Acts 1:1–8

This statement teaches us that, previous to this, Luke had written one of those four books of the gospel which are held in the loftiest authority in the church. At the same time, when he tells us that he had composed a treatise of all that Jesus began both to do and teach until the day in which he commissioned the apostles, we are not to take this to mean that he actually has given us a full account in his Gospel of all that Jesus did and said when he lived with his apostles on earth. For that would be contrary to what John affirms when he says that there are also many other things which Jesus did, and if they should all be written down, the world itself could not contain the books. And besides, all agree that many things are narrated by the other Evangelists, which Luke himself does not mention in his history. The sense, therefore, is that he wrote a treatise of all these things to the extent that he made a selection out of the whole mass of materials for his narrative and introduced those facts which he judged fit and suitable to fulfill the duty laid upon him.

The first treatise I have made, O Theophilus, concerning all that Jesus began to do and teach. He says that he wrote in the Gospel about all the acts and words of Christ, not that he could encompass all, lest he be opposed to John, who says: Indeed Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book (John 20), but that he chose from all to make a treatise on those he judged suitable and congruent to suffice for his dispensation. Theophilus is interpreted as lover of God, or loved by God. Whoever, therefore, is a lover of God, let him believe that it is written for him, and find salvation here for his soul since Luke the physician wrote it. And it is to be noted that he says: What Jesus began to do and teach. To do first, and afterwards to teach. For Jesus, establishing a good teacher, taught nothing except what he did.

I indeed made the first account, O Theophilus, concerning all that Jesus began to do and teach. What he says: Indeed the first, is not an adverb of order, according to the Apostle: First, I thank my God (Romans 1), but as it is easily evident from the Greek, first is a noun to be joined to what follows the discourse, so that the meaning is that he made the first discourse about Jesus by writing the Gospel, now he is about to make the second by adding the Acts of the Apostles. And indeed he fulfills the mention of the first discourse, when he adds: Until the day He was taken up, having given commands through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom He had chosen, and then he made the beginning of the second discourse, when he follows: To whom he also presented himself alive after his passion by many proofs over the course of forty days, etc. For even if he testified in the Gospel that He ascended into heaven, and that the disciples returned to Jerusalem from Bethany, he did not however say there that over forty days after his passion he appeared to them frequently, that they questioned him about restoring the kingdom to Israel, that angels stood by them when he sought heaven, predicting that he would return in like manner, and other such things.

The Scriptures in the New Testament are either legal as in the Gospels where commands are established, or historical as in the Acts of the Apostles, or sapiential as in the Epistles of Paul to which should be added the Canonical Letters, or prophetical as in the Apocalypse. Although the Epistles are placed after the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles follow the Gospels immediately. "In the former book, O Theophilus, I spoke of all that Jesus did and taught."

"The former treatise I made, O Theophilus, of all things which Jesus began to do and to teach," etc. Having completed the treatise of the Gospel, which Luke says he did after the Lord's Resurrection, he declares, writing to Theophilus, that he has also collected the Acts of the Apostles, so that the undoubted perfection of the Christian faith may be made apparent by the most reliable witness accounts. Luke starts by saying that Jesus Christ, when he was about to ascend to the Father, commanded his disciples that they should not depart from Jerusalem, so that, although they had been baptized, they should be filled with the fullness of the Holy Ghost.

that Jesus began to do and to teach: He has shown the pattern of the good teacher, who does what He teaches.

Demetrius expelled Origen from the city of Alexander; but he is now thanks to Theophilus outlawed from the whole world. Like him to whom Luke has dedicated the Acts of the Apostles [Acts 1:1] this bishop derives his name from his love to God.

For teaching is put to the blush when a person's conscience rebukes him; and it is in vain that his tongue preaches poverty or teaches almsgiving if he is rolling in the riches of Croesus and if, in spite of his threadbare cloak, he has silken robes at home to save from the moth.

Do not presume to teach any one in words what you have not already performed in deed. For our Lord taught us by His own example that we ought to keep to this order, as of Him it is said: "what Jesus began to do and to teach." Take care then that you do not rush into teaching before doing, and so be reckoned among the number of those of whom the Lord speaks in the gospel to the disciples: "What they say unto you, that observe and do, but not after their words: for they say and do not. But they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers." For if he who shall "break one of these commands, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven," it follows that one who has dared to despise many and greater commands and to teach men so, shall certainly be considered not least in the kingdom of heaven, but greatest in the punishment of hell.

"The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and to teach." Why does he put him in mind of the Gospel? To intimate how strictly he may be depended upon. For at the outset of the former work he says, "It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order." Neither is he content with his own testimony but refers the whole matter to the Apostles, saying, "Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word." Having then accredited his account in the former instance, he has no need to put forth his credentials afresh for this treatise, seeing his disciple has been once for all satisfied, and by the mention of that former work he has reminded him of the strict reliance to be placed in him for the truth. For if a person has shown himself competent and trustworthy to write of things which he has heard, and moreover has obtained our confidence, much more will he have a right to our confidence when he has composed an account, not of things which he has received from others, but of things which he has seen and heard. For thou didst receive what relates to Christ; much more wilt thou receive what concerns the Apostles.

Now mark how unassuming he is. He does not say, The former Gospel which I preached, but, "The former treatise have I made;" accounting the title of Gospel to be too great for him; although it is on the score of this that the Apostle dignifies him: "Whose praise," he says, "is in the Gospel." But he himself modestly says, "The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and to teach:" not simply "of all," but from the beginning to the end; "until the day," he says, "in which He was taken up." And yet John says, that it was not possible to write all: for "were they written, I suppose," says he, "that even the world itself could not contain the books written." How then does the Evangelist here say, "Of all?" He does not say "all," but "of all," as much as to say, "in a summary way, and in the gross;" and "of all that is mainly and pressingly important." Then he tells us in what sense he says all, when he adds, "Which Jesus began both to do and to teach;" meaning His miracles and teaching; and not only so, but implying that His doing was also a teaching.

But now consider the benevolent and Apostolic feelings of the writer: that for the sake of a single individual he took such pains as to write for him an entire Gospel. "That thou mightest have," he says, "the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed." In truth, he had heard Christ say, "It is not the will of My Father that one of these little ones should perish." And why did he not make one book of it, to send to one man Theophilus, but has divided it into two subjects? For clearness, and to give the brother a pause for rest. Besides, the two treatises are distinct in their subject-matter.

But consider how Christ accredited his words by His deeds. Thus He saith, "Learn of Me, for I am meek and lowly in heart." He taught men to be poor, and exhibited this by His actions: "For the Son of Man," He says, "hath not where to lay His head." Again, He charged men to love their enemies; and He taught the same lesson on the Cross, when He prayed for those who were crucifying Him. He said, "If any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also:" now He not only gave His garments, but even His blood. In this way He bade others teach. Wherefore Paul also said, "So as ye have us for an example." For nothing is more frigid than a teacher who shows his philosophy only in words: this is to act the part not of a teacher, but of a hypocrite. Therefore the Apostles first taught by their conduct, and then by their words; nay rather they had no need of words, when their deeds spoke so loud. Nor is it wrong to speak of Christ's Passion as action, for in suffering all He performed that great and wonderful act, by which He destroyed death, and effected all else that He did for us.

This Theophilus was a governor. Do not be amazed if, for the sake of one man, Luke took such great care as to write two entire treatises; for he was also a guardian of the Master's voice who said: It is not the will of my Father that one of these little ones should perish. (Matt. 18:14)

He says that he who suffered also performed miracles. Or that he encouraged through what he was doing.

He spoke first of the word, not the Gospel, although Paul calls his own the gospel when he says: According to my gospel (2 Tim. 2:8); for the splendid flee everywhere; just as Matthew also, saying Book, of the genealogy (Matt. 1:1). But if Mark says, "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ," (Mark 1:1) but does not call his own writing a gospel, rather the proclamation of Christ; For the beginning of the preaching of Christ is the development from the baptism of John. But the beginning of the revelation of the mystery according to Christ and His incarnation is the birth from the Virgin, and all that follows. Matthew was the first to make use of the family records, and Luke himself also, which the faithful afterward rightly called Gospels, as the true gospel, that is, containing the teaching of Christ. As for having made a record of all, it seems to contradict the evangelist John, if he says that it is not possible to write everything; for the world could not contain the books that would be written (Jn. 21:25). Luke says that the account concerning all things was made from the beginning until the ascension. What then do we say? That concerning all these things he says nothing is left out, none of those things that make up the divine nature and truth of the proclamation. For John himself also dealt with all these things. For he omitted nothing of those things by which both the economy of the Word according to the flesh is believed and recognized, and the majesty according to his divinity shines forth and is revealed.

Immediately, therefore, so did the apostles, whom this designation indicates as "the sent." Having, on the authority of a prophecy, which occurs in a psalm of David, chosen Matthias by lot as the twelfth, into the place of Judas, they obtained the promised power of the Holy Ghost for the gift of miracles and of utterance; and after first bearing witness to the faith in Jesus Christ throughout Judµa, and rounding churches (there), they next went forth into the world and preached the same doctrine of the same faith to the nations.

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. 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.

Until the day on which he was taken up, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen. By hyperbaton it is to be read until the day on which he was taken up, commanding before the assumption, that is, giving precepts to the apostles which are read either here or in the Gospels. The sense therefore is: I wrote about Jesus from the time he began to perform signs and teach until the day on which, having completed these things, he returned to where he had come from.

The main order: He commanded the apostles to first teach all nations, then to immerse them in the sacrament of faith, and after faith and baptism, to command what should be observed. And lest we think that what has been commanded is light and few, he added: All things whatsoever I have commanded you. So that whoever believes, who has been baptized in the Trinity, may do all the things that are commanded.

"Until the day in which He was taken up, after that He, through the Holy Spirit, had given commandments unto the Apostles whom He had chosen. After He had given commandments through the Spirit;" i.e. they were spiritual words that He spake unto them, nothing human; either this is the meaning, or, that it was by the Spirit that He gave them commandments. Do you observe in what low terms he still speaks of Christ, as in fact Christ had spoken of Himself? "But if I by the Spirit of God cast out devils;" for indeed the Holy Ghost wrought in that Temple. Well, what did He command? "Go ye therefore," He says, "make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." A high encomium this for the Apostles; to have such a charge entrusted to them, I mean, the salvation of the world! words full of the Spirit! And this the writer hints at in the expression, "through the Holy Ghost" (and, "the words which I spake unto you," saith the Lord, "are Spirit") thus leading the hearer on to a desire of learning what the commands were, and establishing the authority of the Apostles, seeing it is the words of the Spirit they are about to speak, and the commandments of Christ. "After He had given commandments," he says, "He was taken up." He does not say, "ascended;" he still speaks as concerning a man. It appears then that He also taught the Disciples after His resurrection, but of this space of time no one has related to us the whole in detail. St. John indeed, as also does the present writer, dwells at greater length on this subject than the others; but none has clearly related every thing (for they hastened to something else); however, we have learnt these things through the Apostles, for what they heard, that did they tell.

The following: Until the day he was taken up; the rest are inserted by way of parenthesis. As for, Having commanded the apostles through the Holy Spirit, either because the commands are spiritual, showing nothing worldly; or, so that the Spirit also may show itself as inherent to itself, that nothing performed by God lacks the sanctifying essence. But what are the commands? Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. (Matt. 28:19) He was taken up, it is said, no, He ascended; for still he speaks of him as of a man.

"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." 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.

Now, by manifest miracles during forty days in their sight, the Lord confirmed the faith of those whom he bade to be his witnesses to the ends of the earth in its wide boundary. The wonders of creation could not conceal God. What proof [of his real humanity] could the Risen One give so surely as the fact of eating? Human bodies show that they live by this means. About to go to heaven, he went forth to walk round the grove of olive because by its sacred bud it is a place of light and peace. He wished to return [to heaven] from that place, from which the divine fragrance makes agreeable a gleaming person with signed forehead. Since chrism, from the name of Christ, cleanses inwardly those anointed from above, he who will return as victor was raised to the starry firmament and had with him what he had taken on.

Appearing to them during forty days and speaking of the kingdom of God, and eating with them, etc. To strengthen the faith in his resurrection, the Lord often appeared alive to the apostles after his passion, took food, and displayed the same flesh which he had raised from the dead to be touched. But in a higher mystery, by this forty-day conversation with the disciples, he signifies that he would fulfill in secret presence what he had promised. Behold I am with you all days until the end of the world (Matthew 28). For this number designates this temporal and earthly life either because of the four seasons of the year or because of the four winds of heaven. For after we have been buried with Christ through baptism into death, as if having crossed the path of the Red Sea, we have need of the Lord's guidance in this wilderness, who will lead us to heavenly things, and rewarding us with the denarius of his image, will bless us with the presence of the Holy Spirit as with the true rest of jubilee.

In order to raise us to hope, he ascended to the heavenly glory which we hope for. But because hope does not arise except from faith in future immortality, therefore he did not ascend immediately, but with an interval of forty days interposed, in which through many signs and proofs he established the true resurrection, by which the mind might be strengthened in faith and lifted up to hope for heavenly glory.

And this is the reasoning Christ used, during forty days appearing to them. "Did not the Christ have to suffer these things before entering into His glory?" Concerning this central position, John writes: "When it was late, Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them, 'Peace be to you!'" He is showing two things here, the loftiness of the state of glory, in that, being impassible and immortal, He entered as God while the doors were closed; later, He showed them His hands and side and forced Thomas to confess: "My Lord and my God!"

"To whom also He shewed Himself alive." Having first spoken of the Ascension, he adverts to the Resurrection; for since thou hast been told that "He was taken up," therefore, lest thou shouldest suppose Him to have been taken up by others, he adds, "To whom He shewed Himself alive." For if He shewed Himself in the greater, surely He did in the minor circumstance. Seest thou, how casually and unperceived he drops by the way the seeds of these great doctrines?

"Being seen of them during forty days." He was not always with them now, as He was before the Resurrection. For the writer does not say "forty days," but, "during forty days." He came, and again disappeared; by this leading them on to higher conceptions, and no longer permitting them to stand affected towards Him in the same way as before, but taking effectual measures to secure both these objects, that the fact of His Resurrection should be believed, and that He Himself should be ever after apprehended to be greater than man. At the same time, these were two opposite things; for in order to the belief in His Resurrection, much was to be done of a human character, and for the other object, just the reverse. Nevertheless, both results have been effected, each when the fitting time arrived.

But why did He appear not to all, but to the Apostles only? Because to the many it would have seemed a mere apparition, inasmuch as they understood not the secret of the mystery. For if the disciples themselves were at first incredulous and were troubled, and needed the evidence of actual touch with the hand, and of His eating with them, how would it have fared in all likelihood with the multitude? For this reason therefore by the miracles wrought by the Apostles He renders the evidence of His Resurrection unequivocal, so that not only the men of those times - this is what would come of the ocular proof - but also all men thereafter, should be certain of the fact, that He was risen.

For this He then remained forty days on earth, furnishing in this length of time the sure evidence of their seeing Him in His own proper Person, that they might not suppose that what they saw was a phantom. And not content with this, He added also the evidence of eating with them at their board: as to signify this, the writer adds, "And being at table with them, He commanded." And this circumstance the Apostles themselves always put forth as an infallible token of the Resurrection; as where they say, "Who did eat and drink with Him."

And what did He, when appearing unto them those forty days? Why, He conversed with them, says the writer, "concerning the kingdom of God." For, since the disciples both had been distressed and troubled at the things which already had taken place, and were about to go forth to encounter great difficulties, He recovered them by His discourses concerning the future.

Jesus was taken up, so that no one would think that this happened by the power of another, and he immediately brought also the authority from his own power; to whom he also presented himself alive. Showing that same one as both having suffered and having risen, he convinced with the word, after suffering.

He said it was forty days, not in consecutive days; for he did not spend time with them continuously, as before the passion, but intermittently, at once preparing for them a more longing appearance of himself, and at the same time revealing a more exalted and divine appearance of himself.

For whose sake did he not appear to all, but only to the apostles? Because it would have seemed like a ghost [φάντασμα] to the many, who did not know the secret of the mystery. For even if the disciples themselves did not believe at first and were disturbed, what was likely to happen to the many? Therefore, through the signs which the apostles received the grace to perform, he gives an unquestionable demonstration of the resurrection, and one exposed to all: so much so that the resurrection would be revealed not only to those who were then present by his very appearance, but also to all later generations. [CHRYSOSTOM]

From this we learn that even after the resurrection Jesus was teaching the disciples.

After these points, Celsus proceeds to bring against the Gospel narrative a charge which is not to be lightly passed over, saying that "if Jesus desired to show that his power was really divine, he ought to have appeared to those who had ill-treated him, and to him who had condemned him, and to all men universally." For it appears to us also to be true, according to the Gospel account, that He was not seen after His resurrection in the same manner as He used formerly to show Himself — publicly, and to all men. But it is recorded in the Acts, that "being seen during forty days," He expounded to His disciples "the things pertaining to the kingdom of God." [Acts 1:3] And in the Gospels it is not stated that He was always with them; but that on one occasion He appeared in their midst, after eight days, when the doors were shut [John 20:26], and on another in some similar fashion. And Paul also, in the concluding portions of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, in reference to His not having publicly appeared as He did in the period before He suffered, writes as follows: "For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; and that He was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: after that He was seen of above five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain unto the present time, but some are fallen asleep. After that He was seen of James, then of all the apostles. And last of all He was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time." [1 Corinthians 15:3-8] I am of opinion now that the statements in this passage contain some great and wonderful mysteries, which are beyond the grasp not merely of the great multitude of ordinary believers, but even of those who are far advanced (in Christian knowledge), and that in them the reason would be explained why He did not show Himself, after His resurrection from the dead, in the same manner as before that event.

After that, Pentecost is a most joyous space for conferring baptisms; wherein, too, the resurrection of the Lord was repeatedly proved among the disciples, and the hope of the advent of the Lord indirectly pointed to, in that, at that time, when He had been received back into the heavens, the angels told the apostles that "He would so come, as He had withal ascended into the heavens; " at Pentecost, of course.

The Passover affords a more than usually solemn day for baptism; when, withal, the Lord's passion, in which we are baptized, was completed. Nor will it be incongruous to interpret figuratively the fact that, when the Lord was about to celebrate the last Passover, He said to the disciples who were sent to make preparation, "You will meet a man bearing water." He points out the place for celebrating the Passover by the sign of water. After that, Pentecost is a most joyous space for conferring baptisms; wherein, too, the resurrection of the Lord was repeatedly proved among the disciples [Acts 1:3], and the hope of the advent of the Lord indirectly pointed to, in that, at that time, when He had been received back into the heavens [Acts 1:9], the angels told the apostles that "He would so come, as He had withal ascended into the heavens;" [Acts 1:11] at Pentecost, of course. But, moreover, when Jeremiah says, "And I will gather them together from the extremities of the land in the feast-day," he signifies the day of the Passover and of Pentecost, which is properly a "feast-day." However, every day is the Lord's; every hour, every time, is apt for baptism: if there is a difference in the solemnity, distinction there is none in the grace.

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. 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.

But neither is the Father deceived nor does the Son deceive. It is the custom of the holy Scriptures to speak thus, as the examples I have already given, and many others testify, so that God feigns not to know what he does know. In this then a unity of Godhead and a unity of character is proved to exist in the Father and in the Son; seeing that, as God the Father hides what is known to him, so also the Son, who is the image of God in this respect, hides what is known to him.

That is to say, the knowledge of such a kingdom is not for them that are bound in flesh and blood. This contemplation the Father has put away in his own power, meaning by "power" those that are authorized, and by "his own" those who are not held down by the ignorance of things below.

Therefore, those who had come together asked Him, saying: Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel? Since He appeared to them speaking of the kingdom of God, He also promised the coming of the Holy Spirit not many days later, they accordingly inquire about the same kingdom, whether they should believe that it would be restored in the present with the imminent coming of the Holy Spirit, or reserved for the saints in the future. For the disciples, still carnal, after the resurrection of Christ, believed that the kingdom of Israel would come immediately. As Cleopas said: But we were hoping that it was He who was going to redeem Israel. And the evangelist had stated beforehand that as the Lord was coming to Jerusalem, they thought that the kingdom of God would immediately appear. But the prophecy was to be fulfilled, which says, singing to the Father: But you have rejected, despised, and delayed your Christ (Psalm LXXXVIII). For the Father rejected and despised the Son when He deserted Him in His passion, saying: My God, my God, why have you forsaken me (Matthew XXVII)? He delayed, however, that those whom the saints thought would reign at that time, they might expect Him to come in His majesty on the day of judgment. Therefore, the Lord Himself, hinting that the spiritual Israel and the heavenly kingdom were promised by the prophets, said:

Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel? Not to this Israel, but to this Israel; and as it is manifest in Greek, where τῷ Israel, and not οῦ Israel, is written. Which would be understood more easily if, by adding one word, it were said: Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to the people of Israel.

"They therefore who were come together, asked him," etc. He says that the Lord Christ was asked by them who were come together if the restoration of the Israelite kingdom, which he promised was to come, would take place at that time. It is evident that an indication of the precise time was withheld for our greater benefit; but, instead, he foretold them that on the fiftieth day they would receive the power of the Holy Ghost, so that they might bear witness throughout the earth to the wonderful works of perfect faith.

People did not realize what they should not know, and the Son of God was not in any sense unaware of this through weakness of the flesh. But if we were to suspect that the divine Majesty cloaked ignorance (a thing it would be irreverent to say), then that ignorance would be found stronger than the divine nature, and could—to speak foolishness—bring down the providence by which all things were created. But since we are taught that this is quite ridiculous, we must believe that the whole Trinity, whose nature is one and all-powerful, has always an unfailing knowledge of all things.

"It is not for you to know times or seasons." He has hidden that from us so that we might keep watch and that each of us might think that this coming would take place during our life. For, if the time of his coming were to be revealed, his coming would be in vain, and it would not have been desired by the nations and the ages in which it was to take place. He has indeed said that he will come, but he did not define when, and thus all generations and ages thirst for him.

For they longed for it now, they wished it now; that is, they wished to seize Him, and to make Him king. But the prophets foretold His kingdom according to that wherein He is Christ made man, and has made His faithful ones Christians. There will consequently be a kingdom of Christians, which at present is being gathered together, being prepared and purchased by the blood of Christ. His kingdom will at length be made manifest, when the glory of His saints shall be revealed, after the judgment is executed by Him, which judgment He Himself has said above is that which the Son of man shall execute. Of which kingdom also the apostle has said: "When He shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father.(1 Cor 15:24)"

The Son is ignorant, then, of nothing which the Father knows, nor does it follow because the Father alone knows, that the Son does not know. Father and Son abide in unity of nature, and the ignorance of the Son belongs to the divine Plan of silence seeing that in Him are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. This the Lord Himself testified, when He answered the question of the Apostles concerning the times, It is not yours to know times or moments, which the Father hath set within His own authority. The knowledge is denied them, and not only that, but the anxiety to learn is forbidden, because it is not theirs to know these times. Yet now that He is risen, they ask again, though their question on the former occasion had been met with the reply, that not even the Son knew. They cannot possibly have understood literally that the Son did not know, for they ask Him again as though He did know. They perceived in the mystery of His ignorance a divine Plan of silence, and now, after His resurrection, they renew the question, thinking that the time has come to speak. And the Son no longer denies that He knows, but tells them that it is not theirs to know, because the Father has set it within His own authority. If then, the Apostles attributed it to the divine Plan, and not to weakness, that the Son did not know the day, shall we say that the Son knew not the day for the simple reason that He was not God? Remember, God the Father set the day within His authority, that it might not come to the knowledge of man, and the Son, when asked before, replied that He did not know, but now, no longer denying His knowledge, replies that it is theirs not to know, for the Father has set the times not in His own knowledge, but in His own authority. The day and the moment are included in the word `times': can it be, then, that He, Who was to restore Israel to its kingdom, did not Himself know the day and the moment of that restoration? He instructs us to see an evidence of His birth in this exclusive prerogative of the Father, yet He does not deny that He knows: and while He proclaims that the possession of this knowledge is withheld from ourselves, He asserts that it belongs to the mystery of the Father's authority.

When the disciples intend to ask anything, they approach Him together, that by dint of numbers they may abash Him into compliance. They well knew that in what He had said previously, "Of that day knoweth no man" (Matt. xxiv. 36), He had merely declined telling them: therefore they again drew near, and put the question. They would not have put it had they been truly satisfied with that answer. For having heard that they were about to receive the Holy Ghost, they, as being now worthy of instruction, desired to learn. Also they were quite ready for freedom: for they had no mind to address themselves to danger; what they wished was to breathe freely again; for they were no light matters that had happened to them, but the utmost peril had impended over them. And without saying anything to Him of the Holy Ghost, they put this question: "Lord, wilt Thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" They did not ask, when? but whether "at this time." So eager were they for that day. Indeed, to me it appears that they had not any clear notion of the nature of that kingdom; for the Spirit had not yet instructed them. And they do not say, When shall these things be? but they approach Him with greater honour, saying, "Wilt Thou at this time restore again the kingdom," as being now already fallen. For there they were still affected towards sensible objects, seeing they were not yet become better than those who were before them; here they have henceforth high conceptions concerning Christ.

For now indeed He hath mentioned infallible signs, many and endless; but then He saith merely, "It is not for you to know times or seasons." And then that they might not say, we are driven to perplexity, we are utterly scorned, we are not held worthy so much as of this, He says, "which the Father hath put in His own power." And this, because He was exceedingly careful to honor them, and to conceal nothing from them. Therefore He refers it to His Father, both to make the thing awful, and to exclude that of which He had spoken from their inquiry. Since if it be not this, but He is ignorant of it, when will He know it? Will it be together with us? But who would say this? And the Father He knoweth clearly, even as clearly as He knoweth the Son; and of the day is He ignorant? Moreover, "the Spirit indeed searcheth even the deep things of God," and doth not He know so much as the time of the judgment? But how He ought to judge He knoweth, and of the secrets of each He hath a full perception; and what is far more common than that, of this could He be ignorant? And how, if "all things were made by Him, and without Him was not even one thing made," was He ignorant of the day? For He who made the worlds, it is quite plain that He made the times also; and if the times, even that day. How then is He ignorant of that which He made?

"Wilt Thou at this time," say they, "restore the kingdom to Israel?" They so well knew his mildness, that after His Passion also they ask Him, "Wilt thou restore?" And yet He had before said to them, "Ye shall hear of wars and rumors of wars, but the end is not yet," nor shall Jerusalem be taken. But now they ask Him about the kingdom, not about the end. And besides, He does not speak at great length with them after the Resurrection. They address then this question, as thinking that they themselves would be in high honor, if this should come to pass. But He (for as touching this restoration, that it was not to be, He did not openly declare; for what needed they to learn this? hence they do not again ask, "What is the sign of Thy coming, and of the end of the world?" for they are afraid to say that: but, "Wilt Thou restore the kingdom to Israel?" for they thought there was such a kingdom), but He, I say, both in parables had shown that the time was not near, and here where they asked, and He answered thereto.

But just as when we see a child crying, and pertinaciously wishing to get something from us that is not expedient for him, we hide the thing, and show him our empty hands, and say, "See, we have it not:" the like has Christ here done with the Apostles. The disciples asked to have something, and He said He had it not. And on the first occasion he frightened them. Then again they asked to have it now: He said He had it not; and He did not frighten them now, but after having shown the empty hands, He has done this, and gives them a plausible reason: "Which the Father," He says, "hath put in his own power." What? Thou not know the things of the Father! Thou knowest Him, and not what belongs to Him! And yet Thou hast said, "None knoweth the Father but the Son" (Luke x. 25); and, "The Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God" (1 Cor. ii. 10); and Thou not know this! But they feared to ask Him again, lest they should hear Him say, "Are ye also without understanding?" (Matt. xv. 26.) For they feared Him now much more than before.

Look here. Since before the passion they asked about the end of the world, they no longer ask about this, but about the earthly kingdom; for they were still less complete. And having come together, they asked, so that they might confuse the crowd. But having heard before the passion that no one knows the day (Matt. 24:36), yet even now they ask again. For when they heard that they were about to receive the Spirit, as worthy ones, they wished to learn more and desired to be freed from hardships. They did not ask, "When?" but rather, "Is it at this time? Is it now?" they said. Therefore they longed for the day! But it seems to me that it was not even possible for them to fully grasp what the kingdom was at that time. For the Spirit had not yet taught. And they said, You restore; for they imagined something greater concerning it. Therefore He also spoke to them plainly. For He did not say, Not even the Son knows; but, It is not for you to know. And so that they would not be discouraged, He added; But you will receive power, and the things that follow (Acts 1:8). And they did not ask about the end, but He Himself, who was not asked, teaches: that it is the mark of a good teacher not to teach what the students want, but what it is beneficial to learn. Therefore, He did not answer the question as if it had no value; rather, He taught what was urgent, for they especially needed the Spirit at that time.

But of that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven nor the Son, but the Father alone.

These words seem to refute those who promise that they can comprehend the consummation and destruction of the world and who declare "as though the day of the Lord were at hand" — such as certain people are said to have been at Thessalonica in the time of the Apostle, of whom he writes: "Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together unto him, that you be not soon moved from your mind, nor be troubled, neither by spirit nor by word nor by letter as though from us, as though the day of the Lord were at hand." Perhaps because among the Jews there were certain persons professing, whether through the scriptures, that they knew of the times of the consummation or of hidden things, therefore he writes these things, teaching his disciples that they should believe no one who professes such things. And the Savior, according to this passage, joins himself to those who are ignorant of that day and hour. And it must reasonably be asked how he who is confident that he knows the Father, saying: "No one knows the Father but the Son and he to whom the Son shall will to reveal him", knows the Father indeed, yet does not know the day and hour of the consummation, and why the Father hid this from the Son. For there must certainly be some reason why the time of the consummation is hidden even from the Savior and why he is ignorant concerning it.

But someone will dare to say that the man who exists according to the Savior is understood to be advancing "in wisdom and stature and grace before God and men", who in advancing did indeed advance above all in knowledge and wisdom, yet not so that there had already come to him that which was perfect, before he fulfilled his own dispensation. It is therefore no wonder if this alone he did not know out of all things, that is, the day and hour of the consummation.

But perhaps also, when he said that he did not know the day and hour of the consummation, he said this before his dispensation, because no one knows, neither the angels nor the Son, but the Father alone; but after his dispensation was fulfilled he by no means said this, after "God highly exalted him and gave him a name which is above every name".

For afterward the Son too came to know it, receiving knowledge from the Father even concerning the day of the consummation and the hour, so that now not only the Father might know concerning it but also the Son. And indeed in the Acts of the Apostles the apostles "coming together questioned him, saying: Lord, wilt thou at this time restore the kingdom of Israel? But he said to them: It is not for you to know the times or the moments which the Father hath set in his own power". And since he "set in his own power the times and moments" of the consummation of the world and of the restitution of the kingdom of Israel, therefore what had not yet been predefined by God no one could know. But each of the things which he predefines, he does not predefine from anything inexperienced (for this is impossible); but what he predefines, he predefines by making a beginning of predefining. And if this is so, he predefined indeed to bring about the consummation of the world, but he did not also predefine the "times and moments which he set in his own power", so that, if he wished to increase them, judging thus he might increase them, but if to shorten them, he might shorten them, no one knowing it. And therefore he set the times and moments of the consummation of the world in his own power, so that accordingly he might determine the due judgment for the human race (established in its own free will) acting in this way or that. Many things too are to be found in the prophets, written for the benefit of the hearers, in precepts and denunciations, as though God were not predefining anything about them, but punishing indeed if they should sin, and saving if they should keep the precepts. And just as in those cases the scripture did not introduce God as predefining, but as speaking forth according to the benefit of the hearers, so is it to be understood also concerning the day of the consummation and the hour.

Another explanation (which is more famous than those which have already been set forth) says something else about that which is written neither the Son, but the Father alone.

The Apostle, it says, speaks somewhere concerning the Savior and concerning the matters to be ordered at the end of the age in this manner: "But when all things shall be subjected to him, then shall the Son himself also be subject to him who subjected all things to himself, that God may be all in all."

By these words he seems to show that, before he subjected all things to him, he was not subject "to him who subjected all things to himself": which is demonstrated from this, that unless the Son had been subject to the Father, who subjected all things to himself, the Father would never have subjected all things to him.

And through these words he seems to say that the subjection of the Son becomes the subjection of all who were to be subjected to him, and their coming through the Son to God and to perfection.

If, then, this is rightly said concerning the future subjection of the Son to the Father — that then those who are to be Christ's and shall have cleaved to him may, together with Christ himself, be subjected to the Father — why shall we not likewise expound also that no one knows of that day and hour, neither the Son?

For as long as the Church, which is the body of Christ, does not know that day and hour, so long is the Son himself also said not to know that day and hour, so that he is understood to know then, when all his members shall have come to know it. And it is rightly said "to know" according to its proper signification, as is the custom of the scriptures. What is it to know? That he shall come to know that day and hour who shall arrive at the end and shortening of that day and hour.

But that "to know" and "to recognize" have some such signification in the scriptures is manifest from that which is said in Ecclesiastes in this manner: "He who keeps the commandment shall not know an evil word", that is, shall not experience an evil word. And in the Apostle it is said concerning the Savior himself: "Him who knew not sin, he made sin for us".

And he called the Savior one not knowing sin, as though he were to say one who did not sin nor was in the nature of sin.

It signifies something of this kind, that also which it says: "Adam knew Eve his wife".

For as long as she had not been joined to him, he did not know her.

And therefore no one knows, neither the angels of heaven nor the Son of God, the day of such a consummation and destruction of the age, since God provides better for the saints, that they may come to be together in the blessedness which is to be after the day and hour of that consummation. And just as it is written among the Hebrews concerning those who have testimony in faith, that "all these, having been attested through faith, did not receive the promise of God, God providing some better thing concerning us, that they should not be perfected without us", so is it to be known also in this matter, that, since God foresaw some better thing concerning those who were to be saved, they have not yet received the promise, who did not come to know concerning that day and hour, neither the angels of heaven nor the Son. For the Son prepares the knowledge of that day and hour for the coheirs of that promise, from the time that "he emptied himself, taking the form of a servant", working out the way that leads to the restitution of all things, for whose sake he took "the form of a servant"; that all may together know (that is, may in the very reality experience) that hour and day, for "what eye hath not seen nor ear heard, and hath not ascended upon the heart of man, God hath prepared for those who love him" training and preparing in the knowledge of prior things every one whom he wills to know that day and hour together with the holy angels and with our Lord Jesus Christ himself. And the consummation of each single one, which is to be in these certain things aforesaid, and concerning individuals, the Father alone knows: since the Son, accompanying and going before those who follow after, and calling (so to speak), is to come, and delays. So that those who strive to follow him may be able to follow him, and, following him, may be found with him in that day and hour.

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.