Did Paul blow it in Athens?

[Jim B]

Did Paul blow it in Athens?

I am beginning to think he may have. And I think there is evidence for it in scripture.

In re-reading Acts 17, when Paul arrived at the cultural and intellectual center of the secular world of his day, Athens, I was struck by his change in method. Choosing to “when in Athens to do as the Athenians do” he entered into rational debate with the philosophers on Mars Hill, cleverly pointing out that he knew and proclaimed the Unknown God to whom they had erected a shrine.

The end result of this novel approach to presenting Christ was, when he attempted to interject the message of the Resurrection, that they “sneered” and asked to hear more later. Verses 33 & 34 says, “At that, Paul left the Council. A few men became followers of Paul and believed.”

What struck me was that there were no riots, no beatings, no mass conversions, no established church in Athens, no turning the city upside down for Christ. There was never a “Letter to the Athenians” and we have no record a church ever existed in that city in Apostolic times. The next verse (18.1) simply says, “After this, Paul left Athens and went to Corinth.”

Although the Bible does not say it, do you think Paul may have considered Athens one of his few failures in ministry? Athens would have been a big notch in his guns. But it seems that his experience there may have taken something out of him.

Because, when Paul arrives in Corinth after what may have been a letdown in Athens he later reminds the Corinthians (1 Cor. 2.1-4) of how he first came to them: “When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. I came to you in weakness and fear, and with much trembling. My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power, so that your faith might not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power.”

Could he be saying that his tactic in Athens – eloquence, superior wisdom, clever persuasion – was insufficient; that he had learned his lesson; that he had left Athens dejected and depressed (“in weakness and fear”); that he had thenceforth determined “to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.”

I may be reading too much into this, but Athens must have been a traumatic experience for the Apostle.

So, Did Paul blow it in Athens?

What do you think? I would love to hear your views.

Jim
\o/

 

[HoT-MetaL]

Yes. He tried to explain the gospel, but he didnt put it accross in a way the people understood.

But in saying that, im sure the holy spirit had his way

God Bless, metal.

 

[Lotar]

If only one soul came to Christ, it was a success.

 

[HoT-MetaL]

If only one soul came to Christ, it was a success.

ABSOLUTLY!

 

[Jim B]

If only one soul came to Christ, it was a success.

Thanx Lotar. Of course this is true. But if you present the gospel in a way where only “a few” are persuaded to believe or in a way where, say, thousands (as at Pentecost) believe, which is the most successful? Of course, simply being faithful, regardless of numbers, is being a success, I know, but I am wondering how Paul may have felt about his approach at Athens as opposed to, say, his more simplistic and direct presentation of the Gospel to the Corinthians.

\o/

 

[ByzantineDixie]

Who was responsible for the conversion of the Atheneans? Paul or the Holy Spirit?

I would venture to say that the problem was not with Paul but with the hard hearts of the Atheneans.

Peace

Rose

 

[Lotar]

Exactly, Rose, we are only God's instruments.

 

[Jim B]

Who was responsible for the conversion of the Atheneans? Paul or the Holy Spirit?

I would venture to say that the problem was not with Paul but with the hard hearts of the Atheneans.

Peace

Rose

That is true, Rose. Personally, I think it was a combination of both Paul's failure and hardened hearts. The Athenians may have had hard hearts but we can also hinder (quench) how the Holy Spirit chooses to use us by not completely relying on Him. I know I have gotten in His way on more than one occasion and, maybe like Paul, looked back with regret on what could have been if I would have been more what I should have been in His hands.

\o/

 

[Svt4Him]

Thanx Lotar. Of course this is true. But if you present the gospel in a way where only “a few” are persuaded to believe or in a way where, say, thousands (as at Pentecost) believe, which is the most successful? Of course, simply being faithful, regardless of numbers, is being a success, I know, but I am wondering how Paul may have felt about his approach at Athens as opposed to, say, his more simplistic and direct presentation of the Gospel to the Corinthians.

\o/

Hey Jim, nice to see you again.

If people's response was an indication of success, then J-sus failed more than all. In one place only 12 out of more than 500 stayed (<2.5%) and in another He could only do a few miracles. Still another, He was driven out by the people over a few pigs.

 

[Jim B]

Hey Jim, nice to see you again.

If people's response was an indication of success, then J-sus failed more than all. In one place only 12 out of more than 500 stayed (<2.5%) and in another He could only do a few miracles. Still another, He was driven out by the people over a few pigs.

Hi S.

I do venture back from time to time to see how the conversations are going but I seldom participate anymore. I’m just too abrasive and don’t have as much time as I would like to spend at CF. But, this is just one of those questions I couldn’t resist asking.

You are right, there are different ways of defining success - and “success” may not be the best choice of words – we American’s tend to spell it $u¢¢e$$, anyhow, and don’t always know real success even when we are looking at it.

I think what I am trying to picture is how Paul must have felt leaving Athens as he did, an object of derision (“sneered” at, Acts 17.32), with so little to show for his efforts (only a “few believed,” Acts 17.34). I know this is pure speculation – at the least an educated guess – but he did arrive at his next destination, Corinth, more than a bit dejected because he later reminded the Corinthians of how he first appeared to them – “I came to you in weakness and fear, and with much trembling” (1 Cor. 2.3). Eugene Peterson translates Paul saying that he was “totally inadequate - I was scared to death,” (The Message). The Amplified uses the word “dread.” These are clues to how Paul felt when he arrived in Corinth directly from Athens (see Acts 18.1).

Something must have caused him to feel that way. Was it his lack of effectiveness at Athens that caused him to feel “totally inadequate” when, a few days later, he entered another major metropolis to jump-start a crippled ministry? Could Paul have actually felt insufficient to the task? Could failure (at least, perceived failure) have worked a wicked number on Paul’s confidence?

This is important to me, because if Paul had these kinds of feelings, then I can relate to him. He becomes less mythic and more human. Paul, like me, was at times an emotional victim of his own mistakes.

If Paul’s “failure” at Athens is a record of a tactical “mistake” that forced him to reevaluate his methods of ministry by returning to the simplicity of the Gospel (see below), then he and I are truly fellow-laborers.

“When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. I came to you in weakness and fear, and with much trembling. My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power, so that your faith might not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power.” 1 Cor. 2.1-5​

IOW, this is a lesson of how we can learn from our mistakes.

What do you think?

Jim
\o/

 

[Svt4Him]

Although I think you are right in that Paul was learning, and only a man. If you study even how he spoke of himself, you will see his humility growing. Humility comes through hard times, and I believe he did go through hard times.

BUt "For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified" is the theme of Paul's preaching everywhere. In Athens he preached the same message. He is responsible to teach, not convert. And everywhere the message is preached, it is never a failure. His way was different, but one becomes everything to all people, so you may perhaps win a few.

 

[Jim B]

Although I think you are right in that Paul was learning, and only a man. If you study even how he spoke of himself, you will see his humility growing. Humility comes through hard times, and I believe he did go through hard times.

BUt "For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified" is the theme of Paul's preaching everywhere. In Athens he preached the same message. He is responsible to teach, not convert. And everywhere the message is preached, it is never a failure. His way was different, but one becomes everything to all people, so you may perhaps win a few.

Ahha! This is good. You are so right on, Svt4Him. Although I can see your point, that preaching Christ (which Paul did at Athens) never could be construed as “failure,” still our methods of presenting Him can sometimes hinder the message we are trying to deliver. Remember Paul’s own warning to the Corinthians that even a message, even a tongue or prophecy, when given wrongly (i.e., without love, in this case) is like a “resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.” He also said in a passage from 1 Cor. 14 which might be applied to preaching or teaching, “Even in the case of lifeless things that make sounds, such as the flute or harp, how will anyone know what tune is being played unless there is a distinction in the notes? Again, if the trumpet does not sound a clear call, who will get ready for battle? So it is with you. Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air.”

IOW, unless the message is offered in love and is understandable and unambiguous it is of little value. A poor presentation of truth, even (I think) if its focus is on Christ, can actually hinder what the Holy Spirit is doing in the life of a pre-believer. Looking back over my life and service for the Lord I am embarrassed to remember some of the foolish things I have done - trying to be chic and vogue and relevant and “with it” - that may have actually encumbered what God through the Spirit was attempting to do in someone’s life. I can only imagine what God might have done if I had not been in His way. Unfortunately (I guess), God has chosen to use us imperfect and fallible creatures to accomplish His work in the world.

This is what I think Paul may have felt - and what I believe the passages I quoted in the OP indicate - when he left Athens and why he arrived in Corinth a bit beaten down and with his tail between his legs (1 Cor. 2.3). The lesson for him and for all who share the Good News of Christ, is to stick with the “simplicity that is in Christ” and not cloud the clear message of the Gospel with too much innovation or novelty.

Anyhow, that’s the lesson I am learning from this.

\o/

 

[Svt4Him]

But how do you reconcile that with the story of when people were preaching out of selfish desires, and those saying it shouldn't be done were told to rejoice that the word of God was going forth?

 

[Jim B]

But how do you reconcile that with the story of when people were preaching out of selfish desires, and those saying it shouldn't be done were told to rejoice that the word of God was going forth?

Good point, S.

I think Paul is using hyperbole here saying something like, Even if deceitful and unprincipled men are preaching Christ at least you can say is that Christ is being preached. I know you agree that this is not the ideal – why else would Paul require such high standards for those in leadership who are “apt to teach” (1 Timothy 3) and why would Peter, John, and Jude denounce such "ungodly" (to use Jude's term) ministers so severely. And of course, there are other warnings – even calling the names of those who were guilty of immoral and deceitful behavior, who “have rushed for profit into Balaam’s error” (e.g., Diotrephes, Hymenæus, Alexander, Philetus, etc.)

And don’t forget how Paul handled the demonized girl in Philippi (Acts 16) who followed the Apostle shouting, “These men are servants of the Most High God, who are telling you the way to be saved.” It was the truth but it was not effective – it actually hindered the message because it was inspired by evil spirits.

I know souls are saved wherever Christ is preached but, as in the cases of those condemned by the Apostles, it was in spite of them. God has even used me in spite of me, but how much more could He have used me had I done things His way!

There is, to be sure, power in the very message of the Gospel, wherever and by whomever it is spoken. But I do believe that, while we are in no way responsible for the efficacy of the Gospel, we can still hinder its reception by those who need it by our crass behavior.

Thanks for your insightful points, S.

Jim
\o/

 

[theseed]

Did Paul blow it in Athens?

I am beginning to think he may have. And I think there is evidence for it in scripture.

In re-reading Acts 17, when Paul arrived at the cultural and intellectual center of the secular world of his day, Athens, I was struck by his change in method. Choosing to “when in Athens to do as the Athenians do” he entered into rational debate with the philosophers on Mars Hill, cleverly pointing out that he knew and proclaimed the Unknown God to whom they had erected a shrine.

The end result of this novel approach to presenting Christ was, when he attempted to interject the message of the Resurrection, that they “sneered” and asked to hear more later. Verses 33 & 34 says, “At that, Paul left the Council. A few men became followers of Paul and believed.”

What struck me was that there were no riots, no beatings, no mass conversions, no established church in Athens, no turning the city upside down for Christ. There was never a “Letter to the Athenians” and we have no record a church ever existed in that city in Apostolic times. The next verse (18.1) simply says, “After this, Paul left Athens and went to Corinth.”

Although the Bible does not say it, do you think Paul may have considered Athens one of his few failures in ministry? Athens would have been a big notch in his guns. But it seems that his experience there may have taken something out of him.

Because, when Paul arrives in Corinth after what may have been a letdown in Athens he later reminds the Corinthians (1 Cor. 2.1-4) of how he first came to them: “When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. I came to you in weakness and fear, and with much trembling. My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power, so that your faith might not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power.”

Could he be saying that his tactic in Athens – eloquence, superior wisdom, clever persuasion – was insufficient; that he had learned his lesson; that he had left Athens dejected and depressed (“in weakness and fear”); that he had thenceforth determined “to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.”

I may be reading too much into this, but Athens must have been a traumatic experience for the Apostle.

So, Did Paul blow it in Athens?

What do you think? I would love to hear your views.

Jim
\o/

A few men became followers of Paul and believed.”

So, Did Paul blow it in Athens?

He preached Christ crucified, but when it came to the ressurection, he blew it because he did not know their culture. When he mentioned the ressurection, they saw "night of the living dead" and not the gloriefied Christ.

So yes he blew it, but not because of his tactics to quote poetry. Paul is known for quoting 3 people in his writings. One includes a play by Meander, "Bad company corrupts good charactor"

 

[theseed]

Yes. He tried to explain the gospel, but he didnt put it accross in a way the people understood.

But in saying that, im sure the holy spirit had his way

God Bless, metal.

They viewed the ressurection as "night of the living dead" and not glorified. Paul blew there. If he had told them first, what he was like, then he would not have lost them.

 

[Jim B]

They viewed the ressurection as "night of the living dead" and not glorified. Paul blew there. If he had told them first, what he was like, then he would not have lost them.

Hey seed!!
(not hayseed )

Could be. I have not heard the Night of the Living Dead Theory before . Care to site your source.

But, if this is true (and it just may be), then it could point out another mistake we can sometimes make in presenting the Gospel – failing to understand the context of the culture to whom/in which we are ministering. For example, I might not be heard by a biker with a sixth grade education if I approach him in a suit and tie, with a big black Bible, and use technical theological language to tell him that Christ was the propitiation for our sins and that we can be justified by faith only.

Years ago, when I was a rebellious teenager, the local Baptist pastor was faithful to catch me (corner me) from time to time to whip out his Bible and take me down the Roman Road. He used preacher language and Christianese and theological jargon that went right over my head. Despite his good intentions and the truth he presented (which probably included some stuff about the resurrection of Christ), he simply did not reach me. Inside I was starved for Truth, seeking for a way out of my sin, and would probably have jumped at the opportunity to give my life to Christ if the poor preacher had only spoken in a language I could understand. He might as well have been witnessing in tongues for all the good it did. The good pastor, in fact, unwittingly hindered me instead of helped.

Paul certainly understood (maybe he learned it at Athens) that you have to work with the culture of those you are trying to reach. He admitted such to the Corinthians themselves (see scripture below).

Thanks for your views, seed.

Jim
\o/



1 Corinthians 9
19Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. 22To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. 23I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.

 

[theseed]

Hey seed!!
(not hayseed )

Could be. I have not heard the Night of the Living Dead Theory before . Care to site your source

My NT professor in college.

Paul certainly understood (maybe he learned it at Athens) that you have to work with the culture of those you are trying to reach. He admitted such to the Corinthians themselves (see scripture below).

Yes, the method is the culture, and that changes, but the message is the Gospel and that does not change

Athens was the most educated and philosphical city in the Ancient world, from what I hear.

 

[Sign Of The Fish Burger]

The athenians knew so much but understood so little. Which is essentially quite a contrast from the Bereans.. where Paul was previous.

Paul used an object lession to share the gospel with themm- since the city was full of idols, Paul found one adressed to "An unknown GOd"- So paul usded this as an open door to preach the good news- the unknown god they didnt know was Christ.

However, their philosophy was the predecessor to modern new age thinking. They believed the ultimate goal of existance was to escape the bonds of physical life, so when they heared Paul speak on the resseruction, the majority immidiatly rejected it. This city was drastically different then the ones previous. The preceding cities were much smaller and less sophisticated- Athens was the centre for higher learning and therefore was full of free thinkers. We musnt also forget that Paul tackled this city on his own. He was without the help of Timothy and Silas.

There was a real lack of response to the gospel- and therefore we never hear Paul speak of a church resulting. As far as I can tell, the few believers never multiplied into more. Paul's expereince at Athens proves that the best of sermons (I believe Acts 17 was one of the best seromns preached in the NT) will never change an unwilling persons heart. On the other hand, the weakest message can have a grand effect on a person willing to ilisten and be changed.

Unlike Paul's other trips, he was not persecuted nor was he forced to leave the cirty. In Acts 18:1- we see that he simply left. I think they didnt persecute him because they were simply to cold to even care.

Pauls experience in Athens is a perfect example of a situation in which people were open-minded almost to a fault. Athens was the birthplace of a tolerent mouvement. They believed in their own philosophy and livd as "anything goes".

Christianity can grow and flourish under some of the most difficult opposition, but it will prosper very little when people refuse to be changed by it.