Acts 17:34

But certain men clave unto him, and believed: among whom also was Dionysius the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others with them.

De Welt reminded us that "History says that the church in Athens was one of the strongest congregations in the empire in the second and third centuries."[49] Lange also pointed out that "A Christian congregation in Athens flourished in an eminent degree."[50] Thus the historical record, as well as the mention of "certain men" and "others with them" in the verse before us points to a sufficient nucleus for the establishment of a strong congregation. Some scholars have a reason for belittling Paul's accomplishments in Athens, because it fits into their theory that after Paul's "failure" here, he shifted his preaching emphasis; but there is absolutely no evidence at all that Paul ever left off stressing such things as the unity of the living God, the brotherhood of man, the sin of idolatry, the doctrine of final judgment, the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, and the fact of Christ's being the judge of all on the last day. All of these major Christian doctrines were expounded fully by Paul on this occasion.

Dionysius the Areopagite ... This man, according to Dummelow,

Was a member of the court of the Areopagus. As all members of the Areopagus had passed through the office of Archon, Dionysius must have been of high social position.[51]

Damaris ... Her background is not given. There is no intimation that she was connected with the Areopagus in any manner; and the speculation of Bruce that she might "have been a God-fearer who heard him in the synagogue"[52] is not at all unlikely.

Among those converted, it is also probable that Stephanas was one of them (1 Corinthians 16:15). Although he and his house were evidently residents of Corinth, the naming of them as "firstfruits of Achaia" would seem to indicate the fact of their being converted at Athens at the same time as the converts mentioned at the conclusion of this chapter. Any other view would be incompatible with the fact of Dionysius and Damaris also being among the "firstfruits," which, it appears, they most certainly were. There was nothing unusual about people being converted at a place different from their normal residence, both Lydia and the Ethiopian eunuch being other examples of the same thing.

ATHENS

There were four great contrasting cities dominating the four quadrants of the Roman Empire, Alexandria in Egypt, Jerusalem in Palestine, Athens in Greece, and Rome itself over all. The history of any one of these cities would be a history of Western civilization, this being especially true of Athens and Rome. No such history of Athens will be included, since so much is written and known of it throughout the world.

It was the arrogant and sophisticated intellectual center of the whole empire; and the significant thing in this chapter is that Christianity was preached in the very eye of Greek culture, a culture which through absorption by Rome was destined to change the character of the whole empire. Even in such a center Christian truth was not without its fruit. Paul, not the philosophers, won that day in Athens. As Harrison declared:

It has often been maintained that in Athens Paul attempted the intellectual approach and tried to be a philosopher among the philosophers, rather than preaching the simple gospel of Jesus Christ; but this is not a valid criticism.[53]

Paul's message in Athens was identical with what it was everywhere he taught, allowing, of course, a few skillful words introduced in a move to enlist the attention and support of his audience. The doctrine he taught regarding God, the judgment, and the resurrection of Christ was identical with Paul's teaching everywhere.

Regarding the insinuation that Paul's intellectual approach was in any manner inadequate, it should be remembered that his epistle to the Romans is the most intellectual book ever written. In it Paul noted the intellectual objections to Christianity one by one, refuting them with a concise and unanswerable logic, and doing so in such an overwhelming and conclusive manner that none of the intellectuals of that day even dared to offer a rebuttal. His arguments are still valid after more than nineteen centuries, so valid in fact that it may be dogmatically affirmed that there are no intellectual objections to Christianity.

[49] Don DeWelt, op. cit., p. 243.

[50] John Peter Lange, op. cit., p. 331.

[51] J. R. Dummelow, op. cit., p. 843.

[52] F. F. Bruce, op. cit., p. 364.

[53] Everett F. Harrison, op. cit., p. 449.