Rage and Respect
By Greg Phelan
Reading Acts 17, I was struck by the state of Paul’s heart as he waited for his friends in Athens.
I suspect that most skim quickly over verse 16, or maybe interpret that verse in light of all that comes later. After all, Paul’s encounter with the Athenian philosophers is famously respectful and humble while being confident and challenging. If you didn’t mind being trite, you could say Paul was nice to them, or kind. We tend to think, if somebody like Paul (who could display a temper!) was so kind and considerate to the Athenians, it must be because he thought them worthy of such treatment, right? Perhaps he was impressed, or intimidated, or even in awe. Why else would he engage with such deference and humility?
But Paul is not like us. Paul didn’t treat the Athenians with respect because he found their ideas or their religion and worship respectable. What was Paul feeling before delivering this kind, humble, considerate proclamation of the exclusive truth of Jesus?
Paul was angry, deeply distressed, even disturbed.
It’s possible that your English translation glosses over that word in verse 16, a paroxysm of rage. And it’s possible that in reading Paul’s humble, calm, reasonable address, you might have missed his anger and distress. But that distress begins the entire scene.
We are told that Athens was wholly given over to idolatry. And Paul was deeply provoked, distressed, and disturbed by this. Paul felt a sharp, arousing anger because of the gross idolatry of the city. It wasn’t merely that there were statues all around. Paul saw that the very essence of the city was built on worshiping falsehoods. Athenian society was defined by disordered loves. And it filled him with a kind of wrath.
Why would Paul be incensed? Paul knew that, biblically, idolatry means much more than bowing down to statues. Idolatry is about finding your ultimate source of purpose and significance in anything besides the Lord, letting your heart be captivated by any created thing instead of the True Creator. That’s what worship means.
This is why Ezekiel 14 accuses the people of Israel of taking their idols into their hearts. Their idolatry wasn’t merely about images and sacrifices. Those images represented the deepest commitments of their hearts, the very center of their being, the very definition of who they are. They worshiped gods promising wealth, prosperity, or sensuality because those were the desires of their heart. The character and structure of their society reflected it. Idolatry led them to oppress the poor and sacrifice their children. All kinds of immorality can be justified in pursuit of the things you most value or desire.
According to the Bible, idolatry always leads to oppression and injustice—for Israel and for her neighbors. Jeremiah 50 proclaims God’s judgment against oppressive Babylon because of the injustice they’d committed, and ends by saying, “For it is a land of images, and they are mad over idols” (Jer 50:38). Paul knew that idolatry rightly provoked God’s outrage. Paul looked at the Athenian culture and saw that, in a way that hadn’t struck him about any other city he had visited, it was full of gross injustice. And quite rightly, Paul found it disturbing.
And so, Paul responded in a way that would be utterly unthinkable today. He treated the Athenians with respect. He reasoned with them humbly and patiently, even as he still firmly offered them the exclusive truth of the Gospel. Why?
It’s not like Paul doesn’t know how to be forceful with his words! Do you know how Paul addresses the Jewish false prophet named Bar-Jesus? “Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked intently at him and said, ‘You son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, full of all deceit and villainy, will you not stop making crooked the straight paths of the Lord? And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon you, and you will be blind and unable to see the sun for a time.’”(Acts 13:9-11) It’s hard to describe that as respectful, or winsome. If Paul was fully capable of taking down people he disagreed with, then why not do the same here?
I suspect that today, most people in Paul’s shoes would have burned the place down—figuratively, of course. These people are idolatrous, they are evil, they are oppressive and unjust; they deserve judgment. Today we think we can be nice to people only if they deserve it, but you can’t be nice to people who make you angry. The wrong people who do the wrong things don’t deserve kindness! One person recently put it this way: “Our enemies are demonic. There’s no turning the other cheek; there’s no being winsome.” Paul was deeply distressed by the Athenians’ idolatry, and yet he engaged respectfully and humbly. You can’t tell from the rest of the chapter that Paul was provoked in his spirit.
If one problem we often face today is carrying our rage at others into our discourse with them, a second, opposite problem also exists. Many people rightly want to treat others with respect and dignity, and so they find ways to make light of problematic beliefs and practices. Sure, we disagree, but the “people over there” aren’t really so bad—I wouldn’t call them idolatrous; I wouldn’t be provoked to anger by their beliefs and practices. Paul would.
Our society struggles with the biblical command to be angry and not sin (Eph 4:26). If we are angry, we must be mean, even cruel, to those people. Some respond by refusing to get angry over others’ sin. But that’s not what Paul shows us in Acts 17, nor is it what Paul commands in his writing. Paul is angry, but he does not sin.
So what can explain how Paul’s anger can motivate him to respectful engagement? I think there are two points to observe. First, Paul could distinguish between those who claimed to know God and those who didn’t. Idolatry, injustice, and oppression committed within the church should garner a different response than idolatry, injustice, and oppression committed by those outside. Idolatry is always distressing, but people in the church really ought to know better. Paul displayed that balance in his teaching as well (c.f. 1 Corinthians).
Second, I think Paul could respond to their idolatry this way because he knew his own need for grace. Paul knew Jeremiah 50, but he would have also known the rest of Jeremiah and the prophets and their strong words against God’s people for their own idolatry. Isaiah warned of God’s judgment against Judah because “the land is full of idols” (Isaiah 2:8)—just like Athens. Paul knew that Athens was wholly given to idolatry, but he also knew that the story of his own people and his own life. He knew that his own heart was full of covetous thoughts (Rom 7:7). Paul knew that apart from God’s grace, he too was worthy of judgment.
I think that’s why Paul can engage the way he does. Idolatry is distressing. But idolatry can also blind us to the truth. Paul knew that well. He had been there himself. And as a result, Paul could be distressed by the idolatry he saw without forsaking compassion on the lost Athenians. Indeed, his anger and distress made him all the more eager to proclaim the gospel in a way that they might be able to hear.
Gregory Phelan is an associate professor in the economics department at Williams College and a Newbigin Fellow with The Carver Project.