Acts 15

The reason why the Holy Spirit did, when the apostles at that time were consulting, relax the bond and yoke for us, was that we might be free to devote ourselves to the shunning of idolatry.

On Idolatry

Observe what he alleges as a proof of his statement: “Christians at first were few in number and held the same opinions, but when they grew to be a great multitude, they were divided and separated, each wishing to have his own individual party. This was their object from the beginning.” That Christians at first were few in number, in comparison with the multitudes who subsequently became Christian, is no doubt true.…He also says that “all the Christians were of one mind,” not noticing, even in this particular, that from the beginning there were differences of opinion among believers regarding the meaning of the books held to be divine. At all events, while the apostles were still preaching and eyewitnesses of Jesus were still teaching his doctrine, there was no small discussion among the converts from Judaism regarding Gentile believers and whether they ought to observe Jewish customs or reject the burden of clean and unclean meats as not being obligatory on those who had abandoned their ancestral Gentile customs and had become believers in Jesus.

Against Celsus 3.10-11

But because this heresy did then seem the more powerful to seduce men, and the whole Church was in danger, we the twelve assembled together at Jerusalem (for Matthias was chosen to be an apostle in the room of the betrayer, and took the lot of Judas; as it is said, "His bishopric let another take"). We deliberated, together with James the Lord's brother, what was to be done; and it seemed good to him and to the elders to speak to the people words of doctrine. For certain men likewise went down from Judea to Antioch, and taught the brethren who were there, saying: "Unless ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, and walk according to the other customs which he ordained, ye cannot be saved." When, therefore, there had been no small dissension and disputation, the brethren which were at Antioch, when they knew that we were all met together about this question, sent out unto us men who were faithful and understanding in the Scriptures to learn concerning this question.

Constitutions of the Holy Apostles Book 6

Mark how at every step of the right progress in respect of the Gentiles, the beginning is brought in as matter of necessity. Before this Peter being found fault with, justified himself, and said all that he said in the tone of apology, which was what made his words acceptable: then, the Jews having turned away, upon this Paul came to the Gentiles. Here again, seeing another extravagance coming in, upon this the apostle enacts the law. For as it is likely that they, as being taught of God, discoursed to all indifferently, this moved to jealousy them of the Jews who had believed. And they did not merely speak of circumcision, but they said, Ye cannot even be saved. Whereas the very opposite to this was the case, that receiving circumcision they could not be saved.

Homily on Acts 32

In Jerusalem, then, there were not any believers from among the Gentiles: but in Antioch of course there were. Therefore there came down certain yet laboring under this disease of the love of rule, and wishing to have those of the Gentiles attached to them. And yet Paul, though he too was learned in the Law, was not thus affected.

Homily on Acts 32

Not those faithful from the Gentiles, but those from the Jews demanded that the faithful be circumcised, and that they perform other fleshly things of the law; whom, wishing to boast in their own peculiar circumcision, the disciples did not receive, although they themselves were of the circumcision; for they sought not their own, but the common good and salvation of the world. [AMMONIUS]

Commentary on Acts

You see, the apostles were subjected to trials both external and internal. It was not simply said that circumcision was necessary, but: "unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." The opposite opinion to this was that by being circumcised, believers could not be saved.

Commentary on Acts

It is to be noted that the early believers, with much searching and great eagerness, discussed dogmas, and that they benefited to such an extent through their discussions and that the Antiochians did not hesitate to send [someone] to Jerusalem to inquire about the controversy. And yet their inquiry was not, in the first place, about the Godhead, or the providential incarnation of the Son, or the Holy Spirit, or angels, or powers, or heaven, or anything like this, but about circumcision, about the least part of a man’s genitals. They were aware of the fact that the words “a single iota and a single point of the law” were full of a great spiritual meaning. The Antiochian disciples were afraid to take authority, but they took so much thought even for questions that seemed to be trifling, seeing that those from Antioch sent Paul and Barnabas to consult those in Jerusalem, while the disciples from Jerusalem sent Judah and Silas back to Antioch with their letters.

Catena on the Acts of the Apostles 15.7-8

How can he say in his letter to the Galatians, “I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before me, nor did I move”? We suggest this: in the first place because he had not gone up spontaneously but had been sent by others; and in the second place because he did not come in order to learn something but to persuade others. Indeed, from the beginning he held that opinion that the apostles approved later, namely, that it was not necessary to circumcise. Until that day, however, it had seemed to them that [Paul] was not worthy of faith, but they rather listened more to those who lived in Jerusalem. So [Paul] went up, not in order to gain what he had been ignorant of before but in order to persuade his opponents because those who were in Jerusalem agreed with them. He had recognized from the start what had to be done and needed no teacher. And he had a clear and sure idea, beyond any discussion, of what the apostles would have decreed after a long discussion. Since it had seemed opportune to the brothers that he might learn something about them, he went up not for himself but for them. Even though he says, “I did not go up,” we can explain that. He did not go up at the beginning of his preaching or in order to learn. And he means both these things when he says, “I did not go immediately in flesh and blood.” He did not simply say, “I did not go” but “I did not go immediately.”

Catena on the Acts of the Apostles 15.2-4

And Paul does not say, What? Have I not a right to be believed after so many signs? but he complied for their sakes. But when he returned from thence, the doctrine also became more exact. For if they at Jerusalem enjoin no such thing, much more these have no right to do so.

Homily on Acts 32

How in the Epistle to the Galatians he says, "I did not go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, nor did I entrust the Gospel to them or preach it among the Gentiles"; (Gal. 1:16-17) and yet here he says that Paul and Barnabas were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders? And we say that, first, he did not himself go up, but was sent by others. Secondly, that he did not arrive as one being instructed, but persuading others. For he from the beginning held this opinion, which the apostles afterwards confirmed, that it was not necessary to be circumcised. But since at first he did not seem to them to be trustworthy, and they gave heed to those in Jerusalem, he went up, not so much to be more persuaded himself as to persuade the objectors that even those in Jerusalem agreed with these things. [CHRYSOSTOM]

Commentary on Acts

They decided that Paul and Barnabas and some others from them should go up to the apostles and elders in Jerusalem, etc. About this ascension of his, Paul himself writes to the Galatians: Then, after fourteen years, I went up to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also, and I communicated to them the Gospel which I preach among the Gentiles (Galatians II); where the very number that he mentioned must be reckoned in years. For we know that the apostles Peter and Paul suffered martyrdom in the thirty-eighth year after the passion of the Lord, that is, in the last year of Nero, and that the blessed Peter sat upon the episcopal throne in Rome for twenty-five years. Now, twenty-five and fourteen make not thirty-eight but thirty-nine. Therefore, it follows that we believe the blessed Peter came to Rome in the same fourteenth year after the passion of the Lord, in which Paul conversed with him at Jerusalem, in the fourth year of Claudius Caesar; and likewise, unless I am mistaken, from this position it is proven that the blessed Apostle Paul came to faith in the same year in which the Lord suffered and rose again.

Commentary on Acts

But Paul did not say: "Why is this? Am I not worthy of trust after having performed so many signs?" Rather, he decided to go to Jerusalem for their sake. How then does he say in the Epistle to the Galatians: "I did not go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me" (1:17)? The first time he came to Jerusalem not on his own, but was sent by others; the second time he went there not in order to learn, but in order to bring others around to his opinion, because he himself from the beginning of his conversion held the same opinion that the council of apostles later established, namely that Gentile converts should not be circumcised. And since it seemed to certain Christians from among the Jews that Paul alone could not be trusted to decide the question, and since they turned their eyes to the apostles who were in Jerusalem, Paul went there — he went not in order to learn anything more, but in order to convince those who were saying the opposite that the apostles in Jerusalem also decided this question in agreement with him and Barnabas.

Commentary on Acts

And observe, the consequence is that all the Samaritans also, learn what has come to the Gentiles: and they rejoiced. Do you mark, as many as are not enamoured of rule, rejoiced in their believing? It was no ambitious feeling that prompted their recitals, neither was it for display, but in justification of the preaching to the Gentiles.

Homily on Acts 32

See what a providence is here! And observe they do not come accusing those at Antioch, but "declaring all things that God had done with them." Thus they say nothing of what had happened in the matter of the Jews. But still they brought forward none of these charges: but when they have proved the matter, then the Apostles write in stronger terms.

Homily on Acts 32

"And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were splendidly received by the church." When Paul and Barnabas were come to Jerusalem with the brethren because of the question that was being inquired into, they were received with great joy by the whole church. There again, there was much disputing between the Pharisees who had already converted and the apostles about circumcision. Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, explained that the Gentiles were not to be purified by circumcision, but by faith. James the bishop, who was called the Lord's brother, also followed this view and supported it with great reasonings and with a prophet's testimony, saying that Moses was content with his name being uttered with reverence in the synagogue on every sabbath.

Complexiones on the Acts of the Apostles

He then cursorily touches on his own conversion from a persecutor to an apostle-confirming thereby the Acts of the Apostles, in which book may be found the very subject of this epistle, how that certain persons interposed, and said that men ought to be circumcised, and that the law of Moses was to be observed; and how the apostles, when consulted, determined, by the authority of the Holy Ghost, that "a yoke should not be put upon men's necks which their fathers even had not been able to bear." Now, since the Acts of the Apostles thus agree with Paul, it becomes apparent why you reject them.

Against Marcion Book 5

Great effrontery this, of the Pharisees, that even after faith they set up the Law, and will not obey the Apostles. But see these, how mildly they speak, and not in the tone of authority: such words are amiable, and more apt to fix themselves in the mind. Observe, it is nowhere a display of words, but demonstration by facts, by the Spirit. And yet, though they have such proofs, they still speak gently. But even if they would needs bring over the Gentiles to their side, they learn that neither must the Apostles overlook it.

Homily on Acts 32

Saying that it is necessary to circumcise them. The Galatians were deceived by this error, believing that circumcision and the ceremonies of the law should be mixed with the grace of baptism.

Commentary on Acts

The believers not from among the Gentiles, but from among the Jews, demanded that those who accepted the faith be circumcised and observe the other commandments of the law that pertained to the fleshly nature of man. The other disciples disagreed with them, who reasoned on the basis of the ancient law, even though they themselves were also of the circumcision, because they endeavored to make a ruling not according to their own desire, but in consideration of the common good.

Commentary on Acts

"And the Apostles and elders came together to consider of this matter. And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up and said unto them." And this too is no small point-at a time when Jews believed, not turned away from the Gospel. "Among us," an argument from the place: "of old days," from the time.

Homily on Acts 32

And from this passage also one can conclude that the apostles had a certain special dignity, by which they stood above the elders, otherwise Luke would have designated all of them by one common name together with the elders.

Commentary on Acts

Moreover, in that dispute about the observance or non-observance of the Law, Peter was the first of all to be endued with the Spirit, and, after making preface touching the calling of the nations, to say, "And now why are ye tempting the Lord, concerning the imposition upon the brethren of a yoke which neither we nor our fathers were able to support? But however, through the grace of Jesus we believe that we shall be saved in the same way as they." This sentence both "loosed" those parts of the law which were abandoned, and "bound" those which were reserved.

On Modesty

And when some said one thing, and some another, I Peter stood up, and said unto them: "Men and brethren, ye know how that from ancient days God made choice among you that the Gentiles should hear the word of the Gospel by my mouth, and believe; and God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness.

Constitutions of the Holy Apostles

See how Peter was, from the beginning, removed from the debate and how he was following the ways of the Jews even still. “You know,” he says. Perhaps some of those who had once accused him with regard to Cornelius were present and had entered with him, so that he brings them as witnesses. “From the ancient days God chose among you.” What does “among you” mean? It means either “in Palestine” or the “you” is those who were present. “Through my mouth.” See how [Peter] shows that God spoke through him and there was nothing human. “And God, who knows human hearts, testified to them”—he refers them to the testimony of the Spirit—“by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us.”

Catena on the Acts of the Apostles 15.7-8

Observe Peter from the first standing aloof from the affair, and even to this time judaizing. And yet he says "ye know." Perhaps those were present who of old found fault with him in the matter of Cornelius, and went in with him on that occasion: for this reason he brings them forward as witnesses. "From old days," he says, "did choose among you." What means, "Among you?" Either, in Palestine, or, you being present. "By my mouth." Observe how he shows that it was God speaking by him, and no human utterance. And that expression, "Chose:" just as in their own case he says not, so willed it, but, "Chose that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the Gospel and believe." Whence is this proved? From the Spirit.

Homily on Acts 32

Perhaps those who accused him earlier regarding Cornelius were present, and having entered with him, therefore they produce them as witnesses. But what is meant by "God chose to make"? That is, choosing among us while we are present in Palestine. [CHRYSOSTOM]

Commentary on Acts

Notice: the grace to resolve the question is received by Peter, in whom even until now there remained elements of Judaism. "You," he says, "know." Perhaps those who had once accused him on account of Cornelius were present here, and perhaps also those who had entered with him into the house of Cornelius, and that is why he calls them as witnesses. What does the expression "chose from among us" mean? It means "in Palestine" or "in your presence." And by the words "from my mouth" he shows that God spoke through him and that there was nothing human in it.

Commentary on Acts

"And God, that knoweth the hearts, gave testimony unto them:" he refers them to the spiritual testimony: "by giving them the Holy Ghost even as unto us." Everywhere he puts the Gentiles upon a thorough equality. Then he shows that the testimony given them is not of grace merely, but of their virtue. "And God which knoweth the hearts bare them witness;" having afforded to them nothing less than to us, for, he says, "Put no difference between us and them." Why then, hearts are what one must everywhere look to. And it is very appositely said, "God that knoweth the hearts bare them witness:" as in the former instance, "Thou, Lord, that knowest the hearts of all men." For to show that this is the meaning, observe what he adds, "Put no difference between us and them."

Homily on Acts 32

He points them to the spiritual witness.

Commentary on Acts

"And put no difference between us and them, having purified their hearts by faith." From faith alone, he says, they obtained the same gifts. This is also meant as a lesson to those objectors; this is able to teach even them that faith only is needed, not works nor circumcision. For indeed they do not say all this only by way of apology for the Gentiles, but to teach the Jewish believers also to abandon the Law. When he has mentioned the testimony borne to them, then he utters that great word, the same which Paul speaks, "Neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision." "That he may make the twain one in Himself." Of all these the seeds lie in Peter's discourse. And he does not say between them of the circumcision, but "Between us," that is the Apostles, "and them." Then, that the expression, "no difference" may not seem an outrage, After faith, he says-"Having purified their hearts by faith"-He thoroughly cleansed them first.

Homily on Acts 32

Faith in God purifies the heart, the pure heart sees God. But faith is sometimes defined as followed by people who wish to deceive themselves; as if it were enough merely to believe—some people, you see, promise themselves the vision of God and the kingdom of heaven for believing while living bad lives. Against these the apostle James indignantly took umbrage out of spiritual charity, so he says in his letter, “You believe that God is one.” You pat yourself on your back for your faith; you observe that many godless people assume there are many gods, and you congratulate yourself for believing that there is only one God. “You do well. The demons also believe—and shudder.” Shall they too see God? Those who are pure of heart shall see him. Whoever would say that the unclean spirits are pure of heart? And yet, “they believe—and shudder.”So our faith must be distinguished from the faith of demons. Our faith, you see, purifies the heart, their faith makes them guilty.… So let us distinguish our faith and see that believing is not enough. That is not the sort of faith that purifies the heart. “Purifying their hearts,” it says, “by faith.” But which faith, what sort of faith? The one, surely, which the apostle Paul defines when he says “faith that works through love.” This faith is different from the faith of demons, different from the morals of dissolute and desperate people. “Faith,” he says. “Which faith?” The one “that works through love,” hopes for what God promises. You could not have a more perfect, a more carefully thought-out definition than that.

Sermon 53.10-11

"and he made no distinction," he says, "between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith," that is, having affected a cleansing of the sins coming from their hearts. And this cleansing seemed like circumcision, and instead of circumcision in the flesh is given circumcision in the Spirit, which cleanses the hidden things by faith toward Christ. That physical circumcision is not of benefit is shown from the fact that it was given to the male alone. But in Christ Jesus, by true faith, "there is neither male nor female, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither Greek nor Barbarian, but we are all one." (Gal. 3:28) [AMMONIUS]

Commentary on Acts

Purifying their hearts by faith. Therefore, it is not necessary to cleanse them with the circumcision of the flesh, whose hearts such great faith purifies, that they even deserve to receive the Holy Spirit before baptism.

Commentary on Acts

Where faith cleanses sins proceeding from the heart, there is no distinction between believers, whether they be Jews or Greeks. And this cleansing replaced circumcision; instead of fleshly circumcision, spiritual circumcision is granted, which through faith in Christ cleanses even secret sins.

Commentary on Acts

And since there are some who sometimes assert that they have nothing to do with the law (which Christ has not dissolved, but fulfilled), sometimes catch at such parts of the law as they choose; plainly do we too assert that the law has deceased in this sense, that its burdens-according to the sentence of the apostles-which not even the fathers were able to sustain, have wholly ceased: such (parts), however.

On Monogamy

For it is the "burdens" of the law which were "until John," not the remedial virtues. It is the "yokes" of "works" that have been rejected, not those of disciplines. "Liberty in Christ" has done no injury to innocence.

On Modesty

Our ancestors, who were chiefs of the Hebrews, when they were distressed by famine and want, passed over into Egypt, that they might obtain a supply of corn; and sojourning there a long time, they were oppressed with an intolerable yoke of slavery. Then God pitied them, and led them out, and freed them from the hand of the king of the Egyptians, after four hundred and thirty years, under the leadership of Moses, through whom the law was afterwards given to them by God. And when he had first taken the fruit from the vineyard, having become merry, he drank even to intoxication. But the Hebrews, when they had entered into the wilderness, saw many wonderful deeds. For when they suffered thirst, a rock having been struck with a rod, a fountain of water sprung forth and refreshed the people. And again, when they were hungry, a shower of heavenly nourishment descended. Moreover, also, the wind brought quails into their camp, so that they were not only satisfied with heavenly bread, but also with more choice banquets. And yet, in return for these divine benefits, they did not pay honour to God; but when slavery had been now removed from them, and their thirst and hunger laid aside, they fell away into luxury, and transferred their minds to the profane rites of the Egyptians. For when Moses, their leader, had ascended into the mountain, and there tarried forty days, they made the head of an ox in gold, which they call Apis, that it might go before them as a standard. With which sin and crime God was offended, and justly visited the impious and ungrateful people with severe punishments, and made them subject to the law which He had given by Moses.

But afterwards, when they had settled in a desert part of Syria, the Hebrews lost their ancient name; and since the leader of their host was Judas, they were called Jews, and the land which they inhabited Judaea.

The Divine Institutes, Book 4, Chapter X

"Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples?" What means, "Tempt ye God?" As if He had not power to save by faith. Consequently, it proceeds from a want of faith, this bringing in the Law. Then he shows that they themselves were nothing benefited by it, and he turns the whole stress of his speech against the Law, not against them, and so cuts short the accusation of them: "which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear." And he did not say, Why do ye disbelieve? which was more harsh, but, "Tempt God," and that when the fact is demonstrated. "Why therefore tempt ye God?" who is become the God of the Gentiles: for this was tempting: whether He is able to save even after the Law. See what he does. He shows that they are in danger.

Homily on Acts 32

Why did he say this, unless they were saved through the grace of our Lord, Jesus Christ, not through the law of Moses? Through the law there came not healing but the knowledge of sin, as the apostle teaches when he says, “For knowledge of sin came through the law. But now the righteousness of God has been revealed apart from the law, though the law and the prophets have borne witness to it.” Therefore, if it has been revealed, it existed at that time but was hidden. The veil of the temple signified its being hidden, and that veil was torn at Christ’s death to signify its revelation. At that time the grace of the one mediator between God and human beings, the man Christ Jesus, existed in the people of God, but it was hidden as rain upon fleece—a rain that God bestows on his heritage, not as something due but as gratuitous. But now, with the fleece squeezed dry, that is, with the Jewish people rejected, it lies revealed in all the nations as upon the threshing floor.

On Original Sin 2.29

"why do you test God?" That is, why do you disbelieve God, as if what he says is not sufficient to save those who come to Him by faith? It should be noted that the difficult-to-accomplish precepts of the flesh need not be imposed on anyone, such as extreme fasting, or celibacy, or silence, unless someone prescribes these things for himself. For although they are difficult, they are not impossible, and yet they have been practiced by many. [AMMONIUS]

Commentary on Acts

Now, therefore, why do you test God by placing a yoke on the necks of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear. It is clear that it should be understood in many ways what is said: You shall not test the Lord your God (Matt. IV). Therefore, he tests God who attempts to serve and please him in a way other than he has commanded, who confides that he can keep his commandments without the help of his grace. But the blessed Peter wishes to remove the heavy yoke of law observance from the necks of the disciples, so that he may place upon them the light yoke of evangelical freedom. Of which Paul also says to the companions of the same grace: For you did not receive a spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, Abba, Father (Rom. VIII).

Retractions on Acts

What does "tempt God" mean? It means: "Why do you not believe God? As though God were not powerful enough to save a person through faith." To introduce the law is a sign of unbelief. It is known to all that the law was burdensome for the Israelites. The disciples acknowledged this too. And the Savior Himself pointed this out to us, saying: "Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest" (Matt. 11:28). He calls those who were under the law the laboring and heavy laden, and called Himself meek, a quality the law did not possess.

Commentary on Acts

"But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus we shall be saved, even as they." How full of power these words! The same that Paul says at large in the Epistle to the Romans, the same says Peter here. "For if Abraham," says Paul, "was justified by works, he hath whereof to glory, but not before God." Do you perceive that all this is more a lesson for them than apology for the Gentiles? However, if he had spoken this without a plea for speaking, he would have been suspected: an occasion having offered, he lays hold of it, and speaks out fearlessly. See on all occasions how the designs of their foes are made to work with them. If those had not stirred the question, these things would not have been spoken, nor what follows.

Homily on Acts 32

Then he shows, not that the Law was evil, but themselves weak. "But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus we shall be saved even as they." Mark how he ends with a fearful consideration. He does not discourse to them from the Prophets, but from things present, of which themselves were witnesses. For if, what the Law could not do, faith had power to do, "we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus we shall be saved even as they:" but faith falling off, behold, themselves are in destruction. "And put no difference between"-he said not, them of the circumcision, but "us and them," i.e. the Gentiles: for this gradual advance little by little is stronger.

Homily on Acts 32

You, who are enemies of this grace, reject the idea that we should believe that the people of old were saved by the same grace of Jesus Christ. Rather, you distinguish the different times in the manner of Pelagius in whose books this is found. You say that prior to the law they were saved by nature, then through the law and finally through Christ, as if for the human beings of the two earlier periods, namely, prior to the law and under the law, the blood of Christ was not necessary. In that way, you destroy the statement, “For there is one God and one mediator between God and humankind, the man Christ Jesus.”

Against Two Letters of the Pelagians 1.39

"But through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we believe to be saved." Just as formerly the law preserved those who observed the things declared in it, so now grace, without the guardianship of the law, saves through faith. [AMMONIUS]

Commentary on Acts

But by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we believe to be saved, even as they are. If therefore they, that is, the fathers who could not bear the yoke of the old law, believed themselves to be saved by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, it is manifest that this grace was what made the ancient righteous live. Since the righteous shall live by faith, there could have been different sacraments for different times, yet all converging harmoniously to the unity of the same faith.

Commentary on Acts

There is yet another passage similar to this: "By grace you have been saved" (Eph. 2:5). Thus, formerly the law saved those who kept everything written in the law, but now the grace of the Lord, even without observance of the law, saves through faith.

Commentary on Acts

"Then all the multitude kept silence." There was no arrogance in the Church. After Peter Paul speaks, and none silences him: James waits patiently, not starts up for the next word. Great the orderliness of the proceedings. No word speaks John here, no word the other Apostles, but held their peace, for James was invested with the chief rule, and think it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory. Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part.

Homily on Acts 33

Cyprian of Carthage said: The letter which was written to our colleague Jubaianus very fully expresses my opinion, that, according to evangelical and apostolic testimony, heretics, who are called adversaries of Christ and Antichrists, when they come to the Church, must be baptized with the one baptism of the Church, that they may be made of adversaries, friends, and of Antichrists, Christians.

Seventh Council of Carthage Under Cyprian

But James the Lord's brother answered and said: "Men and brethren, hearken unto me; Simeon hath declared how God at first visited to take out a people from the Gentiles for His name. And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written: 'Afterwards I will return, and will raise again and rebuild the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will rebuild its ruins, and will again set it up, that the residue of men may seek after the Lord, and all the nations upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doth these things.' Known unto God are all His works from the beginning of the world. Wherefore my sentence is, that we do not trouble those who from among the Gentiles turn unto God: but to charge them that they abstain from the pollutions of the Gentiles, and from what is sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication; which laws were given to the ancients who lived before the law, under the law of nature, Enos, Enoch, Noah, Melchizedek, Job, and if there be any other of the same sort."

Constitutions of the Holy Apostles Book 6

13–15

This James was bishop, as they say, and therefore he speaks last, and herein is fulfilled that saying, "In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established." But observe the discretion shown by him also, in making his argument good from the prophets, both new and old. For he had no acts of his own to declare, as Peter had and Paul. And indeed it is wisely ordered that this active part is assigned to those, as not intended to be locally fixed in Jerusalem, whereas James here, who performs the part of teacher, is no way responsible for what has been done, while however he is not divided from them in opinion. "Men and brethren," he says, "hearken unto me." Great is the moderation of the man. His also is a more complete oration, as indeed it puts the completion to the matter under discussion. "Symeon," he says, "declared:" namely, in Luke, in that he prophesied, "Which Thou hast prepared before the face of all nations, a light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of Thy people Israel." "How God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for His Name." Then, since that witness, though from the time indeed he was manifest, yet had not authority by reason of his not being ancient, therefore he produces ancient prophecy also.

Homily on Acts 33

This James, appointed by the Lord as bishop of the Jerusalem church, was the son of Joseph the carpenter, and a brother according to the flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ. From youth he was wise, and the message of the prophets is confirmed by both ancient and recent events. For he had no need to display any work, as Peter and, indeed, Paul did. It is well managed through those things that events not destined to delay for the people of Jerusalem come to pass. But this one who taught them was not to be held responsible, nor indeed to be torn away from his conviction.

Commentary on Acts

This James was a bishop, which is why he also speaks after. Pay attention also to his wisdom: he confirms his word both with new testimony and with Old Testament prophecies.

Commentary on Acts

After him James spoke as follows: "Men, brethren, Simon hath declared how God did purpose to take from among the Gentiles a people for His name. And thus do the words of the prophets agree, as it is written, After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: that the residue of men may seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, among whom my name has been invoked, saith the Lord, doing these things. Known from eternity is His work to God. Wherefore I for my part give judgment, that we trouble not them who from among the Gentiles are turned to God: but that it be enjoined them, that they do abstain from the vanities of idols, and from fornication, and from blood; and whatsoever they wish not to be done to themselves, let them not do to others."

Against Heresies Book 3

But what means it, "How God first did visit?" It means from the beginning. Moreover he well says, "Symeon expounded," implying that he too spake the mind of others. "And to this agree," etc. Observe how he shows that this is a doctrine of old time. "To take out of the Gentiles," he says, "a people for His Name." Not simply, Chose, but, "for His Name," that is for His glory. His Name is not shamed by the taking the Gentiles first, but it is even a greater glory. Here some even great thing is hinted at: that these are chosen before all.

Homily on Acts 33

Some say that this Simeon is the one who prophesied in Luke: "Now you may dismiss your servant, Lord." (Luke 2:29)

Commentary on Acts

This is that Simeon who in the Gospel of Luke prophesies: "Now You are dismissing Your servant, O Master" (Luke 2:29). The Lord was pleased to receive people from the Gentiles not simply, but "for His name," that is, for the sake of His glory.

Commentary on Acts

This is shown in a still clearer light from the letter of the apostles, which they forwarded neither to the Jews nor to the Greeks, but to those who from the Gentiles believed in Christ, confirming their faith. ... After him James spoke as follows: "Men, brethren, Simon hath declared how God did purpose to take from among the Gentiles a people for His name. And thus do the words of the prophets agree, as it is written, After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: that the residue of men may seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, among whom my name has been invoked, saith the Lord, doing these things. Known from eternity is His work to God. Wherefore I for my part give judgment, that we trouble not them who from among the Gentiles are turned to God: but that it be enjoined them, that they do abstain from the vanities of idols, and from fornication, and from blood; and whatsoever they wish not to be done to themselves, let them not do to others." ... From all these passages, then, it is evident that they did not teach the existence of another Father, but gave the new covenant of liberty to those who had lately believed in God by the Holy Spirit. But they clearly indicated, from the nature of the point debated by them, as to whether or not it were still necessary to circumcise the disciples, that they had no idea of another god.

Against Heresies Book 3

15–18

The Jews understood this to refer to the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem after the exile. But this is not true, for that temple was destroyed many times thereafter; the prophecy promises an everlasting rebuilding. Those who say it refers to Zerubbabel have not rightly understood, as if he were descended from the line of David, and this too is not true. For Zerubbabel ruled only a short time and then met the term of death. The prophecy contains a promise of eternal blessings and of the knowledge of God by all the nations, which is not fulfilled by those who lived under Zerubbabel. It is therefore plain that we must interpret this as spoken concerning our Lord Jesus Christ. For our Lord, being descended according to the flesh from David, fulfilled the promise made to David. "For the Word became flesh," (Jn. 1:14) and dwelt among us, having taken up the dwelling from David. It is therefore fitting that David's prophetic word says the dwelling will be rebuilt, and not for a short time, but for all the days of the age; and it promises to the nations the gift of knowledge of God, that is, those from the nations who have turned to Christ and have been called by the name of Christ. Others say that this was said concerning his resurrection from the dead. For when the tent that had fallen into death, that is, the flesh raised from the earth by God and Father, then the whole human form was restored to its original shape, and all our things that had fallen down were raised to a new appearance; for we were raised with Christ. Death indeed demolished all the tents. But God and the Father rebuilt in Christ. For it was not possible for our nature to be raised otherwise than by the hand of Him who shaped its beginning reaching down and fashioning it anew through regeneration by water and Spirit. (see Jn. 3:5) For it had truly fallen, a ruin incurable, and in need of that mighty hand. And he says that this need of ours will not last a short time, but for the days of an age [αἰῶνος]. For the good of incorruption is enduring in us. Then, he says, even the remnant of men after those who have believed out of Israel will have truly and by nature known God, having departed from ancient error. And he says that all the nations will be called, and upon them will be my name, upon whom it was called from the beginning, "For whom he foreknew, he also predestined," he says. (Rom. 8:29)

Commentary on Acts

15–16

Simon was known as a man close in time, but he did not have authority, since he was not an ancient man. Therefore James brings forth an ancient prophecy: "After this I will return and will rebuild the tabernacle of David which has fallen." The fall was so great that it seemed irreparable. What then? Was Jerusalem restored? Was it not destroyed even more? What restoration then does the prophecy speak of? Of the restoration after the Babylonian captivity, when Jerusalem again came to have significance.

Commentary on Acts

16–17

"After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up." What? was Jerusalem raised up? Was it not rather thrown down? What sort of raising up does he call that which took place after the return from Babylon? "That the residue of men," he says, "may seek the Lord, even all the Gentiles upon whom My Name is called." Then, what makes his word authoritative: "Saith the Lord, which doeth all these things." But if one would look into the matter closely, the kingdom of David does in fact now stand, his Offspring reigning everywhere. For what is the good of the buildings and the city, with none obeying there? And what is the harm arising from the destruction of the city, when all are willing to give their very souls? There is that come which is more illustrious than David: in all parts of the world is he now sung. This has come to pass: if so, then must this also come to pass, "And I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:" to what end? "that the residue of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom My Name is called." If then it was to this end that the city rose again namely because of Him that was to come of them, it shows that of the building of the city the cause is, the calling of the Gentiles. Who are "the residue?" those who are then left. "And all the Gentiles, upon whom My Name is called:" but observe, how he keeps the due order, and brings them in second.

Homily on Acts 33

The tabernacle of David means the race of the Jews. It must be known that after Cyrus had freed Israel from captivity, they returned to Judea and built the temple of God. Then, after they had again fortified the cities that had been destroyed before, they lived in security day by day for a long time, that is, for many days and long periods. They became an example and an assurance for all the other nations that it was necessary thereafter to turn to God.… This is an explanation of the history of these things, but a more hidden and truer interpretation would be in Christ. Indeed after he came back to life from the dead in his tabernacle that had fallen into death, that is, after God had raised his earthly flesh, then at that very moment he brought all human things back to their original ordering and all our things that had been overthrown have been brought to a new dignity. For if, as Scripture states, anyone in Christ is a new creation, we have then been raised together with him. So whereas death demolished the tabernacles of all, God the Father rebuilt them in Christ.

Catena on the Acts of the Apostles 15.16-17

After this I will return, and build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen, and the rest. The tabernacle of David signifies the shadow of the law, which was corrupted and torn apart by the traditions of the Pharisees, but when the Lord returns, that is, appears in the flesh, it is raised up by the spiritual grace of God, so that not only Jews but also all nations of the Gentiles may seek his name.

Commentary on Acts

"Saith the Lord, which doeth these things." Not "saith" only, but "doeth." Why then, it was God's work. "But the question is other than this namely, what Peter spoke more plainly, whether they must be circumcised. Then why dost thou harangue about these matters?" For what the objectors asserted, was not that they must not be received upon believing, but that it must be with the Law. And upon this Peter well pleaded: but then, as this very thing above all others troubled the hearers, therefore he sets this to rights again. And observe, that which was needful to be enacted as a rule, that it is not necessary to keep the Law, this Peter introduced: but the milder part, the truth which was received of old, this James saith, and dwells upon that concerning which nothing is written, in order that having soothed their minds by that which is acknowledged, he may opportunely introduce this likewise.

Homily on Acts 33

Whether we pray on behalf of the living or the dead, the causes which will prevent or exclude the events we pray for are in fact already at work. Indeed they are part of a series which, I suppose, goes back as far as the creation of the universe. The causes which made George's illness a trivial one were already operating while we prayed about it; if it had been what we feared, the causes of that would have been operative. That is why, as I hold, our prayers are granted, or not, in eternity. The task of dovetailing the spiritual and physical histories of the world into each other is accomplished in the total act of creation itself. Our prayers, and other free acts, are known to us only as we come to the moment of doing them. But they are eternally in the score of the great symphony. Not "pre-determined"; the syllable _pre_ lets in the notion of eternity as simply an older time. For though we cannot experience our life as an endless present, we are eternal in God's eyes; that is, in our deepest reality. When I say we are "in time" I don't mean that we are, impossibly, outside the endless present in which He beholds us as He beholds all else. I mean, our creaturely limitation is that our fundamentally timeless reality can be experienced by us only in the mode of succession.

Letters to Malcolm: Chiefly on Prayer, Letter 20 (paragraph 16)

"Wherefore," saith he, "my sentence is, not to trouble them which from among the Gentiles do turn unto God," that is, not to subvert: for, if God called them, and these observances subvert, we fight against God. And again, "them which from the Gentiles," he saith, "do turn." And he says well, with authority, the "my sentence is." He does not say, Not to offend, nor to turn them back, which is what Paul said to the Galatians, but, "not to trouble them:" he shows that the point if carried is nothing but a mere troubling. Thus he made an end of the whole matter; and while he seems to preserve the Law by adopting these rules from it, he unbinds it by taking only these.

Homily on Acts 33

That is, not to upset matters, because if God called them, and these impositions upset the calling, then we are opposing God. He speaks with authority: I "judge."

Commentary on Acts

“Speak to Aaron and his sons and to all the sons of Israel, and tell them: If anyone who is from among the sons of Israel or from among foreigners, who happens to be among you, eats any blood, I shall place my spirit over the spirit which shall have eaten the blood, and I shall abolish it from among the people, since the spirit of every flesh is its blood. To you I have also given the blood so that by it upon the altar there might be propitiations for your spirits, since the blood will make expiation for the spirit. Therefore, I have said to the sons of Israel: Every spirit among you shall not eat blood, and any foreigner among you shall not eat blood.” You see, therefore, that this law regarding blood, given equally to both the sons of Israel and to foreigners, is even observed by us from among the Gentiles who believe in God through Jesus Christ. Scripture tends to call proselytes foreigners, as when it says, “The foreigner who is among you will rise up above you, while you descend below. He shall be your head, and you shall be his tail.” Therefore, even the church of the Gentiles took in common with the people of Israel the law regarding blood, for that blessed council of the apostles, understanding that these things had been so written in the law, then ordered and decreed in writing the teachings for the Gentiles that they abstain not only from what had been sacrificed to idols and from fornication, but also from blood and from what had been suffocated. Now perhaps you will ask, “If Scripture was so clear with regard to blood, should it not also teach clearly about what has been suffocated, whether a law was given as common to the people of Israel and to foreigners, since the teachings of the apostles decree that Gentiles also observe this law?” Listen how observantly even this is guarded against in the laws of God: “If a man, any man,” it says, “from the sons of Israel and from the foreigners among you, hunts a beast or a bird, let him pour out its blood and cover it with earth, for the spirit of every flesh is its blood.”

Commentary on Romans 2.13

"But the ways in which this garment may be spotted are these: If any one withdraw from God the Father and Creator of all, receiving another teacher besides Christ, who alone is the faithful and true Prophet, and who has sent us twelve apostles to preach the word; if any one think otherwise than worthily of the substance of the Godhead, which excels all things;— these are the things which even fatally pollute the garment of baptism. But the things which pollute it in actions are these: murders, adulteries, hatreds, avarice, evil ambition. And the things which pollute at once the soul and the body are these: to partake of the table of demons, that is, to taste things sacrificed, or blood, or a carcass which is strangled, and if there be anything else which has been offered to demons. Be this therefore the first step to you of three; which step brings forth thirty commands, and the second sixty, and the third a hundred, as we shall expound more fully to you at another time."

Recognitions (Book 4)

"But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication" - and yet they often insisted upon these points in discoursing to them - but, that he may seem also to honor the Law he mentions these also, speaking however not as from Moses but from the Apostles, and to make the commandments many, he has divided the one into two saying, "and from things strangled, and from blood." For these, although relating to the body, were necessary to be observed, because these things caused great evils. "From things strangled," it says, "and from blood." Here it prohibits murder.

Homily on Acts 33

And from things strangled, and blood, that is, from shedding blood or eating with blood. These indeed were allowed for those coming from a Gentile life, as the rudiments of the faith and the ingrained habit of Gentilism, but lest they should think that the same sufficed even for the more perfect, he diligently added and said:

Commentary on Acts

To abstain from the pollutions of idols, and fornication, and that which is strangled, and blood. He speaks of that which is strangled as carrion, about which Ezekiel writes: "The priests shall not eat anything that is dead of itself or torn by beasts, whether it be from birds or from cattle" (Ezek. XLIV). Jerome explains this: "And according to the literal sense, says he, this pertains to the whole chosen royal and priestly race, which properly refers to Christians, who are anointed with spiritual oil, about which it is written: 'God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your companions.' These precepts apply, that they do not eat dead flesh, whether from birds or from cattle, whose blood has by no means been shed, which in the Acts of the Apostles is called strangled; and the epistle of the Apostles from Jerusalem warns that these things should necessarily be observed; and what is taken by a beast, because this too is similarly strangled; and it condemns priests who, with gluttonous greed, keep these things from thrushes, fig-peckers, dormice, and the like."

Retractions on Acts

These precautions, although they concern sensible things, are nevertheless necessary. Since these things were the cause of many evils, it was primarily from them that James restrained the believers.

Commentary on Acts

The public service of God shall be extinguished, psalmody shall cease, the reading of the Scriptures shall not be heard;

Dubious Hippolytus Fragments

"For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day." Since then they had heard of the Law, with good reason he enjoins these things from the Law, that he may not seem to make it of no authority. And yet observe how he does not let them be told these things from the Law, but from himself, saying, It is not that I heard these things from the Law, but how? "We have judged." Then the decree is made in common. This above all quieted them. For this cause I affirm that it is good so to write to them. Then why do we not write the same injunctions to Jews also? Moses discourses unto them. See what condescension to their weakness! Where it did no harm, he set him up as teacher, and indulged them with a gratification which hindered nothing, by permitting Jews to hear him in regard of these matters, even while leading away from him them of the Gentiles. See what wisdom! He seems to honor him, and to set him up as the authority for his own people, and by this very thing he leads away the Gentiles from him!

Homily on Acts 33

For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him in the synagogues; that is, and if they are not burdened by the severity of the precepts now, yet with passage of time, as they more frequently gather for reading of the law and the prophets, they will gradually adopt ways of life and the interrelated laws of mutual love to be preserved. For the primitive Church, still Judaizing, it is understood to have celebrated these on Sabbaths.

Commentary on Acts

Before the coming of the Savior, Moses was read every Sabbath in the synagogues alone, but after His coming the Law of Moses was read without hindrance in the churches of Christ as well. And this is evident from the fact that it is read constantly even to this day. Moreover, if the Old Testament Scripture were not read in the churches, the apostle would not have written so injudiciously in the Epistle to the Galatians: "Tell me, you who desire to be under the law: do you not listen to the law?" (Gal. 4:21).

Commentary on Acts

In ordinations of the clergy, beloved brethren, we usually consult you beforehand, and weigh the character and deserts of individuals, with the general advice. But human testimonies must not be waited for when the divine approval precedes. Aurelius, our brother, an illustrious youth, already approved by the Lord, and dear to God, in years still very young, but, in the praise of virtue and of faith, advanced; inferior in the natural abilities of his age, but superior in the honour he has merited,-has contended here in a double conflict, having twice confessed and twice been glorious in the victory of his confession, both when he conquered in the course and was banished, and when at length he fought in a severer conflict, he was triumphant and victorious in the battle of suffering. As often as the adversary wished to call forth the servants of God, so often this prompt and brave soldier both fought and conquered. It had been a slight matter, previously to have engaged under the eyes of a few when he was banished; he deserved also in the forum to engage with a more illustrious virtue so that, after overcoming the magistrates, he might also triumph over the proconsul, and, after exile, might vanquish tortures also. Nor can I discover what I ought to speak most of in him,-the glory of his wounds or the modesty of his character; that he is distinguished by the honour of his virtue, or praiseworthy for the admirableness of his modesty. He is both so excellent in dignity and so lowly in humility, that it seems that he is divinely reserved as one who should be an example to the rest for ecclesiastical discipline, of the way in which the servants of God should in confession conquer by their courage, and, after confession, be conspicuous for their character.

Epistle XXXII

Then the decree is made in common. "Then pleased it the Apostles and elders, together with the whole Church, to choose men of their own company" - do you observe they do not merely enact these matters, and nothing more? - "and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas: namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren: and they wrote letters by them after this manner." And observe, the more to authenticate the decree, they send men of their own, that there may be no room for regarding Paul and his company with suspicion. There was a design of Providence in the disputation also, that after the disputation the doctrine might be more firm.

Homily on Acts 33

"to choose men from among them to send." They decided that it should not serve merely to have the letter present, for fear that they say that they had seized one thing for another by speaking falsely, but so that the matter might also become more credible, they send those from among them, that Barnabas and Paul may be beyond suspicion. And so that it may not seem to be slander that Paul and Barnabas were the ones sent, they entrust them. They say that men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. [CHRYSOSTOM]

Commentary on Acts

"Then it pleased the apostles, and the ancients, and the whole church, to choose men and to send to Antioch." It pleased the apostles and the ancients who dwelt in Jerusalem to send with Paul and Barnabas to Antioch Judas, who is surnamed Basabas, and Silas, through whom they sent a letter to this effect: they should not believe that the law of circumcision was necessary for them, but they should only abstain from idols, fornication and strangled blood, and trust that they were in a good position if they persevered in the grace of the Lord.

Complexiones on the Acts of the Apostles

The twelve, having called together the multitude of the disciples, said, "It is not meet for us to leave the word of God and serve tables." If they avoided this, much more did they shun gluttony. And the apostles themselves, writing to the brethren at Antioch, and in Syria and Cilicia, said: "It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no other burden than these necessary things, to abstain from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication, from which, if you keep yourselves, ye shall do well." But we must guard against drunkenness as against hemlock; for both drag down to death.

The Instructor Book 2

Then it seemed good to us the apostles, and to James the bishop, and to the elders, with the whole Church, to send men chosen from among our own selves, with Barnabas, and Paul of Tarsus, the apostle of the Gentiles, and Judas who was called Barsabbas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren, and wrote by their hand, as follows: "The apostles, and elders, and brethren, to the brethren of Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia of the Gentiles, send greeting: Since we have heard that some from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, to whom we gave no such commandment, it has seemed good to us, when we were met together with one accord, to send chosen men to you, with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men that have hazarded their lives for our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom ye sent unto us. We have sent also with them Judas and Silas, who shall themselves declare the same things by mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay no other burden upon you than these necessary things; that ye abstain from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which things if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well."

Constitutions of the Holy Apostles Book 6

"The Apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia." "To those in Antioch," it says, "and Syria and Cilicia," where the disease had its birth. Observe how they say nothing harsher against those brethren, but look to one thing only, namely, to undo the mischief which has been done. For this would make even the movers of the faction there to confess that they were wrong. They do not say, The seducers, the pestilent fellows, or suchlike: though where need is, Paul does this, as when he says, "O full of all guile": but here, the point being carried, there was no need.

Homily on Acts 33

For the apostle says, "All other things buy out of the shambles, asking no questions," with the exception of the things mentioned in the Catholic epistle of all the apostles, "with the consent of the Holy Ghost," which is written in the Acts of the Apostles, and conveyed to the faithful by the hands of Paul himself.

The Stromata Book 4

You have received as your patrimony the desire never to allow the teachings of our faith to degenerate into heresy. What makes this clear? In the time of your ancestors, people came here from Judea who were muddying the clear waters of the doctrine taught by the apostles. They were exhorting your ancestors to practice circumcision and to observe the Mosaic law. Those who then lived in your city did not remain silent, nor did they put up with this innovation. They were like courageous hounds who saw wolves attacking and destroying the entire flock. They sprang after the wolves and did not let up chasing them and driving them away. They saw to it that the apostles from every corner of the world sent them their decision in the form of a letter that would protect them from any attack launched against the faithful by those innovators and all such as might come thereafter.

Against the Anomoeans 2.4-5

And mark with what forbearance of all harsh vituperation of those brethren they indite their epistle. "Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the Law: to whom we gave no such commandment." Sufficient was this charge against the temerity of those men, and worthy of the Apostles' moderation, that they said nothing beyond this. And observe, they do not put it, That certain from us ordered you to keep the Law, but, "Troubled you with words, subverting your souls" - nothing could be more proper than that word: none of the other speakers has so spoken of the things done by those men. "The souls," he says, already strongly established, these persons are taking down again as in speaking of a building, displacing them from the foundation. "To whom," he says, "we gave no such commandment."

Homily on Acts 33

They have troubled you, subverting your souls, to whom we gave no commandment. In the Greek, more is added: Subverting your souls, saying, you must be circumcised, and keep the law, whom we gave no commandment.

Retractions on Acts

25–26

Then to show that they do not act despotically, that all are agreed in this, that with deliberation they write this - "It seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send men of ours whom we have chosen" - then, that it may not look like disparagement of Paul and Barnabas, that those men are sent, observe the encomium passed upon them - "together with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ." If "beloved," they will not despise them, if they "have hazarded their lives," they have themselves a right to be believed. The encomium passed upon Paul stopped their mouths. For this is the reason why neither Paul comes alone nor Barnabas with him, but others also from the Church; that he may not be suspected, seeing it was he that advocated that doctrine: nor yet those from Jerusalem alone. It shows that they have a right to be believed.

Homily on Acts 33

He says that "we, having gathered, unanimously decided," because all so determined and write this after careful deliberation. It is remarkable that neither Peter nor James dared, without the whole church, to establish a decree concerning circumcision, although they recognized it as necessary. But even all together they would not have relied upon themselves, if they had not been convinced that it was also well-pleasing to the Holy Spirit.

Commentary on Acts

Who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. In the Greek is added: In every temptation.

Retractions on Acts

26–27

And lest the embassy of Judas and Silas be considered a sign of dissatisfaction with Paul and Barnabas, praises of them follow: "men who have given over their souls for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ."

Commentary on Acts

"We have sent therefore Judas and Silas; who shall also tell you the same things by mouth." For it was necessary that there should be not merely the Epistle there by itself, lest they should say that Paul and Barnabas had suppressed the real purport, that they said one thing instead of another.

Homily on Acts 33

Do we not, in the apostles also, recognise the form of the Old Law with regard to the demonstration of adultery, how great (a crime) it is; lest perchance it be esteemed more trivial in the new stage of disciplines than in the old? When first the Gospel thundered and shook the old system to its base, when dispute was being held on the question of retaining or not the Law; this is the first rule which the apostles, on the authority of the Holy Spirit, send out to those who were already beginning to be gathered to their side out of the nations: "It has seemed (good)," say they, "to the Holy Spirit and to us to cast upon you no ampler weight than (that) of those (things) from which it is necessary that abstinence be observed; from sacrifices, and from fornications, and from blood: by abstaining from which ye act rightly, the Holy Spirit carrying you.

On Modesty

That the yoke of the law was heavy, which is cast off by us, and that the Lord's yoke is easy, which is taken up by us. In the second Psalm: "Wherefore have the heathen been in tumult, and the peoples meditated vain things? The kings of the earth have stood up, and their princes have been gathered together against the Lord, and against His Christ. Let us break their bonds asunder, and cast away from us their yoke." Also in the Gospel according to Matthew: "Come unto me, ye who labour and are burdened, and I will make you to rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me: for I am meek and lowly of heart, and ye shall find rest for your souls. For my yoke is good, and my burden is light." Also in the Acts of the Apostles: "It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to impose upon you no other burden than those things which are of necessity, that you should abstain from idolatries, from shedding of blood, and from fornication. And whatsoever you would not to be done unto you, do not to others."

Treatise XII Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews

They indicated clearly by what they wrote that though the decree had been written by men who were apostles, it was from the Holy Spirit and universal. Barnabas and Paul took this decree and confirmed it to the whole world.

Catechetical Lecture 17.29

"For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us" - it is not man's doing, it says - "to lay upon you no greater burden" - again it calls the Law a burden: then apologizing even for these injunctions - "save these necessary things." For that was a superfluous burden. See here a brief Epistle, with nothing more in it than was needed, neither arts of persuasion nor reasonings, but simply a command: for it was the Spirit's legislating. "For it seemed good," say they, "to the Holy Ghost and to us": not making themselves equal to Him - they are not so mad. But why does it put this so? Why did they add, "And to us," and yet it had sufficed to say, "To the Holy Ghost?" The one, "To the Holy Ghost," that they may not deem it to be of man; the other, "To us," that they may be taught that they also themselves admit the Gentiles, although themselves being in circumcision. They have to speak to men who are still weak and afraid of them: this is the reason why this also is added. And it shows that it is not by way of condescension that they speak, neither because they spared them, nor as considering them weak, but the contrary; for great was the reverence of the teachers also.

Homily on Acts 33

28–29

"It seemed good," they say, "to the Holy Spirit and to us." For nowhere did Christ discuss these matters; rather they speak of them from the law. Therefore, for fear that it seem to be of human origin, they ascribe it to the Holy Spirit. And so that they may be instructed that they too accept them even though being circumcised, they add, "to us to." For they could indeed have shown these things without written words, but because of the unsuspecting, and with the intention that these matters become a written ordinance, they write the letter. Again, so that they may be persuaded by the law, and after forbidding them to do these four things, they accepted the remaining customs to themselves. What are these? "To abstain," they say, "from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what is strangled, and from sexual immorality." By the command to abstain from what is strangled, they forbid murder. [CHRYSOSTOM]

Commentary on Acts

It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us; that is, it pleased the Holy Spirit, who, being the arbiter of his own power, breathes where he wills and speaks what he wills.

Commentary on Acts

It has also seemed good to us; not by our will alone, but by the urging of the same Spirit.

Commentary on Acts

For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us. In the Greek it is written: For it has pleased the Holy Spirit, and us.

Retractions on Acts

It says that it was "pleasing to the Holy Spirit," so that they would not think this was a human matter. As for what was added "and to us," this was so that everyone would know that they too, the circumcised, held precisely this opinion regarding the question of circumcision.

Commentary on Acts

Now in these precepts where it says that no other burden ought to be imposed on Gentile believers except abstinence from the sacrifices of idols, from blood, from what has been suffocated and from fornication, homicide is not forbidden, nor adultery, nor theft, nor homosexual acts, nor other crimes that are punished by divine and human laws. But if it is saying that Christians must observe only that which it has recounted, it will appear to some that it granted license concerning the rest. But consider how the Holy Spirit manages affairs: since other crimes are avenged by laws of the world, it seemed superfluous for those things, which are sufficiently covered by human law, also to have been forbidden by divine law. It only decreed those things about which human law had said nothing and which seemed proper to religion.

Commentary on Romans 9.28

"That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well." For these things the New Testament did not enjoin: we nowhere find that Christ discoursed about these matters; but these things they take from the Law. "From things strangled," it says, "and from blood." Here it prohibits murder. It shows that the rest are not necessary, but superfluous, seeing these things are necessary. "From which if ye keep yourselves," it saith, "ye shall do well." It shows that nothing is lacking to them, but this is sufficient.

Homily on Acts 33

It is shown that there is nothing that the believers lacked; on the contrary, it is sufficient for them to "abstain from things offered to idols" and so on. By the expression "to abstain from…things strangled," murder is forbidden.

Commentary on Acts

Of the latest Testament the condition is ever immutable; and, of course the public recitation of that decree, and the counsel embodied therein, will cease (only) with the word.

On Modesty

30–31

"So when they were dismissed, they came to Antioch: and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle: which when they had read, they rejoiced for the consolation." Then those brethren also exhorted them: and having established them, for towards Paul they were contentiously disposed, so departed from them in peace. For it might have been done also without letters, but that there may be a law in writing they send this Epistle: again, that they may obey the law the Apostles also told those men the same things, and they did this, and confirmed them.

Homily on Acts 33

"They therefore being dismissed, went down to Antioch," etc. When they came to Antioch, the above-mentioned Barnabas and Silas, gathering together the multitude, delivered the epistle to the brethren. Upon reading it, they rejoiced that the cause of scandal had been removed. Furthermore, Judas and Silas, being prophets also themselves, disposed the hearts of all to the same will. After staying there for some time, they were let go by the brethren to return to those who had sent them; but Silas remained there, while Judas returned alone to Jerusalem. Paul and Barnabas were staying in Antioch, assiduously teaching the word of God; but after a few days, reminded of fatherly duties, they decided to travel again through those regions where the word of the Lord had been spread far and wide. Then, a dissension having arisen regarding John, alias Marcus, Barnabas, taking John, sailed to Cyprus, while Paul, taking Silas, departed for Syria and Cilicia, confirming the churches, so that they should continue in the teachings of the fathers with strength of mind.

Complexiones on the Acts of the Apostles

30–31

The progress of the disciples — that is the consolation for the teachers!

Commentary on Acts

32–33

"And Judas and Silas, being prophets also themselves, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed them. And after they had tarried there a space, they were let go in peace from the brethren unto the Apostles." No more factions and fightings, but thenceforth Paul taught. After the epistle, then Judas and Silas also themselves exhort them by word: for this also was needful, that Paul and Barnabas might be quit of all suspicion. "Being prophets also themselves," it says, exhorted the brethren "with many words." It shows here the right that Paul and Barnabas have to be believed. For Paul also might have done this, but it behooved to be done by these.

Homily on Acts 33

They were dismissed in peace by the brethren to those who had sent them. Where it is written To those who had sent them, in the Greek it is written To the Apostles.

Retractions on Acts

"Teaching and preaching the word of the Lord." They did not simply tarry in Antioch, but taught. What did they "teach," and what "preach" (evangelize)? They both (taught) those that were already believers, and (evangelized) those that were not yet such.

Homily on Acts 34

Paul and Barnabas stayed in Antioch. In those days, what the apostle Paul said was fulfilled: When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face (Galatians 2).

Commentary on Acts

36–39

"And some days after Paul said unto Barnabas, Let us go again and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they do. And Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname was Mark. But Paul thought not good to take him with them, who departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work. And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other." And already indeed Luke has described to us the character of the Apostles, that the one was more tender and indulgent, but this one more strict and austere. For the gifts are diverse-(the gifts, I say), for that this is a gift is manifest-but the one befitting one, the other another set of characters, and if they change places, harm results instead of good. In the Prophets too we find this: diverse minds, diverse characters: for instance, Elias austere, Moses meek. So here Paul is more vehement.

Homily on Acts 34

36–39

And there seems indeed to be exasperation, but in fact the whole matter is a plan of the Divine Providence, that each should receive his proper place: and it behooved that they should not be upon a par, but the one should lead, and the other be led. "And so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus; and Paul chose Silas, and departed, being recommended by the brethren unto the grace of God. And he went through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the Churches." And this also is a work of Providence. For the Cyprians had exhibited nothing of the like sort as they at Antioch and the rest: and those needed the softer character, but these needed such a character as Paul's.

Homily on Acts 34

36–39

And besides, the contention cannot be said to be evil, when each disputes for such objects (as here) and with just reason. I grant you, if the exasperation were in seeking his own, and contending for his own honor, this might well be (reproved): but if wishing, both the one and the other, to instruct and teach, the one took this way and the other that, what is there to find fault with? For in many things they acted upon their human judgment; for they were not stocks or stones. And observe how Paul impeaches (Mark), and gives the reason. For of his exceeding humility he reverenced Barnabas, as having been partner with him in so great works, and being with him: but still he did not so reverence him, as to overlook (what was necessary).

Homily on Acts 34

If it seemed necessary to the apostles to travel around, and to return often to the same cities where they had preached the gospel, and to visit the believers and to examine closely how they were, what justification will we have before God if we do not fulfill through our writings what they fulfilled by traveling with great toil on their feet and going spontaneously to those who were in need and teaching what is useful for salvation?

Catena on the Acts of the Apostles 15.36-38

It should be noted that it was the duty of leaders to care for those whom they had enlightened with the light of the Gospel — to examine whether they were sound in faith, whether they were faltering, and whether they needed to be corrected.

Commentary on Acts

37–38

John, called Mark, was accompanying them on the evangelic journey, from Palestine as far as Pamphylia. Then, finding the apostles' route too strenuous, and his spirit unbending toward those engaged in struggles, Mark, being a man given to exhaustion and not suited to so laborious a road and to the challenges and dangers that arise in each city, withdrawing from the apostles' route, returned to Palestine, not denying Christ, but renouncing the long and heavy road. Paul and Barnabas, full of the fruits of devotion, and preaching to the church in Jerusalem, in no way resolved to forbid hardships. When, then, all the nations were praising Paul and Barnabas for their accomplishments, Mark, being distressed, suffered a blow to his spirit, and perhaps thought within himself, saying, If I were a sharer in the sufferings, I would now be a sharer also in the praises; and he determined to accompany the apostles in their preaching. Barnabas therefore received him after his repentance, but Paul insisted and said, One who did not accompany us in the Lord's work should not be taken along. The contention, then, was one of righteousness, not of passion. For Paul sought what was just, and Barnabas what was compassionate. Mark accordingly followed Barnabas, striving and running, while Paul in the churches commanded that Mark be not accepted, not so that he might grieve him, but that he might make him more earnest. But when Paul saw that Mark had anticipated the urgency and had made his defense through others, he began to praise him and said, "Mark, Barnabas's nephew, sends his greetings; concerning whom you received instructions, if he comes, welcome him." (Col. 4:10) [CHRYSOSTOM]

Commentary on Acts

37–39

A certain misunderstanding arose between Paul and Barnabas: one stood on the ground of justice, while the other wished to set justice aside, but each had one goal—the service of faith. The cause of the misunderstanding was as follows. On the evangelical journey, a certain Mark accompanied them from Palestine to Perga of Pamphylia, who, being a weak person, fell behind the apostles and returned to Palestine, not denying Christ, however, but refusing to continue the journey as too difficult for him. Meanwhile, Paul and Barnabas returned with abundant fruits of faith and piety and proclaimed to the church in Jerusalem the conversion and repentance of the Gentiles. When Paul and Barnabas began to receive praise for their labors, Mark grew sorrowful and troubled in soul, because he thought: if he too had been with the apostles, he would have become a partaker in their glory. And therefore he again wished to accompany them. Barnabas accepted him as one who had repented, but Paul insisted that one should not take along on the Lord's work a man who had been unable to accompany them before. Thus, the disagreement had the character not of injustice but of righteousness, and it arose from a misunderstanding. Paul demanded justice; Barnabas demanded compassion. Differing in opinions, they were united in their feeling of piety and were divided not by faith and convictions but by human misunderstanding. This happened, however, by God's arrangement, because as soon as they parted, Barnabas took Mark with him and went his own separate way. But Paul's strict exactness also brought its benefit to Mark, since through his zeal he strove to make amends for his former negligence. Paul advised the churches not to receive Mark not in order to grieve him, but in order to make him more zealous, and when he saw that Mark had shown signs of zeal and justified himself by his subsequent actions, he begins to commend him and say: "Greetings to you from… Mark, the nephew of Barnabas (concerning whom you received instructions: if he comes to you, receive him)" (Col. 4:10).

We observe a difference in opinions and temperaments among the prophets as well. Thus, Elijah is stern, Moses is meek. In the same way here too: Paul is more insistent than Mark. But look: he is at the same time also forbearing. He did not grow heated, but insisted firmly on not taking Mark. So then, what? Did Paul and Barnabas part as enemies? God forbid! In Paul's epistles you find that Barnabas received much praise from Paul after this. It even seems to me that they parted by mutual agreement, saying to each other: "Since you do not want what I want, and vice versa, let us, so as not to argue, choose different regions for preaching." And so they did, fully yielding to one another. And this was written for our instruction, to warn us against falling, because we, being human, cannot avoid disputes, but in disputes we should make mutual concessions. But for Mark this dispute was as beneficial as possible. Paul's strictness corrected him, and Barnabas's leniency encouraged him not to abandon his calling. Thus Paul and Barnabas argue; but from the argument comes one result — benefit. Looking at Paul, who resolved to part with Barnabas, Mark was greatly frightened and blamed himself; and looking at Barnabas, who so defended him, Mark grew to love him deeply. And the disciple is corrected by the dispute of his teachers — so far was this dispute from serving as a cause of scandal.

Commentary on Acts

But Paul insisted that he should not be received. Because, standing on the very forefront of the line, he had stood too tepidly, and rightly, Paul rejected him, lest others be corrupted by his influence as though it were contagion.

Commentary on Acts

"And how is it not amiss, that upon so small a matter there should arise so great an evil?" In the first place then, no evil did come of it, if, sufficing each for whole nations, they were divided the one from the other, but a great good. And besides, they would not readily have chosen to leave each other. But admire, I pray you, the writer, how he does not conceal this either. "But at any rate," say you, "if they must needs part, let it be without exasperation." Nay, but if nothing more, observe this, that in this too is shown what was of man (in the preaching of the Gospel). For if the like behooved to be shown (even) in what Christ did, much more here.

Homily on Acts 34

The point to be considered, is not that they differed in their opinions, but that they accommodated themselves the one to the other (seeing), that thus it was a greater good their being parted: and the matter took a pretext from this. What then? did they withdraw in enmity? God forbid! In fact you see after this Barnabas receiving many encomiums from Paul in the Epistles. There was "sharp contention," it says, not enmity nor quarrelling. The contention availed so far as to part them. And with reason: for what each supposed to be profitable, he did not forego thereafter, because of the fellowship with the other. Nay, it seems to me that the parting took place advisedly, and that they said one to another "As I wish not, and thou wishest, therefore that we may not fight, let us distribute the places." So that in fact they did this, altogether yielding each to the other: for Barnabas wished Paul's plan to stand, therefore withdrew; on the other hand, Paul wished the other's plan to stand, therefore he withdrew.

Homily on Acts 34

Would to God we too made such separations, as to go forth for preaching. A wonderful man this is; and exceedingly great! To Mark this contest was exceedingly beneficial. For the awe inspired by Paul converted him, while the kindness of Barnabas caused that he was not left behind: so that they contend indeed, but the gain comes to one and the same end. For indeed, seeing Paul choosing to leave him, he would be exceedingly awed, and would condemn himself, and seeing Barnabas so taking his part, he would love him exceedingly: and so the disciple was corrected by the contention of the teachers: so far was he from being offended thereby.

Homily on Acts 34

This happens even in the case where God and men are the parties: the man requests, God is wroth. For instance, when He saith, "If her father had spit in her face": and again, "Let me alone, and in Mine anger I will blot out this people." And Samuel when he mourns for Saul. For by both, great good is done. Thus also here: the one is wroth, the other not so. The same happens also in matters where we are concerned. And the sharp contention with good reason, that Mark may receive a lesson, and the affair may not seem mere stage-playing. For it is not to be thought that he who bids, "Let not the sun go down upon your wrath," would have been wroth because of such a matter as this: nor that he who on all occasions gave way would not have given way here, he who so greatly loved Paul that before this he sought him in Tarsus, and brought him to the Apostles, and undertook the alms in common with him, and in common the business relating to the decree.

Homily on Acts 34

"A sharp disagreement," he said, "arose," nor a love of conflict. Yet the sharp disagreement was such that it separated them from one another; and with the highest righteousness, which each considered to be beneficial, he later confirmed this by an act of sharing toward him. [CHRYSOSTOM]

Commentary on Acts

It seems reasonable that the separation arose from mutual understanding, and to say to one another that "Since I wish it and you do not, so that we do not quarrel, let us divide the regions." Therefore they entirely yielded to one another in this. For Barnabas wished that Paul should remain, and therefore he departed. Yet we also find this among the prophets: different dispositions and different temperaments, as Elijah is severe, Moses gentle, so likewise here Paul is the more intense of the two compared to Barnabas. This battle was very beneficial to Mark. For it turned back Paul's harshness, and made Barnabas kind so that he would no longer be abandoned. Therefore they fight, but in the end increase is accomplished. For seeing Paul lifted up to depart, he became very afraid and condemned himself, and seeing Barnabas therefore opposing him, he would very much love him. And the student was corrected through the struggle of the teachers, so that he kept far from being scandalized. For when he saw himself therefore cast out because of his idleness by Paul, he hurried with zeal on the second course to cover up his former annoyance, greatly benefited by Paul's correctness. What then? Did the enemies withdraw? By no means! That there was not hostility toward the apostles is shown everywhere afterward by Barnabas enjoying many praises from Paul in his letters. [CHRYSOSTOM]

Commentary on Acts

There was, however, discord. Do not think this a sin. For it is not wrong to be troubled, but to be troubled irrationally, without any just cause.

Commentary on Acts

And Barnabas took Mark and sailed to Cyprus. For the brother he loved and who was related to him (for they are said to have been cousins), Barnabas, separated from Paul, returned to his native island, and nonetheless carried out the evangelical work commanded to him.

Commentary on Acts

"But Paul," it says, "departed, having chosen Silas, and being commended to the grace of God." What is this? They prayed it says: they besought God. See on all occasions how the prayer of the brethren can do great things.

Homily on Acts 34

"And he went through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the Churches."

And now he journeyed by land, wishing even by his journeying to benefit those who saw him. For when indeed they were in haste they sailed, but now not so. "And he went through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the Churches. Then came he to Derbe and Lystra." Mark the wisdom of Paul: he does not go to other cities before he has visited them which had received the Word. For it is folly to run at random. This let us also do: let us teach the first in the first place, that these may not become an hindrance to them that are to come after.

Homily on Acts 34

Before going to other cities, he visits those which had already received the word of God. We do the same: we first instruct the earliest people, so that they do not become an obstacle to the instruction of those who come after.

Commentary on Acts