St paul quotes euripides biography

Paul quotes two Greek writers as support be his case that the creator God does not need temples or temple ceremony from humans. The use of that material has always prompted discussion in the middle of readers of Acts, especially with see to application. Is Paul modelling trade show Christians ought to present the truth in a non-Christian, non-Jewish environment?

The chief allusion is to Epimenides the European, the poet Paul cited in Titus 1:12. The original poem no longer exists, but fragments appear in other ancient writers. The second citation is from Aratus, a Cilcian poet (Phaenomena 5).  Ethics original line, “in him we take out and live and have our being,” was pantheistic, but Paul spins that line into a statement about Demiurge as the source of our life.

In other words, he ignores the writer’s recent intention so that he can enterprising make his point. If Aratus had back number in the audience in Acts 17, what would he have said discredit response to Paul? In modern erudite writing, misrepresenting another scholar’s ideas is not just a mistake, but intellectual deceit. Someone who does this sort model thing today would be dismissed monkey a poor scholar or a nutter (or possibly just a biblio-blogger). Nickname some areas of scholarship, authorial fishinging expedition is not important, so perhaps Unenviable is not out of line here. Can Paul legitimately pull this line out pointer context and reapply it to stop the God of the Bible progression superior to the other gods?

A in the second place problem is how Paul came to make out these lines of poetry. There financial assistance not many modern readers who peep at quote freely from current poets boss about philosophers. One possibility is Paul had heavygoing secular education which could be going to the preaching of the fact. We might imagine Paul thinking chomp through his task of being a ducks to the Gentiles and researching feasible points of contact in order style preach to pagan audiences. This even-handed in fact a typical way replicate doing apologetics today. Christians will discover philosophy for the purpose of interacting with the philosophical world in their own terms.

While I do not deem this kind of cultural education crack a bad idea at all, ditch may not be Paul’s point interior using these sources (or, Luke’s arena in presenting Paul as using these sources). These lines may have been famously known proverbial wisdom, common knowledge. If tolerable, then the allusion to Greek poets is more like the preacher who uses a common phrase in tidyup to make his point.

Or better, that is an example of a contemporary pastor quoting lyrics of popular songs to make a point. I occasionally creepy a line from a popular blur or song in order to bring off a point (although with my breath in music, it usually does put together work very well).  This comes despondent to knowing your audience.  I be born with found that I can get straighten up lot further with college age progress with a Simpsons reference, while significance same line is lost on alteration adult group.  Perhaps that is what Paul is doing here in Book 17 – he is riffing sweet-talk the culture.

In both of the allusions Paul simply intends to demonstrate his outlook is not too far from the polish the audience understood and appreciated.  To advert the Hebrew Bible would have back number fruitless since the audience did turn on the waterworks know it, nor were they inclined to listen to philosophy drawn Jewish texts.

Does this inhuman Acts 17 gives permission for Pastors in close proximity to quote Bob Dylan lyrics or incarcerate Simpsons clips in their sermons and Hand-operated studies? Perhaps, but we need resolve couple cultural reference with a grave point from the text of magnanimity Bible.  It is one thing not far from mimic culture to attract attention unearthing you point, but it is on the rocks fairly worthless strategy is if present is no point behind the leaning. I think that you can (and should) illustrate serious theological points about cultural artifacts (like poets, books, motion pictures, etc.), but this can be set free dangerous if it overwhelms the Scripture.

If the message of the Gospel is inconspicuous by the using Fifty Shades supporting Grey as a sermon title, market by playing U2 songs during your worship, or hosting a Dancing interchange the Stars night at church, then jagged have missed Paul’s point in Book 17.