? That she is not her own governess. Not her own will, but His she follows. Not her own thoughts, but His she expresses. Everything in nature is a manifestation of some thought; but who is it that thinks? Nature herself? No. Fate? No. Who then? God. The sun rises every day to the right moment--who is the thinker? The sun? No; but God. Nature has no thought, no will of her own; she is entirely under the control of God. Neither is she her own support. She lives on the bounty of God, as a child on the table of its father. Nature can originate nothing; she must receive all. Left to her own resources, she would reduce herself to penury in one day. But these truths had a more practical end in view than the refutation of the fallacious theories of philosophers; they were calculated to undermine the idolatrous practices of the populace. He dwelleth not in temples made with hands. He is the Creator and Lord of nature. What is there in a temple of stones for Him to covet? Were He a forlorn fugitive, an impoverished God, He might be glad of a shelter anywhere. But this is not His condition. He is Lord of heaven and earth, and has the resources of both at His command. He is not worshipped with mens hands as though He needed anything. The Athenians, in common with all idolaters, supposed religious rites to be established and enacted for God and not for man--for His advantage and not for our benefit. The mistake of the Stoics about God, in respect to nature, was that of all idolaters in respect to religion. They thought it was His prerogative to receive; the apostle teaches it was His property and function to give. Neither is He worshipped with mens hands as though He needed anything. No; it is not giving, but receiving. As a creature you receive; as a worshipper you receive too. What is your sin? Is it giving too little? No; but receiving too little.

II. God in relation to man.

1. He is the Father of man. We are His offspring. God is the Maker of nature, He is the Father of man; He is the Creator of the brute, He is the Father of man. The popular opinion among the Athenians was, that they were the aboriginals of mankind. But where did they come from? They grew from the earth. According to one of their own writers, the first men sprung up in Attica, like radishes. And some moderns cherish the opinion, forsooth, that mankind are developed from a tribe of monkeys! Our ancestry has its root in Godhead. Adam is not our first nor our best father, but God. Based on mans Divine sonship are two very important considerations. The first is the universal brotherhood of man. God hath made of one blood all nations of men. The second truth is the nature of God. Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone. There is a certain resemblance between parent and child; therefore God must be more like men, His children, than any other created object whatsoever. Man possesses reason, will, and intelligence; therefore God must have them in infinite perfection.

2. God is the Saviour of man. And the times of this ignorance God winked at (overlooked, passed by); but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent.

3. He is the judge of man. For He hath appointed a day, in the which He will judge the world in righteousness by that Man whom He hath ordained. (J. Cynddylan Jones, D. D.)

The unknown God

When he saw that the city was wholly given to idolatry, i.e., literally covered with idols--κατείδωλον referring to the place, not to the people--his spirit was roused; he could no longer keep silence and refrain from proclaiming the message he had come to deliver. Then it chanced that some of the members of the two great philosophic sects, the Epicureans and Stoics, encountered him. Part of these called him a babbler (σπερμολόγος), literally a picker-up of small seeds, like a bird, i.e., a collector and retailer of insignificant scraps of information; and others charged him with setting forth strange gods, foreign divinities.

I. The unknown god. There is an unknown God today, as certainly as there was in Pauls time; and it is the business of the Christian teacher to declare Him, or set Him forth. In one sense God must always be unknown. The mind of man is finite, and can therefore never comprehend the Infinite.

1. The unknown god of the ancients. It is by no means clear how this altar came to be erected at Athens. By some, it is supposed that Polytheism had made so many gods by the deification of every human passion, that no more could be thought of; and hence, to cover the whole ground, an additional altar was erected to an unknown god at the shrine of which the worship should ascend to any possible deity that might have been overlooked. Others suppose that some special benefits had been received by the people, which could not be traced to any of the known gods--hence an altar to the unknown. More probably, however, it arose from some dim conception of a Supreme Being higher than all the gods of mythology, who, while He satisfied a yearning want of the heart, took no hold on the intellect. This would seem to be apparent from Pauls words, that he would declare the very God thus worshipped. In any case, that altar was a tacit but terrible confession of the failure of heathendom. Nowhere perhaps had the intellect risen so high as at Athens.

2. The unknown God of the moderns. Herbert Spencer prates most glibly of the Unknowable, and Huxley worships at its shrine. Tyndal calls religions forms of force which must not be permitted to intrude on the region of knowledge. Matthew Arnold terms God a stream of tendency by which all things fulfil the law of their being, as though there could be a stream without a source, or things could fulfil any purpose where there was no plan.

II. The relation of the unknown God to man. It is difficult to understand what relationship we can sustain to the unknown, or at least to learn what the relationship is, if any such there be. Yet those who teach that God is unknown and unknowable recognise some sort of relationship to this unknown Being. The possible relationship may be considered under three distinct heads.

1. Worship. This, in some form or other, is universal. In all ages men have worshipped something. In fact it is difficult to find a stronger instinct in human nature than this one. We have--

(1) Worship in ignorance. This is what the Athenians were guilty of. They worshipped without ascribing to the object any definite qualities whatever.

(2) Worship of nature. An atheist writing recently in one of the Secularistic journals proposed verbal prayer to nature, and says, May we not pray or invoke the powers of nature for aid, without any reference to a personal God, calling that power the unconditioned, unknowable Absolute, or what you will; or no name at all? I think so. It is difficult to see what is the object of this prayer, since it is clear that blind forces can neither hear nor answer. But it proves the tendency to worship, even in the atheist. A more mystic form of worship, of an atheistic character, was proposed by the late Professor Clifford, under the name of Cosmic Emotion. The term originated with Mr. Henry Sedgwick; but Professor Clifford used it as a sort of substitute for religion. By it he simply meant the emotion which is called up in the soul when contemplating itself and its moral nature on the one hand, and the mysteries of the universe on the other. But such a worship as this--if worship it can be called--has no cult, and therefore cannot meet the condition required. It is a hollow semblance, nothing more.

(3) Worship of abstractions. The Positivists profess to worship humanity in the abstract. What this is, it is difficult very clearly to understand. Humanity in the concrete we know something of, and it is neither exalted enough nor pure enough to satisfy, as an object of worship, the religious nature of man. This form of worship professes to find a cultus in dead heroes and sages. But, to say the least of it, this is a miserable substitute for an Almighty and loving Father in heaven. The worship of nature, or of abstractions, is, after all, but idolatry. Men do not now make their idols of wood or stone, but cut of their own wild imaginings.

2. Responsibility. The moral law needs a personal God for its basis. The unknown is no foundation on which to raise a superstructure of ethics.

3. Immortality. Most of those, however, who assert that God is unknown do not believe in a personal immortality at all, but speak of the immortality of the race or of a mans reputation that he may leave behind him. There is no guarantee that the race will remain forever, if God be taken away; and if there were, such a fact would not meet the wants of humanity. We long for, and aspire after, an eternal personal conscious existence, and nothing less than that can satisfy the soul.

III. The revelation of the unknown God. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, Him declare I unto you, or set forth unto you. This was Pauls work, to reveal or make known the unknown God. This he was enabled to do by means of--

1. The Scriptures. Gods real character can only be learnt from the Bible.

2. The Incarnation. This is the only means by which God can be really and truly known. No man hath seen God at any time: the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him. He hath declared Him in such a manner that the simplest may understand. Do you want to know what God is like? I point you to Christ. There is the revelation and the Revealer blended in one. (George Sexton, LL. D.)

The unknown God

The astronomers Le Verrier and Adams, in separate countries at the same time, observing certain motions among the spheres which could not be accounted for by any known cause, concluded that there must be a body not yet discovered somewhere in the regions of space in which the disturbances were observed. Seeking in the direction thus indicated they found the far distant and hitherto unknown world. So Greek philosophy was able, from the appetites and vacancies of the human mind, which all the idols could not satisfy, to determine that there must be some God hitherto from them concealed, to whom these appetites pointed, and without whom they could not be satisfied. Their skill could discover in a general way their need, but they could not by their searching find the missing portion for a human soul. (W. Arnot, D. D.)

The unknown God

God is unknown--

1. To those who think themselves wise.

2. To those who perform the external acts of worship without seeking God Himself.

3. To those who do not live in Him, but in the world and its lusts.

4. To those who do not desire to find God in Christ. (Langbein.)

The unknown God revealed

Observe--

I. That man, when left to the efforts of his own reason, never discovers the character of the true God. The most probable explanation of the inscription is the carefulness of the Athenians not to exclude any God.

1. That there was originally an adequate revelation of God is not properly to be doubted (Rom_1:20; Psa_19:1-2). In addition to the silent testimony of nature were direct and verbal communications to patriarchs, etc.

2. Nevertheless, the knowledge of God became beclouded, and errors encrouched with fearful rapidity and success. There was a depraved principle in the heart of man urging him to devices, whereby God might be banished from his mind, and his passions set free from control. From this source sprang up idolatry. They did not like to retain God, etc. (Rom_1:21-23; Rom_1:25).

3. This fatal principle which led to the loss of the knowledge of God, prevented it from being restored. Having extinguished the light, it perpetuated the darkness. There were many centuries during which the human intellect was able to open all its resources, and to practise all its powers, but none retraced their steps to the Divine Being. The world by wisdom knew not God; the age of reason was an age of idolatry, pollution, and despair.

4. With reference to subsequent ages, and our own, the fact and its explanation are the same, as India, China, Africa, etc., testify. If, however, we are pointed to the writings of Deistical philosophers who have professed to argue the existence of God from the light of reason, we are not to be misled by the pretensions of unprincipled plagiarists who have but borrowed the guidance of revelation, without having had the honour to acknowledge it.

II. That it is the office of Christianity to place the character of the true God in full and distinct revelation. The circumstances just illustrated constituted a necessity for a revelation. Proceeding on this necessity manifestations were given to the patriarchs of the supremacy and grace of the Most High. Then followed the calling of the Jews, the giving of their law, the solemn warnings against idolatry, institutions designed to preserve them from the infection of surrounding nations, and the ministry of the prophets. At length, when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son, and then came the ministry of the apostles. Recognising all this, note--

1. That the revelations of God in Christianity are furnished in connection with a method of redemption, from which their clearness and lustre are derived. The purpose of the gospel is to explain and apply a scheme of sovereign mercy by which man is to be redeemed from his apostasy. The existence of such a scheme had been announced immediately after the fall, and was shadowed forth in type and prophecy, and employed, harmonised, and displayed the perfections of God. Hence our Saviour frequently spoke of His work as glorifying the Father. In the Cross Mercy and Truth meet together, Righteousness and Peace kiss each other, and in that Cross we see that God is love.

2. That these revelations are designed for diffusion through the world. The earlier dispensations were systems rather of defence than attack, of conservation than conquest. But the gospel was good tidings … to all people. Prophecy announced it as such, the propitiation for the sins of the whole world made it such, and the apostles were sent to preach it as such.

III. That it becomes the disciples of Christianity to exert themselves for the promulgation and triumph of their religion. The conduct of Paul, whose spirit was stirred within him not only to indignation but to service, is an example to all. Consider--

1. Reasons which are uniform and permanent in their appeals. The work of promulgating the truth--

(1) Has been committed by Christ to His Church as its specific duty.

(2) Vindicates and in the highest measure secures the Divine honour.

(3) Imparts exalted happiness to mankind.

2. Reasons which are derived from the peculiarities of our own times--the extraordinary facilities which are now provided for the dissemination of Christian truth. (J. Parsons.)

Three books relating to the knowledge of God

I. The book of the world with its two parts--nature and history (verses 24-26).

II. The book of the heart with its two parts--reason and conscience (verses 27, 28).

III. The book of Scripture with its two parts--reason and conscience (verses 30, 31). (K. Gerok.)

Revelation and nature: their witness to God

Suppose a scholar searching in some old library were to discover two MSS., which had lain unknown for generations on different shelves. The discoverer examines their contents and is struck with certain peculiarities in the handwriting, which are common to both documents. He also finds that in both there are words and phrases--such as seem the expression of a writers individuality. Still further, he discovers that many ideas are common to the two pamphlets, and that though different in subject, there is a substratum of thought identical in both. Could he do other than infer that they were the products of the same author? Mere coincidence might account for one or two of these resemblances, but could never explain the great variety and number that are found here. Now the object we have in view is somewhat similar.

I. The sake attributes which Scripture ascribes to God are to be traced also in nature.

1. The unity of God.

(1) This doctrine runs through the pages of Scripture like a stream of light illumining all things else. Now--

(2) Judging from the many religions in the world, one might suppose that nature leads to the conception of many gods. But Polytheism betrays as profound an ignorance of nature as it does of the Divine Being. Let us turn from pagan conceptions to the interpretations of science. All recent discovery is tending to set up one conception of the universe, and that is that one plan is to be discovered, and that one power is working under divers forms.

(a) See how the two kingdoms, animal and vegetable, correspond, meet each the others needs, and are evidently parts of one plan. With every breath that we exhale we pour into the atmosphere a gas destructive of animal life. With every inspiration we consume a portion of that element of the atmosphere which is vital to us. But then every vegetable--tree, grass, flower--is absorbing from the air the poisonous carbonic acid and breathing out the vital oxygen.

(b) But not alone within terrestrial limits is this unity discernible. The spectroscopist has caught the fleeting rays of light from stars and suns, and has wrung from them the confession that these worlds are built up of much the same materials as our own.

(c) Formerly the various natural forces were regarded as distinct. But experiment has shown that they are one, and are convertible. Electricity can be converted into light, and the light into heat, and heat into motion, or they can be resolved back again, motion into heat, heat into light, light into electricity. What a marvel is this! It is the same power that works everywhere in nature, taking a thousand different shapes; and what is that power but the power of the one God?

2. Every fresh discovery confirms the belief that Infinite Wisdom conceived, executed, and presides over all created things. And the power manifestly pervading the boundless universe is a power so vast that we may well yield to it the title of Omnipotence.

3. When we consider the moral attributes of God, nature yields a feebler testimony than revelation. Nevertheless, though nature needs to be supplemented, its witness coincides with that of Scripture. Take, e.g., the righteousness of God.

(1) Though conscience has not always power to compel obedience, it yet sits on the seat of judgment undisputed, and is a convincing evidence of the righteousness of God. For how came man to possess this faculty, which has created a universally prevalent idea of moral obligation? How came man to feel that good is intrinsically superior to evil? The secularist affirms that expediency or the general weal of society has dictated certain courses of action as the wisest and safest, and has dissuaded from others as hurtful to the community. Thus by the power of habit strengthened through the generations, certain actions have come to be regarded as right, others as evil and vicious. And we may grant to this theory a measure of truth. But there is a question farther back. Why has universal experience proved virtue to be conducive to happiness and vice the opposite? The only answer to this must be, that it is in the nature of things, impressed on them by their Creator.

(2) And mans inner nature accords with external nature. Wherever we look we find evidence of a power, not ourselves, making for righteousness. The fail of empires through the corruption of luxury and evil; the prosperity of states whose citizens are virtuous, brave, and true; every life prematurely closed by the ravages of vicious habits, and every good mans life attests an eternal moral order. Whence, then, this moral constitution? For every effect there must be a cause, and what is in the effect must first have been in the cause. Therefore He who made the world is a Moral Being, and has transferred to His works this moral order, which first existed in Himself. Whatever quality you discover in the work must have been first in the worker.

II. The same modes of Divine operation are clearly discernible both in Scripture and nature. There is something in a mans work distinguishing it from that of all others, and which is manifest more or less in all he does. The style is the man. By his style you recognise an artists pictures or a writers articles, though no name be appended to the work. Now there is a style about the Divine works, and this style can be traced both in nature and revelation. Modern science has clearly established that in creation a strict order has been observed. There can be traced a gradual development from lower to higher types of being. And the Bible presents us with a remarkably similar process. In the spiritual education of men a development can be traced. The truths of religion were gradually disclosed, and the world was led on step by step in spiritual culture and enlightenment. Here, then, we have a resemblance of a peculiar kind, which stands out as a distinct evidence of a common origin for both nature and revelation.

III. Many of the difficulties with which Scripture confronts us are met also in nature. Take an illustration. The election of the Jewish people to be the recipients of Divine revelation, while the other nations were left in darkness, has often appeared a strange procedure on Gods part. Was this consistent with justice and love? The reply to this is that the selection of the Jewish people was not for their own sakes alone, but that through them all families of the earth might be blessed; and that men were not rejected by God simply because they were not Jews. Among all peoples there was light enough to save sincere seekers. A similar election of nations has always characterised Gods government of the world. He fixes the bounds of one people on a generous soil, and plants another amid barren snows. He confides to one people to work out some problem on which the worlds welfare and progress depend. And for a time that people stand out distinguished by Heavens favour above all others. To the ancient Greek was given the highest culture of art, to the Roman the highest development of government. To the English race today is committed the problem of combining the largest liberty with order and security. (J. Legge, M. A.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Act 17:23. As I passed by — Or, passed along the streets of your city; and beheld your devotions — Greek, τα σεβασματα υμων, the objects of your worship, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD —

Because Paul here tells the Athenians, that the true God was he whom they ignorantly worshipped under this title, some learned men have supposed that the altar he speaks of was raised to the God of the Jews; concerning whose power, in the destruction of the Egyptians and Canaanites, the ancient Athenians had received some obscure reports; and that, because the Jews carefully concealed his name, and had no image of him, the Athenians erected no statue to him, but worshipped him under the appellation of THE UNKNOWN GOD. Others think this altar was erected by Socrates, to express his devotions to the only true God, (while he derided the plurality of the heathen gods, for which he was condemned to death,) of whom the Athenians had no idea, and whose nature, he insinuated by this inscription, was far above the reach of human comprehension. See Dr. Wellwood’s Introduction to his translation of The Banquet of Xenophon. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship — Greek, ον ουν αγνοουντες ευσεβειτε, whom therefore ye worship, or, toward whom ye are piously disposed, not knowing him; him declare I — Greek, τουτον εγω καταγγελλω, him proclaim I, unto you — Thus he fixes the wandering attention of these blind philosophers; proclaiming to them an unknown, and yet not a new God; and alluding to their words, (Act 17:20,) he seemeth to be a proclaimer of strange gods.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Act 17:23. Διερχόμενος, in passing through) Paul did not wish to stay long at Athens: he ordered Silas and Timothy as soon as possible to come to him; and yet before their arrival he left Athens: Act 17:15-16, ch. Act 18:1; Act 18:5. Therefore he implies, that he has no want of something to do, even though the Athenians should not give heed to Paul. He shows by the fact itself that he is no “seed-picker.”—ἀναθεωρῶν, beholding) All things may serve the purposes of a wise man, whatever he may come across; but out of many he chooses out the best, as Paul refers to the one altar, dismissing other instances which he might have adduced.—σεβάσματα) works, founded for sacred purposes [gods worshipped, 2Th 2:4].—ἐπεγέγραπτο, there had been inscribed) The Pluperfect, used courteously. To the Athenians of the existing age, when Paul spoke there, might be ascribed either a greater or less degree of ignorance, than to the authors of the inscription.—ἀγνώστῳ Θεῷ, To an UNKNOWN GOD) Not even was the article added by the Athenians. Diogenes Laertius says, “When the Athenians, at one time, suffered under a pestilence, Epimenides purified the city, and restrained the plague in this way: He took sheep of black and white fleeces, and led them to the Areopagus, and permitted them to go from it in whatever direction they pleased; instructing those who followed them, wherever the sheep lay down there to immolate them severally τῷ προσήκοντι Θεῷ, to the appropriate or peculiarly fitting God: and in this way the plague ceased. Accordingly from that time, and in the present day, it is certain that altars without a name, βωμοὺς ἀνωνύμους, are found throughout the districts (pagos) of the Athenians.” Pausanias says, that there were in Phalerum βωμοὺς θεῶντε δνομαζομένων ἀγνώστων καὶ ἡρώων· which words ought, it seems, to be so stopped as to make some to be θεοὺς ὀνομαζομένους, gods having names, others to be ἀγνώστους, unknown gods. Philostratus, 6. 2, says, σωθρονέστερον περὶ πάντων θεῶν εὖ λέγειν, καὶ ταῦτα Ἀθήνῃσιν, οὗ καὶ ἀγνώστων θεῶν βωμοὶ ἵδρυνται. Tertullian against Marcion, says, “I find that altars have been publicly set up (prostitutes) to gods altogether unknown, but it is an Attic idolatry.” The Greek Scholia bring forward this inscription, θεοῖς Ἀσίας καὶ Εὐρώπης καὶ Λυβίης, θεῷ ἀγνώστῳ καὶ ξένω. But they do not produce any witness of this inscription. Jerome, in his Comment. on the Ep. to Titus: “The inscription of the altar was not in the precise form which Paul asserted, To the Unknown God; but in this form, To the gods of Asia and Europe and Africa (Aphricæ); to the unknown and foreign or strange gods. But because Paul’s purpose did not require a number of unknown gods, but only one unknown God, he has used the singular number to show, that He whom the Athenians had thus designated beforehand in the inscription on the altar is his own God.” Comp. the note of C. Reineccius on this passage. On weighing all the data, and comparing them one with the other, it is evident that there was at first a certain one altar, having this inscription, To the Unknown GOD, namely, to that one Supreme God, the Founder of all things, inscrutable to mortals: and according to the pattern of this altar, which was erected according to the mind of the ancient philosophers, and not at variance with the enigma of Epimenides, the Athenians erected several others, dedicated to the Unknown God; until, as superstition always degenerates into a more corrupt form, some persons inscribed often one altar to the unknown gods conjointly, thinking that among so many gods they would find one God at least who would attend and be propitious. And it is to this that the employment of the Pluperfect, ἐπεγέγραπτο, had been inscribed, refers, viz. that Paul may intimate that the old form, to the Unknown God, is truer than the more recent forms, to the unknown gods. So Lucan, lib. ii., “dedita sacris Incerti Judæa Dei” Judea devoted to the worship of an Uncertain or Unknown God. The Philopatris of Lucian has these words: τὸν ἐν Ἀθήναις ἄγνωστον ἐφευρόντες, Finding the Unknown One, who is at Athens; which is a not obscure allusion to Luke. Gellius, B. ii. c. 28, mentions something not dissimilar concerning the Romans.—εὐσεβεῖτε, ye worship) A mild word, addressed to the Gentiles.—τοῦτον, Him) Paul fixes definitely the vague intention of the blinded Athenians. I preach or announce to you, saith he, One unknown, but nevertheless not strange (referring to their words, Act 17:18).—ἐγὼ καταγγέλλω, I announce) whatever ye may think concerning me.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Act_17:23. Διερχόμ.] belongs jointly to τὰ σεβάσμ. ὑμ.

ἀναθεώρ. τὰ σεβ. ὑμ.] attentively contemplating (Heb_13:7; Diod. Sic. xii. 15; Plut. Aem. P. 1; Lucian, Vit. auct. 2; comp. ἀναθεώρησις, Cicero, ad Att. ix. 19, xiv. 15 f.) the objects of your worship, temples, altars, images (2Th_2:4; Wis_14:20; Wis_15:7; Hist. Drag. 27; Dion. Hal. Ant. i. 30, v. 1; Suicer, Thes. II. p. 942).

ἀγνώστῳ Θεῷ] That there actually stood at Athens at least one altar with the inscription: to an unknown god, would appear historically certain from this passage itself, even though other proofs were wanting, since Paul appeals to his own observation, and that, too, in the presence of the Athenians themselves. But there are corroborating external proofs: (1) Pausan. i. 1. 4 (comp. v. 14. 6) says: in Athens there were βωμοὶ θεῶν τε ὀνομαζομένων ἀγνώστων καὶ ἡρώων; and (2) Philostr. Vit. Apollon. vi. 2 : σωφρονέστερον περὶ πάντων θεῶν εὖ λέγειν, καὶ ταῦτα Ἀθήνῃσιν, οὗ καὶ ἀγνώστων θεῶν βωμοὶ ἵδρυνται. From both passages it is evident that at Athens there were several altars, each of which bore the votive inscription: ἀγνώστῳ θεῷ.[65] The explanation of the origin of such altars is less certain. Yet Diog. Laert. Epim. 3 gives a trace of it, when it is related that Epimenides put an end to a plague in Athens by eausing black and white sheep, which he had let loose on the Areopagus, to be sacrificed on the spots where they lay down τῷ προσήκοντι θεῷ, i.e. to the god concerned (yet not known by name), namely, who was the author of the plague; and that therefore one may find at Athens βωμοὺς ἀνωνύμους, i.e. altars without the designation of a god by name (not as Kuinoel, following Olearius, thinks, without any inscription). From this particular instance the general view may be derived, that on important occasions, when the reference to a god known by name was wanting, as in public calamities of which no definite goal could be assigned as the author, in order to honour or propitiate the god concerned (τὸν προσήκοντα) by sacrifice, without lighting on a, wrong one altars were erected which were destined and designated ἀγνώστῳ θεῷ. Without any historical foundation, Eichhorn, Bibl. III. p. 413 f. (with whom Niemeyer, Interpret. orat. Paul. Act. xvii. 22 ff., Hal. 1805, agreed), supposed that such altars proceeded from the time when the art of writing was not yet known or in use; and that at a later period, when it was not known to what god these altars belonged, they were marked with that inscription in order not to offend any god. Against this may be urged the great probability that the destination of such altars would be preserved in mens knowledge by oral tradition. Entirely peculiar is the remark of Jerome on Tit_1:12 : Inscriptio arae non ita erat, ut Paulus asseruit: ignoto Deo, sed ita: Diis Asiae et Europae et Africae, Diis ignotis et peregrinis.[66] Verum quia Paulus non pluribus Diis ignotis indigebat, sed uno tantum ignoto Deo, singulari verbo usus est, etc. But there is no historical trace of such an altar-inscription; and, had it been in existence, Paul could not have meant it, because we cannot suppose that, at the very commencement of his discourse, he would have made a statement before the Athenians deviating so much from the reality and only containing an abstract inference from it. The ἀγνώστῳ θεῷ could not but have its literal accuracy and form the whole inscription; otherwise Paul would only have promoted the suspicion of σπερμολογία. We need not inquire to what definite god the Athenians pointed by their ἀγνώστῳ θεῷ. In truth, they meant no definite god, because, in the case which occasioned the altar, they knew none such. The view (see in Wolf) that the God of the Jewsthe obscure knowledge of whom had come from the Jews to Egypt, and thence to the Greeksis meant, is an empty dogmatic invention. Baur, p. 202, ed. 2, with whom Zeller agrees, maintains that the inscription in the singular is unhistorical; that only the plural, ἄγνωστοι θεοί, could have been written; and that only a writer at a distance, who had to fear no contradiction on the spot, could have ventured on such an intentional alteration. But the very hint given to us by Diogenes Laertius as to the origin of such altars is decisive against this notion, as well as the correct remark of Grotius: Cum Pausanias ait aras Athenis fuisse θεῶν ἀγνώστων, hoc vult, multas fuisse aras tali inscriptione: Θεῷ ἀγνώστῳ, quamquam potuere et aliae esse pluraliter inscriptae, aliae singulariter. Besides, it may be noted that Paul, had he read ἀγνώστοις θεοῖς on the altar, might have used this plural expression for his purpose as suitably as the singular, since he, in fact, continues with the generic neuter ὃ … τοῦτο.

On the Greek altars without temples, see Hermann, gottesd. Alterth. § 17.

ὃ οὖν ἀγνοοῦντες εὐσεβεῖτε, τοῦτο κ.τ.λ.] (see the critical remarks) what ye therefore (according to this inscription), without knowing it, worship, that (this very object of your worship) do I (ἐγώ with a self-conscious emphasis) make known unto you. Paul rightly inferred from the inscription that the Athenians, besides the gods (Zeus, Athene, etc.) known to them, recognised something divine as existing and to be worshipped, which was different from these (however, after the manner of heathenism, they might conceive of it in various concrete forms). And justly also, as the God preached by him was another than those known heathen gods (Rom_1:22-23; 1Co_8:4 ff; 1Co_10:20), he might now say that this divinity, which served them in an unknown manner as the object of worship, was that which he announced to them, in order that it might now become to them γνωστὸς θεός. Of course, they could not yet take up this expression in the sense of the apostle himself, but could only think of some divine being according to their usual heathen conception (comp. Laufs in the Stud. und Krit. 1850, p. 584 f.); but, most suitably to the purpose he had in view, reserving the more exact information for the further course of his address, he now engaged the religious interest of his hearers in his own public announcement of it, and thereby excited that interest the more, as by this ingeniously improvised connection he exhibited himself quite differently from what those might have expected who deemed him a καταγγελεὺς ξένων δαιμονίων, Act_17:18. Chrysostom aptly remarks in this respect: ὅρα πῶς δείκνυσι προειληφότας αὐτόν· οὐδὲν ξένον, φησὶν, οὐδὲν καινὸν εἰσφέρω.

Observe, also, the conciliatory selection of εὐσεβεῖτε, which expresses pious worship. εὐσεβεῖτε, with the accusative of the object (1Ti_5:4; 4Ma_5:23; 4Ma_11:5), is in classical writers, though rare, yet certainly vouched for (in opposition to Valckenaer, Porson, Seidler, Ellendt). See Hermann, ad Soph. Ant. 727. Compare also the Greek ἀσεβεῖν τι or τινα.

[65] Lucian, Philopatr. 9 and 29, is invalid as a proof, for there the reference of the pseudo-Lucian to the Ἄγνωστος ἐν Ἀθήναις ι is based on this very passage.

[66] But, according to Oecumenius: θεοῖς Ἀσίας καί Εὐρώπης καὶ Λιβύης θεῷ ἀγνώστῳ καί ξένῳ. Comp. Isidor. Pelus. in Cramer, Cat. p. 292. According to Ewald, this is the more exact statement of the inscription; from it Paul may have borrowed his quotation. But the exactness is suspicious just on account of the singular in Oecumenius; and, moreover, Paul would have gone much too freely to work by the omission of the essential term Λιβύης (the unknown and strange god of Libya); nor would he have had any reason for the omission of the ξένῳ, while he might, on the contrary, have employed it in some ingenious sort of turn with reference to ver. 18.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Act 17:23 . διερχόμενος γὰρ : “for as I passed along,” R.V., through the streets, or perhaps “was wandering through” Renan has passant dans vos rues , see also on Act 17:16 above, and also on Act 8:40 . A.V., “as I passed by” does not give the force of the word, and apparently means “passed by the objects of your devotion”. ἀναθεωρῶν : accurate contemplari , “observed,” R.V., only in later Greek, and in N.T. only in Heb 13:7 , “ considering with attentive survey again and again,” see Westcott, in loco : Weiss renders it here,, immer wieder betrachtend, cf. critical notes, cf. Diod. Sic., xiv. 109, and references in Grimm. τὰ σεβάσματα : “the objects of your worship,” R.V., Vulgate, simulacra , the thing worshipped, not the act or manner of worshipping. The A.V. margin gives “gods that ye worship,” cf. 2Th 2:4 , where A. and R.V. both render “that is worshipped,” σέβασμα in text, and R.V. in margin, “an object of worship”; Bel and the Dragon, Act 17:27 , Wis 14:20 ; Wis 15:17 . καὶ βωμὸν : “I found also an altar,” R.V., i.e. , in addition to those with definite dedications; only here in N.T., often in LXX, sometimes of heathen altars, Exo 34:13 , Num 23:1 , Deu 7:5 . ἐπεγέγραπτο , cf. Luk 16:20 ; on the pluperfect with augment, Blass, Gram. , p. 37, see critical note: Farrar, St. Paul , i. 542, takes the word as implying permanence, and perhaps antiquity, so in Speaker’s Commentary as of an ancient decayed altar, whose inscription had been forgotten; Mar 15:26 , Rev 21:12 (Heb 8:10 ; Heb 10:16 ). Ἀγνώστῳ Θεῷ : “to an unknown God,” R.V.: all previous versions like A.V., but there is no definite article, although in inscriptions it was often omitted. For the existence of altars of this kind the testimony of Pausanias and Philostratus may be fairly quoted; Pausan., i., 1, 4 ( cf. Act 5:14 ; Act 5:6 ), βωμοὶ θεῶν τε ὀνομαζομένων ἀγνώστων καὶ ἡρώων , and Philost., Vit. Apollon. , vi., 2, σωφρονέστερον περὶ πάντων θεῶν εὖ λέγειν , καὶ ταῦτα Ἀθήνησιν , οὗ καὶ ἀγνώστων θεῶν βωμοὶ ἵδρυνται , see references in Wetstein, and cf. F. C. Conybeare, u. s. ; Renan, Saint Paul , p. 173; Neander, Geschichte der Pfianzung , ii., 32 ff.; Wendt, etc. Baur, Zeller, Overbeck have maintained that there could have been no such inscription in the singular number as the plural is so much more in harmony with polytheism, although the last named admits that the authorities cited above admit at least the possibility of an inscription as in the text. To say nothing of the improbability that Paul would refer before such an audience to an inscription which had no existence, we may reasonably infer that there were at Athens several altars with the inscription which the Apostle quotes. A passage in Diog. Laert., Epim. , 3, informs us how Epimenides, in the time of a plague, brought to the Areopagus and let loose white and black sheep, and wherever the sheep lay down, he bade the Athenians to sacrifice τῷ προσήκοντι θεῷ , and so the plague ceased, with the result that we find in Athens many βωμοὺς ἀνωνύμους , see the passage quoted in full in Wetstein; from this it is not an unfair inference that in case of misfortune or disaster, when it was uncertain what god should be honoured or propitiated, an altar might be erected ἀγνώστῳ Θεῷ . (It is curious that Blass although he writes ἀγνώστῳ Θεῷ in [312] thinks that the true reading must have been the plural.) To draw such an inference is much more reasonable than to suppose with Jerome, Tit. , Act 1:12 , that the inscription was not as Paul asserted, but that he used the singular number because it was more in accordance with his purpose, the inscription really being “Diis Asiæ et Europæ et Africæ, Diis ignotis et peregrinis,” cf. the inscription according to Oecumenius θεοῖς Ἀσίας καὶ Εὐρώπης καὶ Λιβύης Θεῷ ἀγνώστῳ καὶ ξένῳ . But at the very commencement of his speech the Apostle would scarcely have made a quotation so far removed from the actual words of the inscription, otherwise he would have strengthened the suspicion that he was a mere σπερμολόγος . St. Chrysostom, Hom. , xxxviii., sees in the inscription an indication of the anxiety of the Athenians lest they should have neglected some deity honoured elsewhere, but if we connect it with the story mentioned above of Epimenides, it would be quite in accordance with the religious character of the Athenians, or perhaps one might rather say with the superstitious feeling which prompted the formula so often employed in the prayer of Greeks and Romans alike Si deo si deæ , or the words of Horace ( Epod. , Act 17:1 ), “At deorum quidquid in coelo regit”. There is no reason for the view held amongst others by Mr. Lewin that the inscription refers to the God of the Jews. But in such an inscription St. Paul wisely recognised that there was in the heart of Athens a witness to the deep unsatisfied yearning of humanity for a clearer and closer knowledge of the unseen power which men worshipped dimly and imperfectly, a yearning expressed in the sacred Vedic hymns of an old world, or in the crude religions of a new, cf. Max Müller, Selected Essays , i., p. 23 ff.; Zöckler, in loco , “Altar,” B.D. 2 ; Plumptre, Movements of Religious Thought , p. 78 ff. ὂν οὖν ἀγνοοῦντες , see critical notes. If we read ὅ for ὅν , we may render with R.V., “what therefore ye worship in ignorance”: Vulgate, quod colitis . The mere fact of the erection of such an inscription showed that the Athenians did reverence to some divine existence, although they worshipped what they knew not, St.Joh 4:22 ; not “ignorantly worship,” as in A.V., this would have been alien to the refinement and tact of St. Paul. εὐσεβεῖτε : used here as elsewhere of genuine piety, which St. Paul recognised and claimed as existing in the existence of the altar the word throws light on the meaning which the Apostle attached to the δεισιδαιμονία of Act 17:22 ; in N.T. only in Luke and Paul, cf. 1Ti 5:4 , of filial piety ( cf. pietas ), cf. Susannah, ver 64 (LXX), and 4Ma 11:5 ; 4Ma 11:8 ; 4Ma 11:23 ; 4Ma 18:2 . “That divine nature which you worship, not knowing what it is ” (Ramsay). τοῦτον ἐγὼ καταγγέλλω ὑμῖν : in these words lay the answer to the charge that he was a σπερμ . or a καταγγελεύς of strange gods. ἐγὼ , emphatic; I whom you regard as a mere babbler proclaim to you, or set forth, the object which you recognise however dimly, and worship however imperfectly. Since the days of St. Chrysostom the verse has been taken as a proof that the words of St. Paul were addressed not to a select group of philosophers, but to the corona of the people.

[312] R(omana), in Blass, a first rough copy of St. Luke.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Pausanias in his Atticis, maketh mention of the altar which the Athenians had dedicated to unknown gods: and Laertius in his Epimenides maketh mention of an altar that had no name entitled.

Whatsoever men worship for religion’s sake, that we call devotion.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

as I passed by and beheld your devotions--rather, "the objects of your devotion," referring, as is plain from the next words, to their works of art consecrated to religion.

I found an altar . . . To the--or, "an"

unknown god--erected, probably, to commemorate some divine interposition, which they were unable to ascribe to any known deity. That there were such altars, Greek writers attest; and on this the apostle skilfully fastens at the outset, as the text of his discourse, taking it as evidence of that dimness of religious conception which, in virtue of his better light, he was prepared to dissipate.

Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship--rather, "Whom, therefore, knowing Him not, ye worship," alluding to "The Unknown God."

him declare--announce.

I unto you--This is like none of his previous discourses, save that to the idolaters of Lycaonia (Act 14:15-17). His subject is not, as in the synagogues, the Messiahship of Jesus, but THE LIVING GOD, in opposition to the materialistic and pantheistic polytheism of Greece, which subverted all true religion. Nor does he come with speculation on this profound subject--of which they had had enough from others--but an authoritative "announcement" of Him after whom they were groping not giving Him any name, however, nor even naming the Saviour Himself but unfolding the true character of both as they were able to receive it.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 23. Beheld your devotions] σεβασματα, The objects of your worship; the different images of their gods which they held in religious veneration, sacrificial instruments, altars, c., c.

TO THE UNKNOWN GOD.] ΑΓΝΩΣΤΩ ΘΕΩ. That there was an altar at Athens thus inscribed, we cannot doubt after such a testimony though St. Jerome questions it in part for he says St. Paul found the inscription in the plural number, but, because he would not appear to acknowledge a plurality of gods, he quoted it in the singular: Verum, quia Paulus non pluribus Diis indigebat ignotis, sed uno tantum ignoto Deo, singulari verbo usus est. Epist. ad Magn. This is a most foolish saying: had Paul done so, how much would such a begging of the question have prejudiced his defence in the minds of his intelligent judges! OEcumenius intimates that St. Paul does not give the whole of the inscription which this famous altar bore; and which he says was the following: Θεοις Ασιας και Ευρωπης και Λιβυης, Θεῳ αγνωϚῳ και ξενῳ, To the gods of Asia, and Europe, and Africa: TO THE UNKNOWN and strange GOD. Several eminent men suppose that this unknown god was the God of the Jews; and, as his name יהוה was considered by the Jews as ineffable, the Θεος αγνωϚος may be considered as the anonymous god; the god whose name was not known, and must not be pronounced. That there was such a god acknowledged at Athens we have full proof. Lucian in his Philopatris, cap. xiii. p. 769, uses this form of an oath: νη τον αγνωϚον τον εν Αθηναις, I swear by the UNKNOWN GOD at ATHENS. And again, cap. xxix. 180: ἡμεις δε τον εν Αθηναις αγνωϚον εφευροντες και προσκυνησαντες, χειρας εις ουρανον εκτειναντες, τουτῳ ευχαριϚησομεν ὡς καταξιωθεντες, c. We have found out the UNKNOWN god at ATHENS-and worshipped him with our hands stretched up to heaven and we will gave thanks unto him, as being thought worthy to be subject to this power. Bp. Pearce properly asks, Is it likely that Lucian, speaking thus, (whether in jest or in earnest,) should not have had some notion of there being at Athens an altar inscribed to the unknown God? Philostratus, in vit. Apollon. vi. 3, notices the same thing, though he appears to refer to several altars thus inscribed: και ταυτα Αθηνῃσι, οὑ και αγνωϚων Θεων βωμοι ἱδρυνται, And this at ATHENS, where there are ALTARS even to the UNKNOWN GODS. Pausanias, in Attic. cap. 1. p. 4, edit. Kuhn., says that at Athens there are βωμοι Θεων των ονομαζομενων αγνωϚων, altars of gods which are called, The UNKNOWN ones. Minutius Felix says of the Romans, Aras extruunt etiam ignotis numinibus. "They even build altars to UNKNOWN DIVINITIES." And Tertullian, contra Marcion, says, Invenio plane Diis ignotis aras prostitutas: sed Attica idolatria est. "I find altars allotted to the worship of unknown gods: but this is an Attic idolatry." Now, though in these last passages, both gods and altars are spoken of in the plural number; yet it is reasonable to suppose that, on each, or upon some one of them, the inscription αγνωϚῳ Θεῳ, To the unknown god, was actually found. The thing had subsisted long and had got from Athens to Rome in the days of Tertullian and Minutius Felix. See Bp. Pearce and Dr. Cudworth, to whose researches this note is much indebted.

Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship] There is here a fine paronomasia, or play on the words. The apostle tells them that (on their system) they were a very religious people-that they had an altar inscribed, αγνωϚῳ Θεῳ, to the unknown God: him therefore, says he, whom, αγνουντες, ye unknowingly worship, I proclaim to you. Assuming it as a truth, that, as the true God was not known by them, and that there was an altar dedicated to the unknown god, his God was that god whose nature and operations he now proceeded to declare. By this fine turn he eluded the force of that law which made it a capital offense to introduce any new god into the state, and of the breach of which he was charged, Ac 17:18; and thus he showed that he was bringing neither new god nor new worship among them; but only explaining the worship of one already acknowledged by the state, though not as yet known.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

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 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.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(23) I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.—Better, I observe you as being in all things more fearful of the gods than others. It is not easy to express the exact force of the Greek adjective. “Superstitious” is, perhaps, too strong on the side of blame; “devout,” on the side of praise. The word which the Athenians loved to use of themselves (theosebês, a worshipper of God) exactly answers to the latter term. This St. Paul will not use of idolators, and reserves it for those who worship the one living and true God, and he uses a word which, like our “devotee,” though not offensive, was neutral with a slight touch of disparagement. The deisidaimôn is described at some length in the Characters of Theophrastus, the La Bruyere of classical literature (c. 17), as one who consults soothsayers, and is a believer in omens, who will give up a journey if he sees a weasel on the road, and goes with his wife and children to be initiated into the Orphic mysteries. Nikias, the Athenian general, ever oppressed with the sense of the jealousy of the gods, and counter-ordering important strategic movements because there was an eclipse of the moon (Thucyd. vii. 50), is a conspicuous instance of the deisidaimôn in high places. The Stoic Emperor, Marcus Aurelius (Meditt. i. 16), congratulates himself on not being such a deisidaimôn, while he gives thanks that he has inherited his mother’s devotion (theosebes) (i. 2). The opening words would gain, and were perhaps meant to gain, the ears of the philosophers. Here, they would say, is one who, at least, rises, as we do, above the religion of the multitude.

As I passed by, and beheld your devotions.—Better, as I passed by, and was contemplating the objects of your worship. The English word appears to have been used in its old sense, as meaning what the Greek word means—the object, and not the act, of devotion. So, Wiclif gives “your mawmetis”—i.e., “your idols.” Tyndale, Cranmer, and the Geneva version give “the manner how ye worship your gods.” The Rhemish follows “Wiclif, and gives “your idols.”

I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD.—The Greek of the inscription has no article, and might, therefore, be rendered TO AN UNKNOWN GOD, as though it had been consecrated as a votive offering for benefits which the receiver was unable to assign to the true donor among the “gods many and lords many” whom he worshipped. So interpreted, it did not bear its witness directly to any deeper thoughts than those of the popular poly-theism, and stands on the same footing as the altars TO UNKNOWN GODS, which are mentioned by Pausanias (i. 1-4) as set up in the harbour and streets of Athens, or to the description which Theophrastus gives (as above) of the deisidaimôn as asking the soothsayers, after he has had a disquieting dream, to what god or goddess he ought to pray. Greek usage, however, did not require the use of the article in inscriptions of this nature, and the English translation is quite as legitimate as the other, and clearly gives the sense in which St. Paul understood it. Taking this sense, there come the questions, What thought did the inscription express? To what period did it belong? A story connected with Epimenides of Crete, who, as a prophet of great fame, was invited to Athens at a time when the city was suffering from pestilence, is sometimes referred to as affording a probable explanation of its origin. Diogenes Laertius (Epimen. c. 3) relates that he turned sheep loose into the city, and then had them sacrificed, where they stopped, to the god thus pointed out, i.e., to the one whose image or altar was nearest to the spot, and that “altars without a name” were thus to be seen in many parts of Athens; and it has been supposed that this may have been one of these altars, erected where there was no image near enough to warrant a sacrifice to any known deity, and as Epimenides is stated to have offered sacrifices on the Areopagus, that such an altar may have been standing within view as St. Paul spoke. Against this view, however, are the facts (1) that the narrative of Laertius names no such inscription as that of which St. Paul speaks, and rather implies that every victim found the god to whom it of right belonged, or else that the altar was left without any inscription; (2) that St. Paul’s language implies that he had seen the inscription as he walked through the city, and not that he looked on it as he spoke; and (3) that it is hardly conceivable that such an altar, standing in so conspicuous a place from the time of Epimenides, would have remained unnoticed by a thinker like Socrates. Jerome (on Tit_1:12) cuts the knot of the difficulty by stating that the inscription actually ran, “To the Gods of Asia and Europe and Africa, to unknown and strange Gods.” It is possible that he may have seen an altar with such words upon it, and that he rushed to the conclusion that it was what St. Paul referred to; but it is not likely that the Apostle would have ventured on altering the inscription to suit his argument in the presence of those who could have confuted him on the spot, and his words must be received as indicating what he had actually seen.

A passage in the dialogue of Philopatris, ascribed to Lucian, where one of the speakers swears “by the Unknown God of Athens,” is interesting: but, as written in the third century after Christ, may be only a reference, not without a sneer, to St. Paul’s speech, and cannot be adduced as evidence either as to the existence of such an altar or its meaning. An independent inquiry based upon data hitherto not referred to, will, perhaps, lead to more satisfactory conclusions. (1) The verbal adjective means something more than “Unknown.” It adds the fact that the Unknown is also the Unknowable. It is the ultimate confession, such as we have heard of late from the lips of some students of science, of man’s impotence to solve the problems of the universe. It does not affirm Atheism, but it knows not what the Power is, which yet it feels must be. (2) As such it presents a striking parallel to the inscription which Plutarch (dc Isid. et Osir.) records as found on the veil of Isis at Sais: “I am all that has been, and all that is, and all that shall be; and no mortal hath lifted my veil.” Whether that inscription expressed the older thoughts of Egypt may, perhaps, be questioned. Plutarch gives it in Greek, and this probably indicates a date after the foundation of the monarchy of the Ptolemies (B.C. 367), possibly contemporary with Plutarch (A.D. 46-140). (3) Still more striking, if possible, is the parallelism presented by an altar found at Ostia, and now in the Vatican Museum. It represents what is known as a Mithraic sacrificial group, connected, i.e., with the worship of Mithras, the Sun-god of later Persian mythology, a winged figure sacrificing a bull, with various symbolic emblems, such as a serpent and a scorpion. Underneath appears the inscription (Orelli, Inser. Gel. ii. 5, 000)—

SIGNUM INDEPREHENSIBILIS DEI. [THE SYMBOL OF THE UNDISCOVERABLE GOD.]

It will be admitted that this expresses the same thought as the inscription which St. Paul quotes; that it is the nearest equivalent that Latin can supply for the “Unknown and Unknowable” God. The frequent recurrence of Mithraic groups in nearly all museums, generally without any note of time, but, in the judgment of experts, ranging from the time of Pompeius to that of Diocletian, shows the prevalence of this Sun worship throughout the Roman world during the early period of the empire. We have found an interesting trace of it in Cyprus. (See Note on Act_13:14.) We may see its surviving influence in the reverence shown by Constantine to the Dies Solis in the general observance of that day throughout the empire. Other inscriptions, also in the Vatican Museum, such as SOLI DEO INVICTO (Orelli, i., 1904-14), show its prevalence. Our own Sunday (Dies Solis), little as we dream of it, is probably a survival of the Mithraic cultus, which at one time seemed not unlikely, as seen from a merely human standpoint, to present a formidable rivalry to the claims of the Church of Christ. It is, at least, a remarkable coincidence that the Twenty-fifth of December was kept as the festival of Mithras long before it was chosen by the Western Church for the Feast of the Nativity. It is true that De Rossi, the great Roman archæologist, in a note to the present writer, gives the probable date of the inscription in question as belonging to the second or third century after Christ; but the Mithraic worship is known to have prevailed widely from a much earlier period, and the church of San Clemente, at Rome, where below the two basilicas have been found the remains of a Christian oratory turned into a Mithraic chapel, presents a memorable instance of the rivalry of the two systems. On the whole, therefore, it seems probable that the altar which St. Paul saw was an earlier example of the feeling represented by the Ostian inscription, and may well have found its expression, with a like characteristic formula, among the many forms of the confluent polytheism of Athens. Plutarch (Pompeius) speaks of the worship of Mithras as having been brought into Europe by the Cilician pirates whom Pompeius defeated, and as continuing in his own time.

Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship.—Better, as expressing the connection with the inscription, What therefore ye worship not knowing, that declare I unto you. The better MSS. give the relative pronoun in the neuter. It was, perhaps, deliberately used, as St. Paul uses the neuter form for “Godhead” in Act_17:29, and a cognate abstract noun in Rom_1:20, to express the fact that the Athenians were as yet ignorant of the personality of the living God. That any human teacher should have power and authority to proclaim that “Unknown God,” as making Himself known to men, was what neither Epicureans nor Stoics had dreamt of. The verb “declare” is closely connected with the term “setter forth,” of Act_17:18. He does not disclaim that element in the charge against him.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

23. For as I passed by (along)] The word refers to the whole of the Apostle’s walk about the city.

and beheld your devotions] Better, “and noticed the objects of your worship.” (With R. V.) The verb is that which in the previous verse is translated “I perceive,” only that here it is strengthened by a preposition which gives it the force of “fully observe.” The Apostle had not only seen the statues but read the inscriptions. The noun can only mean “a thing that is worshipped” not “the act of worship” as is the sense of the A. V.

I found an altar] The Greek has an emphatic conjunction, which might be represented by “I found also an altar,” i.e. beside other things which I noticed.

TO THE UNKNOWN GOD] The original has no article and would be correctly rendered “To an unknown God.” But it is not always correct to omit the article in English because it does not appear in the original: here however it does not influence the meaning. When the altar was erected, it was in consequence of some visitation of which the cause was not apparent, and which could be ascribed to none of the existing divinities. We may conceive the Athenians speaking of the power which caused the visitation either as “an unknown God” or as “the unknown God” whose wrath they would deprecate, and, in an inscription, representing all that was intended without the article. We have abundant evidence of the existence in Athens of such altars as that to which St Paul alludes. But the words in which they are described generally run in the plural number, and speak of “the unknown gods.” Thus Pausanias (i. i. 4) describing one of the ports of Athens tells us that there were there “altars to gods styled unknown” and Philostratus in his Life of Apollonius says “at Athens there are erected altars for unknown gods.” There is a like allusion in (pseudo) Lucian’s Philo-patris, but it is doubtful whether that is not drawn from this passage of the Acts. And Jerome writing on Tit_1:12, says “The inscription on the altar was not, as Paul stated, ‘To the unknown God’ but ‘To the unknown gods of Asia and Europe and Africa, to unknown and foreign Gods.’ But, because Paul required to speak of only one unknown God, he used the word in the singular.” But it is better to suppose that St Paul saw what he says he saw, and as evidence that such an inscription was not improbable, we may quote the Latin inscription found on an altar at Ostia, now in the Vatican, representing a sacrificial group in connexion with the worship of Mithras, the Sun-god of the later Persian mythology (Orelli, Inscr. Gel. ii. 5000), “Signum indeprehensibilis dei” which is a very near approach in Latin to what the Greek inscription to which the Apostle alludes would mean. The word “unknown” must not be pressed too far into the sense of “unknowable,” because of what comes after. Paul says that “he is prepared to set forth to them that power which they were worshipping; in ignorance.” So though man by searching cannot find out God yet he would desire to teach the Athenians, what he says elsewhere, that “the everlasting power and divinity of God may be clearly seen through the things that are made” (Rom_1:20).

Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship] The best MSS. give the relative in the neuter. The better rendering therefore is What therefore ye worship in ignorance. (As R. V.) The A. V. seems to convey the sense that the worship was of an ignorant character: whereas what the Apostle intends to say is not any reflection on the nature of their worship, but only that they offered it in ignorance, and this he was ready to dispel. He accepts their religious character, takes his stand on their own confession that they are in ignorance about God, and so offers his teaching.

him declare I unto you] Of course in harmony with the previous clause the pronoun is here also neuter. “This set I forth unto you.” (As R. V.) In the verb which he employs the Apostle takes up their own word (Act_17:18) when they said “He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods.” It is well that the similarity of word should be retained in the English.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

For as I passed by,.... Or "through"; that is, through the city of Athens:

and beheld your devotions; not so much their acts of worship and religion, as the gods which they worshipped; in which sense this word is used in Th2 2:4 and the altars which were erected to them, and the temples in which they were worshipped; and so the Syriac and Arabic versions render it, "the houses", and "places of your worship"; and the Ethiopic version, "your images", or "deities",

I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Pausanias (p) speaks in the plural number of altars of gods, that were named unknown, at Athens; and so says Apollonius Tyanaeus to Timasion (q) it is wisest to speak well of all the gods, especially at Athens, where there are altars to unknown gods: it may be, there were altars that had the inscription in the plural number; and there was one which Paul took particular notice of, in the singular number; or the above writers may speak of altars to unknown gods, because there might be many altars with this inscription: the whole of the inscription, according to Theophylact, was this;

"to the gods of Asia, Europe, and Lybia (or Africa), to the unknown and strange god;''

though Jerom (r) makes this to be in the plural number: certain it is, that Lucian (s) swears by the unknown god that was at Athens, and says, we finding the unknown god at Athens, and worshipping with hands stretched out towards heaven, gave thanks unto him: the reason why they erected an altar with such an inscription might be, for fear when they took in the gods of other nations, there might be some one which they knew not; wherefore, to omit none, they erect an altar to him; and which proves what the apostle says, that they were more religious and superstitious than others: or it may be they might have a regard to the God of the Jews, whose name Jehovah with them was not to be pronounced, and who, by the Gentiles, was called "Deus incertus" (t); and here, in the Syriac version, it is rendered, "the hidden God", as the God of Israel is called, Isa 45:15 and that he is here designed seems manifest from what follows,

whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you; which could not be said by him of any other deity. God is an unknown God to those who have only the light of nature to guide them; for though it may be known by it that there is a God, and that there is but one, and somewhat of him may be discerned thereby; yet the nature of his essence, and the perfections of his nature, and the unity of his being, are very little, and not truly and commonly understood, and the persons in the Godhead not at all, and still less God in Christ, whom to know is life eternal: hence the Gentiles are described as such who know not God; wherefore, if he is worshipped by them at all, it must be ignorantly: and that they are ignorant worshippers of him, appears by worshipping others more than him, and besides him, or him in others, and these idols of gold, silver, brass, wood, and stone; and by their indecencies and inhumanity used in the performance of their worship: wherefore a revelation became necessary, by which men might be acquainted with the nature of the divine Being, and the true manner of worshipping him; in which a declaration is made of the nature and perfections of God, and of the persons in the Godhead, the object of worship; of the counsels, purposes, and decrees of God; of his covenant transactions with his Son respecting the salvation of his chosen people; of his love, grace, and mercy, displayed in the mission and gift of Christ to be the Saviour and Redeemer of them; of the glory of his attributes in their salvation; and of his whole mind and will, both with respect to doctrine and practice; and which every faithful minister of the Gospel, as the Apostle Paul, shuns not, according to his ability, truly and fully to declare.

(p) Attica, p. 2. (q) Philostrat. Vita Apollonii, l. 6. c. 2. (r) In Titum 1. 12. (s) In Dialog. Philopatris. (t) Lucan. Pharsalia, l. 2.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.

Ver. 23. I found an altar] A high altar, βωμος, seems to come from במה a high place. St Paul, as he preached without a pulpit, Act 17:17, so he takes his text off one of their altars. Anything serves turn, so he may do good.

To the unknown God] That uncertainty that attends idolatry caused those mariners to call every man to his God, Jon 1:5. And lest they might all mistake the true God, they awaken Jonas also to call upon his God. Hence these Athenians worship an unknown God; and hence, the heathens generally closed their petitions with Diique Deaeque omnes. All gods and godesses. (Serv. in Georg. i.)

Pausanias (in Attic.) mentioneth this altar, To the unknown God. Lucian saith the neighbour countries would swear by him unknown at Athens. The cause of erecting this altar some affirm to have been a fearful vision appearing to Philippides (sent ambassador to the Lacedaemonians concerning aid against the Persians), and complaining that he (that is, the great god Pan) was neglected and other gods worshipped, promising likewise his help. They therefore being victorious, and fearing the like event, built a temple and altar to the unknown God. Others say, that the plague being hot at Athens, and no help to be had from their gods, they surmising some other power to have sent and set on the disease, set up this altar, on which was written, To the gods of Asia, Europe, and Africa, to the unknown and strange God. (Justin Martyr, Oecumen. θεοις Ασιας και ευρωπης και Λιβυης, θεωαγνωστωκαιξενω..

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

For as I passed by - Greek: “For I, coming through, and seeing, etc.”

And beheld - Diligently contemplated; attentively considered ἀναθεωρῶν anatheōrōn. The worship of an idolatrous people will be an object of intense and painful interest to a Christian.

Your devotions - τὰ σεβάσματα ta sebasmata. Our word devotions refers to the “act of worship” - to prayers, praises, etc. The Greek word used here means properly any sacred thing; any object which is worshipped, or which is connected with the place or rites of worship. Thus, it is applied either to the gods themselves, or to the temples, altars, shrines, sacrifices, statues, etc., connected with the worship of the gods. This is its meaning here. It does not denote that Paul saw them engaged in the act of worship, but that he was struck with the numerous temples, altars, statues, etc., which were reared to the gods, and which indicated the state of the people. Syriac, “the temple of your gods.” Vulgate, “your images.” Margin, “gods that ye worship.”

I found an altar - An altar usually denotes “a place for sacrifice.” Here, however, it does not appear that any sacrifice was offered; but it was probably a monument of stone, reared to commemorate a certain event, and dedicated to the unknown God.

To the unknown God - ἀγνώστῳ Θεῷ agnōstō Theō. Where this altar was reared, or on what occasion, has been a subject of much debate with expositors. That there was such an altar in Athens, though it may not have been specifically mentioned by the Greek writers, is rendered probable by the following circumstances:

(1) It was customary to rear such altars. Minutius Felix says of the Romans, “They build altars to unknown divinities.”

(2) The term “unknown God” was used in relation to the worship of the Athenians. Lucian, in his Philopatris, uses this form of an oath: “I swear by the unknown God at Athens,” the very expression used by the apostle. And again he says (chapter xxix. 180), “We have found out the unknown God at Athens, and worshipped him with our hands stretched up to heaven, etc.”

(3) There were altars at Athens inscribed to the unknown gods. Philostratus says (in Vita Apol., Rom 6:3), “And this at Athens, where there are even altars to the unknown gods.” Thus, Pausanius (in Attic., chapter i.) says, that “at Athens there are altars of gods which are called the unknown ones.” Jerome, in his commentary Tit 1:12, says that the whole inscription was, “To the gods of Asia, Europe, and Africa; to the unknown and strange gods.”

(4) There was a remarkable altar raised in Athens in a time of pestilence, in honor of the unknown god which had granted them deliverance. Diogenes Laertius says that Epimenides restrained the pestilence in the following manner: “Taking white and black sheep, he led them to the Areopagus, and there permitted them to go where they would, commanding those who followed them to sacrifice τῶ προσήχοντι θεῷ tō prosēkonti theōto the god to whom these things pertained or who had the power of averting the plague, whoever he might be, without adding the name and thus to allay the pestilence. From which it has arisen that at this day, through the villages of the Athenians, altars are found without any name” (Diog. Laert., book i, section 10). This took place about 600 years before Christ, and it is not improbable that one or more of those altars remained until the time of Paul. It should be added that the natural inscription on those altars would be, “To the unknown God.” None of the gods to whom they usually sacrificed could deliver them from the pestilence. They therefore reared them to some unknown Being who had the power to free them from the plague.

Whom therefore - The true God, who had really delivered them from the plague.

Ye ignorantly worship - Or worship without knowing his name. You have expressed your homage for him by rearing to him an altar.

Him declare I unto you - I make known to you his name, attributes, etc. There is remarkable tact in Paul’s seizing on this circumstance; and yet it was perfectly fair and honest. Only the true God could deliver in the time of the pestilence. This altar had, therefore, been really reared to him, though his name was unknown. The same Being who had interposed at that time, and whose interposition was recorded by the building of this altar, was He who had made the heavens; who ruled over all; and whom Paul was now about to make known to them. There is another feature of skill in the allusion to this altar. In other circumstances it might seem to be presumptuous for an unknown Jew to at tempt to instruct the sages of Athens. But here they had confessed and proclaimed their ignorance. By rearing this altar they acknowledged their need of instruction. The way was, therefore, fairly open for Paul to address even these philosophers, and to discourse to them on a point on which they acknowledged their ignorance.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

It may be asked, why they had not implicit faith, worshipping the true, though unknown, God?[5] 1st. because the worship of the true God can never exist with the worship of idols; 2nd. because an explicit faith in God is required of all; 3rd. because it is repugnant to implicit faith, to admit any thing contrary to it, as comparing this unknown God with the pagan idols; for God to be at all, must be one. Lucan towards the end of his 2nd book, hath these words: ----------Et dedita sacris

Incerti Judæa Dei.

--- What, therefore, you improperly worship, that I preach to you, and instruct you in the true worship, far different from what you pay to your strange gods.

===============================

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

Ignoto Deo, Greek: agnosto theo. See Corn. a Lapide.

=====================

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

Devotions; any thing unto which Divine worship and honour is given.

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.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

23. Devotions—The Greek word signifies rather the apparatus of worship, such as temples, altars, and the like.

An altar—Amid the countless monuments of idolatry a single altar, alone, seemed to turn from all the deities of the Pantheon, and long for the unknown Infinite. From this pregnant text Paul can deduce God and Christ. “We should make use,”

says Stier, “of that modicum of truth that lies concealed in error.”

The unknown God—Rather, to an unknown God, or to God unknown. How, it is asked, could the apostle truly say that the unknown God was in fact Jehovah? For to him, a preacher of truth and righteousness, no rhetorical license can be allowed. We are told that there were at Athens altars erected to unknown gods. Thus Philostratus says, Αθηνησιν ου και αγνωστων θεων βωμοι ιδρυνται—At Athens, where are built altars to unknown gods. And Pausanias says, in his description of Attica, that altars of unknown gods were in the Phaleric harbour of Athens. The language does not unequivocally decide whether each single altar was devoted to a single unknown god, or to several, or all. But, first, we learn by these passages, at any rate, that the Athenians did erect altars to unknown divine power; and, second, we may then fairly allow the apostle’s word to decide for the singular. We also plentifully know that paganism often felt an anxiety as to what god it had offended, or ought to thank for some providential flavour. So the prayer of Horace: “O deorum quiequid in coelo regit,” (Epist. Act_5:1,) “O whichever of the gods rules in the sky!” And this passage, addressing a single unknown god, confirms the singular interpretation of the above two Greek quotations. To Horace the apostle might have most truly responded, “Whom you, unknowing him, worship, Him declare I unto you.”

Ignorantly—Unknowing; namely, the God worshipped. In unfolding here the sublimity of the divine attributes there seems to us a triad which has escaped the notice of commentators. From God’s illimitable nature he argues the insufficiency of temples, (Act_17:24;) from God’s self-sufficiency, the needlessness of offerings, and so of altars, (Act_17:25;) from the infinite spirituality, the folly of idol statuary, (26-29.) These are attacks on the threefold concrete forms of paganism.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Passed along for passed by, A.V.; observed the objects of your worship for beheld your devotions, A.V.; (tassmata umwn: see 2Th_2:4) also an altar for an altar, A.V.; and for the, A.V.; what for whom, A.V. and T.R.; worship in ignorance for ignorantly worship, A.V.; this for him, A.V. and T.R.; set forth for declare, A.V. AN UNKNOWN GOD. There is no direct and explicit testimony in ancient writers to the existence of any one such altar at Athens, but Pausanias and others speak of altars to "unknown gods," as to be seen in Athens, which may well be understood of several such altars, each dedicated to an unknown god. One of these was seen by St. Paul, and, with inimitable tact, made the text of his sermon. He was not preaching a foreign god to them, but making known to them one whom they had already in-eluded in their devotions without knowing him.

The worship of faith.

therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you." Christianity aggressive. Insufficiency of all forms of religion apart from true knowledge. The true philanthropy of the missionary spirit.

I THE WORLD"S IGNORANCE OF GOD INCONSISTENT WITH ACCEPTABLE WORSHIP OF HIM.

1. Athens the representation of the moral helplessness of men without revelation. Knowledge which is ignorance.

2. The practical view of the Divine character. Indifference to righteousness, vain trust in benevolence, mere sentiment of dependence.

II THE FAITH OF THE CHRISTIAN THE TRUE BASIS OF RELIGION.

1. As a simple acceptance of Divine teaching.

2. As a growth of knowledge through experience and practical endeavor. "If any man will do his will," etc.

3. The actual fellowship of the spiritual life. Influence of the higher mind and larger soul upon the lower. Effect of loving self-sacrifice in opening the mind to larger views of the Divine character.

4. The opportunities of the world rightly used. Nature leading to God, not enslaving the soul. Culture lilting up the intellect and desires. "All things are ours. R.

Vers. 23-32. The gospel"s kindly encounter with novel foes.

The opportunity now presented to Paul he must at once have recognized to be one of the grandest and most critical of his career. He was for a while separated from his two loved companions, and was permitted to face his work alone in the long-time metropolis of the world"s learning, grace, and art. We are perhaps to understand that Paul somewhat sensitively felt his position to be one of a special kind of responsibility. It was certainly none the less one of so much the more honor. He does not delay his work. He appears in the synagogue (ver. 17) with the Jews and the "devout." In the market-place also he is found ready to debate with those who may be willing. The citizens of Athens, and the character which now obtained to so remarkable a degree among them, promised ground upon which rapid and easy impression, at all events, might be made, whether lasting or not. This, however, was held in check to a considerable degree by the presence of not a few who not only were naturally likely to fight hard for their pet philosophies, but whose very philosophy it was in some cases to attempt to "prove all things" at least in their own idea or proving. Paul is not long in being brought into the place of chief notoriety. The kind of treatment showed to him by that ancient center of refinement and of intellectual inquiry is vastly different from the treatment to which he had become only too accustomed at the hands of the Jews; and the kindly method and tone of the address of Paul seem to be some reflection of it. Still the gospel is to grapple, and in Athens it had its work before it. The incisiveness of Paul"s style does not fall behind its courtesy. Let us notice what Paul has to say when now brought fairly in contact with all most typical of a heathen world.

I THE TRUE APOSTLE OF CHRISTIANITY PURPORTS TO "DECLARE" WHAT THE WORLD SAYS IS "UNKNOWN," i.e. GOD. He "declares:

1. A personal Creator-God, against Epicureans and all various others who either held the world to have been ever or to have come of chance. Neither Jesus himself nor Scripture records generally from beginning to end presuppose atheism, nor apply themselves to prove the existence of a personal Deity. But when nature, with all her ten thousand voices, has nevertheless let down men to a degraded unbelief, or when men have thus let down nature, these do pronounce and "declare" in no faltering tone this one starting-point of all upward progress, all knowledge, and all goodness (ver. 24).

2. A Creator-God, the opposite of depending for anything on man, inasmuch as all men depend for all things on him, including the initial breath of life, and thereupon every breath they draw.

3. A Creator-God who, so far as this world is concerned, knows one family alone, but that family the universal one.

4. A Creator-God who does not forsake men to their own inventions, but is the present and ruling Providence among them. There is such a reality as an administration of the wide empire on earth, and that administration in each part, each greater or less distribution, is Divine, is that of God, the sovereign God.

5. A Creator-God who admits of no proxy whatsoever of idol fashion.

II THE TRUE APOSTLE OF CHRISTIANITY UNDERTAKES TO MAKE AN UNFALTERING AFFIRMATION OF THE THINGS MOST DISTINCTIVE OF CHRISTIANITY. These shall be facts or truths, not grown of reason, not even surmised of reason; very likely not, in all their bearings and all the questions they suggest, such as can be accounted for by reason. They occupy by intention a unique place. They come of the pronouncement of One who brings all-sufficient credentials, and whom to disbelieve rationally is a greater difficulty for reason by far than to believe. This grand, surpassing voice of Heaven is here given as threefold.

1. It bids repentance on the part of man.

2. It declares judgment to come by Jesus Christ.

3. It declares hereunto the resurrection of Jesus Christ; and certainly, if the resurrection of Jesus Christ is here instanced as speaking volumes for his likely judgeship, it will carry all that is necessary for showing men present at his solemn judgment-bar. Evidently nothing so much arrested men, when the world"s clock was then striking, as this announcement of resurrection from the dead for Judge and judged.

III THE TRUE APOSTLE OF CHRISTIANITY DOES NOT HIDE AWAY THE ELEMENT OF HUMAN RESPONSIBILITY AND THE NECESSITY OF HUMAN CO-OPERATION WITH DIVINE WORK. This is but one among many ways of asserting that man is himself a creation of reason and of heart and of conscience; in brief, of just so much as to constitute him justly responsible to his Creator. Beyond a doubt, we cannot draw the line that says where the exertion of man"s will and the interposition of God"s providence end or begin, nor, in all probability, could we see the line if it were drawn. It is none the less certain that both of these are facts in human life. Paul goes so far as to say that Divine arrangements (ver. 27) lead to Divine inquirings on the part of men, and are directly adapted to suggest "seeking the Lord." Notice, therefore:

1. That it lies with men, part of their simplest, first, happiest duty, to "seek the Lord," in distinction from the vain theory or degrading wish that the belief in the reality of the existence of God should be an absolutely necessary outcome of our life or natural in come of our conviction. It is a remarkable fact that in all highest senses it is both one and the other of these things, but that in lower and literal sense, if it were so, it would bereave human knowledge of God of its noblest aspects, noblest tokens, and noblest uses.

2. That there is so much uncertainty about finding him we seek, as might well give zest and energy and trembling vigor to endeavor.

3. That the uncertainty lies much in some moral direction of our nature. To find God" is not the quest of the intellect merely or chiefly. It will lie nearer the heart, at all events, and it will be greatly dependent on, say, the conscience, what it is in any man and how he heeds it. To "find God" will depend on feeling after" him. The absence of a certain kind and amount of sensibility will in many a case decide, and "that right early," our not finding some one or some thing. Some truth and some people are coy. And very indisputable it is that sometimes it is of the highest truth and the highest style of human character that this is most chiefly true.

4. That to win the crown of "finding" finding really, finding blessedly, finding for ever is quite among the possibilities; ay, it is among the sure promises exceeding precious to the true seeker.

5. That the grand object "sought," "felt after," and found" is all the time "not far from" any one, i.e. really near to every one. He is so near us in our breathing life itself. He is so near us in all those qualities which are derived from his parentage. He is so near as in bountiful goodness and in pitying, strong love. B.

The unknown God.

For description of the statues and altars to various divinities with which Athens was crowded, see Conybeare and Howson, "Life and Epistles of St. Paul," vol. 1. pp. 415-417. "Roman satirists say, " It was easier to find a god in Athens than a man." Athenian religion ministered to art and amusement, and was entirely destitute of moral power. Taste and excitement alone were gratified. A religion which addresses itself only to the taste is as weak as one that appeals only to the intellect." In illustration of the altar to which St. Paul here alludes, Aulius Gellius says, "The ancient Romans, when alarmed by an earthquake, were accustomed to pray, not to a specified divinity, but to a god expressed in vague language, as avowedly unknown." For further illustration, see the Expository portion of this work; and "Commentary for English Readers," in loc. We now fix attention on

I THE CONFUSIONS OF POLYTHEISM. Its worshippers can never be quite sure that they have propitiated the right god, seeing that gods are supposed to be related to particular places, nations, events, sins, etc. This confusion tends to create a more and more elaborate ritual, and a wearisome round of ceremonies. All gods who may possibly be related to the matter in hand must be propitiated, and then the right one may be missed.

II THE RESTFULNESS OF MONOTHEISM. One God stands related to all nature, to all events, to all ages, to all sins; and if we can know him and secure right relations with him, there is no one else to fear, no one else to come on us with claims. Behind God there is nobody and nothing. Rest in him is rest forever.

III THE NULL SATISFACTION or THE ONE GOD KNOWN IN CHRIST. Manifest in the flesh." Show how men in seeking after God want some form under which they may present him to their minds. This necessity is the secret cause of all idol-making. And God has graciously met it, and fully satisfied it, by presenting to us himself, apprehended as the "Man Christ Jesus." And this incarnation of the one and only God St. Paul preached to the Athenians. The name of the "unknown God" is Jesus, the Christ. R.T.

Athenian religion.

therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you." The materials for an introduction are found in the following suggestive passage from F.D. Maurice: language assumed that the Athenians were in search of God; that they were ignorantly worshipping him; that they had a sense of his being a Father; that they wanted some one living human image of him, to supplant those images of him which they had made for themselves This teaching was adapted to all that was true and sound in the Greek mind. The Greek asked for one who should exhibit humanity in its perfection; and he was told of the Son of man. He felt that whoever did so exhibit humanity must be Divine. The Son of man was declared to be the Son of God. He had dreamed of one from whom the highest glory man could conceive must have proceeded. He was told of the Father. He had thought of a Divine presence in every tree and flower. He heard of a presence nearer still to himself." We may learn from St. Paul"s speech how we ought to think of the Gentile nations of the earth, and what it lies upon us to do on their behalf. He shows us what "gospel what "good news of God has to be taken to the nations; and, by his example, he indicates in what spirit the message should be taken. Speaking amidst the surroundings of idol altars, statues, and temples, St. Paul

I RECOGNIZES THE RELIGIOUSNESS OF THE ATHENIANS. He was placed in a position of exceeding difficulty. To have attacked those pagan divinities in the very midst of their sanctuaries and altars, and before the very court which guarded the national religion, would have closed the cars of his audience to any message which he might deliver, and might have put him in some personal danger. In his speech he heartily recognizes the worshipping instinct; he sees the dissatisfaction with all existing forms of worship which indicates an aching and yearning of soul to know the full truth of God. To the unrest which the strangely inscribed altar revealed, he made his appeal. He does not attempt to break down their confidence in Zeus, Athene, or their companion divinities. He appeals to the want which no mere deification of human attributes or powers of nature could possibly satisfy. St. Paul admits a real worship in paganism. He admits that the incompleteness and imperfectness of the worship followed from their ignorance, He attempts to guide the worshipping faculty aright, by instructing their understandings, and by declaring positive truths of Divine revelation.

II THE APOSTLE PLAINLY MARKS THE ERRORS OF THE ATHENIANS. He does not hesitate to say, "ignorantly worship," even to those who prided themselves on their learning. He accepts their own confession that they did not know the God to whom they raised their altar. They were wrong in their cherished conceptions of God, and wrong in the worship they offered to him. They lowered the very idea of God, by likening him to mere man-made images of gold and silver. They offered things to one who, being a Father, cared for hearts, and for things only as they carried messages of love and trust. The sacrifices of the true God are a "broken and a contrite heart," and they who "worship the Father must worship him in spirit and in truth." Three conceptions of God are essential as the foundations of true doctrine and true worship.

1. His unity. "There is no God but God.

2. His spirituality. "God is a Spirit.

3. His righteousness, He has been called, and the name has in it good suggestion, "The Eternal who makes for righteousness.

III THE APOSTLE DECLARES THE TRUTH WHICH THE ATHENIANS MISSED. "Him declare I unto you." We may briefly summarize his presentation of the gospel revelation, as adapted to the Athenians.

1. He announces God to be a personal Being: no more force, like the sunlight or the evening breeze. No mere quality or virtue, such as they deified, raising altars to fame, to modesty, to energy, to persuasion, and to pity. God is living. He is one. He is the Source of all life, all breath, all being. You cannot imprison God in a statue, even though you may mould it of priceless gold. You cannot enshrine God in a temple, however gorgeous it may be.

2. Then St. Paul explains God"s seeming indifference to men through the long ages. It was a mystery, but only the mystery of patient, forbearing love, which waited until the children put all their souls into the cry for him.

3. And, finally, he tells them that the waiting-time is quite past, and the great Father has come to the children now, asking their trust and their love. And the Father"s nearness is to be apprehended through the human manifestation of his Son. "He preached unto them Jesus. R.T.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

I found an altar - Some suppose this was set up by Socrates, to express in a covert way his devotion to the only true God, while he derided the plurality of the heathen gods, for which he was condemned to death: and others, that whoever erected this altar, did it in honour to the God of Israel, of whom there was no image, and whose name Jehovah was never made known to the idolatrous Gentiles. Him proclaim I unto you - Thus he fixes the wandering attention of these blind philosophers; proclaiming to them an unknown, and yet not a new God.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

23. “For going through and seeing your devotions [i. e., temple, shrines, altars and statues], I also found an altar on which was superscribed, ‘To the Unknown God.’ Therefore, whom you ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.” Wonderfully shrewdly did Paul, in this way, approach and touch the sympathies of his highly-cultured audience. No other city on the globe, at that time, was so adorned with the most beautiful and innumerable marble statues, altars, shrines and temples, erected to all the gods with whom they had become acquainted in the universal conquest of the Greeks under Alexander the Great, yet, after all, they were fearful that there might be a god somewhere with whom they had no acquaintance. Hence, profoundly solicitous to secure His favor, they had even built a temple and superscribed on it, “To the Unknown God,” and were thus worshipping him, though they knew neither his name nor his attributes. At this point Paul very adroitly approaches them, certifying boldly to them that he was acquainted with their “Unknown God,” whom they had honored with a temple, and were ignorantly worshipping. Hence he commands their sympathies and appreciative audience while he preaches to them their own “Unknown God.”

William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

See notes on verse 22

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

23. ὃ for ὅν, τοῦτο for τοῦτον with אABD. Vulg. ‘Quod … hoc.’

23. διερχόμενος γάρ, for as I passed along, through your streets and squares.

καὶ ἀναθεωρῶν τὰ σεβάσματα ὑμῶν, and noticed the objects of your worship, ἀναθεωρέω indicates a full observation. Paul had not only looked at the statues, but had read the inscriptions on them.

σέβασμα = an object of worship is found three times in the LXX. Wis 14:20, τὸν πρὸ ὀλίγου τιμηθέντα ἄνθρωπον νῦν σέβασμα ἐλογίσαντο, ‘They took him now for an object of worship (A.V. a god) which a little before was honoured as a man.’ So Wis 15:17 κρείττων γάρ ἐστι τῶν σεβασμάτων αὐτοῦ, ‘himself is better than the things which he worshippeth.’ Cf. also Bel 27.

εὖρον καὶ βωμόν, I found also an altar, i.e. in addition to the multitude of statues and altars to definite deities.

ἀγνώστῳ θεῷ, to an unknown god. This was an altar erected on the occasion of some visitation, the cause of which was not apparent, and which could not be ascribed to any of their existing divinities. We have abundant evidence of the existence in Athens of such altars as that to which St Paul alludes. But the words in which they are described generally run in the plural number, τοῖς ἀγνώστοις θεοῖς. Thus Pausanias (I. i. 4) describing one of the ports of Athens tells us that there were there ‘altars to gods styled unknown,’ and Philostratus in his Life of Apollonius says ‘at Athens there are erected altars for unknown gods.’ There is a like allusion in (pseudo) Lucian’s Philopatris, but it is doubtful whether that is not drawn from this passage of the Acts. And Jerome writing on Tit 1:12 says ‘The inscription on the altar was not, as Paul stated, “To the unknown God” but “To the unknown gods of Asia and Europe and Africa, to unknown and foreign gods.” But, because Paul required to speak of only one unknown God, he used the word in the singular.’ But it is better to suppose that St Paul saw what he says he saw; and as evidence that such an inscription was not improbable, we may quote the Latin inscription found on an altar at Ostia, now in the Vatican, representing a sacrificial group in connexion with the worship of Mithras, the Sun-god of the later Persian mythology (Orelli, Inscr. Gel. II. 5000), ‘Signum indeprehensibilis dei,’ which is a very near approach in Latin to what the Greek inscription to which the Apostle alludes would mean. The word ‘unknown’ must not be pressed into the sense of ‘unknowable’ because of what comes after. Paul says that ‘he is prepared to set forth to them that power which they were worshipping in ignorance.’ So though man by searching cannot find out God, yet he would desire to teach the Athenians, what he says elsewhere, that ‘the everlasting power and divinity of God may be clearly seen through the things that are made’ (Rom 1:20).

ὃ οὖν ἀγνοοῦντες εὐσεβεῖτε, what therefore ye worship in ignorance. This brings out the Apostle’s meaning. He does not intend to reflect on the nature of their worship. But they were offering it in ignorance. This ignorance he proposes to dispel. He accepts their religious character, takes hold on their confession of want of knowledge, and so makes way for his proposal to teach them. They have, he presumes, accepted what he offers, but have not understood all that it means. On this Chrysostom says: ὅρα πῶς δείκνυσι προειληφότας αὐτόν. οὐδὲν ξένον, φησὶ, οὐδὲν καινὸν εἰσφέρω.

τοῦτο ἐγὼ καταγγέλλω ὑμῖν, this set I forth unto you. In his verb the Apostle takes up their own word καταγγελεὺς of Act 17:18, where they call him ‘a setter-forth of strange gods.’

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

23.] ἀναθ., looking over, ‘reconnoitring.’

σεβάσμ.] not, as E. V., ‘devotions:’ but objects of religious worship, temples, altars, statues, &c.: see reff.

καί] over and above the many altars to your own and foreign deities. πολλὰ γὰρ τῶν ξενικῶν ἱερῶν παρεδέξαντο, … καὶ δὴ καὶ τὰ Θρᾲκια καὶ τὰ Φρύγια, Strabo, x. p. 472.

ἀγνώστῳ θεῷ] To an (not, the) unknown God.

That this was the veritable inscription on the altars (not as Jerome on Tit 1:12, vol. vii. p. 707, ‘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 words ᾧ ἐπεγέγραπτο, on which had been inscribed, are decisive. Meyer well remarks, that the historical fact would be abundantly established from this passage, being Paul’s testimony of what he himself had seen,—and spoken to the Athenian people. But we have our narrative confirmed by the following: Paus. i. 1. 4, ἐνταῦθαι καὶ βωμοὶ θεῶν τε ὀνομαζομένων ἀγνώστων, καὶ ἡρώων καὶ παίδων τῶν Θήσεως καὶ Φαλήρου:—Philostratus, Vita Apollon. vi. 3, σωφρονέστερον τὸ περὶ πάντων θεῶν εὖ λέγειν, καὶ ταῦτα Ἀθήνῃσιν, οὗ καὶ ἀγνώστων δαιμόνων βωμοὶ ἵδρυνται. On which Winer well says, that it by no means follows that each altar had the inscription in the plural, θεοῖς ἀγνώστοις, but more naturally that the plural has been used to suit βωμοί, and that the inscription on each was as here. The commonly cited passage of (Pseudo-) Lucian, Philopatr. 9, and 29, νὴ τὸν ἄγνωστον ἐν Ἀθήναις, is no testimony, the dialogue being spurious, and the reference to our text evident. The origin of such altars has been variously explained: Diog. Laert. (vita Epimenid.) says, that Epimenides, on occasion of a plague, advised the Athenians to let go white and black sheep from the Areiopagus, and on the spots where they lay down to erect altars τῷ προσήκοντι θεῷ: ὅθεν, he adds, ἔτι καὶ νῦν ἐστιν εὑρεῖν κατὰ τοὺς δήμους τῶν Ἀθηναίων βωμοὺς ἀνωνύμους. Eichhorn conjectures that they may have been ancient altars erected before the use of writing, and thus inscribed in after-times. But I should rather suppose that the above anecdote furnishes the key to the practice: that on the occurrence of any remarkable calamity or deliverance not assignable to the conventionally-received agency of any of the recognized deities, an unknown God was reverenced as their author. That the God of the Jews was meant (as supposed by Calov., Wolf, al.) is very improbable.

‘Quod ignotis Diis altare erexerant, signum erat nihil ipsos tenere certi: habebant quidem ingentem Deorum turbam … sed dum illis permiscent ignotos Deos, hoc ipso fatentur nihil de vera Divinitate se habere compertum … Inde apparet inquietudo, quod se nondum defunctos fatentur, ubi popularibus Diis litarunt,’ &c. Calvin.

ὃ … τοῦτο] The ὅν and τοῦτον of the rec. have probably been alterations from reverential motives. The neuters give surely the deeper, and the more appropriate sense. For Paul does not identify the true God with the dedication of, or worship at, the altar mentioned: but speaks of the Divinity (τὸ θεῖον) of whom they, by this inscription, confessed themselves ignorant. (It may however be a warning of the uncertainty of à priori internal evidence for readings, that De Wette and Meyer suppose the masculines to have been altered to produce this very sense, and to avoid the inference that Paul identified the unknown God with the Creator.) But even a more serious objection lies against the masculines. The sentiment would thus be in direct contradiction to the assertion of Paul himself, 1Co 10:20, ἃ θύουσιν, δαιμονίοις καὶ οὐ θεῷ θύουσιν. Compare also our Lord’s words, Joh 4:22, ὑμεῖς προσκυνεῖτε ὃ οὐκ οἴδατε.

In εὐσεβεῖτε, we have another confirmation of the sense above insisted on for δεισιδαιμονεστέρους. He wishes to commend their reverential spirit, while he shews its misdirection. An important lesson for all who have controversies with Paganism and Romanism.

καταγγ.] (See above, καταγγελεύς ver. 18.) I am declaring,—making manifest, to you. ὑμεῖς με προελάβετε, φησίν· ἔφθασε ὑμῶν ἡ θεραπεία τὸ ἐμὸν κήρυγμα. Chrys.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

As I passed by [διερχο. μενος] . More strictly, "passing through [δια] " your city, or your streets.

Beheld [αναθεωρων] . Only here and Heb 13:7. Rev :, much better, observed. The compound verb denotes a very attentive consideration (ajna, up and down, throughout).

Devotions [σεβασματα] . Wrong. It means the objects of their worship - temples, altars, statues, etc.

An altar [βωμον] . Only here in New Testament, and the only case in which a heathen altar is alluded to. In all other cases qusiasthrion is used, signifying an altar of the true God. The Septuagint translators commonly observe this distinction, being, in this respect, more particular than the Hebrew scriptures themselves, which sometimes interchange the word for the heathen altar and that for God 's altar. See, especially, Joshua

Act 17:22where the altar reared by the Transjordanic tribes is called, bwmov, as being no true altar of God (vv. 10, 11, 16, 19, 23, 26, 34); and the legitimate altar, qusiasthrion (vv. 19, 28, 29).

To the unknown God [αγνωστω θεω] . The article is wanting. Render, as Rev., to an unknown God. The origin of these altars, of which there were several in Athens, is a matter of conjecture. Hackett's remarks on this point are sensible, and are born out by the following words : "whom therefore," etc. "The most rational explanation is unquestionably that of those who suppose these altars to have had their origin in the felling of uncertainty, inherent, after all, in the minds of the heathen, whether their acknowledgment of the superior posers was sufficiently full and comprehensive; in their distinct consciousness of the limitation and imperfection of their religious views, and their consequent desire to avoid the anger of any still unacknowledged God who might be unknown to them. That no deity might punish them for neglecting his worship, or remain to all the gods named or known among them, but, distrustful still lest they might not comprehend fully the extent of their subjection and dependence, they erected them also to any other God or power that might exist, although as yet unrevealed to them.... Under these circumstances an allusion to one of these altars by the apostle would be equivalent to his saying to the Athenians thus : 'You are correct in acknowledging a divine existence beyond any which the ordinary rites of your worship recognize; there is such an existence. You are correct in confessing that this Being is unknown to you; you have no just conceptions of his nature and perfections. '" Ignorantly [αγνοουντες] . Rather, unconsciously : not knowing. There is a kind of play on the words unknown, knowing not. Ignorantly conveys more rebuke than Paul intended.

Declare I [καταγγελλω] . Compare kataggeleuv, setter - forth., in verse

Act 17:18Here, again, there is a play upon the words. Paul takes up their noun, setter - forth, and gives it back to them as a verb. "You say I am a setter - forth of strange gods : I now set forth unto you (Rev.) the true God."

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.