The authorship of the Acts of the Apostles is mostly addressed to Luke. Yet, there are many theories and debates of the date of writing and its authorship- the Early Dating posits that the book was written around 60-64 CE (also known as AD) with the author as Luke, the Physician, the Intermediate Dating relies on the 80-95 CE dating with its authorship as Luke or a second generation Christian and lastly, the Late Dating which proposes that it was written around 94 CE with an anonymous Christian writer.
The accounts of Paul and Luke’s missionary journeys were recorded by Luke in the book of Acts. With this, we conclude that Paul’s intention of his mission approach or speech was subjectively recorded by Luke in the book. Yet, one striking phrase that remains despite of the many debates behind the authorship and the subjectivity of Luke’s account of Paul, one striking phrase that remains very contextually fit and relevant is the “Unknown God.”
In this context, Paul stands before the council at the Areopagus in Athens to engage with the philosophers. He speaks of the altars on which were written “to an unknown god” to bring a rhetorical strategy, instead of attacking the pluralistic, paganistic and knowledge-centered society, or introducing the Hebrew scriptures or Jesus Christ, he brings a wise approach to feed their thirst for knowledge internally. Thus, bringing the concept of the “Unknown God” to their midst.
When this concept is applied as a rhetorical framework for engaging with today’s contemporary society, the “Unknown God” approach offers a sophisticated alternative to the contemporary problems of today- technology, LGBTQIA+, individualism, capitalism, etc. We will now apply this concept to the impending societal problems of today.
Firstly, to tackle with any contemporary society today, one must identify the “altars” of the society. In these secular or cultural spaces, people today direct their reverence, hope and their search for meaning. The reliance on technological utopianism, self-actualisation in the form of YOLO, etc, and the fight for homosexual rights are some of the many forms of unrealised “Unknown Gods.” This rhetorical phrase recognizes that these pursuits, while secularized, are expressions of a deep, underlying human desire for transcendence, justice, and salvation.
Secondly, the adoption of a posture of empathy and validation rather than antagonism can be learnt from the verse- “I see how extremely religious you are in every way” (v. 22b) without attacking their practices and beliefs. In contemporary rhetoric, this translates to adopting a posture of empathy and validation rather than antagonism. If a modern audience is deeply invested in, for example, environmentalism, the “Unknown God” rhetor does not dismiss this as “woke activism” or “pagan earth-worship.” Instead, they validate the underlying impulse: “I see that you care deeply about the stewardship of the world and recognize that we are part of something larger than ourselves.” This builds immediate rapport and lowers the audience’s defensive shields.
Thirdly, using a shared language of the culture, but one needs to be fluent and rooted in the scripture and the “scriptures” of the contemporary society. Paul did not quote Isaiah or Moses to the Greeks but he quoted their own Stoic philosophers and poets (Epimenides and Aratus), saying, “For in him we live and move and have our being… for we too are his offspring” (v. 28). The “scriptures” of the contemporary society means the language and sources of pop culture, films, literature, psychological data, vocabulary and the like. By using the culture’s own authorities to point toward your conclusion, the argument feels like an individual or organic realization rather than a foreign imposition.
Lastly, Paul takes the localized, vague desire of the people of Athens and claims to offer the concrete, ultimate reality behind it “What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you” (v. 23). In a modern context, this is where the rhetoric argues that the culture’s current pursuits are good, but ultimately insufficient on their own, and that the rhetor’s worldview offers the true fulfilment of those desires. For instance, we obsess over digital connection and social media validation because we are desperate to be truly known and loved. What technology promises but fails to deliver, true spiritual communion actually provides.
All in all, contemporary society is highly pluralistic, largely post-religious and deeply skeptical of absolute authority. Traditional top-down often fails. Yet, I believe the “Unknown God” rhetoric is a benefitting approach because it is incarnational as it meets the culture exactly where it is, validates its deepest, unspoken longings, and gently proposes a narrative that makes sense of those longings.
Aonukshila Kichu,
Jorhat, Assam
Thursday, May 14, 2026