Homilies on Acts, Homily 33

“And after they had fallen silent, James answered, saying, Men and brothers, listen to me: Simeon has explained how God first visited the Gentiles to take from them a people for his name. And the words of the prophets agree with this.” This (James) was bishop, they say, and so he speaks last. Here that saying is fulfilled: “Every word will be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.” (Deut. xvii. 6; Matt. xviii. 16.) But notice the good judgment he too shows in supporting his argument from the prophets, both new and old. For he had no deeds of his own to report, as Peter and Paul did. And indeed it is wisely arranged that this (the active) part is assigned to them, since they were not meant to stay in Jerusalem, while (James) here, who serves as teacher, bears no responsibility for what has been done, yet agrees with them. (b) “Men and brothers,” he says, “listen to me.” How restrained he is! His speech is also more complete, since it brings the matter under discussion to a conclusion. (a) “Simeon,” he says, “explained:” (namely,) in Luke, when he prophesied, “Which You have prepared before the face of all nations, a light to enlighten the Gentiles, and the glory of Your people Israel.” (Luke ii. 25, 31, 32.) (c) “How God first visited the Gentiles to take from them a people for His Name.” Then, since that (witness), though he was indeed clearly recognized from his time, lacked authority because he was not ancient, he also brings forward ancient prophecy, saying, “And the words of the Prophets agree with this, as it is written: After this I will return and rebuild the fallen tabernacle of David; I will rebuild its ruins and set it up.” (v. 16.) What? Was Jerusalem raised up? Wasn't it torn down instead? What kind of raising up does he call what took place after the return from Babylon? “So that the rest of mankind,” he says, “may seek the Lord, including all the Gentiles who are called by My Name.” (v. 17.) Then comes what gives his statement authority: “Says the Lord, who does all these things.” And to show that this is nothing new, but that everything was planned from the beginning: “All His works have been known to God from eternity.” (v. 18.) And then again he exercises his authority (καὶ τὸ ἀξίωμα πάλιν) (as Bishop): “Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those among the Gentiles who are turning to God, but should write to them to abstain from the pollution of idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood. For from ancient times Moses has had people preaching him in every city, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath day.” (v. 19–21.) Since, then, they had heard the Law, he has good reason to give these commands from the Law, so that he may not seem to strip it of authority. And (yet) notice how he does not have these things presented to them as coming from the Law, but from himself. He does not say, I heard these things from the Law. What does he say? “We have decided.” Then the decree is made jointly. “Then the Apostles and elders, together with the whole Church, agreed to choose men from among themselves”—do you see that they do more than simply enact these measures?—“and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas: namely, Judas surnamed Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brothers. And they wrote letters to be delivered by them in these words.” (v. 22.) And notice that, to give the decree greater credibility, they send their own men, leaving no room for suspicion of Paul and his companions. “The Apostles and elders and brothers send greetings to the brothers among the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia.” (v. 23.) And notice how they write their letter without any harsh abuse of those (brethren). “Since we have heard that certain men who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, You must be circumcised and keep the Law, although we gave them no such command.” (v. 24.) This accusation was enough to expose those men's presumption, and it suited the Apostles' restraint to say nothing more. Then, to show that they are not acting as despots, that everyone agrees, and that they write after careful deliberation: “We agreed unanimously to send you men we have chosen from among ourselves” (v. 25). Then, so that sending those men may not seem to disparage Paul and Barnabas, notice the praise given to them: “Together with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who will also tell you the same things by word of mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us”—this is no human undertaking, it says—“to place no greater burden on you”—again it calls the Law a burden; then it apologizes even for these commands—“except these necessary things” (v. 26–28): “That you abstain from food offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.” (v. 29.) For the New Testament did not command these things: nowhere do we find Christ speaking about these matters. They take these things from the Law. “From things strangled,” it says, “and from blood.” Here it prohibits murder. (Comp. Gen. ix. 5.) “So when they were sent off, they came to Antioch, and after gathering the congregation, they delivered the letter. When they read it, they rejoiced at its encouragement.” (v. 30, 31.) Then those (brethren) also encouraged them, and after strengthening them—for the people they addressed had been hostile toward Paul—they left them in peace. “And Judas and Silas, who were themselves also prophets, encouraged the brothers with many words and strengthened them. After they had stayed there for a while, the brothers sent them back in peace to the Apostles.” (v. 32, 33.) There were no more factions or fights; from then on Paul taught. (Recapitulation.) “Then the whole congregation fell silent,” etc. (v. 12.) There was no arrogance in the Church. Paul speaks after Peter, and no one silences him. James waits patiently instead of jumping up (for the next word). There is great orderliness (of the proceedings). John says nothing here, nor do the other Apostles. They kept silent because James held the chief authority, and they did not resent it. Their souls were so free from the love of glory. “And after they had fallen silent, James answered,” etc. (v. 13.) (b) Peter spoke more forcefully, but James here speaks more gently. This is how someone in high authority should act: leave the unpleasant things for others to say, while taking the gentler part himself. (a) But what does “How God first (πρὥτον) visited” mean? (v. 14.) (It means) from the beginning (ἐξ ἀρχἥς). (c) Moreover, he rightly says, “Simeon explained” (ἐξηγήσατο) (or, interpreted), implying that he too expressed the mind of others. “And with this agree,” etc. Notice how he shows that this teaching is ancient. “To take from the Gentiles,” he says, “a people for His Name.” (v. 15.) Not simply, Chose, but, “for His Name,” that is, for His glory. His Name is not disgraced by taking (προλήψει) the Gentiles first; this brings it even greater glory.—Something great is hinted at here: that these are chosen before everyone else. “After this I will return and rebuild the fallen tabernacle of David.” (v. 16.) But if you look closely at the matter, David's kingdom does in fact stand now, with his Offspring reigning everywhere. For what good are the buildings and the city if no one there obeys? And what harm does the city's destruction do when everyone is willing to give their very souls? David now has greater glory than before: he is celebrated in song in every part of the world. This has happened. If so, then this too must happen: “And I will rebuild its ruins and set it up.” For what purpose? “So that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by My Name.” (v. 17.) If, then, the city rose again for this purpose, (namely) because of Him (that was to come) from them, this shows that the reason for rebuilding the city is the calling of the Gentiles. Who are “the rest”? Those who are left at that time. “And all the Gentiles who are called by My Name.” But notice how he keeps the proper order and brings them in second. “Says the Lord, who does these things.” Not just “says,” but “does.” So it was God's work.—“But the question is something else: (namely), what Peter addressed more plainly, whether they must be circumcised. Then why are you giving a speech about these matters?” For the objectors did not claim that people must not be accepted when they believed, but that accepting them must require them to keep the Law. And Peter argued this point well. But since this very thing troubled the hearers more than anything else, he addresses their uneasiness again (θεραπεύει). And notice: Peter introduced what needed to be established as a rule, that keeping the Law is unnecessary. But James states the gentler part, the truth accepted long ago, and dwells on what nothing is written about, so that, after calming their minds with what is acknowledged, he may introduce this too at the right moment. “Therefore,” he says, “my judgment is that we should not trouble those among the Gentiles who are turning to God” (v. 19), that is, not unsettle them. For if God called them, and these observances unsettle them, we are fighting against God. And again, he says, “those among the Gentiles who are turning.” And he rightly speaks with authority when he says, “My judgment is.” “But that we should write to them to abstain from the pollutions of idols and from sexual immorality”—(b) and yet they often insisted on these points when speaking to them. But to appear to honor the Law as well, (he mentions) these too, speaking (however) on the authority of the Apostles rather than Moses. And to increase the number of commands, he has divided one into two, (saying), “And from things strangled, and from blood.” (v. 20.) For although these concerned the body, they had to be observed because (these things) caused great evils. “For from ancient times Moses has had in every city,” etc. (v. 21.) This calmed them more than anything else. (ἀνέπαυσεν) (a) This is why I maintain that it is good (so “to write to them.”) Then why don't we write the same commands to the Jews too? Moses speaks to them. See how he accommodates (their weakness)! Where it did no harm, he set Moses up as their teacher and gave them a satisfaction that obstructed nothing, by allowing Jews to hear him on these matters even while leading the Gentiles away from him. See his wisdom! He seems to honor Moses and establish him as the authority for his own people, and through this very act he leads the Gentiles away from him! “Being read in the synagogues every Sabbath day.” Then why don't they learn (what is to be learnt) from him, for instance * *? Because of these men's perversity. He shows that even these (the Jews) need observe no more (than these necessary things). And if we do not write to them, it is not because they are bound to observe anything more, but only because they have someone to tell them. And he does not say, Not to cause them to stumble, or to turn them back, as Paul said to the Galatians, but, “not to trouble them.” He shows that securing the point (κατόρθωμα) would do nothing but trouble them. In this way he settled the whole matter. And while he seems to preserve the Law by adopting these rules from it, he releases them from it by taking only these. (c) Providence had a purpose in the debate too: after the debate, the teaching would be more firmly established. “Then the Apostles agreed to send chosen men from among themselves,” etc., not ordinary men, but the “leading men; having written” (letters) “through them in these words. To those in Antioch,” it says, “and Syria and Cilicia.” (v. 22, 23) This was where the disease began. Notice how they say nothing harsher (φορτικώτερον) against those men, but focus on just one thing: undoing (the harm) that has been done. For this would lead even the instigators of the faction there to admit (that they were wrong). They do not say, The deceivers, the troublemakers, or anything like that, although Paul does so when necessary, as when he says, “O you who are full of every kind of deceit” (ch. xiii. 10). But here, with the point already won, there was no need. And notice that they do not put it this way: Certain men from us ordered you to keep the Law. Instead: “Troubled you with words, unsettling your souls.” No word could be more apt (κυριώτερον). None (of the other speakers) has described those men's actions this way. These people, he says, are ἀνασχευάζοντες “the souls” that were already firmly established—as one would say of a building, “taking them down again”: moving them (μετατιθέντες) off their foundation. “To whom,” he says, “we gave no such command. We therefore agreed unanimously to send chosen men to you together with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (v. 25, 26.) If they are “beloved,” the hearers will not despise them. If they “have risked their lives,” they themselves deserve to be believed. “We have sent,” it says, “Judas and Silas, who will also tell you the same things by word of mouth.” (v. 27.) For the letter could not simply go there by itself, or they might say that Paul and Barnabas had concealed (the real purport), that they had substituted one thing for another. The praise given to Paul silenced them. This is why neither Paul alone nor Barnabas (with him) comes, but others from the Church as well: so that Paul may not be suspected, since he was the one who advocated that teaching. Nor do those from Jerusalem come alone. This shows that they deserve to be believed. “For it seemed good,” they say, “to the Holy Spirit and to us” (v. 28). They are not making themselves equal (to Him)—they are not that irrational. But why does it phrase it (so)? Why did they add, “And to us,” when “To the Holy Spirit” would have been enough? The first phrase, “To the Holy Spirit,” keeps them from thinking it is a human decision; the second, “To us,” teaches them that they themselves also accept (the Gentiles), although they themselves are circumcised. They have to speak to people who are still weak and afraid of them: that is why this is added too. And it shows that they are not speaking merely to accommodate them, or to spare them, or because they consider them weak, but the opposite; for the teachers too had great reverence. “To place no greater burden on you”—they constantly call it a burden—and again, “except these necessary things.” For that was an unnecessary burden. See how brief the letter is, with nothing more in it (than was needed): no persuasive devices (κατασκευὰς) or arguments, just a command, for it was the Spirit making the law. “So when they were sent off, they came to Antioch, and after gathering the congregation, they delivered the letter to them.” (v. 30.) After the letter, then, (Judas and Silas) also encourage them by word of mouth (v. 31). This too was necessary, so that (Paul and Barnabas) might be cleared of all suspicion. “Who were themselves also prophets,” it says, encouraged the brothers “with many words.” Here it shows that Paul and Barnabas deserve to be believed. For Paul could have done this too, but it needed to be done by these men. “And after they had stayed there for a while, they were sent off in peace.” (v. 33.) No more faction. I suppose this was the occasion when they received the right hand, as he himself says: “They gave me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship.” (Gal. ii. 9.) There he says, “They added nothing to me.” (ib. 6.) For they confirmed his view: they praised and admired it.—This shows that even human reasoning can recognize this, quite apart from the Holy Spirit: that they committed a sin that was not easy to put right. For such things do not require the Spirit.—It shows that the other things are unnecessary, superfluous, since these are the necessary things. “If you keep yourselves from these,” it says, “you will do well.” It shows that they lack nothing, but that this is enough. For it could have been done without letters too, but (they send this Epistle) so that there may be a written law. Again, so that they may obey the law, (the Apostles) also told those men (the same things), and they did this: “And strengthened them, and after staying for a while, were sent off in peace.” So let us not stumble because of the heretics. Look how many stumbling blocks there were here at the very beginning of the preaching. I am not speaking of those that arose from outsiders, for those were nothing, but of those within. For example, first Ananias, then the “grumbling,” then Simon the sorcerer; afterward those who accused Peter over Cornelius, next the famine, and finally this very thing, the worst of the evils. For whenever something good happens, some evil inevitably exists alongside it. So let us not be disturbed if some people stumble, but let us thank God even for this, because it proves our worth more fully. For not only afflictions but temptations too make us more glorious. A person does not show any great love of the truth merely by holding to it when no one is trying to lead him away. Holding firmly to the truth when many are pulling him away is what proves a person's worth. What then? Is this why stumbling blocks come? I am not saying that God causes them. God forbid! I mean that even out of their wickedness He brings good to us. It was never His wish that they should arise: “Grant them,” He says, “that they may be one” (John xvii. 21). But since stumbling blocks do come, they do these people no harm, and even benefit them. Just as persecutors unintentionally benefit the Martyrs by dragging them to martyrdom, without being driven to do this by God, so it is here. Let us not look (only at this), that people stumble. This very thing proves the excellence of the teaching: that many imitate and counterfeit it. That would not happen if it were not good. I will now show you this and make it clear from every side. Among perfumes, it is the fragrant spices that people adulterate and counterfeit, such as the amomum leaf. Because these are rare and needed, counterfeit imitations arise too. No one would bother to counterfeit an ordinary article. The pure life has many false claimants. No one would bother to pose as a person who lives viciously; they would pose as someone who lives as a monk.—What, then, shall we say to the pagan? A pagan comes and says, “I want to become a Christian, but I don't know whom to join. There is so much fighting and faction among you, so much confusion. Which teaching should I choose?” How shall we answer him? “Each of you” (says he) “claims, ‘I speak the truth.’” (b) Certainly, and this works in our favor. For if we told you to be persuaded by arguments, you might well be confused. But if we tell you to believe the Scriptures, and these are straightforward and true, the decision is easy for you. Whoever agrees with the Scriptures is the Christian; whoever fights against them falls far outside this standard. (a) “But whom should I believe, when I know absolutely nothing about the Scriptures? The others make the same claim for themselves. What then (c) if the other person comes and says that Scripture says this, while you say it says something different, and you interpret the Scriptures differently, pulling their meaning (each his own way)?” Then I ask you: don't you have understanding or judgment? “And how could I (decide),” he says, “when I don't even know how to judge your teachings? I want to become a student, and you immediately make me a teacher.” If he says this, what do you think we should answer him? How shall we persuade him? Let us ask whether all this is merely a pretense and an evasion. Let us ask whether he has judged (κατέγνωκε) the pagans (to be wrong). He will certainly affirm that he has, since of course he would not have come to (enquire about) our beliefs without making that judgment. Let us ask the grounds for his decision, since surely he has not settled the matter without thought. Clearly he will say, “Because (their gods) are created beings, and are not the uncreated God.” Good. If, then, he finds this among the other groups (αἰρέσεις), but the opposite among us, what argument do we need? We all confess that Christ is God. But let us see who fights (against this truth) and who does not. Now we affirm that He is God and say things about Him worthy of God: that He has power, that He is not a slave, that He is free, that He acts on His own authority. The other side says the reverse. Again I ask: if you wanted to learn (to be) a physician, * * *? And yet among them there are many (different) teachings. For if you simply accept whatever you are told without further thought, you are not acting like a rational person. But if you have judgment and sense, you will certainly recognize what is good. We affirm that the Son is God, and we substantiate (ἐπαληθεύομεν) what we affirm. They affirm it in words, but do not (in fact) confess it.—But to mention (something) even clearer: they take their names from particular people, openly displaying the name of the founder of their heresy, and each heresy does the same. With us, no person has given us our name; the faith itself has. Still, this (talk of yours) is mere pretense and evasion. For answer me: if you wanted to buy a cloak, why is it that, although you know nothing about weaving, you do not say things like, “I don't know how to buy; they cheat me”? Instead, you do everything you can to learn, and the same goes for anything else you want to buy. But here you say these things? At this rate you will accept nothing at all. Suppose someone has no (religious) teaching at all, and says what you say about Christians: “There are so many people, with different teachings: this one a pagan, that one a Jew, another a Christian. There is no need to accept any teaching at all, because they disagree with one another. I am a student and don't want to be a judge”—but if you have gone (so far as) to condemn (καταγινώσκειν) one teaching, this excuse is no longer available to you. For just as you were able to reject what was false, so here too, now that you have come, you will be able to test what is beneficial. Someone who has not judged any teaching at all can easily say this. But someone who has judged one, even if he has chosen none, can continue in the same way and see what he ought to do. So let us stop making pretexts and excuses, and everything will be easy. To show you that all this is just an excuse, answer me this: Do you know what you ought to do and what you ought to leave undone? Then why don't you do what you ought? Do it, and use sound reasoning to seek an answer from God, and He will certainly reveal it to you. “God,” it says, “shows no partiality, but in every nation whoever fears Him and does what is right is accepted by Him.” (ch. x. 34, 35.) Someone who listens without prejudice cannot fail to be persuaded. For just as, if there were a straightedge against which everything had to be aligned, detecting someone measuring falsely (τὸν παραμετροὕντα λαβἕιν) would be easy and would not take much thought, so it is here. “Then why don't they see it at a glance?” Many things cause this: preconceived opinions and human motives (αἰτίαι). The others, you say, say the same thing about us. How? Have we separated from the Church? Do we have founders of heresies? Are we named after people, as one of them has Marcion, another Mani, and a third Arius as the founder and leader (of his sect)? If we too receive a name from any person, we do not take the names of those who founded a heresy, but of men who presided over us and governed the Church. We have no “masters on earth”—God forbid—we have “One Master who is in heaven.” (Matt. xxiii. 9, 10.) “They too,” he says, “say the same thing.” But the name displayed over them accuses them and silences them.—How is it that there have been many pagans, and none of them asked these questions? Among the philosophers too there were these (differences), and yet none of those who followed the right school (αἵρεσιν) was held back (by them).—Why didn't (those believers) say, when (the others) raised these questions, “Both these people and those people are Jews: whom should we believe?” Instead, they believed as they should. So let us too obey God's laws and do everything according to His good pleasure, so that, after living this present life virtuously, we may attain the good things promised to those who love Him, by the grace and mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ, with Whom, to the Father and the Holy Spirit together, be glory, dominion, and honor, now and always, forever and ever. Amen.