Then certain Epicurean and Stoic philosophers encountered him. And some said, “What does this babbler want to say?”
Others said, “He seems to be a proclaimer of foreign gods,” because he preached to them Jesus and the resurrection. Acts 17:18

Note: You can listen to today’s commentary courtesy of our friends at “Bible in Ten” podcast. (Click Here to listen).
You can also read this commentary, with music, courtesy of our friends at “Discern the Bible” on YouTube (Click Here to listen), or at Rumble (Click Here to listen).

In the previous verse, it noted that Paul met in the marketplace daily with those who happened to be there. That would surely be those he met with in the synagogue. But while meeting them, others became curious about what he was saying. That is seen beginning with the words, “Then certain Epicurean and Stoic philosophers.”

Athens was the place where the great philosophers gathered to contemplate the various issues that affected man such as God or gods, nature, the state of man, reason, etc. They thought that the search for wisdom was the highest form of existence. This is what Paul alludes to in 1 Corinthians 1 –

“For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; 23 but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.” 1 Corinthians 1:22-25

Albert Barnes gives a detailed description of the Epicureans and Stoics –

Of the Epicureans – This sect of philosophers was so named from Epicurus, who lived about 300 years before the Christian era. They denied that the world was created by God, and that the gods exercised any care or providence over human affairs, and also the immortality of the soul. Against these positions of the sect Paul directed his main argument in proving that the world was created and governed by God. One of the distinguishing doctrines of Epicurus was that pleasure was the summum bonum, or chief good, and that virtue was to be practiced only as it contributed to pleasure. By pleasure, however, Epicurus did not mean sensual and groveling appetites and degraded vices, but rational pleasure, properly regulated and governed. See Good’s “Book of Nature.” But whatever his views were, it is certain that his followers had embraced the doctrine that the pleasures of sense were to be practiced without restraint. Both in principle and practice, therefore, they devoted themselves to a life of gaiety and sensuality, and sought happiness only in indolence, effeminacy, and voluptuousness. Confident in the belief that the world was not under the administration of a God of justice, they gave themselves up to the indulgence of every passion the infidels of their time, and the exact example of the frivolous and fashionable multitudes of all times, that live without God, and that seek pleasure as their chief good.

And of the Stoics – This was a sect of philosophers, so named from the Greek στοά stoa, a porch or portico, because Zeno, the founder of the sect, held his school and taught in a porch, in the city of Athens. Zeno was born in the island of Cyprus, but the greater part of his life was spent at Athens in teaching philosophy. After having taught publicly 48 years, he died at the age of 96, that is, 264 years before Christ. The doctrines of the sect were, that the universe was created by God; that all things were fixed by Fate; that even God was under the dominion of fatal necessity; that the Fates were to be submitted to; that the passions and affections were to be suppressed and restrained; that happiness consisted in the insensibility of the soul to pain; and that a man should gain an absolute mastery over all the passions and affections of his nature. They were stern in their views of virtue, and, like the Pharisees, prided themselves on their own righteousness. They supposed that matter was eternal, and that God was either the animating principle or soul of the world, or that all things were a part of God. They fluctuated much in their views of a future state; some of them holding that the soul would exist only until the destruction of the universe, and others that it would finally be absorbed into the divine essence and become a part of God. It will be readily seen, therefore, with what pertinency Paul discoursed to them. The leading doctrines of both sects were met by him.

The incorrect doctrines of both sects are addressed by Paul in his writings. As for them, it next says that they “encountered him.”

The word is sumballó. It signifies “to throw together.” Hence, the meaning is to be derived from the surrounding context and can signify encounter, discuss, engage, ponder, etc.

In this case, Paul is in the agora talking about faith in Christ, certainly highlighting His suffering and resurrection. While talking with those he met, the Epicureans and Stoics, who were probably there doing their own debating, would have heard Paul and wanted to know what he was discussing. As such, the word “engaged” is probably the intent, but the verb being imperfect gives the sense of “were engaging him.” In the process of engaging with him, it next says, “And some said.”

Again, the verb is imperfect, “And some were saying.” It is obvious that in hearing Paul’s words and comparing them to their own ideas about life, death, suffering, and so forth, they were both curious and yet somewhat contemptuous. Therefore, they questioned, “What does this babbler want to say?”

The word translated as “babbler,” spermologos, is found only here. It literally translates as “seed-picker.” One can think of a crow picking up seeds, flitting about, and squawking without any sense of rhyme or reason. Figuratively, it would be a person who is talkative and opinionated and who picks up scraps of knowledge and sets them forth in a willy-nilly fashion. As for the verb, the mood is optative and so the thought is something like, “What is this seed-picker desiring to say.”

In other words, what Paul is saying isn’t making sense to them. To them, he was putting out irrational ideas. Suffering? Resurrection? What he was saying wasn’t forming any cohesive thoughts in their minds.

Because of this, others who heard and had an incorrect idea of his discourse spoke up. It literally reads, “and others.” This means “other than the Epicureans and Stoics.” They were saying, “He seems to be a proclaimer of foreign gods.”

Here is another word found only here in Scripture, kataggeleus. It signifies a herald. To them, Paul was seemingly speaking about two things. Therefore, they used the plural word, daimonion, or gods. These two things are explained by Luke’s next words, “because he preached to them Jesus and the resurrection.”

What this probably meant to them is that Paul was preaching Jesus as a “god” as well as “the Anastasis,” as a god. The word anastasis signifies “a standing up,” thus “the raising” or “the resurrection.” Hence, they think that Paul’s proclamation of Jesus’ resurrection not as an action but as a second god. In other words, “He is preaching the Jesus and the Anastasis,” rather than “Jesus who was resurrected.” Hence, the word daimonion, the plural term for heathen gods or demons is used.

Life application: In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul spends a great deal of time explaining the resurrection. This is based on the words of verse 12, “…how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead.”

This would have probably been introduced by some who followed the Greek philosophers or who were later influenced by them after first believing. For example, the Epicureans didn’t believe the gods exercised any care or providence over human affairs and they denied the immortality of the soul. As such, they believed that the soul and body died together.

Likewise, some of the Greek philosophers believed in Pantheism, the universe is a manifestation of God. Others believed in Panentheism; God is in all of creation. The Bible, in both testaments, refute both of these. Paul spends considerable time explaining the nature of God, speaking against such notions.

God is before all things. He is the Creator of all things, but He is not “all things,” nor is He “in” all things in the sense that would allow the creation to be worshiped, nor can we assume that the divine is in us. Rather, we can think of a painter making a painting. His hand is in the painting, but the painting is not the painter, nor is the painter in the painting, except as an expression of Himself.

To understand the intricacies of what God is like, we must first grasp what Scripture says, contemplating it carefully. From there, we can make logical deductions about Him. But we must also be careful to not incorrectly assume that metaphors, anthropomorphisms, etc., about God that are given in Scripture are to be taken literally.

For example, because of how metaphor is used, some people demand that the earth must be flat. They have incorrectly assigned metaphors found in Scripture to their idea of the world. That can occur in our ideas about God as well. Understanding Scripture from a proper context and contemplating philosophy, science, and other disciplines can help us logically think about what God is like. Spend your time wisely and contemplate God carefully. You will be better off when you do.

Lord God, may our ideas about You come first and foremost from Scripture. With an understanding of it, our minds will then be properly directed to consider the various disciplines of study that we come across in our lives. Instead of fitting You into science, we can understand science in relation to You. Help us to put You and Your word first and all else will find its proper place. Amen.