Paul’s Classical Apologetics on Mars Hill in Acts 17:22–34 || Natural Theology Centered on the Sovereignty of God||

AREOPAGUS MESSAGE

Acts 17:22–34 is Paul’s sermon to the philosophers in Athens. In this passage, as Luke describes, Paul stands in the midst of the Areopagus and delivers a remarkable sermon to Athenians. As we sum up Paul’s Areopagus speech, instantly we notice that his basic message remained unchanged, but his approach to Athenian audiences was changed from other speeches. He framed his message within the given cultural and philosophical paradigm that befitted his audiences. Although we are living past two millenniums after this poignant event in Athens, the psychological, methodological, and theological aspects of Paul’s message are still relevant as an evangelistic model to bring the Good News of Jesus Christ to the pagan culture of our time.

In order to understand why Paul’s approach to Athenians is so different on Mars Hill than in his previous messages, the backdrop of this event should be understood in its historical context. The preceding passage (17:16-21) provides enough information for the readers to know the people involved in the mounting plot that leads Paul to Mars Hill. Unless we take notice of what was happening in Athens with Paul, we will most likely fail to grasp Paul’s rationale in the council of Areopagus.

Paul was in Athens, reasoning with Jews in the Jewish synagogue and the God-fearing Greeks in the marketplace. Epicureans and Stoic philosophers happened to be his audience. That type of audience demands philosophical, intellectual, and persuasive reasoning. Paul was charged for introducing a foreign deity. He was taken to the Areopagus to evaluate the new teaching in Athens’ marketplace.

Historically, the Areopagus is closely connected with Greek mythology. Without further details of the myth, we know from history and archeology that it is a famous autonomous judicial council for the “justice and impartiality of its decisions.” [1] Adam Clarke affirms that it is located on a hill nearby the Acropolis, and it was “one of the most sacred and reputable courts that had ever existed in the Gentile world.” [2] With this background, we gain an overview indicating that Paul’s message in the Areopagus defended his proclamation of the foreign deity in the polytheistic city of Athens. Also, the overview also tells us who was involved in his hearing and testing of Paul’s teaching in the Areopagus. Once we know who they are and what they believe, Paul’s message on Mars Hill becomes clearer.

TWO PRIMARY HELLENISTIC ANTAGONISTS IN ATHENS

He was reasoning with two dominant Greek schools of philosophy—Epicureans and Stoics—of his time. Paul was charged for introducing a foreign deity (δαιμονιων). It is not necessarily a demon but a deified man. As Adam Clarke’s commentary on the Bible says:

There was a difference, in the heathen theology, between “θεος,” god, and “δαιμων,” demon: the θεοι were such as were gods by nature; the δαιμονια were men who were deified. This distinction seems to be in the mind of these philosophers when they said that the apostles seemed to be setters forth of strange demons because they preached unto them Jesus, whom they showed to be a man, suffering and dying, but afterwards raised to the throne of God. This would appear to them tantamount to the deification of heroes, etc., who had been thus honored for their special services to mankind. [3]

 In addition, Paul’s message that Jesus is God and his resurrection (τὴν ἀνάστασιν) from the dead seemed to be misinterpreted because it used a Greek feminine name. Walter A. Elwell thinks that Greek philosophers might have “confused the word resurrection for its Greek feminine name, Anastasia, taking it for a consort to Jesus, thus two gods.” [4] Probably for this reason, Paul was described as an “idle babbler” who introduced strange deities, namely the male god, Jesus, and Anastasia, a goddess of resurrection.

Here, the English term does not reflect the true meaning that Athenians referred to. The Greek word σπερμολογος (spermologos) is translated into “idle babbler,” literally meaning “a seed collector” or “one who picks up and retails scraps of information.” [5] So, it can take two different meanings that are understood only from the context. In this case, they employed this word derogatively and obnoxiously to imply Paul “is a charlatan or plagiarist, whose learning is secondhand.” [6] Paul was underrated, and they took no notice of his message. They probably found nothing appealing to them in his message, as schools of Greek philosophy had no concept of rising from the dead.

WHO WERE EPICUREANS?

Epicureans were the followers of a philosopher named Epicurus (340–272 B.C.). Epicurus was the proponent of the doctrine of pleasure. [7] We may summarize Epicurean philosophy, cosmology, and eschatology as succinctly as possible:

• Epicurean philosophy advocates individual pleasure seeking. “Whatever feels good is desirable; pain is undesirable.” [8] Thus, pursuit of the highest pleasure by avoiding pain is the utmost goal.
• Epicurean cosmology was also very influenced by Democritus, the ancient Greek philosopher’s “Atomic Theory” or “Theory of Atomism.” According to atomic theory, the universe was made of atoms. The entire entity in the world is material. There was no such thing as spiritual or immaterial, but everything was constantly in motion and happened by chance. [9] Thus the world is chaotic and out of order. However, they did not deny the existence of gods. “These gods were remote from the world and did not care.” [10] The gods, who they believed to be the creators, were not interested in human affairs in this world.
• Epicurean eschatology promoted the idea that death is the end of human existence [11], denying the immortality of the soul. Therefore, there is no afterlife or judgment.

WHO WERE STOICS?

Zeno of Citium (335–263 B.C.) is considered the founder of Stoicism. It is believed that Zeno taught his disciples from the porch in Athens, which eventually turned out to be “the most influential ethical doctrine in the ancient western world before Christianity.” [12] Thus, Stoicism got its name from the Greek word Stoa (stoa), meaning “portico.” Their epistemology, cosmology, and eschatology in a short note:

• Unlike Epicurean deism, Stoics’ epistemology advocated that knowledge is attained through logic. It is the framework for their theology and physics. The metaphysical view of stoicism was to teach its disciples to be indifferent to outward emotions. They believed:

Man becomes virtuous through knowledge, which enables him to live in harmony with nature and thereby achieve a profound sense of happiness and freedom from emotion, which insulates him from the vicissitudes of life. [13]

The stoic epistemology says that indifference stimulates man to cultivate virtues through knowledge

• They believed the world is governed by natural law. This natural law was founded on eternal human and universal reasoning; it remained constant regardless of time and place. [14] This led to the conclusion that the universe has no beginning, and it is eternal.

• For them, everything was God, and the universe was his manifestation. Monistic or pantheistic theology described “God as the soul of the universe and the universe as the body of God” [15], and they cannot exist apart from each other. Therefore, they are principally identical.

• In contrast to Epicureanism, Stoics believed life is predetermined by fate. Whatever happens is motivated by a fixed plan. They believed that God himself was subjected to fate. [16] The notion of predestination was enforced as a necessity. Since God was also under fate, no man could complain but accept that it was preordained. Thus, they embraced a fatalistic view that served as a form of consolatory philosophy.

• Stoics also rejected the immortality of the soul. They believed that the human soul returned to God when someone died. [17] They had different views on the soul. Some viewed the individual as having a “soul” that would exist only until the destruction of the universe, and others believed that it would be absorbed into the divine essence and become a part of God. [18] As a result, there is no final judgment hereafter.

The Hellenistic understanding of God and the universe, as we know by now, lacked proper understanding of God and his relationship with his creation. So, they misinterpreted Paul’s proclamation of Jesus Christ and his resurrection as foreign deities.  Preaching of strange God and worshiping such foreign deities was not lawful and strictly forbidden in the cities of Athens and Rome (Acts 16:21).

Due to their polytheistic worldview and idolatrous religiosity, they could not understand the concept of monotheism and resurrection of the dead. Luke has not included all details of Paul’s reasoning (διελέγετο) in 17:16-21 in Athens, but the summary of the speech tells us what he preached was enough to provoke Athenians. That religious sentimental vibe was a catalyst for setting up a stage for Paul to address their misconception about God and the universe and counter their charge with persuasive arguments.

THREE PARTS OF THE AREOPAGUS MESSAGE (ACTS 17:22-34)

Paul presents his case with a logical sequence as a philosopher. His rhetoric was not merely to justify his “new teaching” in Athens by telling them who Jesus was and what he did but was intended to counteract their skewed understanding of God, life, and the universe as a whole. The contents of the sermon can be classified in three individual parts.

PSYCHOLOGY OF PAUL

In verse 22, Paul, standing in the midst of the Areopagus, addresses the men of Athens as δεισιδαιμονεστερους. [19] The translation of this ambiguous Greek word can have an immense impact on the theological concerns of the Bible. When we translate the word “deisidaimonesterous,” the root of this compound noun is “δεος” (fear) and “δαιμων” (deity), meaning “deity fearing,” “religious,” etc. From the context of the Areopagus message, it seems to be friendlier rather than confrontational. However, the KJV interprets it as being conspicuously confrontational by inferring Athenians as “too superstitious” from the beginning of the speech.

Having said that, we find Paul did not fail to identify his audience. He sought common ground by acknowledging the religiosity of Athenians. From his observation of the city, evidently Paul found an altar with the inscription TO AN UNKNOWN GOD, of Athenian religions. Ancient writings also contained direct and explicit testimony about those altars in Athens. [20] Being very distressed by those idols and altars, Paul used very respectful language in his address. Yet, he never endorsed their view of God and life. Paul identified his audiences and essentially established his credentials; he captured all their pathos by crediting them for being religious and looking for something to worship. As G. Campbell Morgan comments, “He (Paul) found the open door to their mind in one of their own altars.” [21] What we see here is not a typical Paul who would apply rhetoric but the one trying to draw the attention of his audience in friendly speech. Knowing the audience and addressing their needs makes one’s presence acceptable in other cultures.

THEOLOGY OF PAUL

Once he tied the attention of his audience to his opening line, Paul remarked immediately to proclaim something significant that they did not know (see v. 23b). Paul started out with the biblical story rather than redemptive history. For his Greek audiences did not have any knowledge of the redemptive history in the Old Testament. He proclaims a Christian message in which God appears to be the Creator, Sustainer, and Judge who is sovereign over the universe. He is in control. Such a majestic God cannot be served by human hands, nor does he need our service.

Now, Paul transitioned from simply asserting what he saw and felt about things in the vicinity of Athens to reasoning about the relationship between God the Father, the Lord Jesus Christ, and humankind. Paul asserted that God, who was unknown to them, could be known. [22] Paul proclaimed that the God unknown to them is not two but one and only.

The contents of Paul’s sermon are counterarguments against the tenets of Epicureanism and Stoicism. Stephen Rost writes that “Paul’s sermon contains five doctrinal categories.” [23] The sermon was based on biblical theology, which includes five successive doctrines.

FIVE DOCTRINAL CATEGORICAL CONTENTS IN THE AREOPAGUS MESSAGE

1. Theology Proper

Paul took no time to clarify that the God whom he was preaching is the Creator God. He explains that God created all things (Gen. 1:1) (see v. 24a) and his lordship over everything, including heaven and earth. This statement addresses the Stoic understanding of God and the universe, which posits that the universe is eternal and the universe, or created things, is identical to the divine. “God is distinct from the universe, not the same.” [24] Hence, God is not a created being but the Creator who has absolute control over the universe.

Since he is not a created being, God is also independent of his creation (v. 25a). He does not depend on humans or his creation for anything. [25] Above all, God is unfathomable and incomprehensible; he is the center and totality of the entire universe; hence, he is governing this universe. And he put everything in order. God created this universe to serve as a dwelling place for us, and there is no alternative (v. 24). Mark D. Given writes that God makes a dwelling place (v. 24), sustains human beings (v. 25), and provides for human beings (v. 26). [26] Therefore, He is the self-existing God from eternity who cares for the work of his hands. He is personal and self-sufficient and is the source of all living beings. God is sovereign over all.

2. Biblical Anthropology

Verse 26 does not elaborate exclusively on how God created human beings; Paul, however, did mention human lineage, though. People of every race and nation are from a common ancestor (v. 26a). The notion of a common ancestor is a diametrical perspective on human origin for Athenians, because they believed that “they originated from the soil of their Attic homeland and were thus superior to all other men.” [27]  Moreover, Paul tells Athenian philosophers that God is omniscient. He has assigned people their lives and boundaries in the world.

Paul’s theological application was to impart the truth of the gospel— that we are to unite in worship of one true God. Also, it answers the questions about the Epicurean idea of a disorderly world and the Stoics’ fatalistic philosophy that everything is predetermined by fate by positing that God is not a god of chaos or that nothing happens by chance. God knows what has happened in the past, what is happening in the present, and what will happen in the future. For God does not live in time and space.

Paul then turns to wish that people may seek and find God. He is not far from us. Natural theology is emphasized even more by quoting Isaiah 11:28 from the Old Testament (v. 27-28). The Greek word ψηλαφάω (pselaphao) literally means “to feel after, touch, or handle.” [28]  Another Greek word, εὑρίσκω (ehyurisko), means “to find, obtain, perceive, or see.” [29] This idea seems to contradict Romans 1, where Paul stresses men are suppressing the truth of God. Here, he himself did not explain how to seek and find God, but the underlined meaning in the text seems to suggest it as a mere wishing or hoping. On the other hand, Albert Barnes sees it the other way: that God can be sought diligently and accurately in order to be found. [30] Paul shows their ignorance alongside God’s grace to them. He just proclaimed the illuminated light and truth of God to them. Then, he is making the point that God forgave their past follies, and now is the time to come to the saving knowledge of God, because he is near and revealed himself in his creation (see Rom. 1:19-25).

3. Soteriology—the Doctrine of Salvation

After revealing God’s common grace, Paul directs his speech on salvation. He reinforces his arguments by emphasizing that we are the offspring of God (see vv. 29-31). Epicureans and Stoics never came across the idea that God is near to each individual and interested in human affairs. Now, Paul is asserting, in contrast to their philosophical ideas, that we are offspring—born of God—who need to grope for God because we had a very insufficient view of God. In addition, he has already shown them that they were worshipping creations rather than the Creator.

The soteriology of Paul corrects the Epicurean view of salvation. They denied the immortality of the soul. Rost also agrees that Paul’s soteriology was difficult for Epicureans because of their denial of the immortality of the soul. [31] Dismissing the Greek misconstrued philosophy of God, the universe, and life, Paul declares that all Athenians should repent (v. 30). The buildup of Paul’s logical arguments for repentance has progressed from previous verses, where the Athenians were exchanging the glory of the eternal God with mortal and impermanent things in the world. Rost maintains:

Humanity’s struggle in his search for God is not in vain. As the apostle explains, God is near and imminent, and his immense love bridges the gap between man, the finite, contingent, and created, and God, the eternal, transcendent Creator. God seeks a relationship with humanity, which is ultimately accomplished through repentance. [32]

The need for seeking God genuinely, finding passionately, and repenting from their sins are the preliminary stages Paul sets forth before introducing whom they should repent to. This is the same message of repentance (see Acts 2:38) that John the Baptist, Peter in Pentecost, and Paul himself preached on other occasions.

4. Incarnational Christology—the Doctrine of Christ

Paul shows sensitivity toward his pagan audience, who did not know God. So, he first reveals to them who God is and his attributive nature. Then, he introduces Jesus Christ, whom he had not mentioned earlier. He states to them that Jesus is a man appointed by God whom he raised from the dead (v. 31b). He bases his theology on the person and work of Jesus. Paul also reminds them that the Lord Jesus overlooked sinners’ premeditated ignorance with his immeasurable grace (v. 30). He is still waiting for Sinner to come back to him.

5. Eschatology—the Doctrine of End-Time

Paul, in the course of his sermon, nullifies Athenians’ understanding of life and death. They held a view that there is no life after death. There is no judgment of the dead. Contrary to their philosophy, Paul’s Christology confirms that God, who appointed Jesus and raised him from the dead, has also fixed a day to judge the world. Thence, the resurrection of Jesus is used as an argument for the judgment after death (see Heb. 9:27). Robert H. Gundry adds that Paul “identifies Jesus as the man whom God designed to judge on his behalf and whom he resurrected from among the dead.” [33] The justice of God is inescapable, and judgment is inevitable. And Paul is appealing to his audience to repent from their sins—past lives to be vindicated—to receive every right to be the children of God.

METHODOLOGY OF PAUL

Taking into account the contents in Paul’s sermon on Mars Hill, we can take many practical teachings for a positive approach in evangelism. Paul observes the surrounding city in Athens and shows avid enthusiasm to learn about their culture, religions, and life and worldview. (See Acts 17:16-18). Next, he finds common ground. He himself was a very religious man and recognized the religiosity of Athenians. So, he looks for the “TO AN UNKNOWN GOD” inscription as a point of reference to share his faith in their context.

Paul is aware of the situation there; he knows that a direct attack on Athenians’ state-guarded religion will be counterproductive. As Spence and Excell comment:

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… 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 understanding and by declaring the positive truth of divine revelation. [34]

Instead of confronting Athenians in a belligerent tone, Paul forms relationships with them and is respectful without compromising his monotheistic faith (vv. 22-23). He does shun people who beg to differ in their worldview. Rather, he pursues philosophical reasoning that is logically consistent and thus followed.

As a part of his apologetic fashion, Paul contextualizes his sermon in a Greek philosophical setting. He backs up his logic for why we are “God’s offspring” by quoting two Greek poets: Aratus (ca. 315-ca. 245 B.C.), Paul’s countryman who hailed from Soli in Cilicia, and Cleanthes (331-233 B.C.). [35] Citing their poets will certainly earn him some credibility in his claims. Morgan argues that Paul, by quoting those pagan poets, defended their truth—men as God’s offspring—from its misuse. [36] Paul might have thought that quoting the Bible would possibly turn his audience off. We see Paul has not hesitated to contextualize his sermon as needed.

In light of the contextualization of Paul’s sermon, he does so in symmetry with philosophy and theology. In the sermon, he addresses Greeks from the philosophical perspective and proclaims sound doctrine that is followed by the need and call of repentance. [37] This method should help evangelical churches around the world to contextualize the truth of the Gospel in an appropriate way so that we would not lose the absolute truth in our pervasive culture.

OBSERVATION

Paul’s message in the Areopagus (17:22-32) can serve as an evangelistic model in our present day. It is an exceptional example of how we should approach people of the intellectual world. Luke might have more than one particular purpose in editing this sermon and presenting it the way it is. In this sermon, Paul is highly persuasive and convincing in his presentation. However, the outcome of his presentation is not satisfactory compared to his previous presentations.

Could this event be the worst failure of Paul’s ministry? Some might say “yes,” but Luke’s main concern, as Fernando states, seems to be Paul’s uncompromising faith, witnessing, and methodology in the pagan culture. [38] Luke included all significant details of the Areopagus address, such as its outcome, without omitting any significant details. In this sense, Luke accomplished his purpose by recording this historical event.

Another aspect of the Areopagus message is the contents. They are rich and sound doctrines that bear historical significance and the mark of orthodoxy. These five doctrinal categories are the truth of the Gospel and cannot be compromised. They are the orthodox and universal truth. They are applicable throughout all ages. Nevertheless, we have to be cautious while contextualizing and communicating the revealed truth from the Bible. The same method of the Areopagus message cannot be effective in all situations. There lies an enormous challenge and risk in the contextualization in certain situations. On the other hand, it is an effective medium to share the Gospel with people of different cultures. Therefore, we should not confuse universal truth with contextual truth (applicable for a certain period of history).

CONCLUSIVE ASSESSMENT

From observation and assessment of the passage, we can take, at least, one practical lesson for our lives. What we think and believe has a profound impact on what we do in our lives. Our world and life view is shaped by our understanding of God and our relationship with him. Life encompasses not only ourselves but also those around us. Our attitude serves as the driving force behind our specific behaviors. And our conduct is also shaped by our view toward God and how we think of ourselves before Him.

We are living in a time when the truth is understood in relative terms. Absolute moral value is interpreted as a subjective belief, and faith has become of trivial significance to people. God has been replaced by mere counterfeit spirituality. Our belief is under scrutiny. Our faith is under fire due to the bombardment of misleading information in print and electronic media. In this situation, people are confused and uncertain about what to believe and what to disregard.

But doctrines in the Areopagus can be a good resource for edifying believers. God is sovereign over heaven and earth. Jesus, our Lord, is the beginning and the end (see Rev. 22:13). He is from the beginning and independent of space and time (Jn. 1:1-4; Col. 1:15). We are the work of his hands and bear his image (Gen. 1:26-27). We are God’s workmanship, created in Christ for his glory (Eph. 2:10). God longs for an intimate relationship with us (Jn. 17:3), so he wants us to come into a right relationship with him (Jn. 14:6; Ps. 34:18). God does not hold vengeance against me when I come to him (2 Chls. 7:13-14; Ps. 32:1-2; Isa. 1:18, etc.).  His grace is enough for us. Through his righteousness, we are also reconciled with God (Gal. 1:6-9; 2 Cor. 12:7-10; Eph. 1:5-12; 2:1-10).

APPLICATION

The Areopagus message is an exemplary cross-cultural ministry approach that is still very relevant up to this date. Paul’s psychology, theology, and methodology are three distinct parts of the sermon that we need to pay attention to if we are going to minister in a diverse culture. Paul knows exactly what he is doing and going to say. His words are so highly calculated and precise that they bear witness to God. Ministers, especially those involved in apologetics and apologetic ministry, can use this sermon as a template to present the Gospel in pagan culture.

I have been into ministry since 2003. Since then, I have come across people of different faiths and backgrounds. The majority of them are Hindus. It has always been a tremendous challenge for me to carry on conversations with them. Their views of gods/goddesses, spirit, creation, the universe, salvation, the afterlife, karma, etc. are so complex. The more I talk to them about their metaphysical view on those terms, the more it gets intertwined and overlapping. They have a really complex system of belief.

While looking for an opportunity to share the Gospel, I always find common ground, such as the notion of God, heaven and hell, life and judgment, sin and righteousness, etc. I present myself very humbly and show my respect to them. Though we have the above-mentioned terms for dialectical engagement, their view and understanding about them are utterly different. Karmic law comes to be a part of the discussion. Completely two different accounts of the creation story in Hinduism, the unending cycle of rebirth, and the uncertainty of salvation are the major issues that I engage with them in discussion. Knowing them and developing relationships with them really opens up the door to sharing the gospel with them.

When we give coherent reasons why Karmic law gets them nowhere, our message makes them think seriously. In doing so, I always back up my arguments from the Scripture. Idol worship is a part of their everyday life. So, when someone reads from the Bible that idols are not gods, it is more like poking their conscience and wounding them badly. So, before reading a passage from the Bible, we should have a clear and convincing answer to that question. Otherwise, we will have already turned them off and shut the door of the Kingdom in their faces. And let’s do all of what we do for the glory of God in humility.

Bibliography

1. Barclay, William. The Acts of the Apostles. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1955. 140-44. Print.
2. Barnes, Albert. Barnes’ Notes on the Bible, e-Sword, Ver. 9.8.3, Commentary, Computer Software.
3. Barnhouse, Donald Grey, and Herbert Henry Ehrenstein. Acts, an Expositional Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Pub. House, 1979. Print.
4. Clarke, Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible, e-Sword, Ver. 9.8.3, Commentary, Computer Software.
5. Criswell, W. A. Acts, an Exposition: Volume II, Chapters 9-18. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Pub. House, 1979. 274-307. Print.
6. Davis, D. Mark. “Acts 17:16-34.” Interpretation 57.1 (2003): 64-66. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials. EBSCO. Web. 6 Apr. 2011.
7. Elwell, Walter A., ed. Baker Commentary on the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2006. Print.
8. Elwell, Walter A. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. 10th ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994. Print.
9. Fernando, Ajith. The NIV Application Commentary. Acts. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998. Print.
10. Given, Mark D. “Not Either/Or but Both/And in Paul’s Areopagus Speech.” Biblical Interpretation 3.3 (1995): 356-372. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials. EBSCO. Web. 6 Apr. 2011.
11. Gundry, Robert Horton. Commentary on the New Testament: Verse-by-Verse Explanations with a Literal Translation. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2010. Print.
12. Mounce, William D. Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old & New Testament Words. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2006. Print.
13. Morgan, G. Campbell. The Acts of the Apostles. New York, Chicago [etc.]: Fleming H. Revell, 1924. Print.
14. Rost, Stephen. “Paul’s Areopagus Speech in Acts 17.” Encountering New Religious Movements: A Holistic Evangelical Approach. Ed. Irving Hexham, Stephen Rost, and John Morehead. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic & Professional, 2004. 113-36. Print.
15. Smith, Robert H. Concordia Commentary: Acts. Saint Louis: Concordia Pub. House, 1970. Print.
16. Spence, H. D. M., and Joseph S. Exell. The Pulpit Commentary. Vol. II. Chicago: Wilcox & Follett, 1983. Print. Ser. 42.
17. Strong, Strong’s Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries, e-Sword, Ver. 9.8.3,
18. Dictionary, Computer Software.
19. Vincent, Vincent’s Word Studies, e-Sword, Ver. 9.8.3, Commentary, Computer Software.
20. Webster, Webster’s 1828 Dictionary, e-Sword, Ver. 9.8.3, Dictionary, Computer Software.