What is Stoicism? What did the Greek Stoics teach?

A sect of the philosophers of Greece, founded by Zeno, and named after the Stoa, the porch at Athens where the philosopher assembled his pupils. He taught that there was one Supreme Being, but many subordinate gods, and that man had similar faculties to the gods. Intellect was to be their guide, and pleasures and pains of the body were not to be regarded. From this sect the English word 'stoic' is derived. Pantheism, fatalism, and pride were the leading features of the stoics. Some of such were among the audience Paul addressed at Athens. Acts 17:18.

The Epicureans were materialists and practically if not professedly Atheists, though they admitted the existence of gods taking no notice of any one. The Stoics were Pantheists, and equally excluded one true and living God with Whom every soul must have to do, but held a soul of the world as god. Chrysippus rather than Zeno of Citium formulated this school, which also held the soul to be a body and perishable; but the Soul of all things, of which the souls of animals are part, imperishable. Both denied creation; both fancied matter to be eternal. Divine judgment was equally set aside, sense of sin before God, and relationship with Him, on which really depends all moral duty. Chance, according to the Epicureans, characterises the world; Fate, according to the Stoics: the one as easy-going, as the other was severe, issuing in pleasure for the former, and pride for the latter.

(b) It is not otherwise with the use of moral terms, in great vogue among the Stoics, the proudest and sternest of all heathen philosophers. To live according to nature was their first principle, and a direct ethical lie; because it is evil through sin since the fall, which they wholly disdained. None more radically opposed to man's ruin or to God's grace. The terms if the same have a totally different source and sense in Paul's usage.

(c) The same principle applies to the Gnostical expressions. The Pleroma, the Æons, and the Demiurgus, etc. of scripture uproot and destroy this pretentious school of fantastical error, a different Christianity which was not another. Christ true God and perfect man is the revelation of God, which sets aside the corrupt Gnostic, the self-complacent Stoic, and the dreaming Platonist. If inspiration employed their language, it was in pitiful condescension to impart the truth of God in Christ, which brings to nought their vain, self-righteous, and false ideas.

At Athens Paul is roused by the obtrusive idolatry, nowhere more obtrusive than there, to earnest discussion in the market-place with any whom he meets. In the synagogue he seems to have found nothing; the Athenian spirit may well have had its effect here also, even in a reaction against the new things after which the busy idlers of the city sought, and with which their scorn could confound the good news of salvation by a dying and risen Saviour. As for the Greeks it is the Epicureans and Stoics who assail the preacher, as they think, of new divinities; themselves either sceptic as to any true God whatever, — the world being neither His creation nor His care, — or else on the other side making man independent of Him, and mere fate the real governor both of God and man. The Epicurean sought his end in pleasure; the Stoic stiffened himself in self-righteousness and pride. To the latter indifference was a positive duty; in both were the sure signs of that break-down of the purer philosophy which they followed which showed itself in the open scepticism in turn following them: all showing the consciousness of the failure of philosophy in every form, and the need of that revelation against which it nevertheless so eagerly contended.

Alone in this idolatrous city, Paul's spirit was profoundly stirred by the sight of people's devotion to Satanic delusions. Therefore, he disputed with Jews in the synagogue: evidently they were guilty of entertaining idolatry; but he also disputed with others of a devout character in the markets, anyone who would be willing to meet with him. His message concerning Christ was so strange and new to the learned philosophers who encountered him that they wanted to find out more of what he was talking about. Epicureans were followers of Epicrus, who taught that the object of men should be happiness and pleasure, and forget about absolute truth. They are the hedonists of our own day. Stoicks, on the other hand, were at the opposite pole, fatalists who say that what is to be will come, and therefore we should just grit our teeth and take it. They recognize there is a God, but have no knowledge whatever of His love.

His opening words are both winning and reproving. "Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious." He thus begins by acknowledging that they had religious feelings, but that they were wrongly directed and then speaks of himself as one who was ready to lead them to the knowledge of the true God. "Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, Him declare I unto you." He wisely selects for his text, the inscription, "To the unknown God." This gives him an opportunity to commence at the lowest step in the ladder of truth. He speaks of the oneness of God the Creator, and the relationship of man to Him. But he soon leaves the argument against idolatry, and proceeds to preach the gospel. And yet he is careful not to introduce the name of Jesus in his public address. He had done so fully in his more private ministrations: but, being now surrounded by the disciples and admirers of such names as Socrates, Plato, Zeno and Epicurus, he sacredly guards the holy name of Jesus from the risk of a comparison with such. He well knew that the name of the lowly Jesus of Nazareth was "to the Greeks foolishness." Nevertheless it is easily seen that towards the close of his address, the attention of the whole audience is concentrated on the man Christ Jesus, though His name is not mentioned in the whole speech. Thus he proceeds: "And the times of this ignorance God winked at, but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent: because He hath appointed a day, in the which He will judge the world in righteousness by that Man whom He hath ordained; whereof He hath given assurance unto all men, in that He hath raised Him from the dead." Here the patience of his audience failed — his discourse was interrupted. But the last impression left on their minds was one of eternal weight and importance The inspired apostle addressed himself to the consciences not to the intellectual curiosity, of the philosophers. The mention of the resurrection of the dead, and the judgment of the world, with such commanding power and authority, could not fail to trouble these proud and self-indulgent men. The essential principle, or the highest aim of the Epicurean philosopher, was to gratify himself; that of the Stoic, was a proud indifference to good and evil, pleasure and pain.

Aurelius, with all his philosophy, was an utter stranger to the sweetness and power of that Name which alone can meet and satisfy the longings of the human heart. All the speculations and boastings of philosophy have never done this. Hence the enmity of the human heart to the gospel. Self-sufficiency, which leads to pride and self-importance, is the principal part of the Stoic's religion. With these views there could be no humility, no sense of sin, and no idea of a Saviour. And the more earnest he was in his own religion, the more bitter and vehement would he be against Christianity.

History shows that these two schools of learning were poles apart in their teaching. The Epicureans were convinced that the wisest way to live was by taking advantage of every pleasure available to them. The Stoics, who were pantheists (having many Gods) — and were doubtless responsible for the many idols in the city — believed in self-denial. None of these heathen philosophers could have discovered the knowledge of "the true God" by means which were but the product of their own carnal minds. We read "Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be," Romans 8:7.

The natural man, that is, one who is not born again, cannot live his life by these guidelines. It is true that we find philosophical schools of thought down through history (i.e. the Stoics in Greece) which demanded of men a certain attitude of calmness. But this was often linked with arrogance and pride and in reality cannot be attained by human efforts.

We do not hear of the Academicians or of the Peripatetics. The schools that followed Plato and Aristotle respectively lay in the north-west and in the north-east of the suburbs. But those of Epicurus and of Zeno adjoined the marketplace, where they crossed the apostle's path, and heard words of grace and truth, not only altogether new to their ears, but wholly subversive of their systems. And their systems did not emulate the idealism of Plato, nor the comprehensive earthly knowledge which was the boast of Aristotle. The Epicureans and the Stoics occupied themselves far more than the others with man's actual life of every day, opposed flatly to each other, but both utterly and directly to God's revelation of Himself in Christ.