Ver. 30. τοὺς μὲν οὖν χρ.: a contrast drawn between the past times of ignor-, ance, and the present times with God’s summons to repentance, but instead of a finite verb we have the participle ὑπεριδών, and 5ο δέ is omitted in the apodosis ; see Rendall, in loco, and Ap- pendix on μὲν οὖν, p. 163, and to the same effect, Blass, in loco.—rijs ἀγνοίας: simply ‘‘the times of ignorance,” R.V.,
378
τέχνης καὶ ἐνθυμήσεως ἀνθρώπου, τὸ θεῖον εἶναι ὅμοιον.
30. Τοὺς
μὲν οὖν χρόνους τῆς ἀγνοίας ὑπεριδὼν ὁ Θεός, τανῦν παραγγέλλει }
1 παραγγελλει ΝΕΑΡΕΗΙ.Ρ, so Blass in β, and Hilg. ; απαγγελλει ΜΑ ΡΕ, Tisch.,
W.H., R.V. marg., Weiss, Wendt. W.H., R.V., Blass, Weiss, Wendt.
πασι, but παντας ΝΑ ΒΙ)Ε, Ath., Cyr., Tisch., For vrepidwv D has παριδων, “recte,”’ Blass
(B); neither word occurs elsewhere in N.T.
not ‘‘ this,” as in Vulgate and all E.V. ‘“‘ Tgnorantia objicitur Atheniensibus ? Hanc ipsi sunt fassi. ἀγνώστῳ, ignoto ; ἀγνοοῦντες, ignorantes, Vv. 23.'--Ὅπερι- Sav: “ overlooked,” R.V., ‘‘ winked at,” A.V. The latter rendering occurs three times in LXX, Wisdom xiii. 23, Ecclus. xxviii. 7, and xxx. 11 R.; for the verb παρορᾶν Skeat quotes Lever, Serm., p. 81: “For if ye winke at such matters, God wyl scoull upon you,” when the word evidently means to connive at, but not the sense required here, cf. also Chapman, J1., iv., 66. The verb tep- ορᾶν is frequent in the LXX, but rather in the sense of despising, neglecting, Gen. xlii. 21, Deut. xxii. 3, 4, Ps. liv. (1ν.) 1, Job xxxi. 19, and Ecclus. ii. 10, etc. But here it is used rather as the opposite of ἐφορᾶν, a verb used in classical Greek of overseeing, observing, as of the divine providence of the gods (cf. in N.T. Luke i. 25, Acts iv. 29); SO ὑπερορᾶν = (1) to look over, (2) to overlook, .e., not attend to, to let pass (cf. the use of ὑπεριδεῖν in LXX, Lev. xxvi. 44 and 3 Mace. vi. 15). Tyndale rendered ‘‘regarded not,” with which we may compare: “εί cum videas perinde te gerere quasi non videas,”’ Erasmus. Both Chrys. and Oecum. comment on the words, pointing out that it is not παρεῖδεν or εἴασεν, but ὑπερεῖδεν, τουτέστιν, οὐκ ἀπαιτεῖ κόλασιν ὡς ἀξίους ὄντας κολάσεως. With the statement of St. Paul here cf. Acts xiv. 16, Rom. iii. 25. But it must be remembered that πάρεσις, Rom. ili. 25, is by no means the same as ἄφεσις (‘idem paene est παριέναι quod ὑπεριδεῖν, Acts xvii. 30,” Bengel) ; in considering the strictures of Overbeck against the use of the passage in Romans as a parallel to our present passage, it is not alleged, let it be noted, either here or there that God inflicted no punishment upon the sins of the heathen. Rom. i. 19 is a decided proof of the con- trary in the case of the very sin of idolatry which St. Paul condemns in Athens; see the words of Chrys. and Oecum. above, and cf. the comments of Weiss, Wendt, Felten, Plumptre, and McGiffert’snote, pp. 260, 261.--τὰνν, see above p. 135; “ hic dies, haec hora, inquit
Paulus,” Bengel, in contrast to the ‘‘ overlooking ” on account of ignorance, and so relatively of excuse (cf. ἐν τῷ viv καιρῷ, Rom. iii. 26, z.e., from the N.T. times of salvation to the final judgment). --παραγγέλλει: ‘ commandeth,” but in margin, R.V., amay., “ he declareth”’: cf. Friedrich, p. 29, on the constant use ofthe latter in St. Luke’s writings, but used twice by St. Paul elsewhere, 1 Cor. xiv. 25, 1 Thess. i. 9.—waor πανταχοῦ: on this and other collocations with wag as frequent in Luke see Friedrich, p. 5. παγταχοῦ is used in the N.T. four times by St. Luke, cf. Luke ix. 6, Acts xxiv. 3, xxviii. 22 (else- where in the Gospels, Mark i. 28, xvi. 20), but it is also used, although only once, by St. Paul, 1 Cor. iv. 17. Wetstein quotes instances of the same collocation in Dem.., Philo, and adds: “ ex toto terrarum orbe plurimi Athenas advenerant, adeoque hac ipsa Pauli oratione omnibus predicatur doctrina Evangelii”.—eravoety : for all had sinned, and all would be judged; in- finitive after verbs dicendi, expressing what they must do, cf. xiv. 15, iv. 18, v. 28, 40. The context requires something more than a reference of the words to the turning from idol worship to the true God (Holtzmann), it points to the change of mind which was demanded of those whose consciences by sin were accused. To both Stoic and Epicurean the counsel would appear not merely needless, but objectionable. To the latter because it would conflict not only with his denial of immortality, but with his whole idea of the gods, and to the Stoic because the wise man was himself a king, self- sufficing, who stood in no need of atone- ment, who feared no judgment to come; the famous picture of Josephus was so far realised, and the Epicurean might be called the Sadducee, and the Stoic the Pharisee of ancient philosophy; but in one respect both Stoic and Epicurean were at one—whether they were just persons or not, they ‘“‘needed no repentance,” Bethge, Die Paulinischen Reden, p. 115; Lightfoot, ‘Paul and Seneca”? (Philippi- ans, pp. 280, 296, 305) ; Plumptre, in loco ; Zahn, Der Stoiker Epiktet, und sein Ver- hdliniss zum Christenthum, pp. 26, 33, etc.