Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| Homily XXVII on Acts xii. 18, 19. PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP
Homily XXVII.
Acts XII. 18, 19
“Now as soon as it was
day, there was no small stir among the soldiers, what was become of
Peter. And when Herod had sought for him, and found him not, he
examined the keepers, and commanded that they should be put to death.
And he went down from Judea to Cæsarea, and there
abode.”
Some persons, it is likely, are at a loss how to explain it, that God
should quietly look on while (His) champions639
639 περιεῖδεν
τοὺς ἀθλητὰς
ἀπολλυμένους: i.e. those (as St. Stephen, St. James) engaged in
contending for the heavenly prize. The mod. t. substitutes, “Many
are quite at a loss, how God could quietly look on while his children
(or servants? τοὺς
παῖδας, Ben.
infantes) were put to death because of Him, and now
again,” etc. After this sentence, the same inserts from the
recapitulation: “But—if the Angel,” etc.
to…..“why did He not rescue him? and
besides”— |
are put to death, and now again the soldiers on account of Peter: and
yet it was possible for Him after (delivering) Peter to rescue them
also. But it was not yet the time of judgment, so as to render to each
according to his deserts. And besides, it was not Peter that put them
into his hands. For the thing that most annoyed him was the being
mocked; just as in the case of his grandfather when he was deceived by
the wise men, that was what made him (feel) cut to the heart—the
being (eluded and) made ridiculous.640
640 μᾶλλον
αὐτὸν ἐποίει
διαπρίεσθαι
(as in ch. vii.
54,
cut to the heart with passion) καὶ
καταγέλαστον
εἶναι. The last words
are either misplaced, or something is wanting; perhaps (after
διαπρίεσθαι), τὸ
διακρούεσθαι
καὶ
καταγέλαστον
εἶναι. | “And
having put them to the question,” it says, “he ordered them
to be led away to execution.” (Matt. ii. 16.) And yet he had
heard from them—for he had put them to the question—both
that the chains had been left, and that he had taken his sandals, and
that until that night he was with them. “Having put them to the
question:” but what did they conceal?641
641 i.e.
what was to be drawn from them by the torture? Had they let him out,
they would have contrived appearances, or would themselves have fled.
But the reporter’s notes of what St. Chrys. said, seem to be very
defective, and the arrangement much confused. | Why
then did they not themselves also flee? “He ordered them to be
led away to execution:” and yet he ought to have marvelled, ought
to have been astonished at this. The consequence is, by the death of
these men (the thing), is made manifest to all: both his wickedness is
exposed to view, and (it is made clear that) the wonder (is) of God.
“And he went down from Judea to Cæsarea, and there abode:
and Herod was highly displeased with them of Tyre and Sidon: but they
came with one accord to him, and, having made Blastus the king’s
chamberlain their friend, desired peace; because their country was
nourished by the king’s country. And upon a set day Herod,
arrayed in royal apparel, sat upon his throne, and made an oration unto
them. And the people gave a shout, saying, ‘It is the voice of a
god, and not of a man,’ And immediately the angel of the Lord
smote him, because he gave not God the glory: and he was eaten of
worms, and gave up the ghost.” (v. xx. 23.) * * But see how (the
writer) here does not hide these things.642
642 ἀλλ᾽
ὅρα πῶς οὗτος
οὐ κρύπτει
ταῦτα. In the
recapitulation (see note 3, p. 175) he says, that the death of Herod
was regarded as a judgment for his having slain James and the soldiers.
Here, it seems, he must have said something to that effect; then,
“but observe how St. Luke does not conceal the true state of the
case, viz. that he was punished not for this, but for the sin which he
proceeds to mention.” We have transposed the text v. 20–23. mss. and Edd. place it before οὐ μικρὸν
οὐδὲ τοῦτό
ἐστιν, thus
separating these words from their connection with the preceding
question. |
Why does he mention this history? Say, what has it to do with the
Gospel, that Herod is incensed with the Tyrians and Sidonians? It is
not a small matter, even this, how immediately justice seized him;
although not because of Peter, but because of his arrogant speaking.
And yet, it may be said, if those shouted, what is that to him? Because
he accepted the acclamation, because he accounted himself to be worthy
of the adoration. Through him those most receive a lesson, who so
thoughtlessly flattered him (al. οἱ
κολακεύοντες). Observe again, while both parties deserve punishment,
this man is punished. For this is not the time of judgment, but He
punishes him that had most to answer for, leaving the others to profit
by this man’s fate.643
643 Josephus’ narrative of the death of Herod (Ant. xix.
8, 2) is of peculiar interest here on account of its substantial
agreement with that of Luke. The following points of agreement may be
noted: (1) The place was Cæsarea. (2) He was attacked by disease
in a public assembly when, arrayed in gorgeous apparel, he received the
impious flatteries of the people. (3) His disease and death were a
penalty for accepting the flattery of those who accorded to him divine
honors. Thus the main outlines are the same. Josephus introduces some
historical notices, such as that the occasion was a celebration in
honor of the Emperor Claudius, which are wanting in Luke. He also
relates that after receiving the people’s flattery, Herod
observed an owl perched on a rope above him, which he interpreted at
once as an omen of the fate which soon befell him. The supernatural
element—“an angel smote him”—is wanting in
Josephus. The Jewish historian is less specific in describing the
disease which he speaks of as violent pains in the bowels and adds that
after the attack, Herod lingered five days and died in the fifty-fourth
year of his age and the seventh of his reign.—G.B.S. | “And the
word of God,” it says, “grew,” i.e. in consequence of
this, “and multiplied.” (v. 24.) Do you mark God’s providential management?
“But Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem, when they had
fulfilled their ministry, and took with them John, whose surname was
Mark.” (v. 25.) “Now there were
in the Church that was at Antioch, certain prophets and teachers; as
Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and
Manaën, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and
Saul.”644
644 At
this point (ch. xiii.) begins the second
part of the Book of Acts which has chiefly to do with the missionary
labors of Paul. It is a reasonable supposition that the previous
chapters rest upon different documents from those which follow.
From chapter xvi. onward occur the
so-called “we” passages (e.g. xvi. 10; xx, 6. xxi. 1; xxvii.
1) in
which the writer, identifying himself with his narratives, indicates
that he writes from personal knowledge and experience. The appointment
of Barnabas and Saul at Antioch for missionary service, marked an epoch
in the history of the early church and practically settled the
questions relating to the admission of the Gentiles to the Christian
community.—G.B.S. | (ch. xiii. 1.) He still mentions
Barnabas first: for Paul was not yet famous, he had not yet wrought any
sign. “As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost
said, Separate Me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have
called them. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands
on them, they sent them away.” (v. 2, 3.) What means,
“Ministering?” Preaching. “Separate for Me,” it
says, “Barnabas and Saul.” What means, “Separate for
Me?” For the work, for the Apostleship. See again by what persons
he is ordained (γυμνοτέρα. Cat. σεμνοτέρα, “more awful.”) By Lucius the Cyrenean and
Manaën, or rather, by the Spirit. The less the persons, the more
palpable the grace. He is ordained henceforth to Apostleship, so as to
preach with authority. How then does he himself say, “Not from
men, nor by man?”645
645 mss. and Edd. δἰ
ἀνθρώπων, but the singular is implied below in οὐχ ὑπὸ
τοῦδε. In the old
text, B. C. Cat. “Not from men nor by men? Because not man called
nor brought him over: that is, neither by men; therefore he says, that
he was not sent (B., I was not sent) by this,” etc. The mod. text
“Not from men neither by men. The one, not from men, he uses to
show that not man, etc.: and the other, neither by men, that he was not
sent by this (man), but by the Spirit. Wherefore,”
etc. | (Gal. i. 1.)
Because it was not man that called or brought him over: this is why he
says, “Not from men. Neither by man,” that is, that he was
not sent by this (man), but by the Spirit. Wherefore also (the writer)
thus proceeds: “So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost,
departed unto Seleucia; and from thence they sailed to Cyprus.”
(v. 4.) But let us look over
again what has been said.
(Recapitulation.) “And
when it was day,” etc. (v.
18.)
For646
646 Here
he further answers the question raised in the opening of the discourse.
The mod. text transposes it to that place, beginning the recapitulation
with, “‘And when it was day there was no small stir among
the soldiers because of Peter, and having put the keepers to the
question, he ordered them to be led away to execution.’ So
senseless was he, οὕτως οὐκ
ᾔσθετο, that he
even sets about punishing them unjustly.” The latter clause is
added by the innovator. For ᾔσθετοCat. has
preserved the true reading, ᾔσθοντο. | if the Angel had brought out the soldiers
also, along with Peter, it would have been thought a case of flight.
Then why, you may ask, was it not otherwise managed? Why, where is the
harm? Now, if we see that they who have suffered unjustly, take no
harm, we shall not raise these questions. For why do you not say the
same of James? Why did not (God) rescue him? “There was no small
stir among the soldiers.” So (clearly) had they perceived nothing
(of what had happened). Lo, I take up the plea in their defence. The
chains were there, and the keepers within, and the prison shut, nowhere
a wall broken through, all told the same tale: the man had been carried
off:647
647 ἀνάρπαστος ὁ
ἄνθρωπος
γέγονε. Ben.
homo ille raptus non est. | why dost thou condemn them? Had they
wished to let him off, they would have done it before, or would have
gone out with him. “But he gave them money?” (ch. iii. 6.) And how should he,
who had not to give even to a poor man, have the means to give to
these? And then neither had the chains been broken, nor were they
loosed. He ought to have seen, that the thing was of God, and no work
of man. “And he went down from Judea to Cæsarea, and there
abode. And Herod was highly displeased with them of Tyre and
Sidon,” etc. (v.
19.)
He is now going to mention (a matter of) history: this is the reason
why he adds the names, that it may be shown how he keeps to the truth
in all things. “And,” it says, “having made Blastus
the king’s chamberlain their friend, they desired peace; because
their country was nourished by the king’s country.”
(v. 20, 21.) For probably there
was a famine. “And on a set day,” etc. (Joseph. Ant.
xix.) Josephus also says this, that he fell into a lingering disease.
Now the generality were not aware of this,648
648 i.e. of the circumstances related v. 22, 23.—Below,
πλὴν
ἀλλὰ καὶ ἡ
ἄγνοια
ὠφέλει, i.e. to
the believers: and yet, as he says above, the writer does not conceal
the facts: see note 3, p. 174. |
but the Apostle sets it down: yet at the same time their ignorance was
an advantage, in regard that they imputed what befell (Agrippa) to his
putting James and the soldiers to death. Observe, when he slew the
Apostle, he did nothing of this sort but when (he slew) these; in fact
he knew not what to say about it:649
649 mss. and Edd. οὐδὲν
τοιοῦτον
εἰπγάσατο·
ὅτε δὲ
τούτους,
λοιπὸν ἐν
ἀφασί& 139·
ἦν: what this means, is very
obscure, only the last clause seems to be explained by the
following, ἅτε οὖν
ἡπορηκὼς καὶ
αἰσχυνόμενος, i.e. not knowing what to think of it, he withdrew from
Jerusalem. Ben. quando illos, nihil dicebat. Erasm., et
quando alios, nihil de illis traditur.—Below, ᾽Εμοὶ δοκεῖ
καὶ ἐκείνους
πρὸς τὴν
ἀπολογίαν
ἐνάγων
ἀπαγαγεῖν
ὠργίζετο γὰρ
ἐκείνοις,
τούτους οὕτω
θεραπεύων. By ἐκείνους,
ἐκείνοις, he means the Tyrians and Sidonians: ἀπαγαγεῖν, sc. ἑαυτόν, to have withdrawn himself from Jerusalem, to Cæsarea,
nearer to Tyre and Sidon. The innovator substitutes, ᾽Εμοὶ δοκεῖ
καὶ ἐκείνους
ἀπαγαγεῖν
βουλόμενος,
πρὸς
ἀπολογίαν
ἦλθε τούτων·
ὠργίζετο γὰρ
κ. τ. λ. which Ben. renders
Mihi videtur, cum illos abducere vellet, ad hos venisse ut sese
purgaret. | as being at a
loss, then, and feeling ashamed, “he went down from Judea to
Cæsarea.” I suppose it was also to bring those (men of Tyre
and Sidon) to apologize, that he withdrew (from Jerusalem): for with
those he was incensed, while paying such court to these. See how
vainglorious the man is: meaning to confer the boon upon them, he makes
an harangue. But Josephus says, that he was also arrayed in a splendid
robe made of silver. Observe both what flatterers those were, and what
a high spirit was shown by the Apostles: the man whom the whole nation
so courted, the same they held in contempt. (v. 24.) But observe again a great refreshing granted to them, and
the numberless benefits accruing from the vengeance inflicted upon him.
But if this man, because it was said to him, “It is the voice of
God and not of a man (v.
22)
although he said nothing himself, suffered such things: much more
should Christ, had He not Himself been God (have suffered) for saying
always as He did, “These words of mine are not Mine”
(John xiv. 10; xviii. 36) and, “Angels
minister to Me,” and such like. But that man ended His life by a
shameful and miserable death, and thenceforth no more is seen of him.
And observe him also, easily talked over even by Blastus, like a poor
creature, soon incensed and again pacified, and on all occasions a
slave of the populace, with nothing free and independent about him. But
mark also the authority of the Holy Ghost: “As they ministered to
the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate Me Barnabas and
Saul.” (ch. xiii. 2.) What being would have
dared, if not of the same authority, to say this?
“Separate,” etc. But this is done, that they may not keep
together among themselves. The Spirit saw that they had greater power,
and were able to be sufficient for many. And how did He speak to them?
Probably by prophets: therefore the writer premises, that there were
prophets also. And they were fasting and ministering: that thou mayest
learn that there was need of great sobriety. In Antioch he is ordained,
where he preaches. Why did He not say, Separate for the Lord, but,
“For me?” It shows that He is of one authority and power.
“And when they had fasted,” etc. Seest thou what a great
thing fasting is? “So they being sent forth by the Holy
Ghost:” it shows that the Spirit did all.
A great, yes a great good is
fasting: it is circumscribed by no limits. When need was to ordain,
then they fast: and to them while fasting, the Spirit spake. Thus much
only do I enjoin: (I say) not fast, but abstain from luxury. Let us
seek meats to nourish, not things to ruin us; seek meats for food, not
occasions of diseases, of diseases both of soul and body: seek food
which hath comfort, not luxury which is full of discomfort: the one is
luxury, the other mischief; the one is pleasure, the other pain; the
one is agreeable to nature, the other contrary to nature. For say, if
one should give thee hemlock juice to drink, would it not be against
nature? if one should give thee logs and stones, wouldest thou not
reject them? Of course, for they are against nature. Well, and so is
luxury. For just as in a city, under an invasion of enemies when there
has been siege and tumult, great is the uproar, so is it in the soul,
under invasion of wine and luxury. “Who hath woe? who hath
tumults? who hath discomforts and babblings? Are they not they that
tarry long at the wine? Whose are bloodshot eyes?” (Prov. xxiii. 29, 30.)
But yet, say what we will, we shall not bring off those who give
themselves up to luxury, unless650
650 οὐκ
ἀποστήσομεν…ἂν μὴ
ἑτερον
ἀντιστήσωμεν
πάθος (Mod.
text πρὸς
ἕτ. and τὸ πάθος), i.e. unless, as Solomon does in the last clause of the
text cited, we set against this lust a different affection, viz.
vanity, especially female vanity, regard to personal appearance. Hence
that last clause might be better transposed to the end of this
sentence. | we bring into
conflict therewith a different affection. And first, let us address
ourselves to the women. Nothing uglier than a woman given to luxury,
nothing uglier than a woman given to drink. The bloom of her complexion
is faded: the calm and mild expression of the eyes is rendered turbid,
as when a cloud intercepts the rays of the sunshine. It is a vulgar,
(ἀνελεύθερον) slave-like, thoroughly low-lived habit. How disgusting is
a woman when from her breath you catch sour whiffs of fetid wine: a
woman belching, giving out a fume (χυμὸν) of
decomposing meats; herself weighed down, unable to keep upright; her
face flushed with an unnatural red; yawning incessantly, and everything
swimming in a mist before her eyes! But not such, she that abstains
from luxurious living: no (this abstinence makes her look) a more
beautiful, well-bred (σωφρονεστέρα) woman. For even to the body, the composure of the soul
imparts a beauty of its own. Do not imagine that the impression of
beauty results only from the bodily features. Give me a handsome girl,
but turbulent (τεταραγμένην), loquacious, railing, given to drink, extravagant, (and
tell me) if she is not worse-looking than any ugly woman? But if she
were bashful, if she would hold her peace, if she learnt to blush, if
to speak modestly (συμμέτρως), if to find time for fastings; her beauty would be twice
as great, her freshness would be heightened, her look more engaging,
fraught with modesty and good breeding (σωφροσύνης
καὶ
κοσμιότητος). Now then, shall we speak of men? What can be uglier than
a man in drink? He is an object of ridicule to his servants, of
ridicule to his enemies, of pity to his friends; deserving condemnation
without end: a wild beast rather than a human being; for to devour much
food is proper to panther, and lion, and bear. No wonder (that they do
so), for those creatures have not a reasonable soul. And yet even they,
if they be gorged with food more than they need, and beyond the measure
appointed them by nature, get their whole body ruined by it: how much
more we? Therefore hath God contracted our stomach into a small
compass; therefore hath He marked out a small measure of sustenance,
that He may instruct us to attend to the soul.
Let us consider our very make,
and we shall see there is in us but one little part that has this
operation—for our mouth and tongue are meant for singing hymns,
our throat for voice—therefore the very necessity of nature has
tied us down, that we may not, even involuntarily, get into much
trouble (πραγματείαν) (in this way). Since, if indeed luxurious living had not
its pains, nor sickness and infirmities, it might be tolerated: but as
the case is, He hath stinted thee by restrictions of nature, that even
if thou wish to exceed, thou mayest not be able to do so. Is not
pleasure thine object, beloved? This thou shalt find from moderation.
Is not health? This too thou shalt so gain. Is not easiness of mind?
This too. Is not freedom? is not vigor and good habit of body, is not
sobriety and alertness of mind? (All these thou shalt find); so
entirely are all good things there, while in the other are the
contraries to these, discomfort, distemper, disease,
embarrassment—waste of substance (ἀνελευθερία). Then how comes it, you will ask, that we all run eagerly
after this? It comes of disease. For say, what is it that makes the
sick man hanker after the thing that does him harm? Is not this very
hankering a part of his disease? Why is it that the lame man does not
walk upright? This very thing, does it come of his being lazy, and not
choosing to go to the physician? For there are some things, in which
the pleasure they bring with them is temporary, but lasting the
punishment: others just the contrary, in which the endurance is for a
time, the pleasure perpetual. He, therefore, that has so little
solidity and strength of purpose as not to slight present sweets for
future, is soon overcome. Say, how came Esau to be overcome? how came
he to prefer the present pleasure to the future honor? Through want of
solidity and firmness of character. (Gen. xxv. 33.) And this fault
itself, say you, whence comes it? Of our ownselves: and it is plain
from this consideration. When we have the mind, we do rouse ourselves,
and become capable of endurance. Certain it is, if at any time
necessity comes upon us, nay, often only from a spirit of emulation, we
get to see clearly what is useful for us. When therefore thou art about
to indulge in luxury, consider how brief the pleasure, consider the
loss—for loss it is indeed to spend so much money to one’s
own hurt—the diseases, the infirmities: and despise luxury. How
many shall I enumerate who have suffered evils from indulgence? Noah
was drunken, and was exposed in his nakedness, and see what evils came
of this. (Gen. ix. 20.) Esau through greediness abandoned his birthright, and was
set upon fratricide. The people of Israel “sat down to eat and to
drink, and rose up to play.” (Ex. xxxii. 6.) Therefore saith
the Scripture, “When thou hast eaten and drunken, remember the
Lord thy God.” (Deut. vi. 12.) For they fell
over a precipice, in failing into luxury. “The widow,” he
saith, “that liveth in pleasure, is dead while she liveth”
(1 Tim. v. 6): and again, “The beloved waxed sleek, grew thick, and
kicked” (Deut. xxxii. 15): and again the
Apostle, “Make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts
thereof.” (Rom. xiii. 14.) I am not enacting as
a law that there shall be fasting, for indeed there is no one who would
listen; but I am doing away with daintiness, I am cutting off luxury
for the sake of your own profit: for like a winter torrent, luxury
overthrows all: there is nothing to stop its course: it casts out from
a kingdom: what is the gain of it (τί τὸ
πλέον)? Would you
enjoy a (real) luxury? Give to the poor; invite Christ, so that even
after the table is removed, you may still have this luxury to enjoy.
For now, indeed, you have it not, and no wonder: but then you will have
it. Would you taste a (real) luxury? Nourish your soul, give to her of
that food to which she is used: do not kill her by starvation.—It
is the time for war, the time for contest: and do you sit enjoying
yourself? Do you not see even those who wield sceptres, how they live
frugally while abroad on their campaigns? “We wrestle not against
flesh and blood” (Eph. vi. 12); and are you
fattening yourself when about to wrestle? The adversary stands grinding
his teeth, and are you giving a loose to jollity, and devoting yourself
to the table? I know that I speak these things in vain, yet not (in
vain) for all. “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.”
(Luke viii. 8.) Christ is pining through hunger, and are you frittering
yourself away (διασπᾅς) with gluttony? Two inconsistencies (Δύο
ἀμετρίαι). For what evil does not luxury cause? It is contrary to itself:
so that I know not how it gets its name: but just as that is called
glory, which is (really) infamy, and that riches, which in truth is
poverty, so the name of luxury is given to that which in reality is
nauseousness. Do we intend ourselves for the shambles, that we so
fatten ourselves? Why cater for the worm that it may have a sumptuous
larder? Why make more of their humors (ἰχὥρας)? Why
store up in yourself sources of sweat and rank smelling? Why make
yourself useless for everything? Do you wish your eye to be strong? Get
your body well strung? For in musical strings, that which is coarse and
not refined, is not fit to produce musical tones, but that which has
been well scraped, stretches well, and vibrates with full harmony. Why
do you bury the soul alive? why make the wall about it thicker? Why
increase the reek and the cloud, with fumes like a mist steaming up
from all sides? If none other, let the wrestlers teach you, that the
more spare the body, the stronger it is: and (then) also the soul is
more vigorous. In fact, it is like charioteer and horse. But there you
see, just as in the case of men giving themselves to luxury, and making
themselves plump, so the plump horses are unwieldy, and give the driver
much ado. One may think one’s self (ἀγαπητὸν) well off, even with a horse obedient to the rein and
well-limbed, to be able to carry off the prize: but when the driver is
forced to drag the horse along, and when the horse falls, though he
goad him ever so much, he cannot make him get up, be he ever so skilful
himself, he will be deprived of the victory. Then let us not endure to
see our soul wronged because of the body, but let us make the soul
herself more clear-sighted, let us make her wing light, her bonds
looser: let us feed her with discourse, with frugality, (feeding) the
body only so much that it may be healthy, that it may be vigorous, that
it may rejoice and not be in pain: that having in this sort well
ordered our concerns, we may be enabled to lay hold upon the highest
virtue, and to attain unto the eternal good things by the grace and
loving-kindness of our Lord Jesus Christ, with Whom, to the Father and
Holy Ghost together, be glory, dominion, honor, now and ever, world
without end. Amen. E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|