Homilies on Acts, Homily 46

“And the next day Paul went with us to James, and all the elders were present. After greeting them, he described in detail what God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry.” This was the Bishop of Jerusalem, and (Paul) had been sent to him on an earlier occasion. This (James) was the Lord’s brother, a great and admirable man. (To him, it says,) “Paul went with us.” Notice the (Bishop’s) unassuming behavior: “and the elders” (were present). Again Paul tells them about the Gentiles, not indulging in self-glorification—God forbid—but wishing to show God’s mercy and fill them with great joy. (ch. xv.) See what follows: “when they heard it,” it says, “they glorified God”—they did not praise or admire Paul, because he had told the story in a way that credited everything to Him—“and said to him, You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are who have believed.” Notice how modestly and respectfully they too speak: “they said to him.” (James) does not speak authoritatively as Bishop; instead, they include Paul as a partner in their view: “You see, brother,” as though apologizing for themselves immediately, at the outset, and saying, “We did not want this. Do you see why this is necessary? ‘How many thousands,’ they say, ‘of Jews there are who’ have gathered.” They do not say, “how many thousands we have made catechumens,” but, “there are. And these,” they say, “are all zealous for the law.” (v. 20.) There are two reasons: their numbers and their views. For even if they had been few, it would not have been right to despise them; and if they had been many but did not all cling to the law, there would have been no need to give them so much consideration. Then a third reason is given: “And they all,” it says, “have been instructed about you.” They do not say, “have heard,” but κατηχήθησαν, that is, this is what they have believed and been taught: “that you teach all the Jews among the Gentiles to abandon Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or follow the customs.” (v. 21.) “What is to be done, then? The crowd is bound to gather, because they will hear that you have come. So do what we tell you” (v. 22, 23): they say this as advice, not as a command. “We have four men who have taken a vow. Take them, purify yourself with them, and pay their expenses.” Defend yourself by your actions, not by words—“so that they may shave themselves,” it says, “and everyone may know that there is nothing to what they have been told about you, but that you yourself also live in an orderly way and keep the law” (v. 23, 24). They do not say, “teach,” but go further: “that you yourself also keep the law.” For of course the chief concern was not whether he refrained from teaching others to abandon the law, but whether he himself observed the law. “What, then,” (he might say), “if the Gentiles hear about it? I will harm them.” How so? they say, since even we, the teachers of the Jews, have sent instructions to them. “As for the Gentiles who believe, we have written and decided that they should observe no such thing, except to keep themselves from things offered to idols, from blood, from strangled animals, and from sexual immorality.” (v. 25.) Here they speak with a kind of reproach (ἐντρεπτικὥς): Just as “we,” they say, gave them instructions, although we preach to the Jews, so you too, although you preach to the Gentiles, should cooperate with us. Notice Paul: he does not say, “But I can bring forward Timothy, whom I circumcised; but I can satisfy them by what I have to say (of myself).” Instead, he complied and did everything, because this was in fact the appropriate thing (to do). For taking (effectual) steps to clear himself was one thing; having done these things without any (of the parties) knowing was another. His even paying the expenses was a step that left no room for suspicion. “Then Paul took the men, and the next day, after purifying himself with them, entered the temple, announcing the completion of the days of purification, until an offering should be made for each of them.” (v. 26.) “Announcing,” διαγγέλλων, i.e. καταγγέλλων, publicly notifying: so he was the one who drew attention to himself. “And when the seven days were nearly over, the Jews from Asia”—for (his arrival) coincides most closely with theirs—“when they saw him in the temple, stirred up all the people and seized him, shouting, Men of Israel, help! This is the man who teaches everyone everywhere against the people, the law, and this place. What is more, he has also brought Greeks into the temple and defiled this holy place.” (v. 27, 28.) Notice their habitual behavior, how turbulent we find it everywhere, how they raise an outcry in public with or without reason. “For they had previously seen Trophimus, an Ephesian, with him in the city, and they supposed that Paul had brought him into the temple. And the whole city was stirred up, and the people came running together. They seized Paul and dragged him out of the temple, and immediately the doors were shut.” (v. 29, 30.) “Men of Israel,” it says, “help! This is the man who (teaches) against the people, the law, and this place”—the things that trouble them most, the Temple and the Law. And Paul does not accuse the Apostles of causing these things to happen to him. “And they dragged him,” it says, “out of the Temple, and the doors were shut.” For they wanted to kill him, and that was why they dragged him out: to do it more safely. “And as they were trying to kill him, word reached the tribune of the cohort that all Jerusalem was in an uproar. He immediately took soldiers and centurions and ran down to them. When they saw the tribune and the soldiers, they stopped beating Paul. Then the tribune approached, arrested him, ordered him bound with two chains, and asked who he was and what he had done. Some in the crowd shouted one thing, some another.” (v. 31–34.) But the tribune came down and rescued him, and “ordered him bound with two chains,” (thereby) calming the people’s anger. “And when he could not find out the facts because of the uproar, he ordered him taken into the barracks. When he reached the stairs, the soldiers had to carry him because of the crowd’s violence. For the crowd followed, shouting, Away with him!” (v. 34–36.) What does “Away with him” mean? It means what people among us say according to Roman custom: To the standards with him! “And as Paul was about to be led into the barracks, he said to the tribune, May I speak to you?” (v. 37.) While being carried up the stairs, he asks to say something to the tribune. Notice how calmly he does it. “May I speak to you?” he says. “He replied, Can you speak Greek? Then aren’t you that Egyptian who some time ago started a revolt and led four thousand murderers out into the wilderness?” (v. 38.) For (this Egyptian) was a revolutionary who stirred up rebellion. Paul then clears himself of this suspicion, and * * (Recapitulation.) “So do what we tell you,” etc. (v. 23, 24.) He shows that this was not something necessary in principle (προηγουμένως)—which is also how they secure his cooperation—but an act of economy and accommodation. “As for the Gentiles,” etc. (v. 25.) So this did not hinder the preaching, since they themselves had made this ruling for them. This is why, when he takes Peter to task, he does not simply (ἁπλὥς) accuse him of wrongdoing: for precisely what he himself does on this occasion, Peter does on that occasion, (merely) keeping silent and establishing his teaching. (Gal. ii. 11.) And he does not say, Why? It is not right to teach those among the Gentiles. “It is not enough that you have not (so) preached there; something more is also needed, so that they may be convinced that you observe the law. This is a matter of accommodation; do not be alarmed.” They do not advise him (to this course) until they have first explained the economy and its benefit. “Besides, doing this in Jerusalem is something you can bear. ‘So do this thing’ here, so that elsewhere you may be free to do the other.” (b) “The next day,” it says, “he took them” (v. 26): he did not delay, for this is how to act when economy is involved. (a) “Jews from Asia, having seen him”—for naturally they were spending some days there—“in the Temple.” (v. 27.) (c) Notice the economy (of Providence) displayed (in this). (p. 279, note 1) Only after the (believing) Jews had been reassured (concerning him) did those (Jews of Asia) attack him, so that those (believing Jews) would not attack him too. Help, they say, “men of Israel!” As though some (monster), difficult to catch and hard to overcome, had fallen into their hands. “Everyone,” they say, “everywhere, he never stops teaching”—not just here. And then the present circumstances make the accusation (itself) more serious. “What is more,” they say, “he has defiled the temple by bringing Greeks into it.” (v. 28.) Yet in Christ’s time “(Greeks) came up to worship” (John xii. 20). True, but here it speaks of Greeks who had no intention of worshiping. “And they seized Paul,” etc. (v. 30–35.) They no longer wanted laws or courts of justice; they beat him as well. But he held back from defending himself then and did so afterward, with good reason: they would not even have listened to him then. Tell me, why did they shout, “Away with him?” (v. 36.) They feared he might escape them. Notice how respectfully Paul speaks to the tribune. “May I speak to you? Then aren’t you that Egyptian?” (v. 37, 38.) This Egyptian was a fraud and an impostor, and the devil hoped to cast a cloud over (the Gospel) through him and implicate both Christ and His Apostles in the charges against those (imposters). But he accomplished nothing. Indeed, the truth became even more brilliant: the devil’s schemes did nothing to defeat it, but instead made it shine all the more. For if there had been no impostors, and then these (Christ and His Apostles) had prevailed, perhaps someone might have seized on that. But that those impostors actually appeared is what makes this wonderful. “So that,” says (the Apostle), “those who are approved may become evident.” (1 Cor. xi. 19.) And Gamaliel says, “Some time ago Theudas rose up.” So let us not grieve that heresies exist, since false Christs tried to attack even Christ, both before this and afterward, intending to overshadow Him. Yet on every occasion we find the truth shining out clearly. It was the same with the Prophets: there were false prophets, and the contrast made the Prophets shine all the more, just as disease makes health, darkness light, and a storm calm seem all the better. The Greeks have no room left to say that (our teachers) were impostors and charlatans, because those (that were such) were exposed. It was the same with Moses: God allowed the magicians to act precisely so that Moses would not be suspected of being a magician. He let them teach everyone how far magic can go in producing an illusory display. Beyond that point they deceived no one, but admitted their own defeat. Impostors do us no harm; instead, they do us good, if we give the matter some thought. What then, you will say, if public opinion lumps us together with them? That opinion is not held among us, but among people without judgment. Let us not care too much about the opinion of the many or pay it more attention than necessary. We live for God, not for people; our citizenship is in heaven, not on earth. There lie the rewards and prizes of our labors; from there we look for our praise, from there for our crowns. Let us concern ourselves about people to this extent: that we give them no grounds to use against us. But if, though we give them none, they choose to accuse us thoughtlessly and without discrimination, let us laugh, not weep. “Take care to do what is honorable before the Lord and before people” (2 Cor. viii. 21). If you take care to do what is honorable and someone mocks you, do not worry any further (for that). You have your examples in the Scriptures. For he says, “Am I now trying to persuade people or God?” (Gal. i. 10), and again, “We persuade people, but we are fully known to God.” (2 Cor. v. 11.) And Christ (spoke) this way about those who take offense: “Leave them alone; they are blind guides of the blind” (Matt. xv. 14); and again, “Woe to you when everyone speaks well of you” (Luke vi. 26); and again, “Let your works shine, so that people may see and glorify your Father Who is in heaven.” (Matt. v. 16.) And, “If anyone causes one of these little ones to stumble, it would be better for him to have a millstone hung around his neck and be drowned in the depths of the sea.” (Matt. xviii. 6.) These sayings do not contradict one another; they agree completely. For when the fault lies with us, then woe to us, but when it does not, that is not the case. And again, Woe to (that man) through whom “the name of God is blasphemed.” (Rom. ii. 24.) But what if I do something right and someone else blasphemes? That is no fault of mine, but only of his, because it was through him that (God) was blasphemed. “And how is it possible to do something right and still give others grounds for accusation?” Where would you like me to draw examples from—present times or ancient times? Rather than be easily frightened (ψοφοδεεἵς), shall we address the very issue before us? Paul followed Jewish practices in Jerusalem, but not in Antioch. He followed Jewish practices, and they took offense (p. 282, note 3), but they had no right to be offended. He is said to have greeted both Nero’s cupbearer and his concubine. What do you think people must have said against him because of this? But they had no right to do so. For if he had drawn them to himself for immoral living or any wicked acts, someone might reasonably have taken offense; but if it was to lead them to live rightly, what is there to be offended at? Let me mention something that happened to an acquaintance of mine. God’s anger once fell on (a city), and this man, who was very young, (was) serving as a deacon. The bishop was away at the time, and none of the presbyters gave the matter any thought. Instead, in one night they indiscriminately had immense numbers of people baptized all at once, and all these people received baptism indiscriminately, knowing nothing about anything. He took them aside in groups of a hundred or two hundred and spoke to them about no other subject than the sacraments, so that the unbaptized were not allowed to be present either. Many thought he did this because he wanted authority. But he did not care about that opinion. Still, he did not continue for any (longer) period, but stopped immediately. What then? Was he responsible for the scandal? I think not. For if he had done this without reason, they might reasonably have blamed him; and the same would be true if he had continued doing it. For when someone’s taking offense obstructs something pleasing to God, it is right to disregard it. But the time to pay attention is when doing so does not force us to offend God for that person’s sake. Suppose, for example, someone takes offense while we are speaking and putting drunkards to shame (σκωπτόντων). Am I to stop speaking? Hear Christ say, “Will you also go away?” (John vi. 67.) So the right course is neither to ignore the weakness of the many nor to pay it too much attention. Do we not see doctors acting this way? When possible, they indulge their patients’ whims, but when gratifying them would do harm, they refuse to indulge them. It is always good to know the right balance. Many spoke abusively because a certain beautiful virgin stayed, and they attacked those who were giving (her) instruction as a catechumen. What then? Was it their duty to stop because of that? Certainly not. For let us consider not only whether some take offense, but whether they are right to take offense and whether giving way would do us no harm. “If food,” says (Paul), “causes my brother to stumble, I will eat no meat as long as the world lasts.” (1 Cor. viii. 13.) With good reason: not eating did (him) no harm. But if he takes offense because I wish to renounce (ἀποτάξασθαι) (the world), it is not right to heed him. And who, you will ask, takes offense at this? Many people, to my knowledge. So when the obstacle is something morally indifferent, let (the thing) go ahead. Otherwise, if we considered only this, there are many things we would have to give up; just as, on the other hand, if we disregarded (all objections), we would destroy many (brethren). In fact, Paul too took precautions against giving offense: “So that this does not happen,” he says, “in this generous gift administered by us.” For preventing an unfounded suspicion cost (him) nothing. But when we must persist in doing what is right, even if the other person’s taking offense brings great evils, let us pay no attention to that person. He has himself to blame, and we are no longer accountable, because it was impossible to spare him without harm (to ourselves). Some took offense because certain believers sat down to eat in (heathen) temples. It was not right to sit down there, because no harm came from this (their not doing it). They took offense because Peter ate with the Gentiles. He did accommodate them, but (Paul) did not. On every occasion, as we follow God’s laws, we must take great care to give no cause for offense, so that we ourselves may not have to answer for it and may receive mercy from God, by the grace and loving-kindness of His only-begotten Son, with Whom may glory, dominion, and honor belong to the Father and the Holy Spirit together, now and forever, for all eternity. Amen.