The Use of Epimenides in Acts 17:28

In Acts 17:16-34, we get an account of Paul in Athens. Paul has been preaching to Jews and God-fearers in the synagogue and in the marketplace. In the course of his discussion, he begins a dialogue with Stoic and Epicurean philosophers who are curious about his preaching on Jesus and the resurrection (v. 18), thinking he is proclaiming strange gods, and ask him to explain this new teaching (v. 19). Paul does so. He explains the resurrection and does so by describing God, Yahweh, the sovereign creator and move of people and history. Paul both utilizes and refutes aspects of Stoic and Epicurean philosophy in the process, emphasizing both God’s transcendence and his immanence. He also quotes two Greek poets, Epimenides and Aratus, in verse 28. This speech culminates in the declaration of the resurrection of Jesus and its importance (v. 31). Again, the context of this speech is an explanation of the resurrection (vv. 18-20, 31-32). With this in mind, let’s look at the quote from Epimenides in verse 28.

Verse 28 says, “For in him we live, and move, and have our being” (Ἐν αὐτῷ γὰρ ζῶμεν καὶ κινούμεθα καὶ ἐσμέν) referring to the Lord (see v. 27). This is a quote from Epimenides' Cretica (Κρητικά) where the character of Minos addresses the god, Zeus: “For in you we live and move and have our being” (Ἐν γὰρ σοὶ ζῶμεν καὶ κινύμεθ᾽ ἠδὲ καὶ ἐσμέν). The full quote is as follows:

“They fashioned a tomb for you, holy and high one,
Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies.
But you are not dead: you live and abide forever,
For in you we live and move and have our being.”

Paul also quotes the line, “Cretans are always liars,” in Titus 1:12. The "lie" of the Cretans is that Zeus was mortal; Epimenides considered Zeus immortal.

Given that the purpose of Paul’s speech is an explanation about the resurrection of Jesus, it is interesting that he quotes a poem whose immediate context is about a god that is not dead, that is not in a tomb, that is immortal, and in whom others have their life and being. Remember, the Athenian philosophers believed Paul was proclaiming strange gods because of preaching of Jesus and the resurrection (v. 18). I submit the possibility that in quoting this line from Epimenides’ Cretica, Paul was alluding to the surrounding passage of the poem (a passage he seems to know well enough to quote twice within the New Testament record) in order to highlight the resurrection of Jesus and also identify Jesus himself with the creator God of whom he is speaking.

The Difficulty in Identifying Systemic Oppression

 

Something I wrote last year but just now posting.

 

There are privileged whites who believe the welfare state is a good means of dismantling the systemic oppression of blacks. There are black economists who suffered persecution under Jim Crow who believe the welfare state is a means of oppression that has disproportionately affected blacks. Who is right? One group either supports a system that oppresses blacks or the other group opposes a system that supports blacks. One group is contributing to the problem; the other is contributing to the solution.  One group needs to confess and repent. Which is it? I mean, both groups want to help blacks, but one group is unintentionally supporting their oppression. More importantly, as a Christian (white or black), with whom do you side? What is the truth? Because, depending upon the side you choose, you will either be a part of the problem that oppresses blacks or a part of the solution, regardless of your intentions. Furthermore, regardless of which you choose, the other group will accuse you of oppressing blacks. If you are white, they will accuse you of unrecognized privilege. If you are black, they will accuse you of false consciousness. And here’s the thing: in this specific instance, there’s a 50% chance that they are right. Again, what do you choose? How do you avoid committing an unintentional sin?

 

Now I’ve used the welfare state as an example in a dichotomous manner, lacking nuance. However, I could use those same two separate groups (privileged whites and black economists) and supply similar examples that would make the same point: gentrification, cultural appropriation, minimum wage, reparations, the drug-war, policing methods, the justice system, racial quotas, affirmative action, school choice, abortion, identity politics, micro-aggressions, and the list could go on.

 

In recent weeks I’ve read a number of Christian leaders talk about racial reconciliation and the need of confession and repentance. Alright, the examples just mentioned are at the forefront of the issue of race in America. Please tell us where we should side on each of these issues. Please tell us which is oppressing blacks and from which position we should repent. This is no time for sitting in the safe position of spouting generalities about race and repentance. We need particulars. If, like me, you believe in systemic oppression, specifically in the racial category, let’s be specific in our identification of the structures that dominate. Otherwise, this is all virtue signaling, ethical preening, and empty theological posturing.