Acts 13:25–33

Then John bears witness to this: "When John had first preached before His coming the baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel. And as John fulfilled his course, he said, Whom think ye that I am? I am not He. But, behold, there cometh one after me, whose shoes of His feet I am not worthy to loose." And John too not merely bears witness to the fact, but does it in such sort that when men were bringing the glory to him, he declines it: for it is one thing not to affect an honor which nobody thinks of offering; and another, to reject it when all men are ready to give it, and not only to reject it, but to do so with such humility.

Then he adduces John: then again the prophets, where he says, "By condemning they fulfilled," and again, "All that was written:" then the Apostles as witnesses of the Resurrection: then David bearing witness. For neither the Old Testament proofs seemed so cogent when taken by themselves as they are in this way, nor yet the latter testimonies apart from the former: wherefore he makes them mutually confirm each other.

"Of this man's seed," etc. "When John," he says, "had first preached before His entry" - by entry he means the Incarnation - "the baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel." Thus also John, writing his Gospel, continually has recourse to him: for his name was much thought of in all parts of the world. And observe, he does not say it "Of this man's seed," etc. from himself, but brings John's testimony.

He said: "Whom you think me to be, I am not." In Greek it is more fully said: "I am not the Christ."

John testifies, not simply, but bringing all glory upon him, he himself rejects it. For it is not equal for honor to be repelled from one who gives nothing and from many who grant it. [CHRYSOSTOM]

If the passage about the sandals has a mystic meaning we should not reject an investigation of it. Now I consider that the full humanization, when the Son of God assumes flesh and bones, is seen in one of his shoes. The other humbling is the descent to Hades, whatever that Hades might be, and the journey with the Spirit to the prison. As to the descent into Hades, we read in the sixteenth psalm, "You will not abandon my soul to Hades." As for the journey in prison with the Spirit, we read in Peter in his Catholic epistle, "Put to death," he says, "in the flesh but quickened in the Spirit, in which also he went and preached to the spirits in prison, which at one time were disobedient, when the long-suffering of God once waited in the days of Noah while the ark was in preparation." He, then, who is able worthily to set forth the meaning of these two journeys is able to untie the strap of the sandals of Jesus. Such a one is whoever bends down in his mind and goes with Jesus as he goes down into hades, and whoever descends from heaven and the mysteries of Christ's divinity to the advent that he had to spend with us when he took on humanity (as his sandals). Now he who put on humanity also put on the dead, since "for this end Jesus both died and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and the living." This is why he put on both the living and the dead, that is, the inhabitants of the earth and those of hades, that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. Who, then, is able to stoop down and untie the latchet of such sandals, and having untied them not to let them drop, but by the second faculty he has received to take them up and bear them, by bearing the meaning of them in his memory?

John does not simply testify, but denies the very glory that everyone attributed to him. It is not the same thing to refuse honor when no one offers it, and to do so when everyone bestows it.

"Men, brothers, sons of the lineage of Abraham, and those among you who fear God." In Greek it adds: "Listen."

"Men and brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent. For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew Him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning Him. And though they found no cause of death in Him, yet desired they Pilate that He should be slain."

On all occasions we find them making a great point of showing this, that the blessing is peculiarly theirs, that they may not flee from Christ, as thinking they had nothing to do with Him, because they had crucified Him. "Because they knew Him not," he says: so that the sin was one of ignorance. See how he gently makes an apology even on behalf of those crucifiers. And not only this: but he adds also, that thus it must needs be. And how so? "By condemning Him, they fulfilled the voices of the prophets."

"Men and brethren," etc. For since they were possessed by fear, as having slain Him, and conscience made them aliens, the Apostles discourse not with them as unto Christicides, neither as putting into their hands a good which was not theirs, but one peculiarly their own. "For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers:" as much as to say, not ye, but they: and again, apologizing even for those, "Because they knew Him not, and the voices of the Prophets which are read every sabbath day, in condemning Him, they fulfilled them." A great charge it is against them that they continually hearing heeded not. But no marvel: for what was said above concerning Egypt and the wilderness, was enough to show their ingratitude.

"Men and brethren, children of the stock of Abraham" - he also calls them after their father - "unto you was the word of this salvation sent." Here the expression, "Unto you," does not mean, Unto you Jews, but it gives them a right to sever themselves from those who dared that murder. And what he adds, shows this plainly. "For," he says, "they that dwell at Jerusalem, because they know Him not." And how, you will say, could they be ignorant, with John to tell them? What marvel, seeing they were so, with the prophets continually crying aloud to them? Then follows another charge: "And having found no cause of death in Him:" in which ignorance had nothing to do. For let us put the case, that they did not hold Him to be the Christ: why did they also kill Him? And "they desired of Pilate, he says, that He should be slain."

And the phrase, "to you has been sent this message," shows the Jewish courtesy; and he mentions Pilate, so that they are accused more heavily as having handed him over to a foreigner. And the phrase, "they asked," he says, received favor, as if he were unwilling; which Peter also states more clearly: judging him to be released. [CHRYSOSTOM]

"Men and brethren, children of the stock of Abraham." He points here to the noble origin of the Jews.

"Not having known Him." He somewhat excuses them: they crucified Him, he says, not knowing who He was; because the crime was committed as a result of ignorance.

But since also they frame an account concerning the action of the zodiacal signs, to which they say the creatures that are procreated are assimilated, neither shall we omit this: as, for instance, that one born in Leo will be brave; and that one born in Virgo will have long straight hair, be of a fair complexion, childless, modest. These statements, however, and others similar to them, are rather deserving of laughter than serious consideration. For, according to them, it is possible for no Aethiopian to be born in Virgo; otherwise he would allow that such a one is white, with long straight hair and the rest. But I am rather of opinion, that the ancients imposed the names of received animals upon certain specified stars, for the purpose of knowing them better, not from any similarity of nature; for what have the seven stars, distant one from another, in common with a bear, or the five stars with the head of a dragon?

"Finding no cause of death in Him, they asked Pilate to kill Him." He says that the death penalty was desired by them. He brings Pilate onto the scene so that, on the one hand, the suffering might be made widely known, and on the other, they might subject themselves to a greater accusation as having handed Christ over to a foreign man. And he did not say "demanded," but "asked." They requested, he says, permission for the killing, although Pilate was, as it were, unwilling. Peter speaks more clearly about this: "When he was resolved to let Him go" (Acts 3:13).

"And when they had fulfilled all that was written of Him, they took Him down from the tree, and laid Him in a sepulchre."

"By condemning Him, they fulfilled the voices of the prophets." Then again from the Scriptures. And observe also, as one moved by the Spirit Himself, he continually preaches the Passion, the Burial. "Having taken Him down from the tree." Observe, what a great point they make of this. He speaks of the manner of His death. Moreover they bring Pilate conspicuously forward, that the fact of the Passion may be proved by the mention of the tribunal by which he was condemned, but at the same time, for the greater impeachment of those His crucifiers, seeing they delivered Him up to an alien. And he does not say, They made a complaint against Him, but, "They desired, though having found no cause of death in Him, that He should be slain."

"And when they had fulfilled all that was written of Him." Observe what a point he makes of showing that the whole thing was a Divine Dispensation. See, by saying what did they persuade men? By telling them that He was crucified? Why, what could be less persuasive than this? That He was buried - by them to whom it was promised that He should be salvation? that He who was buried forgives sins, yea, more than the Law has power to do?

Nothing is inappropriate in saying that Jesus was raised by God. For if Jesus is none other than the Word who became flesh, (see Jn. 1:1-14) and this Word is the power of the Father through whom he enacts all things, (see 1 Cor. 8:6) according to "Christ is the power of God," (1 Cor. 1:24) he will be understood to have raised himself, although being said to have been raised by the Father, insofar as the timeless origin and cause are referred to all things. For he himself also says, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." (Jn. 2:19) [SEVERUS THE ARCHBISHOP OF ANTIOCH FROM THE LETTER TO MARON]

Do not be troubled by the fact that Jesus is said to have been raised by God. Indeed, if Jesus is none other than the incarnate Word, he is also the power of the Father through whom everything occurs. This is according to the words, "Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God." He himself will be considered to have raised himself while he is also said to have been raised by the Father to whom all things are referred as the eternal source and cause. Christ himself, in fact, says, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."

So it is clear to them that pay attention that at the raising of the body the Son is said by Paul to have been raised from the dead, for he refers what concerns the body to the Son's person. Similarly when he says "the Father gave life to the Son," it must be understood that the life [the Father gave the Son] was given to the flesh. For if he himself is life, how can the life receive life?

"But God raised Him from the dead." Let it not trouble you that it is said of Jesus that He was raised by God, because if Jesus is none other than the incarnate Word, and the Word, according to the testimony of Scripture, Christ, the Power of God and the Wisdom of God, is the power of the Father by which He accomplishes all things, then it follows that Jesus raised Himself. And if it is said that He was raised by the Father, it is said in the sense that to the Father, as such a principle and such a cause which are outside of time, all things are attributed. And Jesus Himself says: "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up" (John 2:19).

"And He was seen many days of them which came up with Him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are His witnesses unto the people."

"Who appeared," he says, "for many days to them that came up with Him from Galilee to Jerusalem." Instead of which he says, "Who are His witnesses unto the people," to wit, "The men which came up with Him from Galilee to Jerusalem." Then he produces David and Isaiah bearing witness.

"Who are His witnesses," he says, "unto the people" - the people that slew Him. Who would never have been so, were they not strengthened by a Divine Power: for they would never have borne such witness to blood-thirsty men, to the very persons that killed Him.

By comparing what the prophetic Scriptures tell us of Jesus with what his history tells us, we find nothing dissolute about him recorded. For even those who conspired against him and looked for false witnesses to aid them did not find any plausible grounds for advancing a false charge of licentiousness against him. His death was indeed the result of a conspiracy and bore no resemblance to the death of Asclepius by lightning. And what is venerable about the madman Dionysus, clothed in female garments, that he should be worshiped as a god? If those who defend such beings resort to allegorical interpretations, we must examine each individual allegory to ascertain whether it is well founded and whether those beings who were torn down by the Titans and cast from their heavenly throne can have a real existence and deserve respect and worship. But when our Jesus "appeared to the members of his own troop"—for I will take the word that Celsus employs—he really did appear. But Celsus makes a false accusation against the gospel, saying that what appeared was a shadow. Let their histories and that of Jesus be carefully compared. Will Celsus hold that the former are true, but the latter are inventions, even though the histories of Jesus were recorded by eyewitnesses who showed that they clearly understood the nature of what they had seen by their actions and who manifested their state of mind by what they cheerfully underwent for the sake of his gospel? Now who, desiring to act in conformity with right reason, would yield assent at random to what is related in their histories and without examination refuse to believe what is recorded of Jesus? Again, when it is said of Asclepius that a great multitude both of Greeks and Barbarians acknowledge that they have frequently seen and still see no mere phantom but Asclepius himself healing and doing good and foretelling the future, Celsus expects us to believe this; and he finds no fault with believers in Jesus, when they express their belief in such stories. But when we give our assent to the disciples who were eyewitnesses of the miracles of Jesus and who clearly manifested the honesty of their convictions (because we see their guilelessness, as far as it is possible to see the conscience revealed in writing), we are called by him a set of "silly" individuals.

"Who came up with Him from Galilee to Jerusalem, and who are now His witnesses before the people." Which they could in no way have been, if the power of God had not sustained them.

"And we declare to you the promise made to our fathers, that God has fulfilled this to our children." In Greek it reads more consistently: "That God has fulfilled this to their children." It follows:

"And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that He hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second Psalm, Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee."

But, "He hath raised up Jesus again: This day," he says, "I have begotten thee." Aye, upon this the rest follows of course. Why did he not allege some text by which they would be persuaded that forgiveness of sins is by Him? Because the great point with them was to show, in the first place, that He was risen: this being acknowledged, the other was unquestionable.

The reading "In the Second Psalm" is the best attested. If it is correct, we must suppose that what we now call the first psalm was considered introductory and that our second psalm was counted as the first. The expression "this day have I begotten thee" refers evidently to the resurrection of Christ. The resurrection is conceived as the solemn inauguration of Christ into his office as theocratic king represented under the figure of begetting.

Let Celsus, and those who agree with him, tell us whether it is at all like "an ass's shadow" that the Jewish prophets predicted the birth place of him who became the ruler of those who had lived righteous lives and are called the "heritage" of God, that Emmanuel was conceived by a virgin, that such signs and wonders were performed by him who was the subject of prophecy, that his word spread so speedily that the voice of his apostles went forth into all the earth, that he suffered after his condemnation by the Jews, and that he rose again from the dead. For was it by chance that the prophets made these announcements with no conviction of the truth in their minds, moving them not only to speak but to believe their announcements should be committed to writing? And did so great a nation as that of the Jews, who had long ago received a country of their own to dwell in, recognize certain men as prophets and reject others as false prophets, without any conviction of the soundness of the distinction? And was there no motive that induced them to class the words of those persons who were later deemed to be prophets with the books of Moses, which were held as sacred? And can those who charge the Jews and Christians with folly show us how the Jewish nation could have continued to exist had there not been among them a promise of the knowledge of future events? And how, while each of the surrounding nations believed in agreement with their ancient institutions that they received oracles and predictions from those whom they accounted gods, this people alone—who were taught to view with contempt all those who were considered gods by the heathen as not being gods, but demons, according to the declaration of the prophets, "For all the gods of the nations are demons"—had among them no one who professed to be a prophet and who could dissuade those with a desire to know the future from deserting to the demons of other nations? Judge, then, whether it was necessary that the whole nation that had been taught to despise the deities of other lands should have an abundance of prophets, who made known events that were of far greater importance in themselves and that surpassed the oracles of all other countries.

Because God fulfilled this promise to your children by raising Jesus, as it is written in the second psalm: "You are my Son, today I have begotten you." It should not be thought that this example from the psalm pertains to the resurrection of Christ, which he has just mentioned, but to his very incarnation, about which he spoke earlier. For the following verse clearly testifies about the resurrection. Since he was speaking earlier about his incarnation, passion, and resurrection, he wanted to confirm both with testimonies from the psalm. Therefore, he says, "You who are eternal, Son before the ages, now appear born in time." Some codices have: "As it is written in the first psalm," which is thus explained, the first and second psalms being considered as one work, which begins in blessedness and ends in blessedness.

"Raising up Jesus, as it is also written in the second psalm." The holy Father Hilary thus remembers this place: "But what is now in the psalm: 'You are my Son; today I have begotten you' (Psalm II), does not pertain to the birth from the Virgin, nor to the regeneration of the bath, but to the Firstborn from the dead, according to apostolic authority. For in the book of the Acts of the Apostles it is said thus: 'We announce to you the good news of the promise made to our fathers; God has fulfilled this to our children, raising our Lord Jesus Christ, as it is written in the psalm: You are my Son; today I have begotten you, when he raised him from the dead, no longer to return to decay' (Acts XII). Therefore, this voice of God the Father according to the Apostle is heard on the day of resurrection." And shortly after, recalling the opinion of the Apostle, where he says about him: "Who, being in the form of God, did not consider equality with God as something to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant" (Philippians II), and so on: "And in the glory of God the Father, today he is born begotten, that is, in the enduring form of God previously, the assumption of the form of a servant is honored by the reward of death, and a new but not unusual nativity happens under time, since to resume the glory of God the Father, who was found in the form of a servant from the form of God, the firstborn from the dead was born."

Paul when he was discoursing in the synagogue of Antioch in Pisidia spoke thus: And we bring you good tidings of the promise made unto the fathers, how that God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children in that he raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee. Paul here, by Christ's having been begotten, understands his resurrection, and he too has decided that the second psalm has been spoken concerning him, as all the Apostles also have affirmed.

The only one who knows the Father and who is only known by the Father as his Wisdom and Word and as "the Angel of great counsel" according to the prophet, perfectly explains to us the mystery of the incarnation. Since he was Son by nature and by truth and had shone forth from the very essence of God the Father, he was made flesh, that is, man, according to John. He desired to be called the brother of those who are in the world and to be born according to flesh like us. However, he was before time and sat with his parent even though he was made flesh. The Father knew him also as Son and said to him, "You are my Son; today I have begotten you." Observe the explicit confession, nay rather, the proclamation! Indeed, he said, "you are" in order to point out that he existed before time. Actually, he was never in time but was always the same, to be sure, the Son. And he added, "today I have begotten you," in order to indicate his final generation according to the flesh that he voluntarily underwent in the womb of the holy Virgin so that he was also called "begotten of God."

Since the name Jesus is applied to the man and some therefore misunderstand, he anticipated and said that the Word was placed in a tomb, so that no one might suppose the Word to have been spoken of as incorporeal; again he calls him Jesus, giving no separation anywhere to the Word who was made flesh after the union, closing the mouths of the impious everywhere. [CHRYSOSTOM]

"You are my Son." These words from the psalm suitably belong to the incarnation of Christ, which had a temporal arrival. For "Today" and "Tomorrow" are representative of days. But he, as the Word, is begotten of the Father timelessly. [HESYCHIUS OF JERUSALEM]

"Unto us their children, raising up Jesus." The name "Jesus" the brothers of the God-slayers take as the name of a man. Having said above that the Word was laid in the tomb, Paul — lest anyone think that he called the Word incorporeal — again calls Him Jesus and does not allow, for a single moment after the union of the two natures, any division in the incarnate Word. "You are My Son: today I have begotten You." Understand these words in relation to the incarnation of Christ, which took place in time, since the expressions "today and tomorrow" contain within themselves the meaning of days. But from the Father the Son is born, as even the heretics acknowledge, timelessly.