The Babbler
Book of Acts • Sermon • Submitted
0 ratings
· 21 viewsNotes
Transcript
I want to welcome you again this morning.
First, to those joining us online, we are so thankful for our online technology that allows you to be a part of our church family today.
I also want to welcome those who may be joining us for the first time today. I hope your time with us today is encouraging and helpful, and I look forward to meeting you.
I would also say if you are new to our church today, it would be helpful for you to know that we practice a form of preaching called “Expository Preaching”.
What that means, is we believe the Bible is best taught by taking books of the Bible and then breaking them down from beginning to end, chapter by chapter, verse by verse. Our goal, to better understand not only what God’s Word says, but what it means in our lives today.
With that said, we are currently doing that through the NT book of Act. A book written by a First Century disciple named Luke, who wrote it for a couple of reasons:
First, to give us a history of the church. How it started, who was there, and the circumstances that surrounded it.
Second, to give us a template of sorts. A template that teaches us how to accomplish the mission Jesus gave us to take the Gospel into the rest of the world.
So, if you haven’t been with us, I would encourage you to go online to mcf.life where you can listen to all of the messages leading up to today.
Today however we are picking back up in Acts 17 as we continue with the Apostle Paul on his second missionary journey.
You may recall last time we were with Paul he was in the city of Athens. An ancient historical city that in Paul’s day represented the bedrock of Greek culture in areas of life including education, philosophy, and religous faith.
As we learned, it would be similar to how we view Washington D.C. A city that represents the foundation of our history, culture, governance, and even to an extent our faith.
And what makes this city so important for Paul is in many respects it is the hub of everything secular in the 1s Century world. Which means a couple of things.
#1 - It’s a city full of secular people in desperate need of the gospel.
#2 - If Paul can reach people with the gospel in this city, then he can probably reach people in any city.
Which is important for us, because while we aren’t living in ancient Athens, we are living in and are surrounded by a secular culture very similar to that of Athens. And when I say secular, I’m talking about a culture that has embraced anything and everything except the God of the Bible.
It’s also important because Paul is going to lead people to faith in this city using a specific kind of evangelism strategy. A strategy that we need understand if we are going to reach the secular culture of our day.
So a great question would be, “What’s Paul’s strategy and what does it take to reach a secular culture with the gospel?”
That’s been our focus as we’ve walked through Athens with Paul. And so far we’ve been introduced to a couple of key components in Paul’s strategy:
#1 - In order to reach a secular culture, we have to be bothered by the sin of the culture.
We saw this with Paul as he entered Athens because Luke writes:
16 Now while Paul was waiting for them at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him as he saw that the city was full of idols.
Luke says as Paul entered Athens his Spirit was provoked.
You may recall the word “provoked” literally means that Paul was greatly troubled and deeply bothered.
So, why was he so bothered and troubled? He was bothered because the city was full of pagan beliefs and ungodly living. And it deeply troubled him.
And the same should be true for you and me. Because if we’re going to reach our culture, we first need to be bothered enough by the sin of our culture to do something about it. Because the fact is, if you’re not bothered by it, then your probably not going to do anything about it. Which in the end will make you an ineffective witness for Jesus.
#2 - In order to reach a secular culture, we have to maintain an attitude of reason.
Luke writes:
17 So he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the devout persons, and in the marketplace every day with those who happened to be there.
Luke says after being bothered enough to do something, Paul began to reason with the people of the city.
You may recall the word “reasoned” implies the idea that Paul had a discussion with them.
In other words, he didn’t go off on them, he didn’t rail on them, he didn’t make snide comments or remarks, he didn’t get in a war of words of Facebook, no none of that. Instead, he sat down with them and he had a civil conversation. A conversation that opened the door for the gospel.
And what was true for Paul must be true for us as well. Because the fact is, you can’t lead somebody to Jesus if you’re not willing to be reasoned.
And when I say reasoned, I mean have a civil conversation. Not a war of words on Facebook. Not an aggressive tone or passive aggressive behavior. Not a condescending attitude or demeanor. But through your words, attitude, and behavior, a conversation that demonstrate the love of Jesus. Paul puts it like this in Colossians 4:
5 Walk in wisdom toward outsiders, making the best use of the time. 6 Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person.
Paul says to let your speech be gracious and seasoned with salt.
All that to say, in order to reach a secular culture, we have to have these first two components in place.
Which leads us today to a third component.
And so in order to introduce you to this next component, I want to begin by asking you a question that I think will help build some framework for where we are going today. And the question is this?
Question - Have you ever been in an argument or discussion that was going nowhere?
That can be frustrating, right? And it’s frustrating for a couple of reasons:
#1 - It’s frustrating because no matter what you say or what your reasoning is, the other person isn’t willing to consider that what you might be saying is true, valid, or worth considering. True, right?
#2 - It’s frustrating because if you’re honest, you don’t understand their position or reasoning. It doesn’t make any sense to you. So, all you know is you don’t agree with them.
So, let me ask you this, “What do you do in a situation like that?” Well, you probably have a few options:
You can keep arguing until you're both blue in the face. Which will probably turn ugly and eventually lead to the destruction of the friendship or relationship. That happens on Facebook all of the time.
Or, for the sake of the relationship you could compromise your view and adopt theirs or vice versa. Which I doubt few would do.
Or you can just find satisfaction in that you’ve made your point and that this person is probably never going to agree with you, and then just move along. Kind of agree to disagree scenario.
But let’s just be honest. None of those are really great options if we truly want to have an impact on that person or lead them to a truth.
And that’s especially true when it comes to the gospel. Because the fact is, as you share your faith, there are going to be moments where you face some tough opponents. Opponents that are going to test you. Opponents that are going to push you to your limits. And when we face those opponents, our first option can’t be to just disengage or agree to disagree. In that moment we have to be willing to do everything we can to strategically lead them to Jesus. So what do we do? How do we lead people to Jesus who are opposed to our message?
Well, first we need to settle in our mind that not everybody we share the gospel with is going to accept it. Because when it comes to sharing your faith, what you’re going to discover is that there are typically two different groups of people you will face. One group that is open to the gospel and one that is not.
Now when I say that, I’m not saying there’s a group of people we should exclude from sharing the gospel with or pursing. What I’m saying though, is there is a group that will never be open to it and maybe never willing to accept it. A group that you can argue with until you are blue in the face and it’s not going to make a difference. A group at the end of the day we may need to just agree to disagree with and then move along.
And today Paul is going to model that for us what that looks like. Because as we come back to Acts 17 today, Paul is going to find himself in the middle of two groups of people. One group that is open to the gospel and one that is not. And as he recognizes that, he employs a specific tactic to share his faith specifically with one of the groups.
And so to help us understand what’s going on here and how this applies to how we share our faith, I have three goals this morning.
First, I want to walk through the passage and identify these two different groups so we can have a better understanding of who and what Paul is dealing with.
Second, I want look at how Paul determines which group is which and why he chooses to engage one over the other.
Finally, I want to determine how this entire situation applies to you and me when it comes to sharing the gospel.
And so to get us started let’s join Paul once again in Athens as these two different groups approach Paul and engage him. Picking up in verse 18 Luke writes:
18 Some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers also conversed with him. And some said, “What does this babbler wish to say?” Others said, “He seems to be a preacher of foreign divinities”—because he was preaching Jesus and the resurrection. 19 And they took him and brought him to the Areopagus, saying, “May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? 20 For you bring some strange things to our ears. We wish to know therefore what these things mean.” 21 Now all the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there would spend their time in nothing except telling or hearing something new.
What I want you to notice first is right away Luke introduces us to these two different groups. The first group he calls the Epicureans and the second the Stoics.
So, a great first question might be, “Who are the Epicurean’s and Stoic’s?”
Thankfully based on what Luke tells us and what history records, we know a couple of things about this group. Let’s start with what Luke tells us.
#1 - We know they were philosophers.
We know this because in verse 18 Luke tells us that’s what they were. He says:
“Some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers also conversed with him...” Acts 17:18a ESV
So, what exactly does that mean? What does Luke mean they were philosophers? Well, there are a number of ways you could define it, but here’s one definition:
Definition: A Philosopher is a person who offers views or theories on profound questions in ethics, metaphysics, logic, and other related fields. ... a person who regulates his or her life, actions, judgments, utterances, etc., by the light of philosophy or reason.
So simply put, a philosopher is typically a highly educated and highly learned individual who bases most of what they believe off of human thought and reason. Another way to think of it is that they are intellectuals.
And so what that tells us is these aren’t just your ordinary run of the mill people who are approaching Paul. These are some heavy thinkers. These are guys that use words you have to look up in the dictionary.
#2 - We know each represented two different sects of philosophy.
And we know that because Luke introduces them as two different groups of philosophers. So what does that imply? It implies that while they were all philosophers, each group held similar but differing philosophical views when it came to certain aspects of life, faith, and worldview.
Think of it like this. Just because you’re a Christian doesn’t mean you believe what all Christians believe about faith and life. As a result, within Christianity there are different sects with similar but differing views. A great example would be Catholics and Protestants. Both adhere to Christianity, yet both have differing views concerning certain aspects of faith and the Bible.
Same thing here. Both the Epicureans and Stoics are philosophers, but they hold similar but differing views on certain matters.
#3 - We know what each of their philosophical views were.
How do we know that? We know because secular history has a lot to say about these two different sects and what they believed.
So, let’s start with the Epicurean’s.
As the name implies, this school of philosophy was founded in Athens by a man named Epicurus around 307 B.C.
Epicurus believed the ultimate goal and purpose of man was to pursue pleasure and avoid pain.
And by pleasure he wasn’t talking about sensual desires like drinking parties, sex, or food. What he meant by it was to pursue the avoidance of pain in the body and trouble in the soul.
In other words, to do anything and everything in your life to be happy. Which means their ultimate goal was happiness.
Kind sounds familiar, doesn’t it? Because to some degree that’s the philosophy of many in our culture today. To do whatever it is that makes you happy. Honestly, I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard somebody say that. I just want to be happy.
But the problem with that line of thinking, is often it leads people to immoral behavior and living. Which as we’re going to see in a moment was one of the arguments against Epicureanism.
When it came to God, Epicurus accepted the existence of gods, but he didn’t believe they interacted with mankind. That they weren’t concerned nor did they care for human affairs.
What that means then is that Epicurus was a diest. Which means he believed there was a god, but not a personal god who wanted to have a relationship with mankind. And he believed if deities did exist they lived in eternal bliss untouched by mortals.
As a result, Epicurus viewed religion as socially necessary for the masses but found no enlightenment or way of life there. Which means he viewed traditional religion in general as superstition.
And because it was superstition, he believed if one denies traditional religion, there is no reason to fear death. Because he believed neither bliss nor sorrow awaited humans after death.
Because it’s the fear of death and punishment by a Deity that destroys ones happiness. Their goal then was to banish the fear of superstition and death and live this life to its fullest.
Now, I don’t know about you, but Epicureanism sounds a lot like the most liberal aspect of our culture today, doesn’t it? A way of life that dismisses the existence of a divine creator. A way of life that encourages people to pursue temporal happiness no matter how immoral or sinful it might be. Reminds me of what Paul says in Romans 1 when he writes:
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
Paul says they discounted the existence and glory of God because they though they were wise.
So, that’s who the Epicureans were. Kind makes me wonder if Epicurus was really from California
This leads us to Stoics:
Stoicism was founded in Athens by a man named Zeno in the early 3rd century B.C.
Unlike the Epicureans, Stoics didn’t believe the ultimate goal was to pursue happiness. Yes, they were for one’s happiness, but they felt it would eventually lead to the pursuit of the immoral, as if often did
As far as pain, Stoics viewed it as a reality of life and something to endure. In a way, something that would make you stronger.
As a result Stoics instead emphasized the importance of self-control and ethical living.
As far as God went, Stoics were acceptive of the gods, although their view of the gods varied.
Some Stoics spoke of the Logos that designed and governed the cosmos, while a majority of them believed in the existence of many gods.
In fact if you were to ask a Stoic what they believed about god, most would tell you they believed gods existed, and that each had defining characters that identified them. Thus all the idols in the city of Athens.
They also believed the gods were here to interact and care for the needs of humanity. But as far as a personal relationship, not so much.
In addition to that they believed there was an after life and believed in a final judgment of sorts.
In a way, Stoics resemble what we see in most of middle America today.
Because like most of middle America, they believed in ethical and moral living.
Like middle America, they sought happiness but they understood the necessity of pain.
Like middle America, their views of God varied.
And like middle America, they believed God or gods wanted to interact and care for mankind. But as far as a personal relationship, again, not so much.
In a way, the Stoics represent the “good” person, and like most of middle America, they believed good moral and ethical people go to heaven.
So, those were the Stoics.
And what I hope you can see is that as these two groups approach Paul, while they are all philosophers, each group has a vastly different view on aspects of life, faith, and worldview.
Which leads us now to the interaction and responses from these two groups towards Paul. Because both have something to say. Look at what Luke tells us:
18 Some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers also conversed with him. And some said, “What does this babbler wish to say?” Others said, “He seems to be a preacher of foreign divinities”—because he was preaching Jesus and the resurrection.
Luke says as they begin to interact with Paul and listen to what he’s saying, there are two responses.
Let’s look at the first response. Luke says, “And some said, “What does this babbler wish to say?” Acts 17:18b ESV
Couple of things I want to point out about this statement:
First, Luke says “some said”. The question then is, “Who are the some”? Because this statement is coming from one of the two groups. Either it’s the Epicurean’s saying it or its the Stoics? So, how do we know which one? The next statement gives us a clue, because secondly I want you to notice what “some said”. They said, “What does this babbler wish to say?”
As you might suspect, this is not meant to be a flattering statement. In fact, it’s meant to be an insult and was a common way for Philosopher’s to interact with one another by labeling their opponent with an insulting label.
It’s very similar to what we see President Trump do with his opponents.
For example, you may recall in the 2016 Republican debates he referred to Marc Rubio as “Little Marco”. And then in the Presidential Debate he referred to Hillary Clinton as “Crooked Hillary”. And I’m sure we’re going to see more to come in the upcoming Presidential debates as President Trump has all kinds of names of Joe Biden. Everything from “Creepy Joe”, “Sleepy Joe”, and as of late “Joe Hiden”.
Now, please hear me, by referencing President Trump, in know way am I implying that he’s some kind of philosopher. I’m just pointing out one of his debate tactics.
Because that’s exactly what is going on here as this group gives Paul an insulting label. And the label is “Babbler”.
Now, on the surface that may not sound very insulting, but if we were to look at the literal translation, we might think differently. Because the literal translation is “Cock Sparrow”. So, if we wanted to say it like President Trump, it would be, “Paul the Cock Sparrow”.
So, a great question would be, “What exactly do they mean by that?”
The term is meant to give the imagery of a bird pecking up seeds off the ground, which then figuratively applied is mean to represent worthless people gathering scraps in the market place as they gather gossip and tidbits of information. And then they take that information and present it as their own.
In our context, it would be like the person who spends all their time pecking around on Facebook picking up pieces of information about a topic or topics, and then going out and proclaiming that information as if they have some kind of knowledge or are knowledgable concerning that topic.
And so what a “Cock Sparrow” then represents is a person who appears to be knowledgeable or have a knowledge, but it’s not really their knowledge. It’s jargon or second hand information and ideas that they have picked up from others. Which means, they are not original thinkers.
Which means in Paul’s case, this group viewed him as a vulgar plagiarist. Somebody who steals ideas from others and makes them his own.
To be honest, this happens a lot in the world of preaching. A pastor is struggling to come up with a sermon, so he takes somebody’s else’s sermon and makes it his own and presents it as if he wrote it. When they do that they’re being a “Cock Sparrow”. My wife calls it a “canned sermon” and it drives her nuts when she sees a pastor do this. In fact one time I re-used one of my own sermons and she said, “You using a canned sermon”. I said, a “canned sermon I wrote”.
So, concerning Paul, what this tells us then is this group really isn’t open to what Paul has to say. Because in their minds, he’s not an original thinker. He’s just regurgitating what he heard or somebody told him. He’s a babbler. He’s beneath them.
So, which group is this then? Is it the Epicureans or the Stoics?
To determine that, we need a little more information, and the next response is going to give us that. Because listen to what the other group said:
“Other said, ‘He seems to be a preacher of foreign divinities’ - because he was preaching Jesus and the resurrection.” Acts 17:18c ESV
What I want you to notice, is instead of presenting an insult, this group makes an observation, and the observation is, “He seems to be preaching of foreign divinities”.
So, what does that tell us? It tells us this group is focusing in on the fact that Paul is talking about a god, and in their mind two gods because Paul is preaching about God and His Son Jesus. And it intrigues them because look what what Luke says they said next:
19 And they took him and brought him to the Areopagus, saying, “May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting?
Couple points to note here:
#1 - Luke says they are so intrigued that they take him to the Areopagus. So, what’s a Areopagus?
The Areopagus was a council that consisted of about 100 members. Most of which were the elite and intellectuals of the day. And it served as a ruling council that would make decisions for the city of Athens specifically when it came to matters of belief or the acceptance of a new teaching. Which means this setting will give Paul the opportunity to present his case for the gospel.
Now, some might say, “Wow, that’s great! What an opportunity for Paul!”
Yes and No. Because while it was an opportunity for Paul to share the gospel, it could lead to punishment or even death. Because the Jewish historian Josephus tells us that Athenians had traditionally executed anyone condemned for initiating Athenians in the Mysteries of “foreign gods”.
So for Paul, this could go one way or another. Which is why identifying which group is open and which is not is so important. Because as we’re going to see in a moment, Paul’s awareness of this is what will guide what he says.
Which leads us to the second point I want you to see. Because not only do they take him to the Areopagus, but:
#2 - They want to know more about this new teaching. What new teaching? The teaching about this new god.
So, what does that tell us? It tells us which group is which. Because if you recall, there’s only one group within these two groups that believes in the gods. Do you remember which one?
It’s the Stoics. Which tells us the group that is most open to what Paul has to say is the Stoics.
Which leads us to what Paul says next. Because as he’s standing in Areopagus, Luke says Paul has a specific focus in what he’s about to say. Look at what Luke tells us:
22 So Paul, standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: “Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious.
Luke says as Paul is standing in the middle of this council, he addresses those who are religious.
Based on that, who do you think Paul is addressing? He’s addressing the Stoics. Why? I’d say for a couple of reasons:
Reason #1- As far as far as gospel success, this is the group he has the best chance to lead to faith in Jesus. Why? Because they are already open the idea of God and like Paul they hold to a strong view of morals and ethical living. Which means, they are the group Paul has the most in common with.
Reason #2 - Honestly, because Paul’s life could be on the line, if he can persuade the Stoics to consider the gospel or give themselves to it, it will create a division in this council that will keep him from punishment or death.
In fact, we’re going to see Paul employ this same tactic again Acts 23 when he goes on trial in front of the Sanhedrin and addresses the Pharisees and Sadducees Because just like the Epicureans, the Sadducees didn’t believe in life after death but the Pharisees did. So, who do you think Paul addresses in that encounter? The Pharisees as we’ll learn someday when we get to Acts 23.
All that to say, Paul makes his address to the group most likely to receive the gospel.
So, what does he say? We’ll get to that next week.
But for today, I want to focus in on what we’ve learned today and how applies to our witness. And to do that I’d like to close by giving you three tips in how to know who is most open to the gospel:
Tip # 1- In order to know who and how to share my faith with, I have to know what my audience believes.
In other words, you have to be knowledgable of other beliefs whether they be cultural, religous, or philosophical. Which means you need to be a learner in the world you live in.
Because here’s what we need to understand about the Apostle Paul. He wasn’t just some hick from the sticks. He was a learned individual who had a deep knowledge not only of his own beliefs, but of the beliefs of others. They thought he was a cock sparrow, but little did they know he was a well studied individual.
Which means he knew what the Epicureans believed. He knew what the Stoics believed. And after hearing what each of them had to say, he knew exactly which group was which. Which in many respects gave him the advantage because they had no idea what Paul believed.
You see the problem with a lot of Christians, is we too often try and share our faith with someone without any understanding or knowledge of what that person believes or why they believe it. Which means, no only do we go into a conversation blind, we go into it ignorant.
I mean imagine if Paul hadn’t known the difference between and Epicurean and a Stoic Philosopher. Not only would he have not been able to tell the two apart, he wouldn’t have known what to say to the group that was open to hearing the gospel.
What that means for you and I then, is if we want to reach the culture that surrounds us, we need to know what the culture actually believes and why they believe it. Otherwise, not only will we not know who we are talking to, we won’t know how to reach them.
Let me give you an example of what I’m talking about. Over the past week I’ve had a couple parents call me and share their concern about a young person in our community that has recently identified as transgender and while they are biologically female, they want others to now view, see, and reference them as a male.
And theses parents were concerned for two reasons:
#1 - They were concerned on how to walk their children through this, because this kind of thing raises a lot of questions for parents that most aren’t ready or able to answer.
#2 - They were concerned with how best show the love of Jesus to this person since it’s in direct opposition to what they believe as a Christian.
And if I’m being honest, at first I didn’t know what to tell these parents. You want to know why? Because it’s something I’m not educated on. But what I realized in that moment, is this is something I better get knowledgeable on, because this is where our culture is going. So I did a few things:
First, I called a good pastor friend of mine who has dealt with this kind of stuff before and got his counsel.
Second, I went to Focus on the Families website and I started reading articles on transgenderism.
Finally, I downloaded a book called “Transgender: Christian compassion, convictions, and wisdom for today’s big questions.
Why did I do all that? Two reasons:
#1 - I want to help these parents navigate their concerns.
#2 - I want to be prepared to recognize what I’m facing and converse with someone who believes in or who is given to transgenderism. Because eventually that moment is going to come. And in that moment I want to be able to recognize not only who I’m dealing with, but what I need to understand and say if I’m going to have any chance of reaching that person.
Everybody with me?
This leads us to the second tip:
Tip #2 - In order to know who and how to share my faith with, I can’t be a cock sparrow.
This goes with what I just said about educating yourself. Because the fact is, if you’re going to reach somebody, that’s say transgender, you can’t just regurgitate ideas, beliefs, or arguments that others have used on them. Because you know what, they’ve already heard that jargon. They’re very familiar with it. A canned sermon.
So, what you need to be able to do, is show them that what you have to say isn’t just a repeat of what somebody already said to them on Facebook. You need to be able to say something that intrigues them. Something that causes them to say, “You know what, this person is actually saying something that makes sense and that I can relate with.” Something that causes them to say, “Tell me more.”
So, how do you do that? This leads us to our last tip:
Tip #3 - In order to know who and how to share my faith with, I have to meet my audience on common ground.
This is exactly what Paul did. When he knew who he was dealing with, he found a place where they could meet on common ground. And in the case of the Stoics, it was the common ground of religion and as we’re going to see next week, the resurrection of the dead.
And the same must be true for us. Because if you truly want to reach that person or that group, you have to start in a place you can all agree upon. Something that loosely connects you together. And then you build on that.
And just doesn’t have to be religion. It could be politics. It could be sports. It could be a common background. It could be a certain worldview. It could be a number of things.
I’ve told this story before, but a few years back I encountered a young man at the airport in San Francisco who was an intellectual. And what I quickly realized is that this young man was an agnostic and I wasn’t going to win this guy to faith by trying to match his intellect. And what I mean by agnostic is that he basically didn’t know what he believed but that he was open.
And so in that moment, I decided my best bet would be to begin by trying to find some common ground. And so for the next few hours we found common ground.
Some of which included politics. Some of which involved our worldview. And even some on certain cultural topics. And as a result, by the end of the conversation, here’s what he said to me. He said, “Let’s keep in contact because I’d like to hear more of what you have to say.”
And over the next few years we continued to talk, and I’m excited to say that today that young man is a Christian.
Bottom line, in order to reach some people, we’re going to have to find common ground. Last tip.
Tip #4 - In order to know who and how to share my faith with, I must be willing to focus on those who are most open.
At the end of the day, Paul choose to focus his attention on the Stoics more than the Epicureans. Why did he do that? Well, as we said earlier he did it because it was the safest bet in more than one way. But I think he also did it because he knew the Epicureans were’t going to listen no matter what he said.
And as I said at the beginning of the message, that’s a reality when it comes to sharing our faith. And what we can’t do is get discouraged when that happens. Because the reality is, you can’t force somebody to know Jesus. And arguing with them isn’t going to change anything. All you can do is tell them the truth, do what you can to convince them, and then move along.
And at that point, all you can really do is pray for those who have rejected it. Pray that at some point their hearts will be softened and open to receiving the truth.
Paul understood this. Because Luke writes:
20 For you bring some strange things to our ears. We wish to know therefore what these things mean.” 21 Now all the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there would spend their time in nothing except telling or hearing something new.
And so as he stood in the Areopagus, he tailored his message for those he knew where most open. And as we’re going to see next week, some of the Stoics put their faith in Jesus.
And so as we stand in the midst of our culture, and we evaluate who is listening, we too must be able to determine who is most open and who is not, and in that moment do everything we can to reach those who are, while praying for those who are not. Amen.
Let’s Pray