Acts 17:30

τοὺς μὲν οὖν χρ.: a contrast drawn between the past times of ignorance, and the present times with God's summons to repentance, but instead of a finite verb we have the participle ὑπεριδών, and so δέ is omitted in the apodosis; see Rend all, in loco, and Appendix on μὲν οὖν, p. 163, and to the same effect, Blass, in loco. τῆς ἀγνοίας : simply “the times of ignorance,” R.V., not “this,” as in Vulgate and all E.V [316] “ Ignorantia objicitur Atheniensibus? Hanc ipsi sunt fassi. ἀγνώστῳ, ignoto; ἀγνοοῦντες, ignorantes, Acts 5:23.” ὑπεριδὼν : “overlooked,” R.V., “winked at,” A.V. The latter rendering occurs three times in LXX, Wis 18:19, Sir 28:7; Sir 30:11 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, Il., iv., 66. The verb ὑπερορᾶν is frequent in the LXX, but rather in the sense of despising, neglecting, Genesis 42:21; Deuteronomy 22:3-4, Psalms 54 :(55) 1, Job 31:19, and Sir 2:10, 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 1:25; Acts 4:29); so ὑπερορᾶν = (1) to look over, (2) to overlook, i.e., not attend to, to let pass (cf. the use of ὑπεριδεῖν in LXX, Leviticus 26:44 and 3Ma 6:15). Tyndale rendered “regarded not,” with which we may compare: “et 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 14:16; Romans 3:25. But it must be remembered that πάρεσις, Romans 3:25, is by no means the same as ἄφεσις (“idem paene est παριέναι quod ὑπεριδεῖν, Acts 17:30,” 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. Romans 1:19 is a decided proof of the contrary 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's note, pp. 260, 261. τὰ νῦν, 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 νῦν καιρῷ, Romans 3:26, i.e., from the N.T. times of salvation to the final judgment). παραγγέλλει : “commandeth,” but in margin, R.V., ἀπαγ., “he declareth”: cf. Friedrich, p. 29, on the constant use of the latter in St. Luke's writings, but used twice by St. Paul elsewhere, 1 Corinthians 14:25; 1 Thessalonians 1:9. πᾶσι πανταχοῦ : on this and other collocations with πᾶς as frequent in Luke see Friedrich, p. 5. πανταχοῦ is used in the N.T. four times by St. Luke, cf. Luke 9:6; Acts 24:3; Acts 28:22 (elsewhere in the Gospels, Mark 1:28; Mark 16:20), but it is also used, although only once, by St. Paul, 1 Corinthians 4:17. 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 prædicatur doctrina Evangelii”. μετανοεῖν : for all had sinned, and all would be judged; infinitive after verbs dicendi, expressing what they must do, cf. Acts 14:15; Acts 4:18; Acts 5:28; Acts 5:40. 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 atonement, 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” (Philippians, pp. 280, 296, 305); Plumptre, in loco; Zahn, Der Stoiker Epiktet, und sein Verhältniss zum Christenthum, pp. 26, 33, etc.

[316] English Version.