Charles Ellicott Commentary Acts 17:19

"And they took hold of him, and brought him unto the Areopagus, saying, May we know what this new teaching is, which is spoken by thee?" — Acts 17:19 (ASV)

They took him, and brought him unto Areopagus.—The name can refer either to the Hill of Mars, simply as a locality, or to the Court that met there, known as the Court of the Areopagus.

As the oldest and most revered tribunal in Athens, this Court owed its origin to Athena and was connected with the story of Orestes and the worship of the propitiated Erinnyes (the Avengers) as the Eumenides (the Gentle Ones). It continued to exercise jurisdiction in all matters connected with the religion of the state and numbered among its members men of the highest official rank.

It had originally consisted only of those who had filled the office of Archon and were over sixty years of age. Its supreme authority had been somewhat limited by Pericles; and it was as the organ of the party that opposed the ideas of freedom and progress which he represented, that Æschylus wrote the tragedy of the Eumenides, in which the divine authority of the Court was impressed upon people’s minds.

Here, however, the narrative that follows presents no trace of a formal trial, and therefore it has been questioned whether the Apostle was brought before the Court of the Areopagus. Unless, however, there was some intention of a trial, there seems no reason for them to have taken him to the Areopagus rather than to the Pnyx or elsewhere. Moreover, the mention of a member of the Court being converted by St. Paul’s preaching makes it probable that the Court was actually in session at the time.

The most natural explanation of the apparent difficulty is that the charge of bringing in “strange deities” was one that came under the jurisdiction of the Areopagus Court. Consequently, the crowd who seized St. Paul hurried him there, not presenting a formal indictment but calling for a preliminary inquiry. His speech, therefore, though in the nature of an apologia, was not an answer to a distinct accusation. After hearing it, the Court regarded the matter as not requiring special action and proceeded to the order of the day.

May we know . . .?—The form of the question, courteous in appearance, but with a slight touch of sarcasm, is highly characteristic in itself. It also shows that there was no formal accusation, though the words that followed suggested the thought that there possibly might be materials for one. What had been said was “strange” enough to require an explanation.