Homilies on Acts 3.1–3.2

[Lemma] “Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a sabbath day's journey away.”

“Then,” it says, “they returned.” Then—when? When they had heard. For they would not have borne it otherwise, had he not promised them another coming. It seems to me that these things also happened on a sabbath. For he would not have indicated the distance in this way, saying, “from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a sabbath day's journey away,” unless they were walking a fixed length of road on the sabbath day. “And when they had come in, they went up into the upper room, where they were staying.” So from now on they stayed in Jerusalem after the resurrection. “Both Peter,” it says, “and James and John.” This man is no longer counted with his brother only, but Andrew too is with Peter. “Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon the Zealot, and Judas the son of James.” He did well to mention the disciples. For since one had betrayed, another had denied, another had disbelieved, he shows that, except for that one, all were safe. “All these with one mind were continuing steadfastly in prayer and supplication, with the women.” Rightly so. For this is a great weapon in temptations, and they had been sufficiently trained in it beforehand by the Teacher himself. Besides, the present temptation too led them to it. That is why they go up into the upper room, for they were very much afraid of the Jews. “With the women,” it says; for he had said that they followed him. “And with Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.” How then does it say that the disciple had taken her to his own home at that time? But when Christ had gathered them together again, so she too was with them again from then on. “And with his brothers.” He means those who earlier had disbelieved in him. “And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples and said.” As one who was ardent, as one entrusted by Christ with the flock, and as first of the band, he always begins to speak first (“and there was a crowd of names,” it says, “together, about a hundred [and twenty]”) … “this Scripture, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand.” Why did he not ask Christ to give someone in place of Judas? And why do they not make the choice by themselves? Peter had now become better than he had been. This, then, is what one may say about this. As for their asking, not simply, but by revelation, for the one who was to fill up the band, we shall give two reasons: one, that they were busy with other things; the second, that this was the greatest proof that Christ was present with them. For as he chose when present, so also when absent. And this was no small comfort. See him doing everything with common consent, nothing on his own authority or as a ruler. And he did not simply say, “We enroll this man in place of Judas”; but, comforting them for what had happened, see how he handles the matter. For what had happened had caused no small perplexity; and do not be surprised. For if many now turn this matter over, what were they likely to say then? “Men, brothers,” he says. If the Lord called them brothers, much more this man; that is why he cries this out with all present. See the dignity of the church, a state like that of the angels. No one there was divided, not male, not female. I wish the churches were such now too. No one was thinking about anything worldly, no one was anxious about his household. Such a good are temptations; such a fine thing are afflictions. “The Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand.” He always comforts them from the prophecy. So Christ too does everywhere. In the same way this man too shows that nothing strange has happened, but what had already been foretold. “The Scripture had to be fulfilled,” he says, “which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David.” He does not say, “David said,” but “the Spirit through him.” See what teaching he uses right at the opening of the book. Do you see that it was not idly that I said, at the beginning of the work, that this book is the way of life of the Spirit? “Which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand,” he says, “by the mouth of David.” Consider how he makes the prophet his own and brings him forward, knowing that it helps them that it was said through David and not through another prophet. “Concerning Judas,” he says, “who became a guide.” See here too the man's philosophy. He does not insult or trample on him, saying, “the polluted and utterly polluted man”; he simply makes plain what happened; nor does he say “the traitor,” but presses to transfer the charge to others, as far as in him lay. And he does not attack even those harshly. “Who became a guide,” he says, “to those who arrested Jesus.” And before saying where David spoke, he tells what Judas had suffered, so as to confirm the future from the present and to show that he had already paid the penalty. “For he was numbered among us and obtained the lot of this ministry. Now this man acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness.” He gives the account a moral turn, and unobtrusively reveals the cause, which serves for instruction. For he does not say that the Jews acquired it, but this man. For since the souls of the weak look not so much to the future as to the present, he speaks of the present punishment. “And falling headlong he burst open in the middle.” He rightly lingers not on the sin but on the punishment. “And all his bowels,” it says, “gushed out.” This brought them comfort. “And it became known to all the residents of Jerusalem, so that that field was called in their own language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.”

The Jews, then, called it by this name, not for this reason but because of Judas; but he has turned the name to this very purpose, bringing in the enemies as witnesses. For by saying that they named it, and by adding “in their own language,” this is what he wishes to show. Then after the narrative he fittingly brings in the prophet, saying, “For it is written in the book of Psalms, ‘Let his homestead become desolate, and let there be no one to dwell in it.’” This is about the field and the dwelling. “And let another take his office of oversight”; that is, his office, his priesthood. So this does not depend on my judgment, but on him who foretold these things. For so that he might not seem to be undertaking a great matter, and one such as Christ undertook, he brought in the prophet as witness. “So of the men who have accompanied us all the time,” he says. Why does he share the matter with them? So that it might not become a subject of contention, and they fall into rivalry. For if they themselves had suffered this, much more would those others. And he always avoids this. That is why at the beginning he entrusts the decision to the multitude, both making those chosen worthy of respect and freeing himself from ill will toward the others. For such things always cause great evils. That it must happen, he brings in the prophet as witness; from among whom it must be, he explains himself, saying, “of those who have accompanied us all the time.” For if he had said, “The worthy must be put forward,” he would have insulted the others; but as it is he left the matter to time, saying not simply “who have accompanied,” but “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, one of these must become with us a witness of his resurrection.” For what purpose? So that the band might not be mutilated. What then? Was it not open to Peter to choose himself? Very much so; but so that he might not seem to be showing favor, he does not do it. Besides, he did not yet have the Spirit. “And they put forward two,” it says, “Joseph called Barsabbas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.” He did not put them forward himself; all did. But he introduced the proposal, showing that it too was not his own but from above, according to prophecy; so that he became an interpreter, not a teacher. “Joseph called Barsabbas, who was surnamed Justus.” Perhaps he gave both names because of men of the same name; since among the apostles too there are [James the son of Zebedee] and James the son of Alphaeus, Simon Peter and Simon the Zealot, Judas the son of James and Judas Iscariot. Besides, the name may perhaps have marked a change of life, and perhaps of purpose too. “They put forward,” it says, “Joseph called Barsabbas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed and said, ‘You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen to take the lot of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.’” They rightly state his sin, showing that they are asking for a witness, not adding to the number, but not allowing it to be lessened. “And they gave lots for them” (for the Spirit was not yet given), “and the lot fell on Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.”

“Then,” it says, “they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a sabbath day's journey away.” He says this to show that they were not walking a long road, so that no fear should come upon them, trembling and afraid as they still were. “And when they went up into the upper room.” For they did not dare to appear in the city. And they did well to go up into the upper room, so that they could not easily be seized off guard. “And they were continuing steadfastly,” it says, “with one mind in prayer.” Do you see how watchful they were, continuing steadfastly in prayer, and with one mind, as though of one soul? He bears witness to two things in them. Joseph was perhaps dead. For when the brothers believed, he would not have disbelieved, he who believed before all; at any rate he is nowhere seen simply … as having precedence as a man, as his mother said: “Your father and I have been seeking you in distress.” So he knew him before all. But to the brothers Christ said, “The world cannot hate you, but it hates me.” And see the reasonableness of James. He received the bishopric in Jerusalem, and yet he says nothing at that time. See too the great humility of the other disciples, how they yield him the throne and no longer dispute with one another. For that church was as it were in heaven, having nothing worldly … shining … “There were about a hundred and twenty,” it says: perhaps the seventy whom he himself chose, and others of the more earnest, such as Joseph and Matthias; and there were many women who followed him. They were together everywhere.

[3] This is the forethought of a teacher. He was the first to appoint a teacher. He did not say, “We are enough.” So far was he from all vainglory, and he looked to one thing only. And yet his own standing was not equal to that of all [the others]; but these things rightly happened because of the man's virtue, and because then authority was not an honor but a care for those governed. This made neither those chosen proud, for they were called to dangers, nor those not chosen grieve as though dishonored. But now it is not so, but entirely the opposite. For see: they were a hundred and twenty, and he asks for one from the whole multitude; rightly. He first takes the lead in the matter, since he himself had been entrusted with all. For to him Christ said, “And you, when once you have turned back, …” “He was numbered,” he says, “among us.” That is why it is fitting to put forward another, to become a witness in his place. And see how he imitates the teacher, everywhere reasoning from the Scriptures, and not yet saying anything about Christ, that he himself had often foretold it. And he does not cite the place where his betrayal is recalled, such as, “The mouth of the sinner and the mouth of the deceitful have been opened against me,” but only where his punishment is recalled; for this was what helped them for the time. This above all shows again the loving-kindness of the Master. “For he was numbered,” he says, “among us, and obtained the lot of this ministry.” He everywhere calls it a lot, showing that the whole was of God's grace and election, and reminding them of the old times, that God chose him by lot as he did the Levites. And he dwells on what concerns him: the wages of the betrayal themselves became the herald of his punishment. “For he acquired a field,” he says, “with the reward of his wickedness.” See how what happened was God's dispensation. “Of his wickedness,” he says. Many are the wickednesses, but none more wicked than this was ever done; so that the thing was of wickedness. And what happened became plain not only to those then present but to all who came after, so that they named it unwillingly, not knowing, just as Caiaphas prophesied without knowing. God compelled them thus … the evils that were to come upon the Jews were plain; and he shows for the time the prophecy fulfilled in part, the one that says, “It would have been good for that man if he had not been born.” And the same may fittingly be said of the Jews. For if the one who became a guide [suffered so], much more these. But for the time he says none of this. Then, showing that “Akeldama” might fittingly be said of him, he brings in the prophet saying, “Let his homestead become desolate.” For what is more desolate than to become a tomb? So the field might fittingly be called his. For the one who paid the price, even if others were the buyers, would justly be reckoned the master of a great desolation. This desolation was a prelude to that of the Jews, if one examines it carefully. For they too destroyed themselves by famine and killed many, and the city became a tomb of strangers, of soldiers; for they would not have allowed even these to be buried, nor were they themselves counted worthy of burial.

“So of the men who have accompanied us,” he says. See how he wants them to be eyewitnesses. And yet the Spirit was to come; but even so there was great care about this. “Of the men who have accompanied us,” he says, “all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us.” He shows that they had lived with him, not simply been present as disciples. So many followed him from the beginning then. See, at any rate, how this is shown when it says, “One of the two who heard John and followed Jesus was …” “All the time,” he says, “that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John.” Rightly. For no one knew the things before this by having learned them, but they learned them by the Spirit. “Until the day,” he says, “on which he was taken up from us, one of these must become with us a witness of his resurrection.” He did not say, “a witness of the other things,” but “a witness of the resurrection” alone. For more credible was the man who could say, “He who ate and drank and was crucified, he himself rose.” So there was no need for him to be a witness of the times before this or after it, nor of the signs. For the point in question was this, the resurrection; since those things were plain and acknowledged, but this happened secretly and was plain to these alone. And they do not say, “Angels told us,” but, “We have seen.” How is this clear? From the miracles we work. That is why they especially had to be credible then. “And they put forward two,” it says. Why not many? So that the disappointment might not be greater, and the matter not extend to many. And he does not add Matthias idly, but to show that often the one honored among men is lesser with God. And all pray together, saying, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show.” “You,” they say, “not we.” They fittingly call him the knower of hearts; for the choice had to be made by this, not by outward things. So confident were they that one must certainly be appointed. And they did not say, “Choose,” but, “Show the one chosen”: “whom you have chosen,” knowing that everything had been foreordained by God. “Of these two, one, to take the lot of this ministry and apostleship.” For there was another ministry too. “And they gave lots for them.” For they did not yet think themselves worthy to choose by themselves; that is why they ask to learn by some sign. Besides, if, where there was neither prayer nor men of note, the lot had such force in the case of Jonah, because it was done with a right intent, much more here: it filled up the band and completed the order. And the other was not grieved; for the apostles would not have hidden their own failings, they who did not refrain from saying of the very leaders that they were indignant elsewhere, and not once but twice and often.

Let us too, then, imitate them. My words are no longer to all, but to those who desire office. If you believe that the choice is God's, do not be indignant; for you are indignant at him and provoked against him; he is the one who chose. If he chose, and you dare to be indignant at this, you do the same as Cain. For when he ought to have accepted it, because his brother's sacrifice was preferred he was grieved and indignant, when he ought to have been pricked to the heart. But I do not say this; I say that God knows how to arrange things for our good. For often you are gentler in character, but not suited. Again, you have a blameless life and a generous character, but in the church these alone are not needed. Besides, one man is fit for one thing and another for another. Do you not see how much account the divine Scripture has taken of these things? Shall I tell you why the thing has become fought over? Because we come to it not as to an office and to the care of others, but as to honor and rest. For if you knew that the bishop ought to belong to all, bearing the burdens of all; that others are pardoned when they are angry, but he never; that others have much excuse when they sin, but he none, you would not have hurried to the office, you would not have run after it. For he is exposed to the tongues of all, to the judgments of all, wise and unwise; he is worn down by cares every day and every night; he has many who hate him, many who envy him. Do not speak to me of those who court favor in everything, who want to sleep, who come to the thing as to a rest. My words are not about these, but about those who keep watch over your souls, who put the salvation of those under them before their own. Tell me: if someone who has ten children under his authority, living with him always, is compelled to care for them without ceasing, what ought this man to be, who has so many not under his authority, not living with him, but having their obedience in their own power? “But he is honored,” you say. … [The poor] revile him in the marketplace. “Why then does he not silence them?” Indeed! A fine work for a bishop! Again, if he does not give to everyone, both the idle and the workers, there are countless charges from every side. No one is afraid to accuse and slander; for with magistrates there is fear, but with these none. For the fear of God has no force with them. What can one say of the care about preaching and teaching? Of the difficulty in ordinations? Perhaps I am very weak and wretched and worthless, or the thing really is so. The soul of the priest differs not at all from a ship tossed by the waves: it is buffeted from every side, by friends, by enemies, by its own people, by strangers. Does not the emperor rule the whole world, and this man one city only? But his cares are as much greater as the sea swelling and raging differs from water merely stirred by a river breeze. Why so? Because there many share the burden (for everything is done by law and ordinance); but here there is nothing of the kind, nor can he command by authority. If he is severe, he is called harsh; if not severe, cold. These opposites must come together, so that he is neither despised nor hated. Besides, matters are already taken up beforehand. How many is he compelled to offend, willingly and unwillingly! How many to strike, willingly and unwillingly! I speak no otherwise than as I feel and am disposed: I do not think that there are many among the priests who are saved, but many more who perish; and the reason is that the thing requires a great soul. For it has many necessities that drive one out of one's own character, and it needs countless eyes on every side. Do you not see what the bishop must have? He must be apt to teach, patient under wrong, holding fast to the faithful word that is in accordance with the teaching. How great the difficulty of this! And he bears the blame for the sins of others. I say nothing of the rest: if one person departs uninitiated, has he not overturned his whole salvation? For the loss of one soul brings a damage so great that no word can express it. For if its salvation is worth so much that the Son of God became man and suffered so much, consider what punishment its loss will bring. If the man through whom someone perishes deserves to die in the present life, much more there. Do not tell me, “The presbyter sinned,” or “the deacon”: the blame for all these falls on the head of those who ordained them. Again, let me tell another thing. It happens that someone inherits a clergy of bad men; he is at a loss what to decide about sins committed before. For there are two precipices: he must neither let the man go nor scandalize the others. Must he then cut him off first? But there is no pretext at hand. Then let him be? “Yes,” someone says, “for the blame belongs to the one who ordained him.” What then? Must he not ordain him nor promote him to another rank? But then it will be plain to all that he is a bad man. So again he has scandalized in another way. Then promote him to a higher rank? This is much worse …