assigned to them, comp. Deut. 32: 8. Ps. 115: 116. Yea, he had proceeded from the very first with a view to their welfare. He designed, in creating men, that they should inhabit and possess the earth as their own; that they should all of them enjoy the manifold blessings allotted to them in the various places of their abode. It was to Him they were indebted for them, and not to accident or their own enterprise, or the favor of some imaginary god. The remark is made as a universal one, and has its justification as such in the fact that notwithstanding the inequalities which diversify the condition of nations, they have severally their peculiar advantages; it is natural for every people to esteem their own land, in some respects at least, as the best.1 But the remark was specially aimed, beyond doubt, at the feeling of self-congratulation with which the Athenians were prone to contemplate the peculiar felicity of their own position, their national renown, their past and present prosperity. This view of the meaning prepares the way for the thought which is next introduced. opioas

τῆς κατοικίας αὐτῶν, having fixed the appointed seasons and limits of their abode. The second participle repeats the idea of the first, not superfluously, but with the evident effect of affirming it more strongly. The approved reading is προστεταγμένους, rather than προτεταγμένους as in the common text. The apostle, by adding this, admonishes the Athenians that they, like every other people, had not only received their peculiar advantages from the common Creator, but that they could hold them only during the continuance of his good will and favor. In assigning to the nations their respective abodes, he had fixed the seasons of their prosperity-the limits of their territory, i. e. it was He who decided when and how long they should flourish, and how far their dominion should extend. The remark was adapted both to rebuke their spirit of self-elation and to warn them of the danger of slighting a message from Him who had their destiny so perfectly at his command.

words has been extensively Some have explained them

Another interpretation of these last received, which is plainly incorrect. as referring to the limits which God has assigned to the lives of men individually: they have their appointed seasons and bounds, beyond which they cannot pass. But that idea lies entirely out of the present circle of view, as the subject of discourse here is that of nations and not of individuals. It is also philologically inadmissible; since αὐτῶν can naturally refer to ἀνθρώπων only as connected with

This principle Tacitus has recognized in his fine remark in the Germania, § 2: Describing that country, he says-informem terris, asperam coelo, nisi si patria sit.

1849.]

The Heathen may know God.

353

nav ovos. The anti-polytheistic aim, which forms to such an exten the ground-tone of the discourse, is to be recognized perhaps, also, in this part of it. The separation of men into so many different nations, might seem to oppose the idea of their common parentage; that separation itself is therefore represented by the apostle (obiter) as having been contemplated in the divine plan.

V. 27. Snreiv, telic infinitive, that they should seek. It attaches itself more particularly to the part of the sentence which commences at xavoixɛiv, and states the moral object which God had in view with reference to men, in making such provision for their convenience and happiness. It was that they might be led, by such tokens of his goodness, to seek him, i. e. a more perfect knowledge of Him and of their obligations to Him. Some, on the contrary, make the infinitive depend, almost wholly, on the clause just before, and find the connection to be:= that excited by the proofs of his power, as manifested in the varying fortunes of nations, they should seek, etc. But as already explained, the controlling idea in that clause is that of the goodness of God (subject, as to its continuance, to the divine pleasure); while that of his power, as displayed in the infliction of judgments, is only incidentally involved. Again, that clause is a subordinate one, as its structure shows, and that it should break off (ŋreiv so much from the main part of the sentence, would be violent. εἰ ἄραγε — εὕροιεν, ἐξ perhaps they might feel after him and find him. hagyoɛar denotes, properly, the motions of a blind man, who gropes along after an object in the dark. On the peculiar Aeolic termination, see Win. §13. 2 d. St. § 69. 8. This verb, as well as the problematical form of the expression-ei agaye,-are chosen, because the apostle would concede the comparative indistinctness of the light which the heathen have to guide them. xaizoiye, although indeed. This clause is added to show that the concession just made was not intended to exculpate the heathen for their estrangement from God. Although so benighted as to be compelled to grope for the object of their search, it was still within reach; they had not, after all, so far to go for a knowledge of God, that they might not find it if they would. Compare the sentiment with Acts 14: 17, and especially with Rom. 1: 20.

V. 28. 'Ev avrioμév. We are not, I suppose, to insist on a sharp distinction between these words. They present the idea, on every side. We derive our existence solely from God; we depend on Him, every instant, for life, motion, thought, all our varied activity. From creatures thus dependent, the evidence of a Creator cannot be very deeply hidden, if they have only a disposition to seek for it. os xaí, as also, i. e. the sentiment is not only true, but has been ac

knowledged. xað vμās, viz. Greeks in distinction from Jews; not Athenians in distinction from other Greeks. Tov yàp – ἐσμέν, For his offspring also are we. Derivation implies dependence. The creature cannot exist apart from the Creator. The apostle brings forward the citation correctly, therefore, as parallel in sentiment to iv avr louév. Here to stands for the pronoun. Win. § 20. 2. St. § 94. 1. The words form the first half of a hexameter, and are found in Aratus, a Cilician poet, who flourished about 270 B. C. The celebrated hymn of Cleanthes to Jupiter, 1. 5, contains almost the same words, viz. έx coû rào révos ouer. The same idea, variously expressed, occurs in several other Greek writers. The form of the citation the apostle took, undoubtedly, from Aratus, but says Tivès eignzaoi, because, as some affirm, he had distinctly in mind, some of the other passages where the thought is found; or, according to others, because he inferred that so obvious a remark must be a common one; or, finally, because he would generalize the idea, i. e. the categorical plural: = The truth is so plain, that even your poetry recognizes it. See the grammatical references in the note on v. 18. I am inclined to think that the last is the true explanation. yào xaì, as Meyer observes correctly, has no logical connection with Paul's speech, but is to be viewed merely as a part of the citation, which it was necessary to retain on account of the verse.

V. 29. Tévos our, etc., since, therefore, we are the offspring of God. The inference drawn here is, that idolatry is supremely absurd inasmuch as it makes that which is destitute of life, motion, intelligence, the source of these attributes to others. Comp. Isa. 44: 9 sq. zagáɣuarı stands in apposition with the nouns which precede, i. e. the state or form of the materials just enumerated, artificially wrought.

V. 30. The relation of this verse and the one following to the preceding one is this: Since such is the nature of idolatry, you must therefore-our-repent of it, because God now lays upon you his command to this effect, in view of the retributions of a judgment to come. The most important word here is vnɛqidor. It does not occur further in the N. Test., but is found often in the Septuagint, where it signifies to neglect, which is its proper classical sense, then to despise, but especially to suffer to pass as if unnoticed, to withhold the proof of noticing something which is, at the same time, a matter of distinct knowledge, i. e. in the sense of Hiph., and Hithp., comp. Deut. 22: 3, 4, etc. In this last signification, the verb represents perfectly the apostle's meaning here. God had hitherto permitted the heathen to pursue their own way, without manifesting his sense of their conduct, either by sending to them special messengers to testify against it, as he did to the Jews, or by inflict

1849.]

He is interrupted by the Athenians.

355

ing upon them at once the punishment deserved. The idea is virtually the same, therefore, as that of euoe Acts 14: 16, and лagέdwxer Rom. 1: 24. To understand vaɛgidov as meaning that God would not judge or punish the heathen for the sins committed in their state of idolatry, would be at variance with Paul's theology on this subject as he has unfolded it Rom. 1: 20. 2: 11 sq. Not only so, but the repentance which the apostle now calls upon them to exercise, presupposes their guilt.

V. 31. dióri, because, states the reason why the heathen also, as well as others, must repent; they could not, without this preparation, be safe in the day of righteous judgment, which awaited them. ¿v ávdoí, etc., by the man whom he has appointed. ardoi omits the article because a definite clause follows. Win. §19. 4. St. § 89. 3. stands, by attraction, for the accusative. níorı naqαozov пão, having afforded assurance, confirmation, to all, viz. of a judgment to come. The sentence being left incomplete, it is impossible to say just how much the apostle intended to represent as proved by the resurrection of Christ. He himself referred to it, undoubtedly, in the first place, as establishing the possibility of such a resurrection of all men from the dead as was involved in his doctrine of a general judgment; but whether he had yet developed this doctrine so far that the Athenians perceived already this bearing of the fact, is uncertain. It was enough to excite their scorn to hear of a single instance of resurrection. Again, the resurrection of Christ from the dead confirms the truth of all his claims; and one of these was that he was to be the judge of men; see John 5: 28, 29. But whether the apostle meant to extend the argument to these and other points, we cannot decide, as he was so abruptly silenced.

Effect of the Discourse on the Athenians.

Vv. 32-34. Paul is interrupted in his speech and leaves the place. V. 32. The apostle was heard with attention until he came to speak of the resurrection; when, at the announcement of a doctrine which sounded so strangely to the ears of the Athenians, some of them broke forth into expressions of open contempt. It is altogether incredible that a judicial process, in the highest court of Athens, should have terminated in this manner. άvάozαoiv vexqõv, a resurrection of the dead. As we do not know how much of Paul's idea the Athenians had apprehended, it is doubtful whether we are to take the plural here as generic or numerical, i. e. whether Christ merely be meant, or men in general. vexooi is one of a class of words in the New Testament which fluctuate as to the use of the article. Win. § 18. 1.

Ακουσόμεθα — περὶ τούτου. It is disputed whether we are to understand this as said seriously, or as a courteous refusal to hear anything farther on the subject. The latter is the more common view; Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Meyer, Hemsen, Lisco, De Wette, Bloomfield, and others adopt it. The manner in which Paul now left the assembly, and the termination of his labors, immediately after this, at Athens, favor this interpretation. Such a mode of speaking, too, was entirely consonant to the Athenian character. See, besides, the first remark on v. 34. Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Rosenmüller, are among those who would impute a serious meaning to the language. That sense lies nearer to the literal form of the words, it is true; unless one might think that naiv itself casts some suspicion upon their sincerity. Compare this with the answer of Felix, 24: 25.

Vv. 33, 34. xai ovros, and thus, after such an experience, with such a result; comp. 20: 11. V. 34. zives de. This notice seems to be introduced, but certain, as if it stood contrasted, in the mind of the writer, with what is stated respecting the effect of Paul's address, in the preceding verse-a contrast between what was unfavorable in the result on the one hand, and what was favorable on the other. Yet de may be taken as continuative. κολληθέντες αὐτῷ, not adhering, but inchoatively joining, attaching themselves to him. Ageоnayirns, the Areopagite, i. e. one of the judges in the court of the Areopagus. Of the number of these judges, nothing certain is known, except that it appears to have varied at different times. Pauly's Real-Encyclopädie, Vol. I. p. 700 sq. ancient writers say that this Dionysius became the church at Athens, and ended his life as a martyr. καὶ γυνή, and a woman, not the wife of Dionysius, as some have said, for the article and pronoun would then have been added, comp. 5: 1; or at least the article, comp. 24: 24. It has been inferred, from her being singled out thus by name, that she was a woman of rank, but beyond this, nothing is known of her.

See Eusebius and other afterward bishop of

Having delivered this speech with such a result, Paul appears to have left Athens at once, to return no more. Although he spent the most of the next two years in Corinth and the vicinity, he did not (so far as any notice exists) direct his steps again to this city. On his third missionary tour, he came once more into this general part of Greece, but at this time passed by Athens, certainly once and again, without repeating his visit thither.