Acts 1

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.

The Prescription Against Heretics

"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.

Homily on Acts 1

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.

Homily on Acts 1

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.

Letter 97.1

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.

Letter 127.4

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.

Harmony of the Gospels 4.8.9

O Theophilus: For our Lord taught us by His own example that we ought to keep to this order, as of Him it is said: “that 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, “So practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach but do not practice. They bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with their finger.”

Conference 14.9

1–2

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.

Commentary on Acts

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)

Commentary on Acts

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

Commentary on Acts

"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.

Complexiones on the Acts of the Apostles

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.

Commentary on Acts

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.

Retractions on Acts

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.

Commentary on Acts

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

"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.

Homily on Acts 1

instructing the Apostles, whom he had chosen through the Holy Spirit: Observe the order (In Matt. 28:19) of these injunctions. He bids the Apostles first to teach all nations, then to wash them with the sacrament of faith, and after faith and baptism then to teach them what things they ought to observe; Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.

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.

Commentary on Acts

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.

Commentary on Acts

"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.

Commentary on Acts

3–11

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.

On Baptism, Chapter 19

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.

On Baptism

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.

Contra Celsum, Book 2, Chapter 63

"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.

Homily on Acts 1

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.

Homily on Acts 1

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.

On the Acts of the Apostles 1

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.

Commentary on Acts

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.

Commentary on Acts

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]

Commentary on Acts

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

Commentary on Acts

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.

Commentary on Acts

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.

Commentary on Acts

6–7

The Son is not lacking in the knowledge of anything that the Father knows, and the Son is not ignorant, because the Father alone knows, since the Father and the Son remain in the unity of the nature. What the Son, in whom all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden, does not know is in harmony with the divine plan for maintaining silence. The Lord bore testimony to this when he replied to the apostles who had questioned him about the times, “It is not for you to know the times or dates which the Father has fixed by his own authority.”The knowledge is denied them. Not only is it denied, but they are forbidden to be anxious about the knowledge, since it is not for them to know these times. Naturally, after the resurrection, they now interrogate him about the times, since they had been informed previously when they broached the question, that not even the Son knows, and they could not believe that the Son did not know in the literal meaning of the term, because they again question him as one who does not know. Since they are aware that the mystery of not knowing is according to the divine plan for maintaining silence, they conclude that now, after the resurrection, the time for speaking has at length arrived, and they bring forth their questions. And the Son does not tell them that he does not know but that it is not for them to know, because the Father has settled this matter by his own authority. Consequently, if the apostles realize that this statement, that the Son does not know, is in keeping with the plan of salvation and is not a weakness, shall we assert that the Son, therefore, does not know the day because he is not God? God the Father has determined it by his own authority, therefore, in order that it may not come to the knowledge of our human comprehension, and the Son, when previously interrogated, had said that he did not know and now he does not make the same reply that he does not know, but that it is not for them to know, and that the Father, however, has decided upon these times not in his knowledge but in his authority. Since the day and moment are included in the idea of time, it is impossible to believe that the day and moment for restoring the kingdom of Israel is unknown to him who is to restore it. But, to lead us to the knowledge of his birth through the Father’s unique power, he answered that it was known to him and, while revealing that the right to acquire this knowledge had not been conferred on them, he declared that this knowledge itself is dependent upon the mystery of the Father’s authority.

On the Trinity 9.75

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)”

6–7

“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.

Commentary on Tatian’s Diatessaron

6–7

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.

Letter 8.7

6–7

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.

Exposition of the Christian Faith 5.17.218

6–7

And this he says, because he was very careful to honor them and to conceal nothing from them. Therefore he refers it to his Father, both to make the matter awesome and to dispel further inquiry on what was said. If this were not the reason, but he is ignorant, when will he know? Will he only know at the same time we do? Who would say this? He knows the Father clearly, just as the Father knows the Son. Is he then ignorant of the day? Furthermore, “the Spirit searches everything, even the depth of God.” But are we to say that he does not even know the time of the judgment? But he knows how he must judge, and he understands the secrets of each. Was he to be ignorant of this, which is much more general? And, if “all things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being,” how was he ignorant of the day? For he who made the ages clearly made the times also, and if the times, then also the day. How, then, is he ignorant of what he made?

Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew 77.1

6–7

"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.

Homily on Acts 2

6–7

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.

Homily on Acts 2

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.

Homily on Acts 2

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.

Commentary on Acts

6–7

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.

Exposition of the Psalms 9.39

"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.

Complexiones on the Acts of the Apostles

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:

Commentary on Acts

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.

Retractions on Acts

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.

Commentary on Acts

Why did He rise in the flesh in which He suffered, unless to show the resurrection of the flesh? And wishing to confirm this, when His disciples did not know whether to believe He had truly risen in the body, and were looking upon Him and doubting, He said to them, "Ye have not yet faith, see that it is I;" and He let them handle Him, and showed them the prints of the nails in His hands. And when they were by every kind of proof persuaded that it was Himself, and in the body, they asked Him to eat with them, that they might thus still more accurately ascertain that He had in verity risen bodily; and He did eat honey-comb and fish. And when He had thus shown them that there is truly a resurrection of the flesh, wishing to show them this also, that it is not impossible for flesh to ascend into heaven (as He had said that our dwelling-place is in heaven), "He was taken up into heaven while they beheld," as He was in the flesh.

On the Resurrection - Fragments, Chapter IX

That, however, which we have reserved for a concluding argument, will now stand as a plea for all, and for the apostle himself, who in very deed would have to be charged with extreme indiscretion, if he had so abruptly, as some will have it, and as they say, blindfold, and so indiscriminately, and so unconditionally, excluded from the kingdom of God, and indeed from the court of heaven itself, all flesh and blood whatsoever; since Jesus is still sitting there at the right hand of the Father, man, yet God-the last Adam, yet the primary Word-flesh and blood, yet purer than ours-who "shall descend in like manner as He ascended into heaven" the same both in substance and form, as the angels affirmed, so as even to be recognised by those who pierced Him.

On the Resurrection of the Flesh

The prophet comprises both His advents in few words. Behold, he says, one like the Son of man coming with the clouds of heaven. He did not say, like the Son of God, but the Son of man, that he might show that He had to be clothed with flesh on the earth, that having assumed the form of a man and the condition of mortality, He might teach men righteousness; and when, having completed the commands of God, He had revealed the truth to the nations, He might also suffer death, that He might overcome and lay open the other world also, and thus at length rising again, He might proceed to His Father borne aloft on a cloud. For the prophet said in addition: And came even to the Ancient of days, and was presented to Him. He called the Most High God the Ancient of days, whose age and origin cannot be comprehended; for He alone was from generations, and He will be always to generations.

The Divine Institutes, Book 4, Chapter XII

"And having this said, while they beheld, He was taken up; and a cloud received Him out of their sight." Seest thou that they did preach and fulfil the Gospel? For great was the gift He had bestowed on them. In the very place, He says, where ye are afraid, that is, in Jerusalem, there preach ye first, and afterwards unto the uttermost part of the earth. Then for assurance of what He had said, "While they beheld, He was taken up." Not "while they beheld" did He rise from the dead, but "while they beheld, He was taken up." Inasmuch, however, as the sight of their eyes even here was not all-sufficient; for in the Resurrection they saw the end, but not the beginning, and in the Ascension they saw the beginning, but not the end: because in the former it had been superfluous to have seen the beginning, the Lord Himself Who spake these things being present, and the sepulchre showing clearly that He is not there; but in the latter, they needed to be informed of the sequel by word of others.

Homily on Acts 2

But why did "a cloud receive Him?" This too was a sure sign that He went up to Heaven. Not fire, as in the case of Elijah, nor fiery chariot but "a cloud received Him;" which was a symbol of Heaven, as the Prophet says; "Who maketh the clouds His chariot" (Ps. civ. 3); it is of the Father Himself that this is said. Therefore he says, "on a cloud;" in the symbol, he would say, of the Divine power, for no other Power is seen to appear on a cloud. For hear again what another Prophet says: "The Lord sitteth upon a light cloud" (Is. xix. 1). For it was while they were listening with great attention to what He was saying, and this in answer to a very interesting question, and with their minds fully aroused and quite awake, that this thing took place. Also on the mount Sinai the cloud was because of Him; since Moses also entered into the darkness, but the cloud there was not because of Moses. And He did not merely say, "I go," lest they should again grieve, but He said, "I send the Spirit"; and that He was going away into heaven they saw with their eyes.

Homily on Acts 2

"He was taken up." Already it has been shown, that He went up into heaven. "And a cloud, etc." "Clouds and darkness are under His feet," (Ps. xviii. 9; xcvii. 2) saith the Scripture: for this is declared by the expression, "And a cloud received Him:" the Lord of heaven, it means. For as a king is shown by the royal chariot, so was the royal chariot sent for Him.

Homily on Acts 2

[And] let us commend the manner of his rule through the powers that are subject to him: born of a virgin mother, rising again by treading upon death, seeking the scepter of heaven. He announces [such] deeds by these [angelic] servants. Nor do the elements cease to serve their thunderer. In his honor as he is coming, a star does service as a soldier, going before the magi. A cloud waits upon him in obedience as he goes.

On the Acts of the Apostles 1

And having said these things, while they were watching, Jesus was taken up; leading them to another place on the shore, so that they would not question him again, he immediately began his ascent into heaven. And he adds, while they were watching: since here the whole beginning of their faith and need was established, but not the end of the matter. For this reason also the angels explained that Jesus rests in heaven; for they were unable to see him that far away. In the resurrection, however, it was the opposite: the beginning indeed was not seen by them; for it would have been unnecessary, since the one who had risen appeared alive, and the tomb was empty; but the end was apparent, for the living one was revealed to them.

Commentary on Acts

Indeed, a cloud received the Lord, to demonstrate the equality of honor to the Father. For it is said of the Father: A cloud and darkness are round about Him. (Ps. 97:2) And indeed God who became flesh, having used a cloud as a chariot, for He was the Lord: but Elijah, fire. (2 Kings 2:1) For Jesus, being the Master of all, and ascending by his own power, takes a somewhat earthly and lower path toward the ascent, not being carried but carrying the vehicle; but Elijah is a servant, and therefore needing an unprofitable chariot and horses, the speed of which aids him in the upward journey. Therefore, it is said of him: Elijah went up in a whirlwind as into heaven; but of the Lord it is said, As He was going up into heaven. Two white-haired men are attested to confirm the Lord's restoration into heaven, "a matter is established by the testimony of two or three witnesses." (2 Cor. 13:1)

Commentary on Acts

"And when he had said these things, while they looked on, he was raised up: and a cloud received him out of their sight," etc. Luke declares that, with those words which he said above, while the apostles looked on, the Lord suddenly ascended to heaven; and, lest anyone should think that such a miracle was a figment of imagination, he says that angels of God stood by them, saying: "Why do ye wonder at these things? He will so come for the Judgement as he was manifestly taken from the midst of you." Then Luke says that the apostles returned from Mount Olivet, where all this took place, to Jerusalem, and entered an upper room, where eleven men, whose names he gives, were staying together. They were persevering in their prayers with holy women, and Mary the Lord's mother and his brothers, so that he who was seen to have been taken up should not go away from them.

Complexiones on the Acts of the Apostles

To establish the truth of the Lord's resurrection, we should also note what Luke reports, saying: "Eating together with them, he commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem." And a little later: "While they were watching, he was lifted up, and a cloud received him from their sight." Note the words, mark the mysteries. Eating together he was lifted up. He ate, and he ascended, so that through the act of eating the truth of his flesh might be made evident.

Forty Gospel Homilies, Homily 29

And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up. Mark, indeed, recounting another discourse of the Lord, says: And the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven (Mark 16). But since Luke added more significantly, When he had said these things, he was taken up, indeed showing that when the words he had mentioned were fulfilled, the Lord ascended to heaven.

Commentary on Acts

And a cloud received him out of their sight. Everywhere the creation obeys its Creator. The stars point out his birth, they cover him when suffering, the clouds receive him as he ascends, and they will accompany him when he returns for judgment.

Commentary on Acts

He rose in such a way that they did not see it, but His ascension they did see; since even seeing did not resolve everything on this occasion: they saw the end of the resurrection, but did not see its beginning; they saw the beginning of the ascension, but did not see its end. Why? Because there it was unnecessary to see the beginning, since the Risen One Himself was before them and spoke of it, and since the tomb itself showed that He was not in it; but here it was necessary to know the end as well, since the eyes cannot reach the full height and sight could not determine whether He ascended into heaven or, having risen to a certain height, stopped. Therefore the Angels, appearing before them, revealed to them what they could not comprehend by means of sight. And the cloud lifted Him up because it is a symbol of the Lord's and Divine power, since in a cloud one cannot see a symbol of any other power. Therefore David also says of the Father: "You make the clouds Your chariot" (Ps. 104:3), and in another place: "Behold, the Lord rides on a swift cloud" (Isa. 19:1). And many other passages speak of the same thing. However, the Lord did this too not simply and not without purpose, but knowing that if He were to ascend invisibly to them, as He also descended and, even more so, as He came down, then even at the manifestation of the Spirit they would not believe that this was the very same Spirit Whom a few days before He had promised to send; knowing that in such a case He would prepare in them the suspicion that He Himself had not come from heaven either; knowing, finally, that in such a case, if having ascended invisibly He then called Paul from heaven, if He sent from there to Peter a sheet not made by hands (see Acts 10:11), they would not have believed that He was doing this after His departure from them in the flesh — knowing all this, He ascended "while they were looking toward heaven." From the cloud of the Virgin He enters into a cloud, and by means of a cloud ascends to where He was before. The expression "where He was" understand not in the sense of place, and not in the sense that He laid aside the flesh and His incarnate Divinity became as before incorporeal; no, the expression "where He was" — attend to me — points to the height of incorporeality within corporeality, to the greatness of bodilessness within bodiliness, to the self-existing value of His voluntary humiliation in the incarnation of His immutability, to the fact that in visible form He no longer moves about or dwells among people. They did not say "being lifted up" or "being carried," but "ascending." If He, before the cross, clothed still in a body subject to suffering and heaviness, walked upon the waters, then no one should doubt that He, after having received an incorruptible body, cleaved through the air.

Commentary on Acts

Obviously, an event which lies outside the falling or disintegrating process which we know as Nature, is not imaginable. If anything is clear from the records of our Lord's appearances after His resurrection, it is that the risen body was very different from the body that died and that it lives under conditions quite unlike those of natural life. It is frequently not recognized by those who see it: and it is not related to space in the same way as our bodies. The sudden appearances and disappearances suggest the ghost of popular tradition: yet He emphatically insists that He is not merely a spirit and takes steps to demonstrate that the risen body can still perform animal operations, such as eating. What makes all this baffling to us is our assumption that to pass beyond what we call Nature—beyond the three dimensions and the five highly specialized and limited senses—is immediately to be in a world of pure negative spirituality, a world where space of any sort and sense of any sort has no function. I know no grounds for believing this. To explain even an atom Schrodinger wants seven dimensions: and give us new senses and we should find a new Nature. There may be Natures piled upon Natures, each supernatural to the one beneath it, before we come to the abyss of pure spirit; and to be in that abyss, at the right hand of the Father, may not mean being absent from any of these Natures—may mean a yet more dynamic presence on all levels. That is why I think it very rash to assume that the story of the Ascension is mere allegory. I know it sounds like the work of people who imagined an absolute up and down and a local heaven in the sky. But to say this is after all to say, "Assuming that the story is fake, we could thus explain how it arose." Without that assumption we find ourselves "moving about in worlds unrealized" with no probability—or improbability—to guide us. For if the story is true, then a being still in some mode, though not our mode, corporeal, withdrew at His own will from the Nature presented by our three dimensions and five senses, not necessarily into the nonsensuous and undimensioned but possibly into, or through, a world or worlds of supersense and superspace. And He might choose to do it gradually. Who on earth knows what the spectators might see? If they say they saw a momentary movement along the vertical plane—then an indistinct mass—then nothing—who is to pronounce this improbable?

Miracles, from God in the Dock

And when they were by every kind of proof persuaded that it was himself [resurrected], and in the body, they asked him to eat with them, that they might thus still more accurately ascertain that he had truly risen bodily; and he did eat honeycomb and fish. And when he had thus shown them that there is truly a resurrection of the flesh, he also wished to show them that it is not impossible for flesh to ascend into heaven (as he had said that our dwelling place is in heaven), so “he was taken up into heaven while they beheld,” just as he was in the flesh. If, therefore, after all that has been said, any one demand demonstration of the resurrection, he is in no respect different from the Sadducees, since the resurrection of the flesh is the power of God, and, being above all reasoning, is established by faith and seen in works.

Fragments of the Lost Work of Justin on the Resurrection 9

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.

On Baptism

"And while they looked stedfastly," it is said, "toward heaven, as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven" - they used the expression "This" demonstratively, saying, "this Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall thus" - demonstratively, "in this way" - "come in like manner as ye have seen Him going into heaven." Again, the outward appearance is cheering - "in white apparel." They were Angels, in the form of men. And they say, "Ye men of Galilee:" they showed themselves to be trusted by the disciples, by saying, "Ye men of Galilee." For this was the meaning: else, what needed they to be told of their country, who knew it well enough? By their appearance also they attracted their regard, and showed that they were from heaven.

Homily on Acts 2

"Behold, two men stood by them." That they may vent no sorrowful exclamations, and that it might not be with them as it was with Elisha, who, when his master was taken up, rent his mantle (2 Kings ii. 12). And what say they? "This Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall thus come." And, "Behold, two men stood by them." With good reason: for "in the mouth of two witnesses shall every word be established" (Deut. xvii. 6): and these utter the same things. And it is said, that they were "in white apparel." In the same manner as they had already seen an Angel at the sepulchre, who had even told them their own thoughts; so here also an Angel is the preacher of His Ascension; although indeed the Prophets had frequently foretold it, as well as the Resurrection.

Homily on Acts 2

Men, appearing as angels because of the vision, speak through the experience, according to the kindred nature of the vision, so that they do not completely astonish those already struck by the uniqueness of the ascension.

Commentary on Acts

But first we must inquire what it means that when the Lord was born, angels appeared, yet they are not recorded as having appeared in white garments, whereas when the Lord ascended, angels who were sent are recorded as having appeared in white garments. For it is written thus: "While they were watching, he was lifted up, and a cloud received him from their sight. And while they were gazing into heaven as he went, behold, two men stood beside them in white garments."

In white garments, joy and festivity of mind are shown. What does it mean, then, that when the Lord was born, angels appear not in white garments, but when the Lord ascended, angels appear in white garments, unless that then a great festivity was made for the angels, when God as man entered heaven? For when the Lord was being born, divinity seemed to be humbled; but when the Lord ascended, humanity was exalted. For white garments are more fitting for exaltation than for humiliation. Therefore at his assumption, angels ought to have been seen in white garments, because he who at his nativity appeared as humble God, at his Ascension was shown as exalted man.

Forty Gospel Homilies, Homily 29

Behold, two men stood by them in white apparel. White garments are more fitting for exaltation than for humiliation. And so, as the Lord ascends, angels appear in white garments, who are not said to appear in white clothing at the Lord's birth, because he who appeared humble as a God in his birth, appeared sublime as a man in his ascension. For the location is also fitting, while he, who was born as a man in a humble little city, returned to heaven from a high mountain.

Commentary on Acts

While they were looking on as he went into heaven. In Greek, it is thus: And while they were gazing into heaven as he went; that is, they were gazing into heaven, where he was going. Hence, the angels say to them: Why do you stand looking into heaven? Because it is also shown that they were gazing at him who was going into heaven, by the angels' following words, when it is said: He will come in the same way you saw him going into heaven.

Retractions on Acts

Having said, "Why do you stand gazing into heaven?" — they did not allow them to remain any longer in that place and hope to see Him again, but urged them to return at last to Jerusalem for the work of preaching. Angels everywhere serve Him as Lord — both at His birth, and at His resurrection, and at His ascension, and before this, prior to His appearance in the world in the flesh. But the Angels appeared in such a way that people could see them. The expression "in white apparel" indicates either the purity of the Angels, or the illumination that was to be granted to the holy apostles. The expression "they saw Him" must be understood differently. Knowing that men of corrupted mind would appear who would say that He was not from heaven, or did not come from heaven, and did not ascend into heaven, but was transported to some place beyond the bounds of the earth — among whom are also the followers of the sect of Vitalis — knowing this, the Lord ascended before the eyes of the apostles, while they were gazing intently into heaven.

Commentary on Acts

He is seen by Stephen, at his martyrdom by stoning, still sitting at the right hand of God [Acts 7:55] where He will continue to sit, until the Father shall make His enemies His footstool. [Hebrews 10:12-13] He will come again on the clouds of heaven, just as He appeared when He ascended into heaven. [Acts 1:11]

Against Praxeas, Chapter 30

When [Scripture] defines the very Christ to be but one, it shakes the fancies of those who exhibit a multiform Christ, who make Christ to be one being and Jesus another — representing one as escaping out of the midst of the crowds, and the other as detained by them; one as appearing on a solitary mountain to three companions, clothed with glory in a cloud, the other as an ordinary man holding intercourse with all, one as magnanimous, but the other as timid; lastly, one as suffering death, the other as risen again, by means of which event they maintain a resurrection of their own also, only in another flesh. Happily, however, He who suffered "will come again from heaven," [Acts 1:11] and by all shall He be seen, who rose again from the dead. They too who crucified Him shall see and acknowledge Him; that is to say, His very flesh, against which they spent their fury, and without which it would be impossible for Himself either to exist or to be seen; so that they must blush with shame who affirm that His flesh sits in heaven void of sensation, like a sheath only, Christ being withdrawn from it; as well as those who (maintain) that His flesh and soul are just the same thing, or else that His soul is all that exists, but that His flesh no longer lives.

On the Flesh of Christ, Chapter 24

We must after all this turn our attention to those scriptures also which forbid our belief in such a resurrection as is held by your Animalists (for I will not call them Spiritualists), that it is either to be assumed as taking place now, as soon as men come to the knowledge of the truth, or else that it is accomplished immediately after their departure from this life... Who has yet beheld Jesus descending from heaven in like manner as the apostles saw Him ascend, according to the appointment of the two angels? [Acts 1:11] Up to the present moment they have not, tribe by tribe, smitten their breasts, looking on Him whom they pierced. [John 19:37; Zechariah 12:10] No one has as yet fallen in with Elias; [Malachi 4:5] no one has as yet escaped from Antichrist; [1 John 4:3] no one has as yet had to bewail the downfall of Babylon. [Revelation 18:2] And is there now anybody who has risen again, except the heretic? He, of course, has already quitted the grave of his own corpse — although he is even now liable to fevers and ulcers; he, too, has already trodden down his enemies — although he has even now to struggle with the powers of the world. And as a matter of course, he is already a king — although he even now owes to Cæsar the things which are Cæsar's. [Matthew 22:21]

On the Resurrection of the Flesh, Chapter 22

In the same way, also, when it defines the very Christ to be but one, it shakes the fancies of those who exhibit a multiform Christ, who make Christ to be one being and Jesus another,-representing one as escaping out of the midst of the crowds, and the other as detained by them; one as appearing on a solitary mountain to three companions, clothed with glory in a cloud, the other as an ordinary man holding intercourse with all, one as magnanimous, but the other as timid; lastly, one as suffering death, the other as risen again, by means of which event they maintain a resurrection of their own also, only in another flesh. Happily, however, He who suffered "will come again from heaven," and by all shall He be seen, who rose again from the dead.

On the Flesh of Christ

Who is it then, that has aroused the Lord, now at God's right hand so unseasonably and with such severity "shake terribly" (as Isaiah expresses it ("that earth," which, I suppose, is as yet unshattered? Who has thus early put "Christ's enemies beneath His feet" (to use the language of David ), making Him more hurried than the Father, whilst every crowd in our popular assemblies is still with shouts consigning "the Christians to the lions? " Who has yet beheld Jesus descending from heaven in like manner as the apostles saw Him ascend, according to the appointment of the two angels? Up to the present moment they have not, tribe by tribe, smitten their breasts, looking on Him whom they pierced.

On the Resurrection of the Flesh

He will come again on the clouds of heaven, just as He appeared when He ascended into heaven. Meanwhile He has received from the Father the promised gift, and has shed it forth, even the Holy Spirit-the Third Name in the Godhead, and the Third Degree of the Divine Majesty; the Declarer of the One Monarchy of God, but at the same time the Interpreter of the Economy, to every one who hears and receives the words of the new prophecy; and "the Leader into all truth," such as is in the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, according to the mystery of the doctrine of Christ.

Against Praxeas

In us “after the flesh” implies our being in sins; “not after the flesh” implies not being in sins. In Christ, however, “after the flesh” implies his being subject to the affections of nature, such as thirst, hunger, weariness, sleep. (For “he committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth.” Therefore he also said, “Which of you convicts me of sin?” and again, “The ruler of this world is coming, and he has no power over me.”) For him the phrase “not after the flesh,” then, means being freed from even these things, not being without flesh. For indeed with the flesh he comes to judge the world, with a flesh that is impassible and unmixed. We too will advance toward this, when our body conforms “to the body of his glory.”

Homilies on 2 Corinthians 11.3

Moreover the Angels did not say, "whom you have seen taken up," but, "going into heaven:" ascension is the word, not assumption; the expression "taken up," belongs to the flesh. For the same reason they say, "He which is taken up from you shall thus come," not, "shall be sent," but, "shall come. He that ascended, the same is he also that descended" (Eph. iv. 10). So again the expression, "a cloud received Him:" for He Himself mounted upon the cloud. Of the expressions, some are adapted to the conceptions of the disciples, some agreeable with the Divine Majesty. Now, as they behold, their conceptions are elevated: He has given them no slight hint of the nature of His second coming. For this, "Shall thus come," means, with the body; which thing they desired to hear; and, that he shall come again to judgment "thus" upon a cloud.

Homily on Acts 2

But wherefore does not Christ Himself tell them these things, instead of the Angels? He had beforehand told them all things; "What if ye shall see the Son of Man going up where He was before?" (John vi. 62). "Shall thus come," say they. If any therefore desires to see Christ; if any grieves that he has not seen Him: having this heard, let him show forth an admirable life, and certainly he shall see Him, and shall not be disappointed. For Christ will come with greater glory, though "thus," in this manner, with a body; and much more wondrous will it be to see Him descending from heaven.

Homily on Acts 2

"Shall thus come," etc. This is a confirmation of the Resurrection; for if he was taken up with a body, much rather must He have risen again with a body. Where are those who disbelieve the Resurrection? Who are they, I pray? Are they Gentiles, or Christians? for I am ignorant. But no, I know well: they are Gentiles, who also disbelieve the work of Creation. For the two denials go together: the denial that God creates anything from nothing, and the denial that He raises up what has been buried.

Homily on Acts 2

Everywhere it is Angels as at the Nativity, "for that which is conceived in her," saith one, "is by the Holy Ghost" (Matt. i. 20): and again to Mary, "Fear not, Mary." (Luke i. 30.) And at the Resurrection: "He is not here; He is risen, and goeth before you." (Luke xxiv. 6.) "Come, and see!" (Matt. xxviii. 6.) And at the Second Coming. For that they may not be utterly in amaze, therefore it is added, "Shall thus come." They recover their breath a little; if indeed He shall come again, if also thus come, and not be unapproachable! And that expression also, that it is "from them" He is taken up, is not idly added. And of the Resurrection indeed Christ Himself bears witness (because of all things this is, next to the Nativity, nay even above the Nativity, the most wonderful: His raising Himself to life again): for, "Destroy," He says, "this Temple, and in three days I will raise it up." (John ii. 19.)

Homily on Acts 2

[Daniel 7:13-14] "And behold, there came One with the clouds of heaven like unto the Son of man." He who was described in the dream of Nebuchadnezzar as a rock cut without hands, which also grew to be a large mountain, and which smashed the earthenware, the iron, the bronze, the silver, and the gold is now introduced as the very person of the Son of man, so as to indicate in the case of the Son of God how He took upon Himself human flesh; according to the statement which we read in the Acts of the Apostles: "Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up towards heaven? This Jesus who has been taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen Him going into heaven" (Acts 1:11).

"...And He arrived unto the Ancient of days, and they brought Him before His presence, and He gave unto Him authority and honor and royal power." All that is said here concerning His being brought before Almighty God and receiving authority and honor and royal power is to be understood in the light of the Apostle's statement: "Who, although He was in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God; but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and was found in His condition to be as a man: He humbled Himself, becoming obedient unto death, even to the death of the cross" (Philippians 2:6-8). And if the sect of the Arians were willing to give heed to all this Scripture with a reverent mind, they would never direct against the Son of God the calumny that He is not on an equality with God.

"...And He is the one whom all the peoples, tribes, and language-groups shall serve. His authority is an eternal authority which shall not be removed, and His kingdom shall be one that shall never be destroyed..." Let Porphyry answer the query of whom out of all mankind this language might apply to, or who this person might be who was so powerful as to break and smash to pieces the little horn, whom he interprets to be Antiochus? If he replies that the princes of Antiochus were defeated by Judas Maccabaeus, then he must explain how Judas could be said to come with the clouds of heaven like unto the Son of man, and to be brought unto the Ancient of days, and how it could be said that authority and royal power was bestowed upon him, and that all peoples and tribes and language-groups served him, and that his power is eternal and not terminated by any conclusion.

St. Jerome, Commentary on Daniel, CHAPTER SEVEN

How did they see him go? In the flesh which they touched, which they felt, the scars of which they even probed by touching; in that body in which he went in and out with them for forty days, manifesting himself to them in truth, not in any falsity; not as an apparition, not as a shadow, not as a spirit, but as he himself said, not deceiving, “Handle and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see me to have.” Now, indeed, that body is worthy of a heavenly dwelling place, not subject to death, not changeable through ages. For as he had grown to that age from infancy, so he does not decline to old age from the age which was young adulthood. He remains as he ascended. He is going to come to those to whom, before he comes, he wanted his word to be preached. So, therefore, he will come in a human form. The ungodly, too, will see this. Those placed to the right will see it too; those separated to the left will see it too, as it was written, “They shall see him whom they have pierced.” If they will see him whom they have pierced, they will see the same body which they thrust through with a spear; [for] the Word is not struck by a spear. Therefore, the ungodly will be able to see this very one whom they were also able to wound. They will not see the God lying hidden in the body; after the judgment he will be seen by those who will be on the right. This, therefore, is why he said, “The Father judges no one but has given all judgment to the Son,” because the Son will come, clearly visible, to the judgment, appearing in human body to human beings, saying to those on the right, “Come, blessed of my Father, receive the kingdom”; saying to those on the left, “Go into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels.”

Tractates on the Gospel of John 21.13.2-4

Now they saw his nature as limited. For I have heard the words of the Lord, “You shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven,” and I acknowledge that what is seen by human eyes is limited, for the unlimited nature is invisible. Furthermore to sit upon a throne of glory and to set the lambs upon the right and the kids upon the left indicates limitation.

Dialogue 2

Men spoke to men, yet they were not similar in substance.

Commentary on Acts

So that the disciples might not be disturbed, and as the teacher had departed, and his body was being taken from them, they would not thereby become hopeless of the expectation of him, and for this reason be scattered elsewhere by faint-heartedness and fear; for this cause the angels present themselves, declaring to them his ascent into heaven, and the abiding and salvation of the body that had been taken up, by which they say: This Jesus will therefore come again. And by saying, Why do you stand? they admonish them, freeing them from that preoccupation, to come to Jerusalem, according to the command of the Lord, namely, Do not depart from Jerusalem. Therefore, when they arrived, still fearful because of the teacher's absence, they did not return to the city but went up to the upper room, as to a safer and more hidden place. Chrysostom says that the ascension took place on the day of the Sabbath. Therefore the phrase "a sabbath day's journey away" (Acts 1:12) is noted, so that they might not seem to have been using more of the ordinance from the law on the Sabbath by walking.

Commentary on Acts

This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven. For two reasons the angels are seen: that they might console them in their sorrow of the ascension with the remembrance of his return, and to show that he truly ascends into heaven, and not as it were into heaven like Elijah.

Commentary on Acts

He will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven. That is, he will come to judge in the same form and substance of the flesh in which he came to be judged. To whom certainly immortality was given, but nature was not taken away. Whose divine glory, which once appeared on the mountain to the three disciples, will be seen by all the saints when the judgment is complete, when the impious will be taken away so that they do not see the glory of God.

Commentary on Acts

"He will come," it says, not "He will be sent." "He will come in the same way," that is, with a body. This is what they desired to hear, and also that He will come again in the days of judgment on a cloud (cf. Matt. 24:30). The Evangelist calls the Angels "men," presenting the event in the form in which it appeared to sight, since the Angels had indeed taken on the appearance of men so as not to frighten them. Two men appeared because "by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established" (Matt. 18:16).

Commentary on Acts

"Then Returned They," it is said: namely, when they had heard. For they could not have borne it, if the angel had not 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.

So that there was no long way to go, to be a cause of alarm to them while yet trembling and fearful.

Homily on Acts 3

One mile, which was the distance of the Sabbath's journey, as Origen says in the fifth Homily, was two thousand cubits. And moreover the holy tent and the ark occupied this same space before the encampment, and from that distance they encamped. The distance permitted those who worshipped the holy tent to walk on the Sabbath.

Commentary on Acts

Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet. Our Lord and Savior, having conquered the prince of darkness, leads the faithful to a place of peace and light. Rightly he ascended the mount of blessing, promising the holy Spirit, whose anointing teaches us about everything.

Commentary on Acts

He is near Jerusalem, having the distance of a Sabbath journey. According to history, it indicates that the Mount of Olives is separated by about a mile from the city of Jerusalem. For on the Sabbath, according to the law, it was not permitted to go more than a thousand paces. But according to allegory, whoever will be worthy to contemplate within the glory of the Lord ascending to the Father and to be enriched with the promise of the Holy Spirit, this one enters the city of eternal peace by the journey of the Sabbath. And for him, according to Isaiah, there will be a Sabbath from the Sabbath, because whoever here has ceased from perverse work will there rest in celestial recompense. But on the other hand, whoever in this age, as if through the time of six days, has neglected to work for salvation, during that time of perpetual rest, will be excluded from the boundaries of blessed Jerusalem, despising that Gospel: "Pray that your flight may not be in winter or on the Sabbath."

Commentary on Acts

When did "then they returned"? When they heard what was said by the Angels, because they would never have torn themselves away from the place if the Angels had not informed them about the second coming. And it seems to me that this happened on a Sabbath, because Luke would not have indicated the distance in this way: "from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath day's journey away." The length of the journey that Jews were permitted to travel on the Sabbath day was fixed. Josephus in his twentieth book of Antiquities relates that the Mount of Olives was eight stadia from Jerusalem. And Origen in his fifth book says: "The Sabbath journey was three cubits." Indeed, the holy tabernacle with the ark preceded the camp by such a distance and was placed at such a distance from it as worshippers were permitted to travel on the Sabbath. This distance is one mile.

Commentary on Acts

That is nearly two miles.

"And when they were 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 Alphaeus, 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.

They durst not appear in the town. They also did well to go up into an upper room, as it became less easy to arrest them at once.

Homily on Acts 3

[Daniel 6:10] "Now when Daniel learned of it, that is, of the law which had been enacted, he entered his house, and with the windows in his upper room opened up in the direction of Jerusalem, he continued to bow his knees three times a day and worshipped, and made confession before his God just as he was previously accustomed to do." We must quickly draw from our memory and bring together from all of Holy Scripture all the passages where we have read of domata, which mean in Latin either "walled enclosures" (menia) or "beds" or "sun-terraces," and also the references to anogaia, that is, "upper rooms." For after all, our Lord celebrated the passover in an upper room (Mark 14:15, Luke 22:12), and in the Acts of the Apostles the Holy Spirit came upon the one hundred and twenty souls of believers while they were in an upper room (Acts 1:13). And so Daniel in this case, despising the king's commands and reposing his confidence in God, does not offer his prayers in some obscure spot, but in a lofty place, and opens up his windows towards Jerusalem, from whence he looked for the peace . He prays, moreover, according to God's behest, and also according to what Solomon had said when he admonished the people that they should pray in the direction of the Temple. Furthermore, there are three times in the day when we should bow our knees unto God, and the tradition of the Church understands them to be the third hour, the sixth hour, and the ninth hour. Lastly, it was at the third hour that the Holy Spirit descended upon the Apostles (Acts 2:15) . It was at the sixth hour that Peter, purposing to eat, ascended to the upper room for prayer (Acts 10:9). It was at the ninth hour that Peter and John were on their way to the Temple (Acts 3:1).

St. Jerome, Commentary on Daniel, CHAPTER SIX

13–14

Peter, interpreting or knowing: James, supplanter of labor. John, by the grace of God: Andrew, becoming powerful or condemned: Philip, the mouth of widows or the mouth of the lamp: Thomas, the abyss or twin or doubting. Bartholomew, son of him who suspends waters: Matthew, gifted: James son of Alphaeus, supplantation. Simon the Zealot, discipline of life: Judas son of James, he was also called Thaddeus. He names the disciples individually to show that, since they had fallen away at the time of the passion, Judas indeed completely cast himself out from the band of the apostles. But Peter agreed, and through the threefold question was summoned back to the Teacher. And if John is recorded among the same as taking the Mother of Christ, yet with John present to the apostles, she herself was also present.

Commentary on Acts

13–14

He does not compile a list of the disciples in vain: but wishing to show that they had suffered something human, yet had not remained in apostasy. For indeed Peter, who had denied, was absolved from his denial by bitter tears, as is made evident from this, that shortly afterwards the spiritual flock was entrusted to him. Thomas, who had been unbelieving, was healed of his unbelief when the wounds and the side were touched with his hands. Therefore, although all the others were present together, Judas alone was missing. And Mary, Mother of God, was present, as indeed was John, who had received her into his house, and the brothers were present. What if Joseph, the bridegroom, had been alive, certainly he would also have been present: especially he, who, when his sons doubted, never doubted concerning the privilege. But it is clear that he had long since died: for he himself was not then present, when his kinsmen wished to see Jesus teaching. For what does he say? "Your mother and your brothers are seeking you outside," (Matt. 12:47) nor is it added: "And your father."

Commentary on Acts

And when they had entered the upper room, they went up where they were staying. It designates a place on high, because they had already ascended from earthly conversation of the Sabbath to the higher realms of knowledge and virtue.

Commentary on Acts

James of Alphaeus, and Simon the Zealot, and Judas of James. Some think that there were two apostles called James, namely James of Zebedee and James of Alphaeus, and that the third James, the brother of the Lord, was not an apostle but the bishop of Jerusalem. That is by no means true, but according to the faith of the Gospels, it should be known that this same James, the son of Alphaeus and an apostle, was in charge of Jerusalem, who was called the brother of the Lord, because he was the son of the Lord’s maternal aunt, of whom John the evangelist mentions. However, he says, “standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary of Clopas” (John 19). Naming this Mary of Clopas from her father or family. For how could the brother of the Lord be said to be not an apostle but the third James, when Paul also names him an apostle: “But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the brother of the Lord” (Galatians 1)? And the evangelist Mark calls him the same, not the third but the other, saying: “There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the Younger and Joses, and Salome” (Mark 15). For since "greater" and "lesser" usually provide a distinction not among three but between two, the lesser James is called the son of Alphaeus, in distinction from the greater who was the son of Zebedee. Read the book of blessed Jerome against Helvidius. However, Simon the Zealot is the one who is written in the Gospels as the Canaanite. For Cana interprets as zeal. He was from a village in Galilee, Cana, where the Lord turned water into wine, and after his brother James, he ruled the Church of Jerusalem and at the age of one hundred and twenty ascended the cross under Trajan. He is declared to be according to the flesh a cousin of the Savior, because Hegesippus testified that his father Clopas was the brother of Joseph. And Judas of James, that is, the brother of James, is the same as the one called Thaddeus in the Gospels, and he was sent to Edessa to Abgarus, the king of Osroene, as ecclesiastical history tells. It continues:

Commentary on Acts

And when they had entered the upper room, they went up where they were staying. For in Greek the order of words is also placed thus: And when they had gone into the upper room, they went up where they were staying—Peter and John, and Andrew and James. In Greek the order of names is thus: Peter and Andrew, and James and John, and Simon the Zealot, and Judas the son of James. Histories recount concerning these, in which the passions of the apostles are contained, and many deem them apocryphal, that they preached in Persia, and there were killed by the priests of the temples in the city of Suanir, and they underwent glorious martyrdom. The Book of Martyrology, which is titled with the name and preface of blessed Jerome, although Jerome himself was not the author but the translator, and Eusebius is narrated to have been the author, affirms this as well. Further, Isidore believes that this Simon is the one who ruled the Church of Jerusalem after James the brother of the Lord, and was crowned with martyrdom of the cross under Trajan, being a hundred and twenty years old, whom we also followed formerly in the first book of the Acts of the Apostles, not examining what he wrote scrupulously, but simply listening to his words, believing that he learned these things from certain ancient histories. We dare not deny this even now, especially since he who wrote the aforementioned passions of the apostles has most certainly revealed that he wrote uncertain and false things. For he says that the eunuch of Candace, whom Philip baptized in Judea, was in Ethiopia at the time when Matthew was teaching there and helped him in his teaching, while it is manifest that Candace is the name not of a man, but of a woman, that is, not of the eunuch, but of his mistress, namely the queen of the Ethiopians, who, as we have learned from ancient records, were all commonly called thus in olden times. I wrote in the same work, following Jerome's commentary, and concerning Judas the brother of James, who was also called Thaddaeus, that he was sent to Abgar, king of Osroene, as ecclesiastical history has handed down; but afterward, examining the ecclesiastical history itself more diligently, I found it not written there that Thaddaeus the apostle, one of the twelve, but Thaddaeus one of the seventy disciples, was sent to heal the aforementioned king. I do not think an error should be imputed to me, where, following the authority of great doctors, I believed without doubt what I found in their small works should be accepted.

Retractions on Acts

He prudently enumerates the disciples. Since one of them betrayed, another denied, and a third did not believe, he shows that, apart from the betrayer, all were present.

Commentary on Acts

"Blessed," says He, "are the peacemakers; for they shall be called the sons of God." [Matthew 5:9] It behooves the sons of God to be peacemakers, gentle in heart, simple in speech, agreeing in affection, faithfully linked to one another in the bonds of unanimity.

This unanimity formerly prevailed among the apostles; and thus the new assembly of believers, keeping the Lord's commandments, maintained its charity. Divine Scripture proves this, when it says, "But the multitude of them which believed were of one heart and of one soul." [Acts 4:32] And again: "These all continued with one mind in prayer with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brethren." [Acts 1:14] And thus they prayed with effectual prayers; thus they were able with confidence to obtain whatever they asked from the Lord's mercy.

Treatise 1, Sections 24-25

Before all things, the Teacher of peace and the Master of unity would not have prayer to be made singly and individually, as for one who prays to pray for himself alone. For we say not "My Father, which art in heaven," nor "Give me this day my daily bread; "nor does each one ask that only his own debt should be forgiven him; nor does he request for himself alone that he may not be led into temptation, and delivered from evil. Our prayer is public and common; and when we pray, we pray not for one, but for the whole people, because we the whole people are one. The God of peace and the Teacher of concord, who taught unity, willed that one should thus pray for all, even as He Himself bore us all in one... Thus also we find that the apostles, with the disciples, prayed after the Lord's ascension: "They all," says the Scripture, "continued with one accord in prayer, with the women, and Mary who was the mother of Jesus, and with His brethren." [Acts 1:14] They continued with one accord in prayer, declaring both by the urgency and by the agreement of their praying, that God, "who makes men to dwell of one mind in a house," only admits into the divine and eternal home those among whom prayer is unanimous.

Treatise 4, Section 8

"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. 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 they continued," it is said, "with one accord in prayer." Do you see how watchful they were? "Continuing in prayer," and "with one accord," as it were with one soul, continuing therein: two things reported in their praise.

"And Mary the Mother of Jesus and His brethren." Now Joseph perhaps was dead: for it is not to be supposed that when the brethren had become believers, Joseph believed not; he who in fact had believed before any. Certain it is that we nowhere find him looking upon Christ as man merely.

Homily on Acts 3

They sought by a swift path, with which it was possible to go a mile on their sabbath, the well-known walls where Mary, the gateway of God, the virgin mother of her Creator, formed by her own son, was sitting at a religious gathering. The second virgin put to flight the woes of Eve’s crime; there is no harm done to the sex; she restored what the first took away. Let grief not raise up complaints or vex mourning hearts with groaning over the old law; these very forms of wickedness and crime rather cause delight at this bargain, and a better lot comes to the redeemed world from the fall. The person, not the nature [of a woman], caused ruin; in those days [of Eve] a pregnant woman [brought forth] peril. In these [of Mary] one grew great to bring forth God, the one begetting mortal things and the other bearing divine—she through whom the Mediator came forth into the world and carried actual flesh to the heavens.

On the Acts of the Apostles 1

All these were continually devoting themselves with one accord to prayer. Those who patiently continue in prayer are those who await the arrival of the Holy Spirit. For the Holy Spirit of discipline flees from deceit (Wisdom 1). Therefore, whoever desires to receive the promised gifts of the Holy Spirit must persist diligently in prayers steeped in fraternal love.

Commentary on Acts

With the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers. It says brothers of Jesus, not of Mary. For in Greek there is a clear distinction where it is written not αὐτῆς but αὐτοῦ, which without any doubt is a masculine pronoun among them. Blessed Luke took care to inform readers that the brothers of the Lord were participants in his faith at that time, about whom it was previously said before his passion: "Neither did his brothers believe in him."

Retractions on Acts

But how does he say, "with Mary the mother of Jesus"? Although the evangelist said that "from that time the disciple… took Her to his own" (John 19:27), this in no way contradicts the foregoing, because if that very disciple was there, then nothing prevented Her from being present as well. Why does he not mention Joseph here? He does not mention him because Joseph had already died, for if the brothers believed and were present — they who had often expressed disbelief before — then all the more would Joseph have proved faithful and would not have wished to withdraw from the company of the apostles, had he still been alive, since he never expressed any doubt.

Commentary on Acts

15–20

Accordingly, after one of these had been struck off, He commanded the eleven others, on His departure to the Father, to “go and teach all nations, who were to be baptized into the Father, and into the Son, and into the Holy Ghost.” [Matt. 28:19] 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, [Ps. 109:8] chosen Matthias by lot as the twelfth [Acts 1:15-20], 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 Judæa, and founding churches (there), they next went forth into the world and preached the same doctrine of the same faith to the nations. They then in like manner founded churches in every city, from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith, and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them, that they may become churches. Indeed, it is on this account only that they will be able to deem themselves apostolic, as being the offspring of apostolic churches.

The Prescription Against Heretics, Chapter 20

And this is subsequently observed, according to divine instruction, in the Acts of the Apostles, when Peter speaks to the people of ordaining an apostle in the place of Judas. "Peter "it says, "stood up in the midst of the disciples, and the multitude were in one place."

Epistle LXVII

"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," 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!

Again, consider the moderation of James. He it was who received the Bishopric of Jerusalem, and here he says nothing. Mark also the great moderation of the other Apostles, how they concede the throne to him, and no longer dispute with each other. For that Church was as it were in heaven: having nothing to do with this world's affairs: and resplendent not with walls, no, nor with numbers, but with the zeal of them that formed the assembly. They were "about an hundred and twenty," it says. The seventy perhaps whom Christ Himself had chosen, and other of the more earnest-minded disciples, as Joseph and Matthias. There were women, he says, many, who followed Him. "Together" they were on all occasions.

Homily on Acts 3

Foremost among the band of apostles, Peter had been called from his small boat; the scaly throng were wont to be caught by this fisher; suddenly, seen from the shore as he drew [his nets], he himself deserved to be drawn; Christ’s fishing deigned to seize a disciple who must stretch the nets which are to catch the human race. To the hand that had borne the fishhook was transferred the key. He who had been eager to shift the dripping booty from the depths of the sea to the shore and to fill the craft with spoils, now in another area draws from the better waves [of baptism]; no longer pursuing his profits through the waters, he forsakes his profession. To him the Lamb entrusted the sheep which he saved by his passion; and he enlarges his flock throughout the whole world under this shepherd.

On the Acts of the Apostles 1

Then Peter arose, not James, and as if more zealous, and as one to whom the leadership of the disciples had been entrusted. Moreover James was modest, more suited to speech and quiet, while the others handled affairs. Therefore they yield the seat [καθέδρας] of Jerusalem to him. But see how he acts by common decree in all things, and not from primacy nor by his own authority. One hundred and twenty were together present of those who had believed in the Lord. For indeed there were seventy, and five hundred whom Paul says he saw the Lord after he had risen (1 Cor. 15:6). But it is likely that these were among those who had been more approved and were more fervent in speaking freely.

Commentary on Acts

"And in those days Peter rising up in the midst of the brethren, said, "etc. At that moment blessed Peter, quoting Psalm 108, said in the midst of the brethren, who were about a hundred and twenty in number: "Now that Judas the traitor is gone, we must think of the twelfth apostle," for the perfect number to be completed. Then, having placed Joseph and Matthias in the middle and said a prayer, they cast lots, and the election fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered as the twelfth apostle.

Complexiones on the Acts of the Apostles

There was, however, a crowd of about a hundred and twenty people together. These hundred and twenty, gradually rising from one to fifteen by increments, form the number of the fifteen steps, which mystically signifies the perfection of both laws in the Psalter, and in which the chosen vessel remains with Peter in Jerusalem. For it was necessary that the mystery, which the legislator exhibited in years, should be designated by the preachers of the new grace in their number.

Commentary on Acts

"In those days," that is, in the days before Pentecost, "Peter, standing in the midst of the disciples, said," as the fervent disciple and the one to whom Christ entrusted His flock, and, finally, as the first. But pay attention: he does everything with the common consent and nothing on his own will and authority.

Commentary on Acts

The Apostle Peter, therefore, after the resurrection of the Lord, and His assumption into the heavens, being desirous of filling up the number of the twelve apostles, and in electing into the place of Judas any substitute who should be chosen by God, thus addressed those who were present: "Men [and] brethren, this Scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost, by the mouth of David, spoke before concerning Judas, which was made guide to them that took Jesus. For he was numbered with us: [Acts 1:16, etc.] ... Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein; and, His bishoprick let another take;" — thus leading to the completion of the apostles, according to the words spoken by David.

Against Heresies (Book 3), Chapter 12, Section 1

the scripture had to be fulfilled: The Apostles bring to fulfillment what David had stated was to be done.

"Men and brethren," he says, "this Scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost spake before." 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?

"This Scripture," says he, "must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost spake 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 spake 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 spake before by the mouth of David." Observe how he appropriates him; and that it is an advantage to them, that this was spoken by David, and not by some other Prophet.

Here is forethought for providing a teacher; here was the first who ordained a teacher. He did not say, "We are sufficient." So far was he beyond all vain-glory, and he looked to one thing alone. And yet he had the same power to ordain as they all collectively. But well might these things be done in this fashion, through the noble spirit of the man, and because prelacy then was not an affair of dignity, but of provident care for the governed.

Homily on Acts 3

Twelve constellations of the [stellar] choir shine and cast the brilliance of Olympus on the earth. Note what realization this light reveals: The world is divided by the regions of its four sides; a triune faith calls this [world to belief], in whose name [the world] is washed in the font. Therefore, four taken together three times makes up the whole figure which the twelvefold order possesses, and to the devout disciples, to whom this baptism is commanded, a mystic reason gave cause for making up again the former number.

On the Acts of the Apostles 1

16–20

Peter consoles them with prophecy. Nor does he say: As David said, but the Holy Spirit through the mouth of David. What then were these? Whatever the one hundred and eighth psalm contains: of which he will also make mention after a little bit. Speaking of Judas, however, he treats the matter both temperately and without vilification. For he does not say "the accursed, the filthy one," but simply indicates what happened. And having introduced the phrase, "This man therefore acquired a field with the wages of unrighteousness," (Acts 1:18) and that becoming prone he was rent, or, as some read, "was split," he did not refer the keeping of it to Judas. For he himself did not buy the field, but the priests, from the silver thrown down by him in the temple. Since, then, these things are the wage of Judas' betrayal, the acquisition is also reckoned to him. And again, since this has been destined for burial, Scripture is fulfilled: "his habitation be desolate." (Ps. 69:25; Acts 1:20) For what is more desolate than a grave? By saying that "and having fallen headlong he burst open in the middle," it showed that, together with the act of betrayal, he had brought about this end through excessive disregard and slackness born of indifference. And when they say that he used a rope and hung himself, the sacred Gospels also record that if he now fell forward and everything that follows, there is no contradiction. For both happened: the cord by which the hanging occurred broke, and therefore he was carried forward onto the ground and had fallen. And insofar as these things are related about him some days later, it is thereby confirmed that they happened immediately after the betrayal.

Commentary on Acts

Brethren, it is necessary to fulfill the Scripture which the Holy Spirit foretold, etc. Peter the Apostle feared to remain in the number eleven. For all sin is 'eleven,' because through perverse actions, it transgresses the precepts of the Decalogue. Hence, because none of our justice is innocent by itself, the tabernacle that contained the Ark of the Lord was overlaid inside with eleven goat-hair curtains. And he restored the number of apostles to twelve, so that by the two parts of seven (for three times four is a fine sum), they would maintain the grace they preached and with the number, and those who were to preach the faith of the Holy Trinity to the fourfold world, as the Lord says: "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" (Matthew 28:19), they would also strengthen the perfection of work by the sacrament of the number. According to the higher understanding, the loss that the Church suffers from false brethren persists to the greatest extent unaddressed. But when at the end of the world, the people of the Jews who crucified the Lord are believed to be reconciled to the Church, like on the approaching fiftieth day, the number of the apostles is restored.

Commentary on Acts

He persuades even on the basis of prophecy and does not say that David said, but: "the Holy Spirit foretold through the mouth of David."

Commentary on Acts

God is no respecter of persons. Even Saul and Judas had been good at one time. How could someone who was not good have a share in the Savior's ministry? In the plan of God it was decided that we would be considered worthy for the time for which he was chosen. It is no wonder that these men were considered good, because all nature is good and no substance is evil, but rather transgression, which arises from the will.

"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."

"For he was numbered with us," says Peter. On this account it behooves to propose another; to be a witness in his place. And see how he imitates his Master, ever discoursing from the Scriptures, and saying nothing as yet concerning Christ; namely, that He had frequently predicted this Himself. Nor does he mention where the Scripture speaks of the treachery of Judas; for instance, "The mouth of the wicked and the mouth of the deceitful are opened against me"; but where it speaks only of his punishment; for this was most to their advantage. It shows again the benevolence of the Lord: "For he was numbered with us," he says, "and obtained his lot of this ministry." He calls it everywhere "lot," showing that the whole is from God's grace and election, and reminding them of the old times, inasmuch as God chose him into His own lot or portion, as of old He took the Levites.

Homily on Acts 3

Then he adds "concerning Judas, who was the guide of those who seized Jesus." Notice here too the wisdom of this man — notice how in the narrative he does not insult and does not speak of Judas as despised and most despicable, but simply states what happened; and he does not say that the Jews acquired, but: Judas "acquired the field," and rightly so, because the owner in fairness should be considered the one who put up the money, even if others made the purchase. And the payment was his.

Commentary on Acts

18–19

Judas did not die by hanging, but lived on, having been cut down before he was suffocated. And the acts of the apostles show this, that falling head long he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. This fact is related more clearly by Papias, the disciple of John, and the fourth book of the Expositions of the Oracles of the Lord as follows:

Judas walked about in this world a terrible example of impiety; his flesh swollen to such an extent that, where hay wagon can pass with ease, he was not able to pass, no, not even the mass of his head merely. They say that his eyelids swelled to such an extent that he could not see the light at all, while as for his eyes they were not visible even by a physician looking through an instrument, so far have they sunk from the surface.

His genitals appeared entirely disfigured, nauseous and large. When he carried himself about discharge and worms flowed from his entire body through his private areas only, on account of his outrages. After many agonies and punishments, he died in his own place. And on account of this the place is desolate and uninhabited even now. And to this day no one is able to go by that place, except if they block their noses with their hands. Such judgment was spread through his body and upon the earth.

Catenae Graecorum patrum in Novum Testamentum (AD 1844)

"You shall not steal:" [Exodus 20:15] for Achan, when he had stolen in Israel at Jericho, was stoned to death; [Joshua 7:1] and Gehazi, who stole, and told a lie, inherited the leprosy of Naaman; [2 Kings 5:27] and Judas, who stole the poor's money, betrayed the Lord of glory to the Jews, [John 12:6] and repented, and hanged himself, and burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out; [Matthew 27:5; Acts 1:18] and Ananias, and Sapphira his wife, who stole their own goods, and "tempted the Spirit of the Lord," were immediately, at the sentence of Peter our fellow-apostle, struck dead. [Acts 5:1-11]

(Book 7), Section 1, II

"Now this man acquired a field out of the reward of iniquity." 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.

He also dwells upon the circumstances respecting Judas, showing that the reward of the treachery was made itself the herald of the punishment. For he "acquired," he says, "a field out of the reward of the iniquity." Observe the divine economy in the event. "Of the iniquity," he says. For there are many iniquities, but never was anything more iniquitous than this: so that the affair was one of iniquity.

Homily on Acts 3

Judas did not die by hanging, but survived, having been crushed before being strangled. This is indicated by the Acts of the Apostles, which say that, having fallen forward, he burst open in the middle. This is narrated more clearly by Papias, a disciple of the apostle John, who says: "An example of great sin walked in this world in Judas. For having been pressed upon his flesh to such an extent that he could not pass through, as a wagon passed over him he was pressed by the wagon, so that his guts were emptied." [APOLLINARIS OF LAODICEA]

Commentary on Acts

"For his flesh had swollen to such an extent that not even where a wagon easily passes could one pass him, nor was it only the swelling of the head. For they say the eyelids of his eyes had so become blinded that he did not at all see the light. Nor could his eyes be seen even by a medical lens, they were so deep from the outer surface; and his genitals appeared more loathsome and larger than anything shameful. And they say that from it there issued, from all parts of the body, corruptions and worms in abundance, by them alone of necessity. And after many tortures and punishments, they say he died in his own place, and because of the smell the village became deserted and uninhabited until the present. But not even today could anyone cross that place unless he stopped up his nostrils with his hands." [APOLLINARIS OF LAODICEA]

Commentary on Acts

And Luke here records immediately the suffering of Judas. For the souls of the weaker are most disgraced by present things. He increased not the sin, calling him a traitor, but the punishment, because he endured this and that in full detail.

Commentary on Acts

And he indeed obtained a field from the reward of iniquity. He who sold the Lord of life, having lost the land of the living, possesses a field of blood and eternal death, the memory of his crime and his name. Otherwise, Judas himself did not deserve to possess the potter's field bought with the price of blood, who, having returned the thirty pieces of silver, immediately punished the crime of treachery with a more criminal death. But, according to the manner of sacred speech, it is said he possessed what he caused to be possessed. As the blessed Job says: "And my clothes will abhor me," that is, my corruptible members will render me abominable.

Commentary on Acts

And he burst asunder in the middle. The mad traitor found a punishment worthy of himself, that is, the noose's knot strangled the throat from which the voice of betrayal had emerged. He also sought a fitting place of destruction, so that he who had delivered the Lord of men and angels to death, hated by heaven and earth, as if only to be associated with the spirits of the air, might perish in the midst of the air, according to the example of Ahithophel and Absalom who persecuted King David. To whom, indeed, the death itself succeeded with a sufficiently fitting outcome, so that the bowels which had conceived the deceit of betrayal were burst open and cast out into the empty air. A similar punishment by which death is reported to have condemned Arius, the heresiarch, so that since the one sought to extinguish the humanity of Christ, the other the divinity, both, as they lived devoid of sense, thus also perished with empty bellies.

Commentary on Acts

He speaks of the punishment which Judas suffered in the present life, and not of the future punishment, because the souls of weak people do not pay as much attention to the future as to the present. Observe: he elaborated not on the transgression, but on the punishment for it, because Judas did not die in the noose, but lived on even after, since he was taken down before he strangled to death. Papias, a disciple of John, relates this more clearly in the fourth book of the Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord. He says thus: "Judas presented a great example of impiety in this world, whose body swelled to such a degree that he could not pass where a wagon could drive through, and not only could he himself not pass, but not even his head alone. The lids of his eyes, they say, swelled so much that he could not see the light at all, and his eyes themselves could not be seen even by means of a medical dioptra, so deep were they from the outer surface… After great sufferings and torments he died, they say, on his own estate; and that estate remains deserted and uninhabited even to this day; even to this day no one can pass by that place without holding their nostrils with their hands. Such is the stench that spread from his body even to the ground." This served as a certain consolation for the apostles. But just as the bowels of Judas burst open, so too did the bowels of the heretic Arius.

Commentary on Acts

18–19

In my daily paper this morning I read the following interesting paragraphs, which take my mind back to an England which I do not remember and which, therefore (perhaps), I admire.

“Nearly sixty years ago--on 4 September, 1850--the Austrian General Haynau, who had gained an unenviable fame throughout the world by his ferocious methods in suppressing the Hungarian revolution in 1849, while on a visit to this country, was belaboured in the streets of London by the draymen of Messrs. Barclay, Perkins and Co., whose brewery he had just inspected in company of an adjutant. Popular delight was so great that the Government of the time did not dare to prosecute the assailants, and the General--the 'women-flogger,' as he was called by the people--had to leave these shores without remedy.

“He returned to his own country and settled upon his estate at Szekeres, which is close to the commune above-mentioned. By his will the estate passed to his daughter, after whose death it was to be presented to the commune. This daughter has just died, but the Communal Council, after much deliberation, has declined to accept the gift, and ordered that the estate should be left to fall out of cultivation, and be called the 'Bloody Meadow.'”

Now that is an example of how things happen under an honest democratical impulse. I do not dwell specially on the earlier part of the story, though the earlier part of the story is astonishingly interesting. It recalls the days when Englishmen were potential lighters; that is, potential rebels. It is not for lack of agonies of intellectual anger: the Sultan and the late King Leopold have been denounced as heartily as General Haynau. But I doubt if they would have been physically thrashed in the London streets.

It is not the tyrants that are lacking, but the draymen. Nevertheless, it is not upon the historic heroes of Barclay, Perkins and Co. that I build all my hope. Fine as it was, it was not a full and perfect revolution. A brewer's drayman beating an eminent European General with a stick, though a singularly bright and pleasing vision, is not a complete one. Only when the brewer's drayman beats the brewer with a stick shall we see the clear and radiant sunrise of British self-government. The fun will really start when we begin to thump the oppressors of England as well as the oppressors of Hungary. It is, however, a definite decline in the spiritual character of draymen that now they can thump neither one nor the other.

But, as I have already suggested, my real quarrel is not about the first part of the extract, but about the second. Whether or no the draymen of Barclay and Perkins have degenerated, the Commune which includes Szekeres has not degenerated. By the way, the Commune which includes Szekeres is called Kissekeres; I trust that this frank avowal will excuse me from the necessity of mentioning either of these places again by name. The Commune is still capable of performing direct democratic actions, if necessary, with a stick.

I say with a stick, not with sticks, for that is the whole argument about democracy. A people is a soul; and if you want to know what a soul is, I can only answer that it is something that can sin and that can sacrifice itself. A people can commit theft; a people can confess theft; a people can repent of theft. That is the idea of the republic. Now, most modern people have got into their heads the idea that democracies are dull, drifting things, a mere black swarm or slide of clerks to their accustomed doom. In most modern novels and essays it is insisted (by way of contrast) that a walking gentleman may have ad-ventures as he walks. It is insisted that an aristocrat can commit crimes, because an aristocrat always cultivates liberty. But, in truth, a people can have adventures, as Israel did crawling through the desert to the promised land. A people can do heroic deeds; a people can commit crimes; the French people did both in the Revolution; the Irish people have done both in their much purer and more honourable progress.

But the real answer to this aristocratic argument which seeks to identify democracy with a drab utilitarianism may be found in action such as that of the Hungarian Commune--whose name I decline to repeat. This Commune did just one of those acts that prove that a separate people has a separate personality; it threw something away. A man can throw a bank note into the fire. A man can fling a sack of corn into the river. The bank-note may be burnt as a satisfaction of some scruple; the corn may be destroyed as a sacrifice to some god. But whenever there is sacrifice we know there is a single will. Men may be disputatious and doubtful, may divide by very narrow majorities in their debate about how to gain wealth. But men have to be uncommonly unanimous in order to refuse wealth. It wants a very complete committee to burn a bank note in the office grate. It needs a highly religious tribe really to throw corn into the river. This self-denial is the test and definition of self-government.

I wish I could feel certain that any English County Council or Parish Council would be single enough to make that strong gesture of a romantic refusal; could say, “No rents shall be raised from this spot; no grain shall grow in this spot; no good shall come of this spot; it shall remain sterile for a sign.” But I am afraid they might answer, like the eminent sociologist in the story, that it was “wiste of spice.”

Alarms and Discursions, The Field of Blood (1910)

"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.

Now not only to those who were present did the event become known, but to all thereafter, so that without meaning or knowing what they were about, they gave it a name; just as Caiaphas had prophesied unconsciously. God compelled them to call the field in Hebrew "Aceldama." By this also the evils which were to come upon the Jews were declared: and Peter shows the prophecy to have been so far in part fulfilled, which says, "It had been good for that man if he had not been born." We may with propriety apply this same to the Jews likewise; for if he who was guide suffered thus, much more they. Thus far however Peter says nothing of this.

Homily on Acts 3

This revenge on Judas is not empty. It denies funeral rites and comes thus as acceptable punishment for an unjust income. He had lately bought fields with the price of his death. He had purchased ground with the name of Blood, reusing tombs for foreign ashes, [appearing to] make the earth fruitful by means of the graves; this wicked one is denied the fertility of his own field and is alone excluded from the lands which bear sepulchers. His cruel trumpet [voice] began the gory wickedness. He is the standard bearer who, by planting a kiss, by a sign of peace, waged war as a wolf on the Lamb.

On the Acts of the Apostles 1

And the place called Akeldama was not named by Judas, but by the Jews. For he says, in their own dialect, the Jews bearing witness to the lawlessness.

Commentary on Acts

And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the field was called in their language Akeldama. It says in their language who were inhabitants of Jerusalem, because certainly, even though both spoke Hebrew, the propriety of the language of Jerusalem differed from that of the Galileans, from whom were the apostles, which we learn in the story of the Lord's passion, where Peter, even against his will, was revealed by his speech to be a Galilean.

Retractions on Acts

The Jews gave the village the name "Akeldama" on account of what happened with Judas. Peter brings up this fact here, presenting as witnesses the enemies who gave this land such a name.

Commentary on Acts

Then after the event, he appositely brings in the Prophet, saying, "For it is written in the Book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein": this is said of the field and the dwelling: "And his bishopric let another take; that is, his office, his priesthood. So that this, he says, is not my counsel, but His who hath foretold these things. For, that he may not seem to be undertaking a great thing, and just such as Christ had done, he adduces the Prophet as a witness.

Then, showing that the term, "Aceldama," might well be applied to his fate, he introduces the prophet, saying, "Let his habitation be desolate." For what can be worse desolation than to become a place of burial? And the field may well be called his. For he who cast down the price, although others were the buyers, has a right to be himself reckoned owner of a great desolation. This desolation was the prelude to that of the Jews, as will appear on looking closely into the facts. For indeed they destroyed themselves by famine, and killed many, and the city became a burial-place of strangers, of soldiers.

Homily on Acts 3

Not only does the saying hold true in the time of Judas, but even today. If Judas lost his office of apostle, let priest and bishop be on guard lest they, too, lose their ministry. If an apostle fell, more easily is it possible for a monk to fall. Virtue is not lost, even though man falls and perishes. The Lord continues to lend out his money at interest; if anyone who receives it does not double it, it is taken away and given to another who already has some. The Lord’s money cannot lie idle.

Homilies on the Psalms 35 (psalm 108)

Let his habitation be desolate, and let there be no one to dwell in it, and let another take his office. Indeed, these verses are clear and openly explained by the blessed Peter, because Judas received the deserved punishment for his transgression, and going to his own place, namely infernal hell, he deserted the common habitation of human conversation by an untimely and impious death, and nonetheless, with the holy Matthias taking his place in the ministry and apostleship, the most sacred sum of apostolic perfection was restored. But it is to be noted that the whole testimony is not taken from the one hundred and eighth psalm according to the Vulgate Edition, but only the final part, while the former is from the sixty-eighth, in which it is said of the Jews: Let their habitation be desolate, and let there be no one to dwell in their tents. For while the blessed Peter wished to confirm both the rejection of Judas and the election of Matthias with prophetic testimonies, he joined the testimony which was specifically about Matthias's episcopate with that which was generally placed about the rejection of the Jews, among whom Judas was also numbered. This, I know not by which first unskilled editor, was added to the one hundred and eighth psalm. When he saw these verses put together by the blessed Peter, and his Psalter not having them together, he began to think his Codex falsified, and presumed to add what he did not have. In the same way, eight verses from the thirteenth psalm were added in the Epistle of Paul to the Romans, which he had composed from various psalms and the prophet Isaiah. The first of these is: Their throat is an open sepulcher. The last: There is no fear of God before their eyes. These things which I have said, not only the Hebrew truth and the more correct edition of the seventy interpreters confirm, but also open reason proves, that in the same one hundred and eighth psalm, excepting these verses, there are thirty curses laid upon Judas Iscariot, according to the number of pieces of silver with which he did not fear to sell the Lord. The first of which is: Set a sinner over him. The last: And let them be covered with their own confusion as with a cloak.

Commentary on Acts

The words "let his habitation be desolate" (see also Ps. 68:26) were said about this land and about the house of Judas, for what could be more desolate than a cemetery, and a public cemetery at that, which is what this land became? And the words: "let another take his office" (see also Ps. 108:8) point to the rank of the priesthood.

Commentary on Acts

21–22

"Wherefore it behooves of these men which have companied with us all the time." Why does he make it their business too? That the matter might not become an object of strife, and they might not fall into contention about it. For if the Apostles themselves once did this, much more might those. This he ever avoids. Wherefore at the beginning he said, "Men and brethren. It behooves" to choose from among you. He defers the decision to the whole body, thereby both making the elected objects of reverence and himself keeping clear of all invidiousness with regard to the rest. For such occasions always give rise to great evils.

Now that some one must needs be appointed, he adduces the prophet as witness: but from among what persons: "Of these," he says, "which have companied with us, all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John unto that same day that He was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of His resurrection": that their college might not be left mutilated. Then why did it not rest with Peter to make the election himself: what was the motive? This; that he might not seem to bestow it of favor. And besides, he was not yet endowed with the spirit.

"Wherefore of these men which have companied with us," continues Peter. Observe how desirous he is they should be eye-witnesses. It is true indeed that the Spirit would shortly come; and yet great care is shown with regard to this circumstance. "Of these men," he says, "which have companied with us, all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us." He shows that they had dwelt with Christ, not simply been present as disciples. In fact, from the very beginning there were many that then followed Him. "All the time," he says, "that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John." True! for no one knew what preceded that event, though they did learn it by the Spirit. "Unto that same day that He was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of His resurrection." He said not, a witness of the rest of his actions, but a witness of the resurrection alone. For indeed that witness had a better right to be believed, who was able to declare, that He Who ate and drank, and was crucified, the same rose again. Wherefore it was needed that he should be a witness, not only of the time preceding this event, nor only of what followed it, and of the miracles; the thing required was, the resurrection. For the other matters were manifest and acknowledged, but the resurrection took place in secret, and was manifest to these only. And they do not say, Angels have told us; but, We have seen. For this it was that was most needful at that time: that they should be men having a right to be believed, because they had seen.

Homily on Acts 3

Peter announces to them, so that the matter may not become a subject of bitter contest, and that they may not fall into quarreling. For this reason he also begins, "Men, brothers," he says, "it is necessary to choose from among you, entrusting the decision to the multitude, and at the same time making the chosen ones respectable, and freeing himself from hate toward the others." And that which needed to happen, he even introduces by quoting the prophet: "Another will take his office." (Ps. 109:8) But from whom must he be chosen? From those who, by their assembly with them, have shown themselves tried over time. Therefore he did not even say "from the respectable," so as not to seem to insult the others.

Commentary on Acts

He presents the matter as shared with the brethren, so that it would not meet with objections and would not give occasion for disputes. Therefore at the beginning of the discourse he also said: "Men and brethren, it is necessary to choose from among you," — entrusting the choice to all, and at the same time granting honor to those chosen, and freeing himself from reproach on the part of anyone whatsoever. And that this is how it had to be, he himself says and brings a prophet as witness. From whom was the choice to be made? "From those who were with us the entire time." He says this because it necessarily had to be so. And he did not say: "from honorable men who are with us," because then it would have seemed that he was insulting the rest. But now the matter was decided by time.

Commentary on Acts

Having begun he added: "From the baptism of John." For concerning this, none of them knew, having learned and being present, except only the one chosen; but the Spirits perceived. And he declared him a witness of the resurrection. For this is above all the chief point of Jesus' divinity. Since also regarding his miracles before the passion, many were witnesses and even the unbelieving who had seen them.

Commentary on Acts

"Was together with us a witness of His resurrection," so that the company of disciples would not be diminished in any way. He says: "a witness of the resurrection," and not of anything else, for whoever proves worthy to testify that the Lord, who ate and drank with the disciples, and was crucified, and rose again — to such a person it is all the more possible and necessary to entrust testimony about the other events as well, because what was sought was the resurrection, since it was accomplished in secret, while the rest happened openly.

Commentary on Acts

He [Justus, surnamed Barsabbas] drank a deadly poison, and yet, by the grace of the Lord, suffered no harm.

Church History (Book 3), Chapter 39, Section 9

But it is fitting to subjoin to the words of Papias which have been quoted, other passages from his works in which he relates some other wonderful events which he claims to have received from tradition.

That Philip the apostle dwelt at Hierapolis with his daughters has been already stated. But it must be noted here that Papias, their contemporary, says that he heard a wonderful tale from the daughters of Philip. For he relates that in his time one rose from the dead. And he tells another wonderful story of Justus, surnamed Barsabbas: that he drank a deadly poison, and yet, by the grace of the Lord, suffered no harm.

The Book of Acts records that the holy apostles after the ascension of the Saviour, put forward this Justus, together with Matthias, and prayed that one might be chosen in place of the traitor Judas, to fill up their number. The account is as follows: "And they put forward two, Joseph, called Barsabbas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias; and they prayed and said." [Acts 1:23]

Church History (Book 3), Chapter 39, Sections 8-10

"And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabus, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias." Not he appointed them: but it was he that introduced the proposition to that effect, at the same time pointing out that even this was not his own, but from old time by prophecy; so that he acted as expositor, not as preceptor. "Joseph called Barsabus, who was surnamed Justus." Perhaps both names are given, because there were others of the same name, for among the Apostles also there were several names alike; as James, and James (the son) of Alphaeus; Simon Peter, and Simon Zelotes; Judas (the brother) of James, and Judas Iscariot. The appellation, however, may have arisen from a change of life, and very likely also of the moral character.

"And they appointed two," it is said. Why not many? That the feeling of disappointment might not reach further, extending to many. Again, it is not without reason that he puts Matthias last; he would show, that frequently he that is honourable among men, is inferior before God.

Homily on Acts 3

They choose two: Joseph, surnamed the Just, and Matthias—a name, as they say, that means “God’s small one” in the Hebrew language, and by calling [him, God] confirms him as humble. Oh, how different are human from heavenly judgments! He who was just according to the praise of humankind is surpassed by the merit of a small one.

On the Acts of the Apostles 1

And they hastened to fill up the number of the apostles, for fear that the teacher's choice be as if harmed. They did not, however, appoint many, but only two alone, so that greater hopelessness would not arise from many being passed over.

Commentary on Acts

Barsabbas and Joseph and Justus, either names of distinction or of zeal.

Commentary on Acts

Joseph who is called Barsabbas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. Barsabbas is interpreted as "son of rest," Matthias as "little one of God." Concerning whom Arator says: . . . . . . O how far human judgments differ from those above? He who was just is deservedly surpassed by the little one in human praise.

Commentary on Acts

And they appointed two, Joseph who was called Barsabbas, who was surnamed Justus. In Greek it is more detailed: And having said these things, they appointed two: Joseph who was called Barsabbas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. Where we in this sentence read Justus, in the Greek also Justus is written. If we believe it to be a Latin name, it seems that this man was of such virtue that even the Romans, who could have known him, gave him the name of justice. But if it is a Hebrew name, it can be interpreted as “sparing” or “he himself uplifted,” as Jerome teaches in the Book of Hebrew Names. What is called Justus in Latin, in Hebrew is Sadoch, and in Greek is called δίκαιος. Furthermore, Clement of Alexandria, a most learned man in all respects, reports that both those appointed to the lot of apostleship were from the number of the seventy disciples.

Retractions on Acts

"And they appointed two." Why not many? So that no great disorder would arise, and besides, the matter concerned only a few. What kind of men were they? Perhaps they were from the number of the Seventy who had been with the twelve apostles, or from other believers, but more fervently believing and more devout than the rest. Such were both Joseph and Matthias. He calls Joseph both Barsabbas and Justus, perhaps because among them these names referred to one person; but perhaps a new name was also given on account of a change in way of life; finally, the surname was perhaps assigned according to one's occupation. Why does James, who had received the episcopate in Jerusalem, not begin the discourse, but yields the right to address the people to Peter? Because he was filled with humility; at that time they thought nothing of human considerations, but had in view the common benefit. For this very same reason the apostles also yield the seat to him and do not rival him, and do not contend with him.

Commentary on Acts

Though the imperial power be great, yet consider, O Emperor, how great God is. He sees the hearts of all, He questions the inmost conscience, He knows all things before they happen, He knows the inmost things of your breast. You do not suffer yourselves to be deceived, and do you desire to conceal anything from God?

Letter 57

24–25

"They appointed two," it is said, "Joseph called Barsabus, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed, and said; Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, show whether of these two thou hast chosen, that he may take part of this ministry and Apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place." They do well to mention the sin of Judas, thereby showing that it is a witness they ask to have; not increasing the number, but not suffering it to be diminished.

And they all pray in common saying, "Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, show. Thou," not "We." And very seasonably they use the epithet, "heart-knowing:" for by Him Who is this must the choice be made. So confident were they, that assuredly one of them must be appointed. They said not, Choose, but, "Show the chosen one;" knowing that all things were foreordained of God; "Whom Thou didst choose: one of these two," say they, "to have his lot in this ministry and apostleship." For there was besides another ministry.

Homily on Acts 3

A lottery takes place to avoid contention and to assure greater certitude and clarity. The source of this rule is the counsel of God. The apostles imply the idea when they say, Lord, who knowest the hearts Thus it is clear that the lot does not happen by chance but by the power of God.

They call him a discerner of hearts at the right time; and they do not say, "Choose," but, "Appoint the one chosen." For all things are known and the best are with God, and before our considerations. And he calls it an inheritance, showing the whole of God's love and choice, and recalling the ancients, that he likewise allotted the Levites in this way.

Commentary on Acts

They cry out in prayer to the Knower of Hearts at the fitting time. They do not go on to say "choose," but "show… the one whom You have chosen," knowing that with God all things are determined before human thought.

Commentary on Acts

Specifically, he says, "In this ministry," for there were also others. And he calls his own place the gallows, that is, the one for which Judas prepared himself by his betrayal. Or because Judas was cast out, he might have his own place, receiving the office that belonged to him.

Commentary on Acts

"To go to his own place." The place which Matthias was worthy to occupy, Luke calls "his own" or "one's own," because just as Judas, even before he fell from it, from the time he became sick with the disease of love of money and betrayal, was already alienated from this place, so too even before Matthias occupied this place, from the time he made himself worthy of such a gift, it became his own possession. And in another sense: "to his own place": each person by his own deeds prepares for himself either a good or a bad place. So when Luke says this, he says that Judas went "to his own place" — a bad one, which he prepared for himself by the betrayal of Jesus; because places are not good or bad for us by nature, but by our own deeds we prepare a place for ourselves. The word "place" has many meanings. It signifies, among other things, a certain office; thus, we say "the place of a bishop or a presbyter." One can see the same thing also from the opposite perspective, depending on how each person prepares his own place for himself by his own deeds: thus one can hold the place of a false teacher and a false apostle, just as of a tyrant and an author of other criminal deeds. So, since Judas too, having been carried away by the passion of avarice, took the place of a traitor, it is rightly said of him: "to go to his own place." Having lost through his actions his place in the ranks of the apostles, he prepared for himself "his own place."

Commentary on Acts

"And they gave forth their lots" (for the spirit was not yet sent), "and the lot fell upon Matthias: and he was numbered with the eleven Apostles."

"And they gave them their lots." For they did not yet consider themselves to be worthy to be informed by some sign. And besides, if in a case where neither prayer was made, nor men of worth were the agents, the casting of lots so much availed, because it was done of a right intention, I mean in the case of Jonah; much more did it here. Thus, did he, the designated, fill up the company, complete the order: but the other candidate was not annoyed; for the apostolic writers would not have concealed that or any other failings of their own, seeing they have told of the very chief Apostles, that on other occasions they had indignation, and this not once only, but again and again.

Let us then also imitate them. And now I address no longer every one, but those who aim at preferment. If thou believest that the election is with God, be not displeased. For it is with Him thou art displeased, and with Him thou art exasperated: it is He who has made the choice; thou doest the very thing that Cain did; because, forsooth, his brother's sacrifice was preferred, he was indignant, when he ought to have felt compunction. However, that is not what I mean here; but this, that God knows how to dispense things for the best.

Homily on Acts 3

This saying, “I have chosen you twelve,” may be understood in this way, that twelve is a sacred number. For the honor of that number was not taken away because one was lost, for another was chosen into the place of the one that perished. The number remained a sacred number, a number containing twelve. These twelve were to make known the Three [the Trinity] throughout the whole world, that is, throughout the four quarters of the world. That is the reason of the three times four. Judas, then, only cut himself off; he did not profane the number twelve. He abandoned his Teacher, but God appointed a successor to take his place.

Tractates on the Gospel of John 27.10

He reproved them by saying, “Are there not twelve hours in the day? If any man walks in the day, he does not stumble.” Follow me, if you do not wish to stumble: do not give counsel to me, from whom you ought to receive it. To what, then, refer the words “Are there not twelve hours in the day”? So as to point himself out as the day, he chose twelve disciples. If I am the day, he says, and you the hours, is it for the hours to give counsel to the day? The day is followed by the hours, not the hours by the day. If these, then, were the hours, what in such a reckoning was Judas? Was he also among the twelve hours? If he was an hour, he had light; and if he had light, how was the Day betrayed by him to death? But the Lord, in so speaking, foresaw not Judas himself but his successor. For Judas, when he fell, was succeeded by Matthias, and the twelvefold number preserved. It was not, then, without a purpose that the Lord chose twelve disciples, but to indicate that he himself is the spiritual Day. Let the hours then attend upon the Day, let them preach the Day, be made known and illuminated by the Day, and by the preaching of the hours may the world believe in the Day. And so in a summary way it was just this that he said, “Follow me, if you do not wish to stumble.”

Tractates on the Gospel of John 49.8

What lesson then, my brothers, did our Lord Jesus Christ wish to impress on his church, when it pleased him to have one castaway among the twelve, but this, that we should bear with the wicked and refrain from dividing the body of Christ?… Such was this man Judas, and yet he went in and out with the eleven holy disciples. With them he came even to the table of the Lord: he was permitted to converse with them, but he could not contaminate them. Both Peter and Judas partook of one bread, and yet what communion had the believer with the infidel? Peter’s partaking was to life, but that of Judas to death. For that good bread was just like the sweet savor. For as the sweet savor, so also does the good bread give life to the good and bring death to the wicked. “For whoever eats unworthily eats and drinks judgment against himself”: “judgment against himself,” not against you. If, then, it is judgment against him, not against you, bear as one that is good with him that is evil, that you may attain the rewards of the good and not be hurled into the punishment of the wicked.

Tractates on the Gospel of John 50.10

Since they are not yet perfected, they learn who is worthy by lot and not by miracle. Yet it should not be faulted that it is done by lot. For if the lot had power concerning Jonah when rejected and profane men cast lots, (Jonah 1:7) what then must be thought when they permit the saints to prayer? Indeed, if only the right mind of those men rightly directed the matter, much more so that of divine men.

Commentary on Acts

And they gave forth their lots, etc. This example, or because the prophet Jonah was caught by lot, should not be indiscriminately relied upon for lots, "since the privileges of individuals," as Jerome says, "can by no means make a common law." For there, even the Gentile men, driven by the storm, sought the author of the danger by lot, and here Matthias is chosen by lot, lest the selection of the apostles seem to differ from the command of the old law, where the high priest was commanded to be sought by lot, as it is said about Zechariah: According to the custom of the priesthood, it fell to him by lot to put incense (Luke 1). Therefore, as I think, he was then chosen by lot, so that by the type it might be figured that a true priest should always have been sought, until he came for whom it was reserved, who not by the blood of sacrifices, but by his own blood entered once into the holy places having obtained eternal redemption (Hebrews 9). Whose sacrifice, offered at the time of Passover, but truly consumed on the day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit appeared in fire. For it was the custom of the old to consume victims accepted by God with heavenly fire. Therefore, until the truth was fulfilled, it was allowed to practice the figure. Hence it is that Matthias, who is ordained before Pentecost, is sought by lot; but the seven deacons afterward are not ordained by lot, but only by the election of the disciples and the prayer and imposition of hands by the apostles. But if any, compelled by some necessity, think that God should be consulted by lots as an example of the apostles, let them see that the apostles themselves did this not except by gathering the brotherhood and pouring out prayers to God.

Commentary on Acts

Everywhere he calls the election "receiving a lot," showing by this that everything occurs according to God's love for mankind and God's choosing, and reminding them of ancient events, because just as the Levites, so also them God chose for Himself by lot. Why do they prefer election by lot? Because they did not yet consider themselves worthy to learn about this through any sign, and the Holy Spirit had not yet descended upon them; nor was there need for a sign, because the lot held great significance. If already in the case when neither prayer nor the wisdom of men helped to determine the correct judgment regarding Jonah, but on the contrary, the lot meant so much, then all the more so in this case.

Commentary on Acts