返回Chapter 1
Chapter 1
Chapter One
Acts 1:1. The first book I wrote to you, Theophilus, about all that Jesus did and taught from the beginning.
He (Luke) reminds Theophilus of his Gospel in order to point to his very careful approach to the matter; because at the beginning of that work of his he says: "it seemed good to me also to write to you in order," and not in just any way, but as "those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word delivered them to us" (Luke 1:2, 3). So he reminds him of the Gospel in order to recall the care with which it was written; and he recalls this so that, having in mind the same careful approach in composing the present book as well, he might be as attentive as possible to what is being written. Therefore he had no need this time for any other endorsement; since the one who was deemed worthy to write about what he heard, and who is trusted in what he wrote, justly deserves far greater trust when he sets forth not what he heard from others, but what he himself saw. For this reason he does not say: "the first Gospel, which I preached," but: "the former treatise"; since he was free from arrogance and humble-minded and thought that the title "Gospel" was above his work, although the Apostle so honors him for this work, calling him "the brother whose praise in the Gospel is throughout all the churches" (2 Cor. 8:18). But by his expression "of all things" he seems to contradict the Evangelist John. John says that it was not possible to describe everything; while he says: "I wrote of all things from the beginning even to the ascension." So what shall we say to this? That by the expression "of all things" Luke indicates that he did not omit any of the things that are essential and necessary, from which the divinity and truth of the preaching are recognized; because both Luke and each of the Evangelists in their Gospels placed at the head of everything that from which the divinity and truth of the preaching are recognized, and moreover in such precise form, as if according to some pattern. In a similar manner John the Theologian himself also set forth all these things. They did not omit a single one of those features through which, on the one hand, the ministry of the Word in the flesh is recognized and becomes an object of faith, and on the other, the majesty of His divinity shines forth and is revealed. John says that if one were to describe in parts and briefly everything that the Lord said and did, even then the world could not contain the books that would be written (John 21:25); but all the more could it not contain them if someone wished to set forth in writing all the deeds and words of the Lord with an investigation of their meaning; because the human mind can neither contain nor comprehend their meanings and the reasons for which the Lord acted and spoke, for the reason that everything He did in human nature, He did as God; from this perspective the deeds and words of Christ can neither be expressed in speech nor conveyed in writing. However, I also allow that this addition is a hyperbolic figure of speech and does not unconditionally say that the world could not contain the books that would be written if the exposition were more extensive. One may also say that this Evangelist (John), as one who developed theoretical contemplation more than the others, truly knows all the works and deeds of the Savior — not only those which He manifested in the flesh, but also those which He accomplished from eternity, both without a body and with a body. If someone were to undertake to describe the features of the nature, origin, distinction, essence, and so forth of each of these deeds, then, even if one were to allow the possibility of this, it would be impossible for the world to contain the books that would be written. And if someone understands the word "world" not simply as the world, but as a person lying in evil and thinking about worldly and carnal things — because the word is understood this way in many places of Scripture — in this case too John speaks truly, that if someone wished to describe all the miracles performed by Christ, such people, disposed by the multitude and greatness of Christ's deeds to come to unbelief rather than to faith, could not contain what was written. And this is precisely why the Evangelists often pass over in silence a whole crowd of those who were healed and bypass a multitude of miraculous acts, indicating only the general fact that many were delivered from various diseases, that there were many miracles, and so on, but do not enumerate them; because for people incapable of understanding and deceived, the enumeration in detail of many miracles usually served as an occasion for unbelief and unwillingness to listen to the preaching rather than for coming to faith and a disposition to listen.
Acts 1:1. Of all that Jesus did and taught from the beginning
He means the miracles and the teaching — yet not this alone, but also that Jesus taught by deed; for He did not merely exhort people in word to do this or that while not doing it Himself, but by the deeds which He Himself performed, He persuaded them also to imitate Him and to be zealous for virtue. One should know that Theophilus was one of those converted to the faith by Luke himself. And do not marvel that Luke showed such great care for one man that he wrote two complete books for him; for he was a keeper of the well-known saying of the Lord, in which it is said: "It is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish" (Matt. 18:14). Why then, writing to Theophilus alone, did he write not one book but divide the subjects into two books? For the sake of clarity and so as not to burden the reader; and indeed they were divided also by content; and therefore he rightly divided the subjects of his narrative into two books.
Acts 1:2. Until the day in which He was taken up, having given commandments through the Holy Spirit to the Apostles whom He had chosen.
"Having given commandments through the Holy Spirit," that is, having spoken spiritual words to them; there was nothing human in this, because He gave commandments through the Spirit. Just as the Lord Himself, out of humility and in accommodation to His listeners, said: "If I cast out demons by the Spirit of God" (Matt. 12:28), so here "having given commandments through the Spirit" is said not because the Son had need of the Spirit, but because where the Son acts, the Spirit also cooperates and is co-present as consubstantial. And what did He command? "Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you" (Matt. 28:19–20).
"Having given commandment," it says, "He was taken up" (In Greek: ανεληφθη, He was taken up, that is, as though He did not ascend by Himself, but was taken up. Ed.). He did not say "He ascended," but still speaks of Him as of a man. From this we also see that Jesus taught the disciples even after His resurrection; but no one has transmitted the exact duration of this time. John spent more time with Him than the others; but no one reported all of this clearly, because the disciples directed their attention to other things.
Acts 1:3. To whom He also showed Himself alive after His suffering, with many infallible proofs, over the course of forty days.
Having spoken first about the ascension, he then speaks also about the resurrection. Since you heard that He ascended, lest you think that He was taken up by others, Luke added: "to whom He also presented Himself alive"; because if He stood before them having accomplished the greater miracle, then much more could He accomplish the lesser. "During forty days," but not every day for all forty days, because He was not with them constantly as before the resurrection, but appeared and withdrew again, elevating their thoughts and not allowing them to cling to Him in the same manner as before. With great caution and wisdom He gradually developed in them two aspects — both faith in His resurrection and the conviction to regard Him as above man, although the one contradicted the other, because from faith in the resurrection there was bound to arise the notion of many human aspects, while from His being above man — the opposite. Nevertheless, both were confirmed in their own time, namely "during forty days," from the day of the resurrection to the day of the ascension into heaven. During these days He both ate and drank with them, showing by this that He was the very One who was crucified and buried and rose from the dead. Why then did He appear not to all, but only to the apostles? Because to many who did not understand this ineffable mystery, His appearance would have seemed a phantom. If even the disciples themselves at first did not believe and were troubled, and even needed to touch Him with their hand and to share a meal with Him, then how would His appearance have struck the crowd? For this reason He made the proof of His resurrection indisputable and universal through the miracles that the apostles performed by the power of the grace they received; so that the resurrection became an evident fact not only for those who had to be convinced of it with their own eyes, but also for all people of subsequent ages.
Acts 1:3–4. Appearing to them and speaking about the Kingdom of God. And, having gathered them together, He commanded them: do not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, about which you have heard from Me.
The Lord Himself called the Kingdom, in which He promised the disciples to drink a new cup together with them, the Kingdom of the Father, calling the new drink that which He drank together with them after His resurrection; at that time He also partook of new food together with them — He partook not in the same manner as He had eaten and drunk with them before, prior to the resurrection, because then, having become like us in all things except sin, He ate and drank as we do, voluntarily allowing the flesh to demand the necessary consumption of food; therefore He voluntarily permitted the state of hunger. But after the resurrection He drank and ate no longer out of necessity, but only so that all might believe in the reality of His bodily nature, and likewise that He suffered voluntarily and rose again, as befits God. Thus, He called the extraordinary food that He ate and the extraordinary drink that He drank together with the disciples after the resurrection new food and new drink — that is, partaking of common salt and common food with them. But how this was — it is not for us to explain, because it was something extraordinary; it occurred not because nature demanded food, but out of condescension, for the purpose of proving the resurrection.
And opening to them the mysteries "of the Kingdom of God… He commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem." Why did He command them to do so? Earlier, when they were fearful and trembling, He led them out to Galilee so that they could fearlessly hear what He had to say to them, since they were ready to abandon the work to which they had been called. Now, when they had listened and spent forty days together, "He commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem." Why was this? Because just as no one allows soldiers who must attack a great opposing force to go out against it before they have had time to arm themselves, and just as no one would agree to release horses before the charioteer has mounted, so too the Lord does not permit the apostles to appear at the contest before the descent of the Holy Spirit, lest the vast majority overpower and capture them. Moreover, the Lord does not permit them to depart from Jerusalem not only for this reason, but also because many here too were destined to believe, and thirdly, so that no one might say that, having left their own people, they went off to seek glory among strangers. Therefore they spread the undeniable proofs of the Resurrection among those very people who killed the Lord, who crucified and buried Him, and in that very city where they had the audacity to commit such lawlessness. When did they hear this command? When He said to them: "It is better for you that I go; for if I do not go, the Comforter will not come to you" (John 16:7); and again: "I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Comforter" (John 14:16). But why did the Comforter not come while He was still present, nor immediately after His departure, but eight or nine days later, that is, at the time when the day of Pentecost arrived? Furthermore, how is it that when the Holy Spirit had not yet descended, He said: "Receive the Holy Spirit" (John 20:22)? To this it must be said that He spoke thus in order to arouse in them the desire, readiness, and capacity to receive the Holy Spirit, and they received Him when He descended; or He spoke of what was yet to be as though it already existed and was present, just as when He spoke of the ability to "tread on serpents and scorpions and over all the power of the enemy" (Luke 10:19).
However, it should also be said that the gifts of the Spirit are various and manifold: there is the gift of purification and perfection, the gift of sanctification and sanctifying power, the gift of tongues and prophecy, the gift of miracles and interpretation, and a multitude of other gifts.
So, given the distinction and diversity of the gifts of the Spirit, nothing any longer prevented the apostles from receiving the grace of the Spirit in various ways. But the full communication of the Spirit to them, which made the apostles perfect and capable of perfecting others, was at Pentecost, when He descended upon them in the form of fiery tongues and entirely filled them with His power. The Lord departed, and then the Holy Spirit came, and He came at Pentecost and not immediately, so that they would be filled with longing and only then receive the grace. And if the Holy Spirit had come while the Son was still present, and then the Son had departed while the Spirit remained, there would not have been as much consolation for them, because they were very reluctant to part from their Teacher. Therefore He ascends and the Spirit comes not immediately, so that after some despondency He might awaken in the disciples a desire and awareness of the necessity of the promise given to them, and so that at the time of the descent they would experience pure and complete joy. Moreover, it was fitting that our flesh should first appear in the heavens and that the fullest reconciliation should be accomplished, and only then should the Holy Spirit descend. Know, then, what obligation to remain in Jerusalem the Lord placed upon them through the given promise. So that after the Ascension they would not scatter again, He holds them all there by this expectation, as if by certain bonds, and by the promise of more advantageous hopes disposes them toward a stronger desire for those hopes, even though they were unknown. But no one would err in saying that even then they received a certain power and grace of the Spirit—not such as to raise the dead, but they received the power to forgive sins. Therefore He also added: "Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained" (John 20:23), showing by this what kind of power exactly He was granting them. At that time He clothed them with precisely this power; but after forty days He grants them the power to work miracles; therefore He also says: "ye shall receive power" (Acts 1:8), and so forth.
Acts 1:5. John baptized with water; but you, a few days after this, will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.
Having said that they should wait for the promise of the Father, which they had heard from the Lord, He added: "for John baptized with water," etc., and by this He clearly shows His distinction from John, and no longer as obscurely as before, when He said: "He who is least in the Kingdom of Heaven is greater than he" (Matt. 11:11). Now He speaks clearly: "John baptized with water, but you… will be baptized with the Holy Spirit," and He shows that even they became greater than John, since they too would baptize with the Holy Spirit. He did not say: "I will baptize you with the Holy Spirit," but: "you will be baptized," everywhere leaving us examples of humility; since from John's testimony it is already known that it was the Lord who baptizes: "He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire" (Matt. 3:11). But how is it said "you will be baptized" when there was no water in the upper room? It is said this way because what was properly meant here was baptism by the Spirit, through Whom even the water itself becomes effective, just as it is also said of the Lord Himself that He was anointed, though He was never anointed with oil, but received the Spirit. However, it can be shown that the apostles were baptized not only with the Spirit but also with water, only at different times. Over us both baptisms are performed at the same time, but then they were performed separately, because the apostles were first baptized by John with water, and then with the Holy Spirit. Why then did the Lord not announce when the Holy Spirit would descend, but says only: "after a few days from now"? He says this so that they would not fall into despondency; and He did not say definitely when the Holy Spirit would descend so that, awaiting Him, they would constantly keep watch. And so, what is surprising in the fact that He does not tell them about the end of the world, when, for the reason we have indicated, He did not wish to announce even this near hour? The expression "you will be baptized" signifies the abundance and, as it were, the richness of communion with the Holy Spirit, just as one who is baptized in water, being immersed with the whole body, perceptibly feels this, as it were, whereas one who simply receives water is not entirely sprinkled, not over all parts of the body. And so, in what has now been said there is no contradiction with what is said in the Divine Gospels, for it is clear that although after the resurrection of Christ from the dead the apostles were told: "receive the Holy Spirit," and they did receive Him, yet there it is said precisely that they received the Holy Spirit. Here, however, the expression "you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit" signifies the outpouring and richness of the grace to guide others, which the Lord granted them upon ascending to the Father. Just as, having faith, they come to Him and say: "increase our faith" (Luke 17:5), so here too, to the communion of the Spirit that they already had, they received, upon the descent of the Holy Spirit upon them, the capacity for a more powerful union with Him.
Acts 1:6–8. Therefore they, having come together, were asking Him, saying: Lord, is it at this time that You are restoring the kingdom to Israel? But He said to them: it is not for you to know the times or the seasons which the Father has placed in His own authority. But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you.
Intending to ask, they come to the Teacher together, so as to influence Him by their number; for they knew that His previous answer, namely: "of that day and hour no one knows" (Matt. 24:36), was such an answer not because of ignorance, but because He was avoiding the question. Therefore they ask again. When they heard that they were to receive the Holy Spirit, then they wished to learn about this and to be delivered from afflictions as those now worthy, since they did not want to subject themselves to extreme dangers again. They do not ask "when," but: "is it at this time that You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?" "Is it not now," they say — so strongly did they desire that day. It seems to me, however, that for them it was still unclear what this kingdom was, since the Holy Spirit had not yet come, Who would have instructed them. They do not ask: "when will it come," but: "are You restoring" it Yourself? So highly did they already think of Him. Therefore He also converses with them without insistence, because He no longer says that "of that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son" (Mark 13:32), but rather says: "It is not for you to know the times or the seasons." He did not ascribe the knowledge of the fulfillment of times to the Father because He Himself did not know, but because the question itself was superfluous; and therefore He profitably answered it with silence. His purpose in this was to cut short the excessive curiosity of His disciples, since He was sending them to preach the Kingdom of Heaven, and not to designate the number of times. He does not tell them about this time, though He taught them far greater things — with the purpose that, as we have mentioned more than once, He might compel them to be watchful, and also because, not knowing this, they lost nothing, since He revealed to them truths far higher than this — He revealed that He is the Son of God, that He is equal to the Father, that He rose again, that there will be a resurrection of the dead, that judgment will come, and that He sat down at the right hand of the Father. Tell me then, what is more important — to know that He will reign, or when? Moses learned the beginning of the world and when and over how many ages it was created, and he counts the years, although to know the beginning is generally harder than the end. However, the apostles were not asking the Lord about the final consummation of the ages, "saying: is it at this time that You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?" But He did not reveal even this to them, and as He had answered before, deflecting them from this thought so that they would not think that deliverance from afflictions was near, but would know that they would yet be subjected to many dangers, so He answers now as well, only more gently: "but you shall receive power." Then, so that they would not ask Him again, He immediately ascended. Moreover, so that they would not ask: "Why do You leave us in perplexity regarding this matter?" — the Son says: "which the Father has placed in His own authority." But the authority of the Father is, of course, also the authority of the Son, because "as the Father raises the dead and gives life, so also the Son gives life to whom He will" (John 5:21). If in those cases where something extraordinary and miraculous must be accomplished, the Son acts with the same authority as the Father, then all the more so in cases requiring knowledge, because to raise the dead, and moreover with authority equal to that of the Father, is far more important than to know the day. Why then did Christ not answer what the disciples were asking, but said: "you shall receive power"? In answer to them He said: "it is not for you to know," and only then added: "but you shall receive power." These words explain in a certain way the descent and, so to speak, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.
Here it is necessary to mention the Phrygian heresy, which held that the Spirit the Comforter was sent two hundred years after the ascension of Christ upon women considered to be prophetesses, Priscilla and Maximilla, and upon Montanus, who was infected with the same madness as they; then, they say, the promise was fulfilled: "I will send" the Comforter "unto you" (John 16:7). — But why does He declare to them that which they did not ask about, namely: "you shall receive power"? Because He is the Teacher; and it is the calling of a teacher to teach not what the student wants, but what is profitable to know.
Acts 1:8. And you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and even to the end of the earth.
Since before He had said: "Do not go on the path to the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans" (Matt. 10:5), wishing that the word of God be preached first to the Jews, and now it was to spread throughout the entire world, He fittingly adds "in all Judea and Samaria and even to the end of the earth." The saying "you shall be My witnesses" is both an exhortation and an immutable prophecy, because they bore witness to their preaching to the uttermost ends of the earth.
Acts 1:9–10. Having said these things, He was lifted up before their eyes, and a cloud took Him out of their sight. And while they were gazing into heaven, during His ascension…
He rose in such a way that they did not see it, but His ascension they did see; since even seeing did not resolve everything on this occasion: they saw the end of the resurrection, but did not see its beginning; they saw the beginning of the ascension, but did not see its end. Why? Because there it was unnecessary to see the beginning, since the Risen One Himself was before them and spoke of it, and since the tomb itself showed that He was not in it; but here it was necessary to know the end as well, since the eyes cannot reach the full height and sight could not determine whether He ascended into heaven or, having risen to a certain height, stopped. Therefore the Angels, appearing before them, revealed to them what they could not comprehend by means of sight. And the cloud lifted Him up because it is a symbol of the Lord's and Divine power, since in a cloud one cannot see a symbol of any other power. Therefore David also says of the Father: "You make the clouds Your chariot" (Ps. 104:3), and in another place: "Behold, the Lord rides on a swift cloud" (Isa. 19:1). And many other passages speak of the same thing. However, the Lord did this too not simply and not without purpose, but knowing that if He were to ascend invisibly to them, as He also descended and, even more so, as He came down, then even at the manifestation of the Spirit they would not believe that this was the very same Spirit Whom a few days before He had promised to send; knowing that in such a case He would prepare in them the suspicion that He Himself had not come from heaven either; knowing, finally, that in such a case, if having ascended invisibly He then called Paul from heaven, if He sent from there to Peter a sheet not made by hands (see Acts 10:11), they would not have believed that He was doing this after His departure from them in the flesh — knowing all this, He ascended "while they were looking toward heaven." From the cloud of the Virgin He enters into a cloud, and by means of a cloud ascends to where He was before. The expression "where He was" understand not in the sense of place, and not in the sense that He laid aside the flesh and His incarnate Divinity became as before incorporeal; no, the expression "where He was" — attend to me — points to the height of incorporeality within corporeality, to the greatness of bodilessness within bodiliness, to the self-existing value of His voluntary humiliation in the incarnation of His immutability, to the fact that in visible form He no longer moves about or dwells among people.
Acts 1:10–11. Suddenly two men in white clothing stood before them and said: Men of Galilee! Why do you stand gazing into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same manner as you saw Him ascending into heaven.
They did not say "being lifted up" or "being carried," but "ascending."
If He, before the cross, clothed still in a body subject to suffering and heaviness, walked upon the waters, then no one should doubt that He, after having received an incorruptible body, cleaved through the air.
"He will come," it says, not "He will be sent." "He will come in the same way," that is, with a body. This is what they desired to hear, and also that He will come again in the days of judgment on a cloud (cf. Matt. 24:30). The Evangelist calls the Angels "men," presenting the event in the form in which it appeared to sight, since the Angels had indeed taken on the appearance of men so as not to frighten them. Two men appeared because "by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established" (Matt. 18:16).
Having said, "Why do you stand gazing into heaven?" – they did not allow them to remain any longer in that place and hope to see Him again, but urged them to return at last to Jerusalem for the work of preaching. Angels everywhere serve Him as Lord – both at His birth, and at His resurrection, and at His ascension, and before this, prior to His appearance in the world in the flesh. But the Angels appeared in such a way that people could see them. The expression "in white apparel" indicates either the purity of the Angels, or the illumination that was to be granted to the holy apostles. The expression "they saw Him" must be understood differently. Knowing that men of corrupted mind would appear who would say that He was not from heaven, or did not come from heaven, and did not ascend into heaven, but was transported to some place beyond the bounds of the earth – among whom are also the followers of the sect of Vitalis – knowing this, the Lord ascended before the eyes of the apostles, while they were gazing intently into heaven.
Acts 1:12. Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath day's journey away.
When did "then they returned"? When they heard what was said by the Angels, because they would never have torn themselves away from the place if the Angels had not informed them about the second coming. And it seems to me that this happened on a Sabbath, because Luke would not have indicated the distance in this way: "from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath day's journey away." The length of the journey that Jews were permitted to travel on the Sabbath day was fixed. Josephus in his twentieth book of Antiquities relates that the Mount of Olives was eight stadia from Jerusalem. And Origen in his fifth book says: "The Sabbath journey was three cubits." Indeed, the holy tabernacle with the ark preceded the camp by such a distance and was placed at such a distance from it as worshippers were permitted to travel on the Sabbath. This distance is one mile.
Acts 1:13–14. And when they had come in, they went up into the upper room, where they were staying, both Peter and James, John and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas, the brother of James. All these with one accord continued in prayer and supplication, with certain women and Mary, the Mother of Jesus, and with His brothers.
He prudently enumerates the disciples. Since one of them betrayed, another denied, and a third did not believe, he shows that, apart from the betrayer, all were present. But how does he say, "with Mary the mother of Jesus"? Although the evangelist said that "from that time the disciple… took Her to his own" (Jn. 19:27), this in no way contradicts the foregoing, because if that very disciple was there, then nothing prevented Her from being present as well. Why does he not mention Joseph here? He does not mention him because Joseph had already died, for if the brothers believed and were present — they who had often expressed disbelief before — then all the more would Joseph have proved faithful and would not have wished to withdraw from the company of the apostles, had he still been alive, since he never expressed any doubt.
Acts 1:15–17. And in those days Peter, standing in the midst of the disciples, said — and the gathering was about a hundred and twenty persons — "Men and brethren! It was necessary that the Scripture be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit foretold by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who was the guide of those who seized Jesus; for he was numbered among us and obtained his lot in this ministry."
"In those days," that is, in the days before Pentecost, "Peter, standing in the midst of the disciples, said," as the fervent disciple and the one to whom Christ entrusted His flock, and, finally, as the first. But pay attention: he does everything with the common consent and nothing on his own will and authority. He persuades even on the basis of prophecy and does not say that David said, but: "the Holy Spirit foretold through the mouth of David"; then he adds "concerning Judas, who was the guide of those who seized Jesus." Notice here too the wisdom of this man — notice how in the narrative he does not insult and does not speak of Judas as despised and most despicable, but simply states what happened; and he does not say that the Jews acquired, but: Judas "acquired the field," and rightly so, because the owner in fairness should be considered the one who put up the money, even if others made the purchase. And the payment was his. Listen:
Acts 1:18–19. But he acquired a field with the reward of unrighteousness, and falling headlong, his belly burst open, and all his intestines spilled out. And this became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem.
He speaks of the punishment which Judas suffered in the present life, and not of the future punishment, because the souls of weak people do not pay as much attention to the future as to the present. Observe: he elaborated not on the transgression, but on the punishment for it, because Judas did not die in the noose, but lived on even after, since he was taken down before he strangled to death. Papias, a disciple of John, relates this more clearly in the fourth book of the Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord. He says thus: "Judas presented a great example of impiety in this world, whose body swelled to such a degree that he could not pass where a wagon could drive through, and not only could he himself not pass, but not even his head alone. The lids of his eyes, they say, swelled so much that he could not see the light at all, and his eyes themselves could not be seen even by means of a medical dioptra, so deep were they from the outer surface… After great sufferings and torments he died, they say, on his own estate; and that estate remains deserted and uninhabited even to this day; even to this day no one can pass by that place without holding their nostrils with their hands. Such is the stench that spread from his body even to the ground." This served as a certain consolation for the apostles. But just as the bowels of Judas burst open, so too did the bowels of the heretic Arius.
Acts 1:19–20. So that field in their own dialect was called Akeldama, that is, "field of blood." For it is written in the Book of Psalms: "Let his habitation be desolate, and let no one dwell in it," and: "Let another take his office."
The Jews gave the village the name "Akeldama" on account of what happened with Judas. Peter brings up this fact here, presenting as witnesses the enemies who gave this land such a name. The words "let his habitation be desolate" (see also Ps. 68:26) were said about this land and about the house of Judas, for what could be more desolate than a cemetery, and a public cemetery at that, which is what this land became? And the words: "let another take his office" (see also Ps. 108:8) point to the rank of the priesthood.
Acts 1:21–22. Therefore it is necessary that one of those men who accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day on which He was taken up from us, become together with us a witness of His resurrection.
He presents the matter as shared with the brethren, so that it would not meet with objections and would not give occasion for disputes. Therefore at the beginning of the discourse he also said: "Men and brethren, it is necessary to choose from among you," — entrusting the choice to all, and at the same time granting honor to those chosen, and freeing himself from reproach on the part of anyone whatsoever. And that this is how it had to be, he himself says and brings a prophet as witness. From whom was the choice to be made? "From those who were with us the entire time." He says this because it necessarily had to be so. And he did not say: "from honorable men who are with us," because then it would have seemed that he was insulting the rest. But now the matter was decided by time. "Was together with us a witness of His resurrection," so that the company of disciples would not be diminished in any way. He says: "a witness of the resurrection," and not of anything else, for whoever proves worthy to testify that the Lord, who ate and drank with the disciples, and was crucified, and rose again — to such a person it is all the more possible and necessary to entrust testimony about the other events as well, because what was sought was the resurrection, since it was accomplished in secret, while the rest happened openly.
Acts 1:23–26. And they appointed two: Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed and said: Thou, Lord, who knowest the hearts of all, show which of these two Thou hast chosen to take the lot of this ministry and Apostleship, from which Judas fell away, to go to his own place. And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven Apostles.
"And they appointed two." Why not many? So that no great disorder would arise, and besides, the matter concerned only a few. They cry out in prayer to the Knower of Hearts at the fitting time. They do not go on to say "choose," but "show… the one whom You have chosen," knowing that with God all things are determined before human thought. Everywhere he calls the election "receiving a lot," showing by this that everything occurs according to God's love for mankind and God's choosing, and reminding them of ancient events, because just as the Levites, so also them God chose for Himself by lot.
What kind of men were they? Perhaps they were from the number of the Seventy who had been with the twelve apostles, or from other believers, but more fervently believing and more devout than the rest. Such were both Joseph and Matthias. He calls Joseph both Barsabbas and Justus, perhaps because among them these names referred to one person; but perhaps a new name was also given on account of a change in way of life; finally, the surname was perhaps assigned according to one's occupation. Why does James, who had received the episcopate in Jerusalem, not begin the discourse, but yields the right to address the people to Peter? Because he was filled with humility; at that time they thought nothing of human considerations, but had in view the common benefit. For this very same reason the apostles also yield the seat to him and do not rival him, and do not contend with him.
Why do they prefer election by lot? Because they did not yet consider themselves worthy to learn about this through any sign, and the Holy Spirit had not yet descended upon them; nor was there need for a sign, because the lot held great significance. If already in the case when neither prayer nor the wisdom of men helped to determine the correct judgment regarding Jonah, but on the contrary, the lot meant so much, then all the more so in this case.
"To go to his own place." The place which Matthias was worthy to occupy, Luke calls "his own" or "one's own," because just as Judas, even before he fell from it, from the time he became sick with the disease of love of money and betrayal, was already alienated from this place, so too even before Matthias occupied this place, from the time he made himself worthy of such a gift, it became his own possession. And in another sense: "to his own place": each person by his own deeds prepares for himself either a good or a bad place. So when Luke says this, he says that Judas went "to his own place" — a bad one, which he prepared for himself by the betrayal of Jesus; because places are not good or bad for us by nature, but by our own deeds we prepare a place for ourselves. The word "place" has many meanings. It signifies, among other things, a certain office; thus, we say "the place of a bishop or a presbyter." One can see the same thing also from the opposite perspective, depending on how each person prepares his own place for himself by his own deeds: thus one can hold the place of a false teacher and a false apostle, just as of a tyrant and an author of other criminal deeds.
So, since Judas too, having been carried away by the passion of avarice, took the place of a traitor, it is rightly said of him: "to go to his own place." Having lost through his actions his place in the ranks of the apostles, he prepared for himself "his own place."
Acts 1:1. The first book I wrote to you, Theophilus, about all that Jesus did and taught from the beginning.
He (Luke) reminds Theophilus of his Gospel in order to point to his very careful approach to the matter; because at the beginning of that work of his he says: "it seemed good to me also to write to you in order," and not in just any way, but as "those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word delivered them to us" (Luke 1:2, 3). So he reminds him of the Gospel in order to recall the care with which it was written; and he recalls this so that, having in mind the same careful approach in composing the present book as well, he might be as attentive as possible to what is being written. Therefore he had no need this time for any other endorsement; since the one who was deemed worthy to write about what he heard, and who is trusted in what he wrote, justly deserves far greater trust when he sets forth not what he heard from others, but what he himself saw. For this reason he does not say: "the first Gospel, which I preached," but: "the former treatise"; since he was free from arrogance and humble-minded and thought that the title "Gospel" was above his work, although the Apostle so honors him for this work, calling him "the brother whose praise in the Gospel is throughout all the churches" (2 Cor. 8:18). But by his expression "of all things" he seems to contradict the Evangelist John. John says that it was not possible to describe everything; while he says: "I wrote of all things from the beginning even to the ascension." So what shall we say to this? That by the expression "of all things" Luke indicates that he did not omit any of the things that are essential and necessary, from which the divinity and truth of the preaching are recognized; because both Luke and each of the Evangelists in their Gospels placed at the head of everything that from which the divinity and truth of the preaching are recognized, and moreover in such precise form, as if according to some pattern. In a similar manner John the Theologian himself also set forth all these things. They did not omit a single one of those features through which, on the one hand, the ministry of the Word in the flesh is recognized and becomes an object of faith, and on the other, the majesty of His divinity shines forth and is revealed. John says that if one were to describe in parts and briefly everything that the Lord said and did, even then the world could not contain the books that would be written (John 21:25); but all the more could it not contain them if someone wished to set forth in writing all the deeds and words of the Lord with an investigation of their meaning; because the human mind can neither contain nor comprehend their meanings and the reasons for which the Lord acted and spoke, for the reason that everything He did in human nature, He did as God; from this perspective the deeds and words of Christ can neither be expressed in speech nor conveyed in writing. However, I also allow that this addition is a hyperbolic figure of speech and does not unconditionally say that the world could not contain the books that would be written if the exposition were more extensive. One may also say that this Evangelist (John), as one who developed theoretical contemplation more than the others, truly knows all the works and deeds of the Savior — not only those which He manifested in the flesh, but also those which He accomplished from eternity, both without a body and with a body. If someone were to undertake to describe the features of the nature, origin, distinction, essence, and so forth of each of these deeds, then, even if one were to allow the possibility of this, it would be impossible for the world to contain the books that would be written. And if someone understands the word "world" not simply as the world, but as a person lying in evil and thinking about worldly and carnal things — because the word is understood this way in many places of Scripture — in this case too John speaks truly, that if someone wished to describe all the miracles performed by Christ, such people, disposed by the multitude and greatness of Christ's deeds to come to unbelief rather than to faith, could not contain what was written. And this is precisely why the Evangelists often pass over in silence a whole crowd of those who were healed and bypass a multitude of miraculous acts, indicating only the general fact that many were delivered from various diseases, that there were many miracles, and so on, but do not enumerate them; because for people incapable of understanding and deceived, the enumeration in detail of many miracles usually served as an occasion for unbelief and unwillingness to listen to the preaching rather than for coming to faith and a disposition to listen.
Acts 1:1. Of all that Jesus did and taught from the beginning
He means the miracles and the teaching — yet not this alone, but also that Jesus taught by deed; for He did not merely exhort people in word to do this or that while not doing it Himself, but by the deeds which He Himself performed, He persuaded them also to imitate Him and to be zealous for virtue. One should know that Theophilus was one of those converted to the faith by Luke himself. And do not marvel that Luke showed such great care for one man that he wrote two complete books for him; for he was a keeper of the well-known saying of the Lord, in which it is said: "It is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish" (Matt. 18:14). Why then, writing to Theophilus alone, did he write not one book but divide the subjects into two books? For the sake of clarity and so as not to burden the reader; and indeed they were divided also by content; and therefore he rightly divided the subjects of his narrative into two books.
Acts 1:2. Until the day in which He was taken up, having given commandments through the Holy Spirit to the Apostles whom He had chosen.
"Having given commandments through the Holy Spirit," that is, having spoken spiritual words to them; there was nothing human in this, because He gave commandments through the Spirit. Just as the Lord Himself, out of humility and in accommodation to His listeners, said: "If I cast out demons by the Spirit of God" (Matt. 12:28), so here "having given commandments through the Spirit" is said not because the Son had need of the Spirit, but because where the Son acts, the Spirit also cooperates and is co-present as consubstantial. And what did He command? "Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you" (Matt. 28:19–20).
"Having given commandment," it says, "He was taken up" (In Greek: ανεληφθη, He was taken up, that is, as though He did not ascend by Himself, but was taken up. Ed.). He did not say "He ascended," but still speaks of Him as of a man. From this we also see that Jesus taught the disciples even after His resurrection; but no one has transmitted the exact duration of this time. John spent more time with Him than the others; but no one reported all of this clearly, because the disciples directed their attention to other things.
Acts 1:3. To whom He also showed Himself alive after His suffering, with many infallible proofs, over the course of forty days.
Having spoken first about the ascension, he then speaks also about the resurrection. Since you heard that He ascended, lest you think that He was taken up by others, Luke added: "to whom He also presented Himself alive"; because if He stood before them having accomplished the greater miracle, then much more could He accomplish the lesser. "During forty days," but not every day for all forty days, because He was not with them constantly as before the resurrection, but appeared and withdrew again, elevating their thoughts and not allowing them to cling to Him in the same manner as before. With great caution and wisdom He gradually developed in them two aspects — both faith in His resurrection and the conviction to regard Him as above man, although the one contradicted the other, because from faith in the resurrection there was bound to arise the notion of many human aspects, while from His being above man — the opposite. Nevertheless, both were confirmed in their own time, namely "during forty days," from the day of the resurrection to the day of the ascension into heaven. During these days He both ate and drank with them, showing by this that He was the very One who was crucified and buried and rose from the dead. Why then did He appear not to all, but only to the apostles? Because to many who did not understand this ineffable mystery, His appearance would have seemed a phantom. If even the disciples themselves at first did not believe and were troubled, and even needed to touch Him with their hand and to share a meal with Him, then how would His appearance have struck the crowd? For this reason He made the proof of His resurrection indisputable and universal through the miracles that the apostles performed by the power of the grace they received; so that the resurrection became an evident fact not only for those who had to be convinced of it with their own eyes, but also for all people of subsequent ages.
Acts 1:3–4. Appearing to them and speaking about the Kingdom of God. And, having gathered them together, He commanded them: do not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, about which you have heard from Me.
The Lord Himself called the Kingdom, in which He promised the disciples to drink a new cup together with them, the Kingdom of the Father, calling the new drink that which He drank together with them after His resurrection; at that time He also partook of new food together with them — He partook not in the same manner as He had eaten and drunk with them before, prior to the resurrection, because then, having become like us in all things except sin, He ate and drank as we do, voluntarily allowing the flesh to demand the necessary consumption of food; therefore He voluntarily permitted the state of hunger. But after the resurrection He drank and ate no longer out of necessity, but only so that all might believe in the reality of His bodily nature, and likewise that He suffered voluntarily and rose again, as befits God. Thus, He called the extraordinary food that He ate and the extraordinary drink that He drank together with the disciples after the resurrection new food and new drink — that is, partaking of common salt and common food with them. But how this was — it is not for us to explain, because it was something extraordinary; it occurred not because nature demanded food, but out of condescension, for the purpose of proving the resurrection.
And opening to them the mysteries "of the Kingdom of God… He commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem." Why did He command them to do so? Earlier, when they were fearful and trembling, He led them out to Galilee so that they could fearlessly hear what He had to say to them, since they were ready to abandon the work to which they had been called. Now, when they had listened and spent forty days together, "He commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem." Why was this? Because just as no one allows soldiers who must attack a great opposing force to go out against it before they have had time to arm themselves, and just as no one would agree to release horses before the charioteer has mounted, so too the Lord does not permit the apostles to appear at the contest before the descent of the Holy Spirit, lest the vast majority overpower and capture them. Moreover, the Lord does not permit them to depart from Jerusalem not only for this reason, but also because many here too were destined to believe, and thirdly, so that no one might say that, having left their own people, they went off to seek glory among strangers. Therefore they spread the undeniable proofs of the Resurrection among those very people who killed the Lord, who crucified and buried Him, and in that very city where they had the audacity to commit such lawlessness. When did they hear this command? When He said to them: "It is better for you that I go; for if I do not go, the Comforter will not come to you" (John 16:7); and again: "I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Comforter" (John 14:16). But why did the Comforter not come while He was still present, nor immediately after His departure, but eight or nine days later, that is, at the time when the day of Pentecost arrived? Furthermore, how is it that when the Holy Spirit had not yet descended, He said: "Receive the Holy Spirit" (John 20:22)? To this it must be said that He spoke thus in order to arouse in them the desire, readiness, and capacity to receive the Holy Spirit, and they received Him when He descended; or He spoke of what was yet to be as though it already existed and was present, just as when He spoke of the ability to "tread on serpents and scorpions and over all the power of the enemy" (Luke 10:19).
However, it should also be said that the gifts of the Spirit are various and manifold: there is the gift of purification and perfection, the gift of sanctification and sanctifying power, the gift of tongues and prophecy, the gift of miracles and interpretation, and a multitude of other gifts.
So, given the distinction and diversity of the gifts of the Spirit, nothing any longer prevented the apostles from receiving the grace of the Spirit in various ways. But the full communication of the Spirit to them, which made the apostles perfect and capable of perfecting others, was at Pentecost, when He descended upon them in the form of fiery tongues and entirely filled them with His power. The Lord departed, and then the Holy Spirit came, and He came at Pentecost and not immediately, so that they would be filled with longing and only then receive the grace. And if the Holy Spirit had come while the Son was still present, and then the Son had departed while the Spirit remained, there would not have been as much consolation for them, because they were very reluctant to part from their Teacher. Therefore He ascends and the Spirit comes not immediately, so that after some despondency He might awaken in the disciples a desire and awareness of the necessity of the promise given to them, and so that at the time of the descent they would experience pure and complete joy. Moreover, it was fitting that our flesh should first appear in the heavens and that the fullest reconciliation should be accomplished, and only then should the Holy Spirit descend. Know, then, what obligation to remain in Jerusalem the Lord placed upon them through the given promise. So that after the Ascension they would not scatter again, He holds them all there by this expectation, as if by certain bonds, and by the promise of more advantageous hopes disposes them toward a stronger desire for those hopes, even though they were unknown. But no one would err in saying that even then they received a certain power and grace of the Spirit—not such as to raise the dead, but they received the power to forgive sins. Therefore He also added: "Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained" (John 20:23), showing by this what kind of power exactly He was granting them. At that time He clothed them with precisely this power; but after forty days He grants them the power to work miracles; therefore He also says: "ye shall receive power" (Acts 1:8), and so forth.
Acts 1:5. John baptized with water; but you, a few days after this, will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.
Having said that they should wait for the promise of the Father, which they had heard from the Lord, He added: "for John baptized with water," etc., and by this He clearly shows His distinction from John, and no longer as obscurely as before, when He said: "He who is least in the Kingdom of Heaven is greater than he" (Matt. 11:11). Now He speaks clearly: "John baptized with water, but you… will be baptized with the Holy Spirit," and He shows that even they became greater than John, since they too would baptize with the Holy Spirit. He did not say: "I will baptize you with the Holy Spirit," but: "you will be baptized," everywhere leaving us examples of humility; since from John's testimony it is already known that it was the Lord who baptizes: "He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire" (Matt. 3:11). But how is it said "you will be baptized" when there was no water in the upper room? It is said this way because what was properly meant here was baptism by the Spirit, through Whom even the water itself becomes effective, just as it is also said of the Lord Himself that He was anointed, though He was never anointed with oil, but received the Spirit. However, it can be shown that the apostles were baptized not only with the Spirit but also with water, only at different times. Over us both baptisms are performed at the same time, but then they were performed separately, because the apostles were first baptized by John with water, and then with the Holy Spirit. Why then did the Lord not announce when the Holy Spirit would descend, but says only: "after a few days from now"? He says this so that they would not fall into despondency; and He did not say definitely when the Holy Spirit would descend so that, awaiting Him, they would constantly keep watch. And so, what is surprising in the fact that He does not tell them about the end of the world, when, for the reason we have indicated, He did not wish to announce even this near hour? The expression "you will be baptized" signifies the abundance and, as it were, the richness of communion with the Holy Spirit, just as one who is baptized in water, being immersed with the whole body, perceptibly feels this, as it were, whereas one who simply receives water is not entirely sprinkled, not over all parts of the body. And so, in what has now been said there is no contradiction with what is said in the Divine Gospels, for it is clear that although after the resurrection of Christ from the dead the apostles were told: "receive the Holy Spirit," and they did receive Him, yet there it is said precisely that they received the Holy Spirit. Here, however, the expression "you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit" signifies the outpouring and richness of the grace to guide others, which the Lord granted them upon ascending to the Father. Just as, having faith, they come to Him and say: "increase our faith" (Luke 17:5), so here too, to the communion of the Spirit that they already had, they received, upon the descent of the Holy Spirit upon them, the capacity for a more powerful union with Him.
Acts 1:6–8. Therefore they, having come together, were asking Him, saying: Lord, is it at this time that You are restoring the kingdom to Israel? But He said to them: it is not for you to know the times or the seasons which the Father has placed in His own authority. But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you.
Intending to ask, they come to the Teacher together, so as to influence Him by their number; for they knew that His previous answer, namely: "of that day and hour no one knows" (Matt. 24:36), was such an answer not because of ignorance, but because He was avoiding the question. Therefore they ask again. When they heard that they were to receive the Holy Spirit, then they wished to learn about this and to be delivered from afflictions as those now worthy, since they did not want to subject themselves to extreme dangers again. They do not ask "when," but: "is it at this time that You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?" "Is it not now," they say — so strongly did they desire that day. It seems to me, however, that for them it was still unclear what this kingdom was, since the Holy Spirit had not yet come, Who would have instructed them. They do not ask: "when will it come," but: "are You restoring" it Yourself? So highly did they already think of Him. Therefore He also converses with them without insistence, because He no longer says that "of that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son" (Mark 13:32), but rather says: "It is not for you to know the times or the seasons." He did not ascribe the knowledge of the fulfillment of times to the Father because He Himself did not know, but because the question itself was superfluous; and therefore He profitably answered it with silence. His purpose in this was to cut short the excessive curiosity of His disciples, since He was sending them to preach the Kingdom of Heaven, and not to designate the number of times. He does not tell them about this time, though He taught them far greater things — with the purpose that, as we have mentioned more than once, He might compel them to be watchful, and also because, not knowing this, they lost nothing, since He revealed to them truths far higher than this — He revealed that He is the Son of God, that He is equal to the Father, that He rose again, that there will be a resurrection of the dead, that judgment will come, and that He sat down at the right hand of the Father. Tell me then, what is more important — to know that He will reign, or when? Moses learned the beginning of the world and when and over how many ages it was created, and he counts the years, although to know the beginning is generally harder than the end. However, the apostles were not asking the Lord about the final consummation of the ages, "saying: is it at this time that You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?" But He did not reveal even this to them, and as He had answered before, deflecting them from this thought so that they would not think that deliverance from afflictions was near, but would know that they would yet be subjected to many dangers, so He answers now as well, only more gently: "but you shall receive power." Then, so that they would not ask Him again, He immediately ascended. Moreover, so that they would not ask: "Why do You leave us in perplexity regarding this matter?" — the Son says: "which the Father has placed in His own authority." But the authority of the Father is, of course, also the authority of the Son, because "as the Father raises the dead and gives life, so also the Son gives life to whom He will" (John 5:21). If in those cases where something extraordinary and miraculous must be accomplished, the Son acts with the same authority as the Father, then all the more so in cases requiring knowledge, because to raise the dead, and moreover with authority equal to that of the Father, is far more important than to know the day. Why then did Christ not answer what the disciples were asking, but said: "you shall receive power"? In answer to them He said: "it is not for you to know," and only then added: "but you shall receive power." These words explain in a certain way the descent and, so to speak, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.
Here it is necessary to mention the Phrygian heresy, which held that the Spirit the Comforter was sent two hundred years after the ascension of Christ upon women considered to be prophetesses, Priscilla and Maximilla, and upon Montanus, who was infected with the same madness as they; then, they say, the promise was fulfilled: "I will send" the Comforter "unto you" (John 16:7). — But why does He declare to them that which they did not ask about, namely: "you shall receive power"? Because He is the Teacher; and it is the calling of a teacher to teach not what the student wants, but what is profitable to know.
Acts 1:8. And you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and even to the end of the earth.
Since before He had said: "Do not go on the path to the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans" (Matt. 10:5), wishing that the word of God be preached first to the Jews, and now it was to spread throughout the entire world, He fittingly adds "in all Judea and Samaria and even to the end of the earth." The saying "you shall be My witnesses" is both an exhortation and an immutable prophecy, because they bore witness to their preaching to the uttermost ends of the earth.
Acts 1:9–10. Having said these things, He was lifted up before their eyes, and a cloud took Him out of their sight. And while they were gazing into heaven, during His ascension…
He rose in such a way that they did not see it, but His ascension they did see; since even seeing did not resolve everything on this occasion: they saw the end of the resurrection, but did not see its beginning; they saw the beginning of the ascension, but did not see its end. Why? Because there it was unnecessary to see the beginning, since the Risen One Himself was before them and spoke of it, and since the tomb itself showed that He was not in it; but here it was necessary to know the end as well, since the eyes cannot reach the full height and sight could not determine whether He ascended into heaven or, having risen to a certain height, stopped. Therefore the Angels, appearing before them, revealed to them what they could not comprehend by means of sight. And the cloud lifted Him up because it is a symbol of the Lord's and Divine power, since in a cloud one cannot see a symbol of any other power. Therefore David also says of the Father: "You make the clouds Your chariot" (Ps. 104:3), and in another place: "Behold, the Lord rides on a swift cloud" (Isa. 19:1). And many other passages speak of the same thing. However, the Lord did this too not simply and not without purpose, but knowing that if He were to ascend invisibly to them, as He also descended and, even more so, as He came down, then even at the manifestation of the Spirit they would not believe that this was the very same Spirit Whom a few days before He had promised to send; knowing that in such a case He would prepare in them the suspicion that He Himself had not come from heaven either; knowing, finally, that in such a case, if having ascended invisibly He then called Paul from heaven, if He sent from there to Peter a sheet not made by hands (see Acts 10:11), they would not have believed that He was doing this after His departure from them in the flesh — knowing all this, He ascended "while they were looking toward heaven." From the cloud of the Virgin He enters into a cloud, and by means of a cloud ascends to where He was before. The expression "where He was" understand not in the sense of place, and not in the sense that He laid aside the flesh and His incarnate Divinity became as before incorporeal; no, the expression "where He was" — attend to me — points to the height of incorporeality within corporeality, to the greatness of bodilessness within bodiliness, to the self-existing value of His voluntary humiliation in the incarnation of His immutability, to the fact that in visible form He no longer moves about or dwells among people.
Acts 1:10–11. Suddenly two men in white clothing stood before them and said: Men of Galilee! Why do you stand gazing into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same manner as you saw Him ascending into heaven.
They did not say "being lifted up" or "being carried," but "ascending."
If He, before the cross, clothed still in a body subject to suffering and heaviness, walked upon the waters, then no one should doubt that He, after having received an incorruptible body, cleaved through the air.
"He will come," it says, not "He will be sent." "He will come in the same way," that is, with a body. This is what they desired to hear, and also that He will come again in the days of judgment on a cloud (cf. Matt. 24:30). The Evangelist calls the Angels "men," presenting the event in the form in which it appeared to sight, since the Angels had indeed taken on the appearance of men so as not to frighten them. Two men appeared because "by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established" (Matt. 18:16).
Having said, "Why do you stand gazing into heaven?" – they did not allow them to remain any longer in that place and hope to see Him again, but urged them to return at last to Jerusalem for the work of preaching. Angels everywhere serve Him as Lord – both at His birth, and at His resurrection, and at His ascension, and before this, prior to His appearance in the world in the flesh. But the Angels appeared in such a way that people could see them. The expression "in white apparel" indicates either the purity of the Angels, or the illumination that was to be granted to the holy apostles. The expression "they saw Him" must be understood differently. Knowing that men of corrupted mind would appear who would say that He was not from heaven, or did not come from heaven, and did not ascend into heaven, but was transported to some place beyond the bounds of the earth – among whom are also the followers of the sect of Vitalis – knowing this, the Lord ascended before the eyes of the apostles, while they were gazing intently into heaven.
Acts 1:12. Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath day's journey away.
When did "then they returned"? When they heard what was said by the Angels, because they would never have torn themselves away from the place if the Angels had not informed them about the second coming. And it seems to me that this happened on a Sabbath, because Luke would not have indicated the distance in this way: "from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath day's journey away." The length of the journey that Jews were permitted to travel on the Sabbath day was fixed. Josephus in his twentieth book of Antiquities relates that the Mount of Olives was eight stadia from Jerusalem. And Origen in his fifth book says: "The Sabbath journey was three cubits." Indeed, the holy tabernacle with the ark preceded the camp by such a distance and was placed at such a distance from it as worshippers were permitted to travel on the Sabbath. This distance is one mile.
Acts 1:13–14. And when they had come in, they went up into the upper room, where they were staying, both Peter and James, John and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas, the brother of James. All these with one accord continued in prayer and supplication, with certain women and Mary, the Mother of Jesus, and with His brothers.
He prudently enumerates the disciples. Since one of them betrayed, another denied, and a third did not believe, he shows that, apart from the betrayer, all were present. But how does he say, "with Mary the mother of Jesus"? Although the evangelist said that "from that time the disciple… took Her to his own" (Jn. 19:27), this in no way contradicts the foregoing, because if that very disciple was there, then nothing prevented Her from being present as well. Why does he not mention Joseph here? He does not mention him because Joseph had already died, for if the brothers believed and were present — they who had often expressed disbelief before — then all the more would Joseph have proved faithful and would not have wished to withdraw from the company of the apostles, had he still been alive, since he never expressed any doubt.
Acts 1:15–17. And in those days Peter, standing in the midst of the disciples, said — and the gathering was about a hundred and twenty persons — "Men and brethren! It was necessary that the Scripture be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit foretold by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who was the guide of those who seized Jesus; for he was numbered among us and obtained his lot in this ministry."
"In those days," that is, in the days before Pentecost, "Peter, standing in the midst of the disciples, said," as the fervent disciple and the one to whom Christ entrusted His flock, and, finally, as the first. But pay attention: he does everything with the common consent and nothing on his own will and authority. He persuades even on the basis of prophecy and does not say that David said, but: "the Holy Spirit foretold through the mouth of David"; then he adds "concerning Judas, who was the guide of those who seized Jesus." Notice here too the wisdom of this man — notice how in the narrative he does not insult and does not speak of Judas as despised and most despicable, but simply states what happened; and he does not say that the Jews acquired, but: Judas "acquired the field," and rightly so, because the owner in fairness should be considered the one who put up the money, even if others made the purchase. And the payment was his. Listen:
Acts 1:18–19. But he acquired a field with the reward of unrighteousness, and falling headlong, his belly burst open, and all his intestines spilled out. And this became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem.
He speaks of the punishment which Judas suffered in the present life, and not of the future punishment, because the souls of weak people do not pay as much attention to the future as to the present. Observe: he elaborated not on the transgression, but on the punishment for it, because Judas did not die in the noose, but lived on even after, since he was taken down before he strangled to death. Papias, a disciple of John, relates this more clearly in the fourth book of the Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord. He says thus: "Judas presented a great example of impiety in this world, whose body swelled to such a degree that he could not pass where a wagon could drive through, and not only could he himself not pass, but not even his head alone. The lids of his eyes, they say, swelled so much that he could not see the light at all, and his eyes themselves could not be seen even by means of a medical dioptra, so deep were they from the outer surface… After great sufferings and torments he died, they say, on his own estate; and that estate remains deserted and uninhabited even to this day; even to this day no one can pass by that place without holding their nostrils with their hands. Such is the stench that spread from his body even to the ground." This served as a certain consolation for the apostles. But just as the bowels of Judas burst open, so too did the bowels of the heretic Arius.
Acts 1:19–20. So that field in their own dialect was called Akeldama, that is, "field of blood." For it is written in the Book of Psalms: "Let his habitation be desolate, and let no one dwell in it," and: "Let another take his office."
The Jews gave the village the name "Akeldama" on account of what happened with Judas. Peter brings up this fact here, presenting as witnesses the enemies who gave this land such a name. The words "let his habitation be desolate" (see also Ps. 68:26) were said about this land and about the house of Judas, for what could be more desolate than a cemetery, and a public cemetery at that, which is what this land became? And the words: "let another take his office" (see also Ps. 108:8) point to the rank of the priesthood.
Acts 1:21–22. Therefore it is necessary that one of those men who accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day on which He was taken up from us, become together with us a witness of His resurrection.
He presents the matter as shared with the brethren, so that it would not meet with objections and would not give occasion for disputes. Therefore at the beginning of the discourse he also said: "Men and brethren, it is necessary to choose from among you," — entrusting the choice to all, and at the same time granting honor to those chosen, and freeing himself from reproach on the part of anyone whatsoever. And that this is how it had to be, he himself says and brings a prophet as witness. From whom was the choice to be made? "From those who were with us the entire time." He says this because it necessarily had to be so. And he did not say: "from honorable men who are with us," because then it would have seemed that he was insulting the rest. But now the matter was decided by time. "Was together with us a witness of His resurrection," so that the company of disciples would not be diminished in any way. He says: "a witness of the resurrection," and not of anything else, for whoever proves worthy to testify that the Lord, who ate and drank with the disciples, and was crucified, and rose again — to such a person it is all the more possible and necessary to entrust testimony about the other events as well, because what was sought was the resurrection, since it was accomplished in secret, while the rest happened openly.
Acts 1:23–26. And they appointed two: Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed and said: Thou, Lord, who knowest the hearts of all, show which of these two Thou hast chosen to take the lot of this ministry and Apostleship, from which Judas fell away, to go to his own place. And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven Apostles.
"And they appointed two." Why not many? So that no great disorder would arise, and besides, the matter concerned only a few. They cry out in prayer to the Knower of Hearts at the fitting time. They do not go on to say "choose," but "show… the one whom You have chosen," knowing that with God all things are determined before human thought. Everywhere he calls the election "receiving a lot," showing by this that everything occurs according to God's love for mankind and God's choosing, and reminding them of ancient events, because just as the Levites, so also them God chose for Himself by lot.
What kind of men were they? Perhaps they were from the number of the Seventy who had been with the twelve apostles, or from other believers, but more fervently believing and more devout than the rest. Such were both Joseph and Matthias. He calls Joseph both Barsabbas and Justus, perhaps because among them these names referred to one person; but perhaps a new name was also given on account of a change in way of life; finally, the surname was perhaps assigned according to one's occupation. Why does James, who had received the episcopate in Jerusalem, not begin the discourse, but yields the right to address the people to Peter? Because he was filled with humility; at that time they thought nothing of human considerations, but had in view the common benefit. For this very same reason the apostles also yield the seat to him and do not rival him, and do not contend with him.
Why do they prefer election by lot? Because they did not yet consider themselves worthy to learn about this through any sign, and the Holy Spirit had not yet descended upon them; nor was there need for a sign, because the lot held great significance. If already in the case when neither prayer nor the wisdom of men helped to determine the correct judgment regarding Jonah, but on the contrary, the lot meant so much, then all the more so in this case.
"To go to his own place." The place which Matthias was worthy to occupy, Luke calls "his own" or "one's own," because just as Judas, even before he fell from it, from the time he became sick with the disease of love of money and betrayal, was already alienated from this place, so too even before Matthias occupied this place, from the time he made himself worthy of such a gift, it became his own possession. And in another sense: "to his own place": each person by his own deeds prepares for himself either a good or a bad place. So when Luke says this, he says that Judas went "to his own place" — a bad one, which he prepared for himself by the betrayal of Jesus; because places are not good or bad for us by nature, but by our own deeds we prepare a place for ourselves. The word "place" has many meanings. It signifies, among other things, a certain office; thus, we say "the place of a bishop or a presbyter." One can see the same thing also from the opposite perspective, depending on how each person prepares his own place for himself by his own deeds: thus one can hold the place of a false teacher and a false apostle, just as of a tyrant and an author of other criminal deeds.
So, since Judas too, having been carried away by the passion of avarice, took the place of a traitor, it is rightly said of him: "to go to his own place." Having lost through his actions his place in the ranks of the apostles, he prepared for himself "his own place."
1 / 29下一章