17:2 reasoned with them. Paul was surely one of the most effective witnesses for the Lord who ever lived, so his “manner” of witnessing is highly instructive. His manner in the Thessalonian synagogue is said to have been typical, “[reasoning] with them out of the Scriptures.” This is more, however, than just reading or quoting a set of proof-texts. Such reasoning requires logical argumentation, graciously presented, based on thorough study of the Word (I Peter 3:15; II Timothy 2:15; Colossians 4:6). This was all in the context, also, of full belief in the divine authority of the Scriptures, on the part of both speakers and hearers. The audience in the synagogue already believed in God the Creator and in the absolute truth of Scripture, so Paul could proceed from that foundation.
17:3 from the dead. Since the congregation in the synagogue already believed the Scriptures, Paul could proceed to use the Scriptures to prove that the promised Messiah must die and rise again, and then that Jesus was, indeed, the promised Messiah, using the strong evidence of fulfilled prophecy and the historical bodily resurrection. This can be a general pattern for leading to Christ those people who already believe in the God of creation and His inspired word. For those who are hostile or skeptical, however, a different approach is needed. The two recorded cases when Paul preached to pagans indicate this. See notes on Acts 14:8-18 and Acts 17:15-34.
17:11 searched the scriptures daily. The new Christians at Berea provide the “noble” example for all new converts. Even those who nominally believe the Bible, such as those at Thessalonica, urgently need to study it daily for themselves, not simply relying on the expositions of a pastor or Bible teacher, no matter how capable he may be.
17:18 philosophers. This is one of the only two specific references in the Bible to “philosophy,” the other being Colossians 2:8. Both have strongly negative emphases, warning against philosophy—that is, the love of human wisdom.
17:18 Stoicks. Like all other Greek and Roman philosophies of the day, Epicureanism and Stoicism were based on an evolutionary worldview. The Epicureans were essentially atheists, like modern Darwinists, whereas the Stoics were pantheists, much like modern New Age evolutionists. Both believed in an infinitely old space/time/matter universe, and both rejected the concept of an omnipotent transcendent Creator. On the popular level, both were expressed in terms of polytheism, astrology and spiritism, with the many gods and goddesses essentially being personifications of natural forces and systems. Both would naturally be strongly opposed to Biblical creationist Christianity.

