Homilies on Acts, Homily 2

“So when they had come together, they asked Him, saying, Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel again?” When the disciples mean to ask anything, they come to Him together, so that by sheer numbers they may shame Him into going along with them. They knew perfectly well that when He had said earlier, “No one knows about that day” (Matt. xxiv. 36), He had simply declined to tell them; so they came to Him again and put the question. They would not have asked it if they had really been satisfied with that answer. For having heard that they were about to receive the Holy Spirit, they wanted to learn, as people who were now worthy of being taught. They were also quite ready for freedom, since they had no wish to throw themselves into danger; what they wanted was to breathe freely again. For what had happened to them was no small matter: the most extreme danger had hung over them. And without saying anything to Him about the Holy Spirit, they put this question: “Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” They did not ask “when?” but whether it would be “at this time.” That is how eager they were for that day. In fact, it seems to me that they had no clear idea of what kind of kingdom that was, for the Spirit had not yet taught them. And they do not say, “When will these things be?” but they approach Him with greater respect, saying, “Will You at this time restore the kingdom again?”, as though it had already fallen. For there they were still attached to the things of the senses, since they had not yet become better than those who came before them; here they now have lofty ideas about Christ. Since their minds are lifted up, then, He too speaks to them on a higher level. For He no longer tells them, “Not even the Son of Man knows about that day” (Mark xiii. 32); instead He says, “It is not for you to know the times or the seasons which the Father has put in His own power” (Acts i. 7.) You are asking for things beyond your capacity, He means. And yet even now they learned things much greater than this. And so that you may see that this is exactly so, look how many things I am going to list. What, I ask you, was greater than what they did learn? They learned that there is a Son of God, and that God has a Son equal to Himself in dignity (John v. 17–20); they learned that there will be a resurrection (Matt. xvii. 9); that when He ascended He sat at the right hand of God (Luke xxii. 69); and, what is still more astonishing, that Flesh is seated in heaven and worshiped by Angels, and that He will come again (Mark xvi. 19); they learned what is going to take place at the judgment (Matt. xvi. 27); learned that they will then sit and judge the twelve tribes of Israel (Luke xxi. 27); learned that the Jews would be cast out, and the Gentiles would come in in their place (Matt. xix. 28). For tell me, which is greater: to learn that someone will reign, or to learn when? (Luke xxi. 24). Paul learned “things that a man is not permitted to speak” (2 Cor. xii. 4); things that existed before the world was made—he learned them all. Which is harder, the beginning or the end? Clearly, to learn the beginning. Moses learned this, and the time when, and how long ago; and he lists the years. And the wise Solomon says, “I will make mention of things from the beginning of the world.” And they do know that the time is near, as Paul says, “The Lord is near; do not be anxious about anything.” (Phil. iv. 5). They did not know these things [then], and yet He mentions many signs (Matt. ch. xxiv). But just as He said a little earlier, “Not many days from now,” because He wanted them to stay alert, and did not openly declare the exact moment, so it is here too. However, it is not about the general Consummation that they are asking Him now; rather, they say, “Will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” And He did not reveal even this to them. They had also asked this [about the end of the world] before; and just as on that occasion He answered by leading them away from thinking that their deliverance was near and, on the contrary, threw them into the middle of dangers, so He does on this occasion too, but more gently. For so that they would not imagine they were being wronged, and that these things were mere excuses, listen to what He says: He immediately gives them what made them glad, for He adds: “But you will receive power after the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you will be witnesses to Me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and to the farthest part of the earth.” (Acts i. 8.) Then, so that they would ask no more questions, He was immediately taken up. So just as on the earlier occasion He had darkened their minds with awe and by saying, “I do not know,” here too He does the same by being taken up. For they were extremely eager about this subject and would not have let it go; and yet it was very necessary that they not learn it. For tell me, which do the Gentiles find harder to believe: that there will be a consummation of the world, or that God has become man and was born of the Virgin? But I am embarrassed to dwell on this point, as if it were some difficult matter. Then again, so that the disciples would not say, “Why do You leave the matter hanging?” He adds, “which the Father has put in His own power.” And yet He declared the Father’s power and His own to be one, as in the saying, “For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom He will.” (John v. 21.) If, where there is a need to act, You act with the same power as the Father, then where knowing is called for, do You not know with the same power? Yet surely raising the dead is much greater than learning the day. If the greater is done with power, then all the more the other. But just as when we see a child crying and stubbornly wanting to get something from us that is not good for him, we hide the thing, show him our empty hands, and say, “See, we don’t have it,” Christ has done the same thing here with the Apostles. And just as the child, even when we show him [our empty hands], keeps on crying, knowing he has been tricked, and then we leave him and go away, saying, “So-and-so is calling me,” and give him something else instead to divert him from what he wants, telling him it is much nicer than the other, and then hurry off—Christ acted in the same way. The disciples asked to have something, and He said He did not have it. And on the first occasion He frightened them. Then again they asked to have it now; He said He did not have it; and He did not frighten them this time, but after showing [the empty hands], He has done this, and gives them a plausible reason: “which the Father,” He says, “has put in His own power.” What? You do not know the things of the Father! You know Him, and not what belongs to Him! And yet You have said, “No one knows the Father except the Son” (Luke x. 25); and, “The Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God” (1 Cor. ii. 10); and You do not know this! But they were afraid to ask Him again, in case they heard Him say, “Are you also without understanding?” (Matt. xv. 26.) For they feared Him much more now than before. “But you will receive power after the Holy Spirit has come upon you.” Just as in the earlier case He had not answered their question (for it is a teacher’s job to teach not what the student chooses, but what is good for him to learn), so in this case He tells them in advance what they need to know, and for this reason: so that they would not be troubled. They were, in fact, still weak. But to give them confidence, He lifted up their spirits and concealed what was painful. Since He was about to leave them very soon, He says nothing painful in this discourse. But how? He extols as great the very things that would be painful, all but saying, “‘Do not be afraid,’ for you will receive power after the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you will be witnesses to Me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria.” For since He had said, “Do not go on the road of the Gentiles, and do not enter any city of the Samaritans” (Matt. x. 5), what He left unsaid there, He adds here: “And to the farthest part of the earth.” And having said this, which was more frightening than all the rest, He then fell silent, so that they would not question Him again. “And when He had said this, while they watched, He was taken up; and a cloud received Him out of their sight” (v. 9). Do you see that they did preach and fulfill the Gospel? For the gift He had given them was great. In the very place, He says, where you are afraid, that is, in Jerusalem, preach there first, and afterward to the farthest part of the earth. Then, to confirm what He had said, “while they watched, He was taken up.” He did not rise from the dead “while they watched,” but “while they watched, He was taken up.” Even here, however, the sight of their eyes was not entirely enough: at the Resurrection they saw the end but not the beginning, and at the Ascension they saw the beginning but not the end. In the former case it would have been superfluous to see the beginning, since the Lord Himself, Who said these things, was present, and the tomb clearly showed that He is not there; but in the latter case they needed to be told the rest by the word of others. Since, then, their eyes are not enough to show them the height above, or to tell them whether He has actually gone up into heaven or only seemingly into heaven, see what follows. That it was Jesus Himself they knew from the fact that He had been talking with them (for if they had seen only from a distance, they could not have recognized Him by sight); but that He is taken up into Heaven, the Angels themselves tell them. Notice how it is arranged that not everything is done by the Spirit, but the eyes also do their part. But why did “a cloud receive Him”? This too was a sure sign that He went up to Heaven. Not fire, as in Elijah’s case, nor a fiery chariot, but “a cloud received Him,” which was a symbol of Heaven, as the Prophet says: “Who makes the clouds His chariot” (Ps. civ. 3); it is of the Father Himself that this is said. That is why he says, “on a cloud”—in the symbol, he means, of the Divine power, for no other Power is seen appearing on a cloud. For listen again to what another Prophet says: “The Lord sits upon a light cloud” (Is. xix. 1). For it was while they were listening very attentively to what He was saying—and this in answer to a very interesting question—and with their minds fully roused and wide awake, that this took place. Also on the mount [Sinai] the cloud was there because of Him; for Moses too entered into the darkness, but the cloud there was not because of Moses. And He did not merely say, “I am going,” so that they would not grieve again, but He said, “I am sending the Spirit” (John xvi. 5, 7); and they saw with their own eyes that He was going away into heaven. Oh, what a sight they were granted! “And while they were gazing intently,” it says, “toward heaven as He went up, look, two men stood beside them in white apparel, who also said, Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who is taken up from you into heaven”—they used the word “This” to point Him out, saying, “this Jesus, who is taken up from you into heaven, will thus”—pointing, “in this way”—“come in the same manner as you have seen Him going into heaven.” (v. 10, 11.) Again, the outward appearance is encouraging [“in white apparel”]. They were Angels in the form of men. And they say, “Men of Galilee”: by saying “Men of Galilee,” they showed the disciples that they could be trusted. For this was the point; otherwise, why did the disciples need to be told their own country, which they knew well enough? By their appearance too they drew the disciples’ attention and showed that they were from heaven. But why does Christ Himself not tell them these things, instead of the Angels? He had told them everything beforehand: [“What if ye shall see the Son of Man] going up where He was before?” (John vi. 62). Moreover, the Angels did not say, ‘whom you have seen taken up,’ but, “going into heaven”: the word is ascension, not assumption; the expression “taken up” belongs to the flesh. For the same reason they say, “He who is taken up from you will thus come”—not “will be sent,” but “will come. He who ascended is the same one who also descended” (Eph. iv. 10). So too with the expression “a cloud received Him,” for He Himself mounted the cloud. Of these expressions, some are suited to the disciples’ understanding, and some befit the Divine Majesty. Now, as they watch, their understanding is lifted up: He has given them no small hint about the nature of His second coming. For this “will thus come” means with the body, which is what they wanted to hear; and that He will come again to judgment “thus,” on a cloud. “And look, two men stood beside them.” Why does it say “men”? Because they had shaped themselves completely as men, so that those watching would not be overwhelmed. “Who also said”: their words, moreover, were meant to soothe: “Why do you stand gazing up into heaven?” They would not let them wait there for Him any longer. Here again, these tell what is greater and leave the lesser unsaid. They say that “He will thus come,” and that “you must look for Him from heaven.” As for the rest, they called them away from that sight to what they were saying, so that the disciples would not imagine, because they could not see Him, that He had not ascended, but would be present, even while they were talking, before they knew it. For if on an earlier occasion they said, “Where are You going?” (John xiii. 36), they would have said it all the more now. “Will You at this time,” they say, “restore the kingdom to Israel?” (Recapitulation). They knew His gentleness so well that even after His Passion they ask Him, “Will You restore...?” And yet He had told them before, “You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but the end is not yet,” nor will Jerusalem be taken. But now they ask Him about the kingdom, not about the end. And besides, He does not talk with them at great length after the Resurrection. They put this question, then, thinking that they themselves would be highly honored if this came to pass. But He (for as to this restoration, He did not openly declare that it was not going to happen—for why did they need to learn this? That is why they do not ask again, “What is the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the world?”—for they are afraid to say that—but, “Will You restore the kingdom to Israel?” for they thought there was such a kingdom), but He, I say, had shown in parables that the time was not near, and here, where they asked, He answered accordingly: “You will receive power,” He says, “when the Holy Spirit has come upon you. Has come upon you,” not “is sent” [to shew the Spirit’s coequal Majesty. How then darest thou, O opponent of the Spirit, to call Him a creature?]. “And you will be witnesses to Me.” He hinted at the Ascension. [“And when he had spoken these things.] They had heard these things before, and He now reminds them of them. [“He was taken up.”] It has already been shown that He went up into heaven. [“And a cloud, etc.”] “Clouds and darkness are under His feet” (Ps. xviii. 9; xcvii. 2), says the Scripture; for this is what the expression “And a cloud received Him” declares: the Lord of heaven, it means. For just as a king is shown by the royal chariot, so the royal chariot was sent for Him. [“Behold, two men, etc.] This was so that they would not break out in cries of grief, and so that it would not go with them as it did with Elisha (2 Kings ii. 12), who tore his mantle when his master was taken up. And what do they say? “This Jesus, who is taken up from you into heaven, will thus come.” And, “Look, two men stood beside them.” (Matt. xviii. 16.) With good reason, for “by the mouth of two witnesses every word shall be established” (Deut. xvii. 6); and these two say the same things. And it says that they were “in white apparel.” Just as they had already seen an Angel at the tomb, who had even told them their own thoughts, so here too an Angel is the herald of His Ascension—although the Prophets had often foretold it, as well as the Resurrection. Everywhere it is Angels: as at the Nativity—“for what is conceived in her,” one says, “is by the Holy Spirit” (Matt. i. 20); and again to Mary, “Do not be afraid, Mary.” (Luke i. 30.) And at the Resurrection: “He is not here; He is risen, and is going before you.” (ib. xxiv. 6.) “Come and see!” (Matt. xxviii. 6.) And at the Second Coming. For so that they would not be completely bewildered, it is added, “will thus come.” (ib. xxv. 31.) They catch their breath a little: if indeed He will come again, if He will also come thus, and not be unapproachable! And the expression that it is “from them” He is taken up is not added for nothing. And to the Resurrection Christ Himself bears witness (because of all things this is, next to the Nativity—indeed 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.) “Will thus come,” they say. So if anyone wants to see Christ, if anyone is sad that he has not seen Him, now that he has heard this, let him live an admirable life, and he will certainly see Him and will not be disappointed. For Christ will come with greater glory, though “thus,” in this way, with a body; and it will be much more wondrous to see Him coming down from heaven. But what He will come for, they do not add. [“Shall thus come,” etc.] This confirms the Resurrection; for if He was taken up with a body, all the more must He have risen with a body. Where are those who do not believe in the Resurrection? Who are they, I ask? Are they Gentiles, or Christians? For I do not know. But no, I know very well: they are Gentiles, who also do not believe in 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. But then, ashamed to be thought of as people who “do not know the power of God” (Matt. xxii. 29), and so that we will not charge them with this, they claim: We do not say it in that sense, but because there is no need for the body. Truly, it is fitting to say here, “The fool will speak foolishness.” (Is. xxxii. 6.) Are you not ashamed to refuse to grant that God can create from nothing? If He creates from matter that already exists, how is He different from men? But where, you ask, do evils come from? Even if you do not know where, should you for that reason bring in another evil while trying to understand evils? Two absurdities follow from this. For if you do not grant that God made the things that are from things that are not, you will be all the more ignorant of where evils come from; and then again, you bring in another evil: claiming that Evil (τὴν κακίαν) is uncreated. Consider now what it means, when you want to find the source of evils, both to be ignorant of it and to add another evil to it. Search for the origin of evils, and do not blaspheme God. And how do I blaspheme? he says. When you make out that evils have a power equal to God’s, an uncreated power. For notice what Paul says: “For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made.” (Rom. i. 20.) But the devil wants both to come from matter, so that nothing will be left from which we can come to know God. For tell me, which is harder: to take what is by nature evil (if indeed there is any such thing; for I am speaking on your principles, since there is no such thing as evil by nature) and make it either good, or even a co-worker with good? Or to make something out of nothing? Which is easier (I am speaking of quality): to bring in a quality that does not exist, or to take an existing quality and change it into its opposite? Where there is no house, to make a house; or where it has been utterly destroyed, to make the very same house exist again? Why, just as this is impossible, so is that: to make a thing into its opposite. Tell me, which is harder: to make a perfume, or to make filth have the effect of perfume? Tell me, which of these is easier (since we subject God to our reasonings—no, not we, but you): to form eyes, or to make a blind man see while he remains blind, and see even more sharply than someone who can see? To turn blindness into sight, and deafness into hearing? To me the other seems easier. So tell me, do you grant God what is harder, and not grant what is easier? But they also claim that souls are of His substance. Do you see how many impieties and absurdities there are here! In the first place, wanting to show that evils are from God, they bring in something more impious than this: that evils are equal to Him in majesty, and that God did not exist before any of them—assigning this great prerogative even to them! In the next place, they claim that evil is indestructible; for if what is uncreated can be destroyed—you see the blasphemy! So it comes to this: either nothing is of God if not these, or these are God! Third, as I said before, on this point they defeat themselves and stir up fresh indignation against themselves. Fourth, they claim that unordered matter has such an inherent (ἐπιτηδειότητα) power. Fifth, that evil is the cause of God’s goodness, and that without it the Good would not have been good. Sixth, they block off for us the ways of coming to the knowledge of God. Seventh, they bring God down into men—yes, into plants and logs. For if our soul is of the substance of God, but the process of its transmigration into new bodies finally brings it into cucumbers and melons and onions, why, then the substance of God will pass into cucumbers! And if we say that the Holy Spirit fashioned the Temple [of our Lord’s body] in the Virgin, they laugh us to scorn; and if we say that He dwelt in that spiritual Temple, again they laugh; while they themselves are not ashamed to bring God’s substance down into cucumbers and melons and flies and caterpillars and donkeys, thus dreaming up a new style of idolatry: for let it not be, as the Egyptians have it, “The onion is God,” but let it be, “God in the onion”! Why do you shrink from the idea of God’s entering into a body? ‘It is shocking,’ he says. Why, then, this is much more shocking. But, supposedly, it is not shocking—how could it be?—this same thing which is so, if it is into us! ‘But your notion really is shocking.’ Do you see the filth of their impiety? But why do they not want the body to be raised? And why do they say the body is evil? By what, then, tell me, do you know God? By what do you have knowledge of the things that exist? And the philosopher: by what means is he a philosopher, if the body contributes nothing to it? Deaden the senses, and then learn something of the things one needs to know! What would be more foolish than a soul, if its senses had been deadened from the start? If deadening just one part—I mean the brain—ruins it altogether, then if all the rest were deadened, what would it be good for? Show me a soul without a body. Do you not hear physicians say that the presence of disease badly weakens the soul? How long will you put off hanging yourselves? Is the body material? Tell me. “Of course it is.” Then you ought to hate it. Why do you feed it, why do you take care of it? You ought to get free of this prison. And besides: “God cannot overcome matter unless he (συμπλακἥ) entangles himself with it; for he cannot give orders to it (what weakness!) until he grapples with it and (σταθἥ) takes his stand (so you say) throughout the whole of it!” And a king, at least, does everything by commanding; but God, not by commanding evil! In short, if it had no share in any good, it could not exist at all. For Evil cannot exist unless it lays hold of something of the accidents of Virtue; so that if it had previously been entirely unmixed with virtue, it would have perished long ago, for that is the condition of evils. Suppose there is a profligate man who puts no restraint of any kind on himself: will he live ten days? Suppose there is a robber with no conscience at all in his dealings with anyone, and let him be like this even toward his fellow robbers: will he be able to survive? Suppose there is a thief with no shame at all, who does not know what blushing is, but steals openly in public. It is not in the nature of evils to exist unless they get at least some small share in good. So on this basis, according to these men, God gave them their existence. Suppose there is a city of wicked men: will it stand? But let them be wicked not only toward the good, but toward each other. Why, it is impossible for such a city to stand. Truly, “claiming to be wise, they became fools.” (Rom. i. 22.) If bodily substance is evil, then all visible things exist idly and in vain—water and earth and sun and air; for air too is a body, though not solid. It is fitting, then, to say, “The wicked have told me foolish things.” (Ps. cxix. 85.) But let us not put up with them; let us stop up our ears against them. For there is—yes, there is—a resurrection of bodies. The tomb in Jerusalem declares it; the pillar to which He was bound when He was scourged declares it. For, “We ate and drank with Him,” it says. Let us, then, believe in the Resurrection and do things worthy of it, so that we may attain the good things to come, through Christ Jesus our Lord, with Whom, to the Father and the Holy Spirit together, be power and honor, now and forever, to the ages of ages. Amen.