Homilies on Acts

Acts I. 12

“Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath day's journey.”

“Then returned they,” it is said: namely, when they had heard. For they could not have borne it, if the angel had not (ὑ περέθετο) referred them to another Coming. It seems to me, that it was also on a sabbath-day that these things took place; for he would not thus have specified the distance, saying, “from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath day's journey,” unless they were then going on the sabbath-day a certain definite distance. “And when they had come in,” it says, “they went up into an upper room, where they were making their abode:” so they then remained in Jerusalem after the Resurrection: “both Peter, and James, and John:” no longer is only the latter together with his brother mentioned, but together with Peter the two: “and Andrew, and Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, and James (the son) of Alphæus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas, (the brother) of James.” He has done well to mention the disciples: for since one had betrayed Christ, and another had been unbelieving, he thereby shows that, except the first, all of them were preserved.

“These were all continuing with one accord in prayer together with the women.” For this is a powerful weapon in temptations; and to this they had been trained. [“Continuing with one accord.”] Good. (καλὥς). Besides, the present temptation directed them to this: for they exceedingly feared the Jews. “With the women,” it is said: for he had said that they had followed Him: “and with Mary the mother of Jesus.” How then [is it said, that “that disciple”] took her to his own home, at that time? But then the Lord had brought them together again, and so returned. “And with His brethren.” These also were before unbelieving. “And in those days,” it says, “Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said.” Both as being ardent, and as having been put in trust by Christ with the flock, and as having precedence in honor, he always begins the discourse. (“The number of the names together were about an hundred and twenty.) Men and brethren,” he says, “this Scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost spoke before,” [etc.] Why did he not ask Christ to give him some one in the room of Judas? It is better as it is. For in the first place, they were engaged in other things; secondly, of Christ's presence with them, the greatest proof that could be given was this: as He had chosen when He was among them, so did He now being absent. Now this was no small matter for their consolation. But observe how Peter does everything with the common consent; nothing imperiously. And he does not speak thus without a meaning. But observe how he consoles them concerning what had passed. In fact, what had happened had caused them no small consternation. For if there are many now who canvass this circumstance, what may we suppose they had to say then?

“Men and brethren,” says Peter. For if the Lord called them brethren, much more may he. [“Men,” he says]: they all being present. See the dignity of the Church, the angelic condition! No distinction there, “neither male nor female.” I would that the Churches were such now! None there had his mind full of some worldly matter, none was anxiously thinking about household concerns. Such a benefit are temptations, such the advantage of afflictions!

“This Scripture,” says he, “must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost spoke before.” Always he comforts them by the prophecies. So does Christ on all occasions. In the very same way, he shows here that no strange thing had happened, but what had already been foretold. “This Scripture must needs have been fulfilled,” he says, “which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spoke before.” He does not say, David, but the Spirit through him. See what kind of doctrine the writer has at the very outset of the book. Do you see, that it was not for nothing that I said in the beginning of this work, that this book is the Polity of the Holy Spirit? “Which the Holy Ghost spoke before by the mouth of David.” Observe how he appropriates (οἰκειοὕται) him; and that it is an advantage to them, that this was spoken by David, and not by some other Prophet. “Concerning Judas,” he says, “which was guide.” Here again mark the philosophical temper of the man: how he does not mention him with scorn, nor say, “that wretch,” “that miscreant:” but simply states the fact; and does not even say, “who betrayed Him,” but does what he can to transfer the guilt to others: nor does he animadvert severely even on these: “Which was guide,” he says, “to them that took Jesus.” Furthermore, before he declares where David had spoken, he relates what had been the case with Judas, that from the things present he may fetch assurance of the things future, and show that this man had already received his due. “For he was numbered,” says he, “with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. Now this man acquired a field out of the reward of iniquity.” (v. 17-18.) He gives his discourse a moral turn, and covertly mentions the cause of the wickedness, because it carried reproof with it. And he does not say, The Jews, but, “this man, acquired” it. For since the minds of weak persons do not attend to things future, as they do to things present, he discourses of the immediate punishment inflicted. “And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst.” He does well to dilate not upon the sin, but upon the punishment. “And,” he says, “all his bowels gushed out.” This brought them consolation. “And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue Aceldama, that is to say, the field of blood.”. Now the Jews gave it this name, not on this account, but because of Judas; here, however, Peter makes it to have this reference, and when he brings forward the adversaries as witnesses, both by the fact that they named it, and by saying, “in their proper tongue,” this is what he means.