The Gospel in the Marketplace of Ideas
by Paul Copan and Kenneth D. Litwak
The Gospel in the Marketplace of Ideas is an important contribution toward closing the gap between the ancient Christian message and the contemporary scene. Although this book covers a gamut of topics from evangelism, philosophy, history, bible exposition, and apologetics, it is highly accessible to the average inquirer. There are ample photographs, figures, charts, and tables throughout to keep the reader engaged. Chapter-by-chapter discussion questions make this an ideal book for small group study and the extensive bibliography and endnotes, along with suggested resources, provide opportunity to dig deeper. Paul Copan and Kenneth Litwak have produced a first-rate text that will long serve the Christian Church. Download a book excerpt here.
Since this review is longer than normal, I will break it down into three installments.
Part 1
Chapter 1 sets the stage by outlining each chapter’s contents. It briefly surveys the philosophical and religious background of Athens as the ideological center of the Mediterranean world and highlights the importance of being familiar with Paul’s surroundings. Readers must “understand what Paul is doing in his speech in Athens [Acts 17:16-34] so that they can follow his example in learning about what nonbelievers in today’s world think in order to shape, not compromise, their presentation of the gospel” (p 16).
Chapter 2 addresses the question “Was Paul’s speech at Athens a mistake?” (the chapter’s title) and concludes that Paul was indeed faithful to present the Gospel message according to his variegated standard (Nota bene: The Before finishing chapter 2 I began to value the practical task of identifying all the worlds in which I live and wonder how it might be that God would use me to spread the Good News to my “Athens”.expression “variegated standard” is intentionally oxymoronic.). Five reasons are given that support their conclusion, the fifth of which I found enlightening. It’s no surprise to consumers of N. T. Wright that Paul’s extensive background prepared him “to contextualize the gospel for the Jew and Gentile alike,” since he simultaneously occupied three different worlds which influenced his ministry 1) Second Temple Judaism, 2) Hellenism, and 3) Roman Empire. Copan and Litwak, however, provide another: 4) “the realm of the Messiah: being part of a new humanity, family and community ‘in Christ’ gave shape to a new identity for Paul” (p 25). It was this new identity that eclipsed all of Paul’s other credentials and ran under, through, and above his ministry efforts.
Chapter 3 looks at the “intellectual, cultural, and historical status of ancient Athens.” The people of Athens were influenced by the ideologies of Epicureans, Platonists, and Stoics and, in an effort to “connect Paul’s speech to that occasion” (p 27), the chapter unpacks these competing philosophies and religious worldviews.
Though not the political or economic power it once was, Athens was “considered the place to go for Greek learning and culture” (p 29) and remained one of the “three greatest university cities in the known world” (p 28) in Paul’s day. As was his custom Paul visited the synagogue first (Acts 17:2, 17), but also found the idols of Mars Hill, the Acropolis, and the Parthenon sufficiently agitating to the point that the marketplace became a daily venue for Paul’s gospel. This prompted an “invitation,” so to speak, to explain his message to the resident Epicurean and Stoic philosophers (Acts 17:18-21).
The authors point out that Luke gives the impression Paul did not plan to visit Athens (Acts 17:14-15), and some commentators agree. But it would seem Paul would want to visit Athens given its influence on cosmopolitan intelligentsia and his mission as Apostle to the Gentiles. It was at this point that I wondered if the authors would address this further and offer a basis for Paul not wanting to visit Athens. They admit, however, “we cannot be sure if Paul’s original plans included traveling to Athens.” Based upon the details of Acts 16 and 17, Paul is there instead “to escape persecution” (p 28).
Part 2
Chapter 4, titled “Our Athens” speaks to bridging the ideological and cultural gaps that inhibit gospel presentation. Since living in a non-Christian culture hardly yields a warm reception to the gospel message, Copan and Litwak rightly insist that we must survey the tactics of Paul’s address in Athens and glean whatever timeless principles for effective cross-cultural evangelism and apologetic endeavors. I found this chapter especially helpful to this end.
Bridges that support these timeless principles involve philosophical, scientific, historical, and ideological means. Not only did Paul wisely make use of these for gospel presentation, the authors show a legacy of figures in the Church who follow Paul’s example. Figures such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas. So too believers today must bridge the divide between the Gospel and nonbelievers.
As God’s image bearers, we must not neglect to love the Lord with all our mind, which reflects God’s own nature as all-knowing and all-wise. We must not be infants in our thinking (1 Cor 14:10). We should recognize that God can be glorified in the use of the mind. This doesn’t mean that all Christians must be intellectuals or scholars, but they should all be thoughtful and reflect deeply about their faith, the world and how to communicate their faith to unbelievers. (p 46)
“Our Athens” is influenced by postmodernism and relativism, emotivism, religious pluralism and syncretism, scientism and naturalism. Believers everywhere and at all times must be ready to respond and refute ideas that run counter to the claims of the gospel message. This chapter ably provides the framework for doing so effectively and intelligently using the disciplines of science, history, philosophy, and reason.
Chapter 5 is a careful look at the function and form of speeches in Acts and offers some important insights. Although brief, there are some critical observations that must be taken into account before any claim of failure by the Apostle Paul can stand.
First, “we need to see Acts in its original literary context” (p 64). The authors show that other Greek historiographers did not record every word of a speech but instead offered the “gist of what was said” (p 65). Copan and Litwak demonstrate that Luke followed the same practice of summarizing. Reasons Acts records a summary of Paul’s speech incude 1) reading aloud some of the speeches in Acts would only take a couple minutes at most and surely they spoke longer (p 66-67), 2) different literary styles would be evident when quoting different people, since not everyone speaks the same, yet Luke used the same literary style when quoting different speeches.
A detailed comparison showing similarities and differences both in content and reception of the speeches in Acts demonstrates that each was audience-specific and, therefore, necessarily had mixed responses. Incidentally, but not unimportantly, the authors show that the mixed response was foretold by Simeon’s prophecy (Lk 2:22-24). They reasonably conclude
There is no reason within Luke’s two-volume narrative to think that Paul failed at Athens. Had Luke been seeking to say that, he would likely have presented it more explicitly and not told us about Dionysius or Damaris. (p 73)
Chapter 6 offers some keen observations that often go unnoticed. For example, there is irony in that the philosophers thought themselves wise while Paul was a mere “seed-picker” (σπερμολόγος, translated “babbler” NIV or figuratively an “information scavenger”) who is ignorant. Yet Luke portrays Paul’s audience as the foolish ones by waisting time debating (Acts 17:21). In addition, this is the first instance where Paul takes advantage of both a different venue (other than the synagogue) and a different audience (whether commoners in the marketplace or the intellectual elite of the Areopagus).
Using a “well-known practice in Greek rhetoric” (p 80) Paul compliments the audience in his opening remarks. He made good use of common ground between Christianity Rather than letting the agitation get the best of him and contemptuously storm out of the city, Paul took advantage of the idolatry and pride of Athens to present the gospel message.and the philosophers (pp 81-83), yet did not compromise the gospel message. The practical application is apparent, since “Paul could not assume every member of the audience believed exactly the same thing…so it is necessary to ask questions and learn about what an individual thinks” (p 82). Both Paul here and Jesus in Jn 4:15-19 made the effort to learn about their audience and share the gospel message “in an appropriate way, with appropriate topics” (p 83).
After surveying the Greco-Roman views of the afterlife, Copan and Litwak insist that Paul’s speeches in Acts 13, 14, 17, far from showing failure, should be viewed as a paradigm for reaching everyone, including the intellectual elite of our day. They argue
Luke saw each of these speeches as a sufficient model for each category of audience. Paul’s experience in Athens would show Luke’s audience that, yes, Christians should indeed seek to reach the intellectual and social elite. (p 90)
Part 3
Chapter 7 is apologetically strong showing the importance of natural theology in laying the ground for the gospel message. And the authors are careful to show the limitations of natural theology. For example, God’s existence and character as revealed in creation and discovered by way of reason is certainly used by Paul, he did not It’s interesting that Paul presents the gospel arguing from general revelation to special revelation, even in a culture that had already came to accept some kind of deity or creator. How much more must we who live in a theologically apathetic culture make use of the same?truncate the gospel, as illustrated by mention of a resurrected Savior. Granted “Paul’s speech is primarily theological. He focuses on the identity and nature of the one true God, rather than focusing specifically upon Jesus.” The authors rightly insist we must not miss the larger narrative already cast by Luke. “Paul has already proclaimed the gospel in Athens. This is implied in Acts 17:17 because Acts has already narrated at length what Paul preached in synagogues in Acts 13” (p 94).
Other sections in this chapter I found apologetically helpful include “removing the weeds before planting flowers” by seeking “to dismiss caricatures of the God of the Bible (e.g., “he hates women, he only wants our money,” (p 97) or dispelling false notions of a “God is love” only theology. Copan and Litwak contend that a world in which this kind of God exists is not the biblical view, not the world people desire, nor a world that makes sense (pp 104-105).
Chapter 8 takes on the task of describing “the logic of Paul’s speech in light of his theology and the worldviews of his audience” (p 115) with a view to examining “the theological truths that Paul proclaims to the Athenians” (p 116). I found this chapter to be extremely valuable for engaging our culture with the timeless truths of the gospel message.
Illustrating that Paul used the techniques of classical rhetoric, such as making the audience sympathetic to the speaker’s point of view by complimenting his audience, or by quoting common authorities, Paul quickly demonstrated he was not a “foolish babbler” (Acts 17:18). Moreover, as previously mentioned, Paul’s credibility before Luke’s audience would have been high, whereas the Athenians’ view of Paul would not fare so well (see pp 116-118).
The section, subtitled “Using but not Quoting Scripture,” was especially insightful. The authors make the bold claim that “Paul is not quoting or clearly alluding to Scripture, but every verse in Acts 17:24-31 is built upon Scripture” (p 119). The wisdom in this approach demonstrates Paul knowing his audience well, since “quoting Scripture to the Areopagus would have been as useful as it is now to quote John 3:16 without taking time to help a listener understand what you mean by God, believing in Jesus, eternal life, perishing and more” (p 122). While Homer or Virgil would have been accepted with some authority, Moses or Isaiah would not (p 124). At the same time, Paul repeatedly points to the Athenians’ ignorance in knowing the one true
God and the consequent judgement by God (p 125-126). Paul’s speech is saturated with biblical concepts and Copan and Litwak do an excellent job showing how Acts 17 is filled with Old Testament theology.
What is more, the authors go to great lengths to disclose Paul’s modus operandiincluded using his education and background experience when presenting the gospel. Whether quoting philosophers or poets, Paul constructed the necessary cultural bridges to close the gap between his audience and validate the good news of Jesus.
Paul did not avoid secular culture, ignoring classical texts or philosophy or rhetoric. Nor did Paul confine his learning to Jewish/biblical topics such that he could lecture on the theology of the book of Psalms but was ignorant of Plato. Paul had studied Greco-Roman literature to some extent, which enabled him to use it when it would help him make a case for the gospel. (p 131)
Chapter 9 stresses that Paul used “core biblical ideas in culturally relevant ways” yet “challenged his audience and offered them the solution to their ignorance and their futile pursuit of God through false religion” (p 145). Not only is ignorance no excuse, it is also offensive to those who take pride in knowledge about religion (p 138). And, ignorance does not exempt anyone from judgment and the need to repent, as Paul clearly says (Acts 17:30-31). These claims are staggering both to the Athenians and to most in our world today. The Athenian worldview had no place for the end of human history, any purpose in human history, nor for judgment by someone raised from the dead. Yet Paul made no mistake that this was his message to the Athenians (and to us). Just as today, responses to gospel presentation remain the same: mockery, further inquiry, or belief (p 143).
The authors are clear that Jesus’ resurrection is part of gospel presentation, and I heartily agree. If indeed Jesus is raised, then God has amply provided the historical and empirical bases for Christianity. If indeed Jesus is raised, then all bets are off and judgment is pending for everyone, everywhere under any circumstance. This be true, then repentance is the only proper response.
Chapter 10 is a call to arms. Its focus is to show the relevance of Paul’s presentation to our “Mars Hill.” Principles gleaned include the following:
Distinguish between the person in God’s image and the beliefs they hold (pp 146-147)
Building on what others already know (pp 147-149)
Identifying “signals of transcendence,” to connect people to the gospel, for example, “the human quest for security and significance, the fear of death and the longing for immortality, the longing for justice, and the sense of awe and wonder” (pp 149-150)
Determining “appropriate entry points for the gospel by better understanding our audience” (pp 150-155)
Building bridges without compromising the gospel message (pp 155-159)
Idolatries of our day are constructed out of political, economic, philosohical/religious, technological, and relational materials. The way to address these idols is not to scold others but to dig deeper and expose the underlying human needs that others have and demonstrate how the gospel meets those needs (pp 157-159).
As with the earliest Christians, we in our own Athens today should emphasize how redemptive stories in movies, wisdom in philosophy, virtues in the world’s religious and mythical stories promising life happily ever after all find their real fulfillment and realization in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ “in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Col 2:3 NASB). (p 161)
This is an excellent read and is an outstanding resource “to help connect modern-day Athenians to the good news of the gospel and to uphold its integrity and credibility in the marketplace of ideas” (p 162). In the now famous words from Augustine’s Confessions (Book 8, Chapter 12) “tolle lege, tolle lege!”
Share (please & thank you)