Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| Homily XXXIII on Acts xv. 13, 15. PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP
Homily XXXIII.
Acts XV. 13; 15
“And after they had held
their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
Symeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to
take out of them a people for his name. And to this agree the words of
the prophets.”
This (James) was bishop, as they say, and therefore he speaks last, and
herein is fulfilled that saying, “In the mouth of two or three
witnesses shall every word be established.” (Deut. xvii. 6; Matt.
xviii. 16.) But observe the discretion shown by him also, in making his
argument good from the prophets, both new and old.752
752 All
our mss. and the Cat. ἀπό
τε νέων ἀπό
τε παλαιῶν
βεβαιουμένου
τῶν προφητῶν
τὸν λόγον, which must be rendered, “Confirming the word of the
prophets:” so Ed. Par. Ben. 2, where the other Edd. have
παλ.
προφ. βεβ. κ. τ.
λ., which is in fact what the sense
requires: “from the prophets, new (as Symeon) and
old.” | For he had no acts of his own to declare,
as Peter had and Paul. And indeed it is wisely ordered that this (the
active) part is assigned to those, as not intended to be locally fixed
in Jerusalem, whereas (James) here, who performs the part of teacher,
is no way responsible for what has been done, while however he is not
divided from them in opinion.753
753 This was James, the Lord’s brother (Gal. i. 19), who, according
to the uniform tradition of the early church, was the Bishop of
Jerusalem. He evidently was the chief pastor, as he presides at this
conference, and when Judaizing teachers afterwards went down to Antioch
from Jerusalem they are spoken of as coming “from James”
(Gal. ii. 12). From this it has been inferred that he was the leader of a
Judaistic party, but this view is inconsistent with his address here
and also with Paul’s testimony who says that the
“pillar” apostles “imparted nothing” to him,
that is, did not correct or supplement his teaching. He was no doubt of
a conservative tendency respecting the questions in dispute and may not
have been always self-consistent, as Peter certainly was not, but there
can be no doubt of his substantial agreement with Paul. His doctrine of
justification by works as well as by faith in his epistle is not
against this view, since he uses both the words “faith” and
“works” in a different sense from Paul, meaning by the
former “belief” and by the latter the deeds which are the
fruit of the Christian life, instead of meritorious obedience to the
Mosaic law.—G.B.S. | (b)
“Men and brethren,” he says, “hearken unto me.”
Great is the moderation of the man. His also is a more complete
oration, as indeed it puts the completion to the matter under
discussion. (a) “Symeon,” he says,
“declared:” (namely,) in Luke, in that he prophesied,
“Which Thou hast prepared before the face of all nations, a light
to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of Thy people Israel.”754
754 Edd. ἐπιχωριάζειν, Cat. ἐγχρονίζειν, substituted for the less usual ἐγχωρίαζειν
of A. B. C. Sav.—Below, Συμεὼν,
φησὶν,
ἐξηγήσατο ἐν
τῷ Λουκᾷ
προφητεύσας. Cat. “He who in Luke prophesied, Lord, now lettest
Thou Thy servant depart.”—It is remarkable that it does not
occur to Chrys. that Symeon is Simon Peter, though 2 Pet. i. 1 has Συμέων
Πέτρος in the
Cod. Alexandr., and many other mss. In the
Mod. text Chrys. is made to say: “Some say that this is he who is
mentioned by Luke: others, that he is some other person of the same
name. (Acts xiii. 1?) But whether it be the one or the other is a point about
which there is no need to be particular; but only to receive as
necessary the things which the person declared.” | (c) “How God at the first did
visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for His Name.”
(Luke ii. 25.) Then, since that (witness), though755
755 ἀπὸ
μὲν τοῦ
χρόνου δῆλος
ἦν, τὸ δὲ
ἀξιόπιστον
οὐκ εἶχε:
the former clause seems to be corrupt. The sense in general is, He was
manifestly (a prophet), but had not the same authority as the old
prophets. Probably the form of opposition was this: ἐπειδὴ
ἐκεῖνος ἀπο
μὲν * * δῆλος ἦν,
ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ
χρόνου τὸ
ἀξιόπιστον
οὐκ εἶχε διὰ
τὸ μὴ παλαιὸς
εἶναι. “Since
Symeon, though from * * he was manifestly (a prophet), yet from time
had not the like authority because he was not
ancient.” |
from the time indeed he was manifest, yet had not authority by reason
of his not being ancient, therefore he produces ancient prophecy also,
saying, “And to this agree the words of the Prophets, as it is
written: After this I wilt return, and will build again the tabernacle
of David which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins
thereof, and I will set it up.” (v. 16.) What? was Jerusalem raised up? Was it not rather thrown
down? What756
756 Mod.
text, “But it is not of these things that he speaks. And what
raising up, you will say, does he mean? That after Babylon.” We
point it, ποίαν λέγει
ἔγερσιν τὴν
μετὰ
Βαβυλῶνα; “Was it raised up? was it not rather razed to the ground
(by the Romans)? True it was rebuilt after the return from Babylon, but
what sort of raising up does he call that?” For the answer to
these questions, not given here, see the Recapitulation (note 4, p.
207). | sort of raising up does he call that
which took place after the return from Babylon? “That the residue
of men,” he says, “may seek the Lord, even all the Gentiles
upon whom My Name is called.” (v. 17.) Then, what makes his word
authoritative—“Saith the Lord, which doeth all these
things:” and, for that this is no new thing, but all was planned
from the beginning, “Known unto God are all His works from
everlasting.”757
757 Most modern texts omit πάντα at the end
of v. 17 and then join directly
to it γνωστὰ ἀπ᾽
ἀιῶνος only,
dropping out the words of the T. R.: ἐστι
τῷ θεῷ πάντα
τὰ ἔργα
αὐτοῦ. This reading
yields the following translation: “the Gentiles upon whom my name
is called, saith the Lord, who maketh these things known from the
beginning of the world.” (So Tischendorf, Alford, Meyer, Westcott
and Hort, Gloag. R.V.). This reading encounters the difficulty that the
words γνωστὰ ἀπ᾽
αἰ& 242·νος are considered as a part of the quotation which, in reality, they
are not. It is probable that this fact may have led to their expansion
into an independent sentence.—G.B.S. | (v. 18.) And then again his
authority (καὶ
τὸ ἀξίωμα
πάλιν) (as Bishop):
“Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from
among the Gentiles are turned to God: but that we write unto them, that
they abstain from pollution of idols, and from fornication, and from
things strangled, and from blood. For Moses of old time hath in every
city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath
day.” (v. 19–21.) Since758
758 All our mss. ἐπειδὴ οὐκ
ἦσαν
ἀκηκοότες
τοῦ νόμου, which contradicts v.
21.
We restore ἐπειδὴ
οὖν. In B. C. v. 21, with the words
ἐπειδὴ οὐκ
ἦσαν ἀκ. τοῦ
νόμου is repeated
after, “We have judged.” | then they had heard of the Law, with
good reason he enjoins these things from the Law, that he may not seem
to make it of no authority. And (yet) observe how he does not let them
be told these things from the Law, but from himself, saying, It is not
that I heard these things from the Law, but how? “We have
judged.” Then the decree is made in common. “Then pleased
it the Apostles and elders, together with the whole Church, to choose
men of their own company”—do you observe they do not merely
enact these matters, and nothing more?—“and send them to
Antioch with Paul and Barnabas: namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and
Silas, chief men among the brethren: and they wrote letters by them
after this manner.” (v.
22.)
And observe, the more to authenticate the decree, they send men of
their own, that there may be no room for regarding Paul and his company
with suspicion. “The Apostles and elders and brethren send
greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and
Syria and Cilicia.” (v.
23.)
And mark759
759 mss. and Edd. Καὶ ὅρα πῶς
φορτικῶς
ἐκείνους
διαβάλλοντες
ἐπιστέλλουσιν. The sense absolutely requires πῶς οὐ
φορτ. It would be strange
if Chrys. made τὸ
φορτικὸν and τὸ
διαβάλλειν
matter of commendation: moreover in his very next
remark he says just the contrary, and below, p. 209. | with what forbearance of all harsh
vituperation of those (brethren) they indite their epistle.
“Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us
have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be
circumcised, and keep the Law: to whom we gave no such
commandment.” (v.
24.)
Sufficient was this charge against the temerity of those men, and
worthy of the Apostles’ moderation, that they said nothing beyond
this. Then to show that they do not act despotically, that all are
agreed in this, that with deliberation they write this—“It
seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send men of ours
whom we have chosen” (v.
25)—then, that it may not look like disparagement of Paul and
Barnabas, that those men are sent, observe the encomium passed upon
them—“together with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men that
have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We
have sent therefore Judas and Silas; who shall also tell you the same
things by mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to
us”—it is not man’s doing, it says—“to
lay upon you no greater burden”—again it calls the Law a
burden: then apologizing even for these injunctions—“save
these necessary things” (v.
26–28): "That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from
blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication from which if ye
keep yourselves, ye shall do well. (v. 29.) For these things the New Testament did not enjoin: we
nowhere find that Christ discoursed about these matters; but these
things they take from the Law. “From things strangled,” it
says, “and from blood.” Here it prohibits murder.
(Comp. Gen. ix. 5.) “So when they were dismissed, they came to Antioch:
and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the
epistle: which when they had read, they rejoiced for the
consolation.” (v. 30,
31.)
Then those (brethren) also exhorted them: and having established them,
for towards Paul they were contentiously disposed, so departed from
them in peace. “And Judas and Silas, being prophets also
themselves, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed them.
And after they had tarried there a space, they were let go in peace
from the brethren unto the Apostles.” (v. 32, 33.) No more factions and
fightings, but thenceforth Paul taught.760
760 Παῦλος δὲ
λοιπὸν
ἐδίδασκεν. Perhaps this may belong to the Recapitulation,
v. 12.—In the mod. text
the matter is a good deal transposed, without any necessity, and the
Recapitulation is made to begin after the sentence ending, “love
of glory.”—This seems to be the proper place for the first
of the sentences following the Recapitulation, p. 210, note 3, viz.
“No more faction. On this occasion I suppose it was that they
received the right hand, as he says himself, ‘They gave to me and
Barnabas the right hands of fellowship.’ On this (same) occasion
he says, ‘They added nothing to me.’ For they confirmed his
view: they praised and admired it.” |
(Recapitulation.) “Then
all the multitude kept silence,” etc. (v. 12.) There was no arrogance in the Church. After Peter Paul
speaks, and none silences him: James waits patiently, not starts up761
761 ἐπιπηδᾳ N.
Cat. (ἐπηπιδᾷ sic A. B. C ) mod. text ἀποπηδᾶ,
“recoils” from hearing Paul. | (for the next word). Great the orderliness
(of the proceedings). No word speaks John here, no word the other
Apostles, but held their peace, for James was invested with the chief
rule, and think it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of
glory. “And after that they had held their peace, James
answered,” etc. (v.
13.)
(b) Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more
mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is
unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder
part. (a) But what means it, “How God first (πρὥτον) did visit?” (v.
14.)
(It means) from the beginning (ἐξ
ἀρχἥς).762
762 The
scribes did not perceive that ἐξ
ἀρχῆς is the answer
to the question, Τί
ἐστιν, καθὼς
πρῶτον κ. τ.
λ.therefore
transposed this sentence and gave ἐξ
ἀρχῆς to the
sentence (a) (Cat. omits them.) Mod. text, the question being
thus left unanswered, substitutes “Symeon hath
declared”—καθὼς πρ. κ. τ.
λ. ᾽Εξ ἀρχῆς
σφοδρότερον
μέν. | (c) Moreover he well says,
“Symeon expounded” (ἐξηγήσατο) (or, interpreted), implying that he too spake the mind of
others. “And to this agree,” etc. Observe how he shows that
this is a doctrine of old time. “To take out of the
Gentiles,” he says, “a people for His Name.”
(v. 15.) Not simply, Chose,
but, “for His Name,” that is for His glory. His Name is not
shamed by the taking (προλήψει) the Gentiles first, but it is even a greater
glory.—Here some even great thing is hinted at: that these are
chosen before all.763
763 ὅτι
πρὸ πάντων
οὗτοι. Here also, and
in τῇ
προλήψει τῶν
ἐθνῶν, there seems
to be a reference to πρῶτον, as
if the meaning were, God “looked upon the Gentiles first to take
from them,” before the Jews, etc.—After the text, the
questions left unanswered above (see note 2, p. 206) might be
advantageously introduced. “How could that restoration (after
Babylon) be called an ἔγερσις,
especially as the city was eventually razed to the ground by the
Romans? True: but the kingdom of David is in fact more gloriously
raised up, in the reign of David’s offspring throughout the
world. As for the buildings and city, what loss is that? Nay, David
himself is more glorious now than he was before, sung as he is in all
parts of the world. If then this which the Prophet foretold is come to
pass—this is put as St. James’s arguments—namely that
the city was raised from its ruins (and the subsequent overthrow, when
the end of that restoration was attained, does not invalidate the
fulfilment), then must the διά τι of this
restoration also come to pass, namely, that the residue shall seek the
Lord, and all the Gentiles upon whom that Name is called. The city, was
raised up for the sake of Christ, to come of them, and to reign over
all nations. Consequently, the Prophet shows that the αἴτιον (i.e. the διά τι, or final
clause) of the building of the city is—the calling of the
Gentiles, τὸ τὰ
ἔθνη
κληθῆναι.” | “After
this I will return, and rebuild the tabernacle of David which is fallen
down.” (v. 16.) But if one would look
into the matter closely, the kingdom of David does in fact now stand,
his Offspring reigning everywhere. For what is the good of the
buildings and the city, with none obeying there? And what is the harm
arising from the destruction of the city, when all are willing to give
their very souls? There is that come which is more illustrious than
David: in all parts of the world is he now sung. This has come to pass:
if so, then must this also come to pass, “And I will build again
the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:” to what end?
“that the residue of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles,
upon whom My Name is called.” (v. 17.) If then it was to this end that the city rose again
(namely) because of Him (that was to come) of them, it shows that of
the building of the city the cause is, the calling of the Gentiles. Who
are “the residue?” those who are then left.764 “And all the Gentiles, upon whom My
Name is called:” but observe, how he keeps the due order, and
brings them in second. “Saith the Lord, which doeth these
things.” Not “saith” (only), but “doeth.”
Why then, it was God’s work.—“But the question is
other than this (namely), what Peter spoke more plainly, whether they
must be circumcised. Then why dost thou harangue about these
matters?” For what the objectors asserted, was not that they must
not be received upon believing, but that it must be with the Law. And
upon this Peter well pleaded: but then, as this very thing above all
others troubled the hearers, therefore he sets this to rights again
(θεραπεύει). And observe, that which was needful to be enacted as a
rule, that it is not necessary to keep the Law, this Peter introduced:
but the milder part,765
765 mss. and Edd. τὸ δὲ
ἡμέτερον. We must read τὸ
δὲ
ἡμερώτερον, as above: in the preceding clause something is wanted for
antithesis, probably καὶ ὅρα, τὸ
μὲν
φορτικώτερον,
ὅπερ κ. τ. λ. | the truth which
was received of old, this James saith, and dwells upon that concerning
which nothing is766
766 ὑπὲρ
οὗ οὐδὲν
γέγραπται. This also requires emendation. The sense demands,
“About which there is no dispute.” The γέγραπται
may have come in from the text referred to: “to
wit, Καθὼς
γέγραπται,” etc. | written, in order
that having soothed their minds by that which is acknowledged, he may
opportunely introduce this likewise. “Wherefore,” saith he,
“my sentence is, not to trouble them which from among the
Gentiles do turn unto God” (v.
19),
that is, not to subvert: for, if God called them, and these observances
subvert, we fight against God. And767
767 The report seems to be defective here; and in fact N. (Sav. marg.)
inserts after the text, “showing both God’s care towards
them and mercy, and their ready mind and piety in obeying: and he says
well,” etc. But this addition is unknown to A. B. C. Cat., and N.
frequently adds to or otherwise alters the original text, where the
sense or connection is obscure.—Perhaps however these two
sentences may be better transposed to follow the part (b), so
that the connection would be, “And again, observe he has been
speaking concerning the Gentile converts, not openly of the Jewish
believers, and yet in fact what he says is no less for
them.”—Mod. text with partial transposition, “And he
well says, To them, etc. declaring both the purpose of God from the
beginning with respect to them, and their obedience and readiness for
the calling. What means it? I judge? Instead of, With authority I say
that this is so. ‘But that we write to them,’ he says,
‘to abstain from’ etc. For these, though bodily, etc. (as
below.) And that none may object, why then do we not enjoin the same
thing to the Jews? He adds, ‘For Moses,’ etc.: i.e. Moses
discourses to them continually: for this is the meaning of,
‘Being read every Sabbath day.’ See what
condescension!” | again,
“them which from the Gentiles,” he saith, “do
turn.” And he says well, with authority, the “my
sentence is. But that we write unto them that they abstain from
pollutions of idols, and from fornication”—(b) and
yet they often insisted upon these points in discoursing to them768
768 καίτοι γε
πολλάκις
αὐτοῖς
ὐπὲρ (not περὶ as Ben. renders, de his) διελεχθῆσαν
mod. text διελέχθη, referred perhaps to Moses or the Law, as in the trajection
this sentence follows the last of (a). The clause seems to refer
to “pollutions of idols and fornication.” q. d. “Why
mention these in the decree? The Apostles, especially Paul, often
discoursed to them on behalf of these points of Christian duty, i.e.
the abstaining from all approach to idolatry, as in the matter
of εἰδωλόθυτα, and from fornication.” The answer is: “He
mentions them, for the purpose of seeming to maintain the Law, (though
at the same time he does not rest them on the authority of the Law, but
on that of the Apostles: still the Jewish believers would be gratified
by this apparent acknowledgment of the Law), and (with the same view)
to make a greater number of ἐντολαὶ, for
which reason also he divides the one legal prohibition of blood into
the two, ἀπὸ τῶν
πνικτῶν καὶ
ἀπὸ τοῦ
αἵματος.
The latter, he says, though σωματικαὶ, are necessary to be observed because the non-observance
of this law on which the Jews laid so much stress led to great
evils—especially made it impossible for Jewish and Gentile
believers to eat at the same table. For in every city Moses is preached
to Jews and proselytes. Therefore I say it is good that we charge them
by letter to abstain from these things.” Then, giving a different
turn to the reason, “for Moses of old times,” etc. he adds.
“this is for them which from the Gentiles,” etc., as for
the Jewish believers, they have Moses to teach them. Thus again seeming
to uphold Moses, while in fact he shows, what they might learn from
Moses himself, that the Law is come to an end for the Jews
also. | —but, that he may seem also to
honor the Law (he mentions), these also, speaking (however) not as from
Moses but from the Apostles, and to make the commandments many, he has
divided the one into two (saying), “and from things strangled,
and from blood.” (v.
20.)
For these, although relating to the body, were necessary to be
observed, because (these things) caused great evils, “For Moses
hath of old times in every city,” etc. (v. 21.) This above all quieted them. (ἀνέπαυσεν) (a) For this cause I affirm that it is good (so
“to write to them.”) Then why do we not write the same
injunctions to Jews also? Moses discourses unto them. See what
condescension (to their weakness)! Where it did no harm, he set him up
as teacher, and indulged them with a gratification which hindered
nothing, by permitting Jews to hear him in regard of these matters,
even while leading away from him them of the Gentiles. See what wisdom!
He seems to honor him, and to set him up as the authority for his own
people, and by this very thing he leads away the Gentiles from him!769 “Being read in the synagogues every
sabbath day.” Then why do they not learn (what is to be learnt)
out of him, for instance * *?770
770 A.
B. ἀπήγ. τὰ ἔθνη
ἐξ αὐτοῦ. Διὰ
τί οὖν μὴ παῤ
αὐτοῦ μανθ.; C. ἀπήγ. τὰ ἐξ
αὐτοῦ πάντα,
οἷον τὰ ἔθνη.
Διὰ τί κ. τ. λ. Cat. ἀπήγ. τὰ ἐξ
αὐτοῦ μανθ. Hence we read, ἀπήγαγε τὰ
ἔθνη. Διὰ τί
οὖν μὴ τὰ ἐξ
αὐτοῦ
μανθάνουσιν,
οἷον (τὰ
ἔθνη?) * * *; | Through the
perversity of these men. 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 that they are bound to observe anything more, but
only that they have one to tell them. And he does not say, Not to
offend, nor to turn them back,771
771 καταστρέφειν, mss. Perhaps, μεταστρέψαι
from Gal. i. 7. | which is what
Paul said to the Galatians, but, “not to trouble them:” he
shows that the point (κατόρθωμα) if carried is nothing but a mere troubling. Thus he made
an end of the whole matter;772
772 ἐξέλυσε τὸ
πᾶν, “untied the whole
knot,” or perhaps “took out of the Law all its
strength,” as below λύει. | and while he
seems to preserve the Law by adopting these rules from it, he unbinds
it by taking only these. (c)773
773 Perhaps the sentence, τοῦτο
μάλιστα
αὐτοὺς
ἀνέπαυσεν, retained above as the end of (b), may belong here,
in the sense, “This was conclusive; this made the Judaizers
desist, if anything could.” | There was
a design of Providence in the disputation also, that after the
disputation the doctrine might be more firm. “Then pleased it the
Apostles to send chosen men of their own company,” etc., no
ordinary persons, but the “leading men; having written”
(letters) “by them after this manner. To those in Antioch,”
it says, “and Syria and Cilicia.” (v. 22, 23) where the disease had
its birth. Observe how they say nothing harsher (φορτικώτερον) against those men, but look to one thing only, namely, to
undo (the mischief) which has been done. For this would make even the
movers of the faction there to confess (that they were wrong). They do
not say, The seducers, the pestilent fellows, or suchlike: though where
need is, Paul does this, as when he says, “O full of all
guile” (ch. xiii. 10): but here, the point
being carried, there was no need. And observe, they do not put it, That
certain from us ordered you to keep the Law, but, “Troubled you
with words, subverting your souls,”—nothing could be more
proper (κυριώτερον) than that word: none (of the other speakers) has so
spoken of the things done by those men. “The souls,” he
says, already strongly established, these persons are ἀνασχευάζοντες
as in speaking of a building, “taking them down
again:” displacing them (μετατιθέντες) from the foundation).774
774 καθάπερ
ἐπὶ
οἰκοδομῆς τὰ
ὑπ᾽ ἐκείνων
γεγενημένα
μετατιθέντες. Mod. text from E. τιθέντες, “putting, as in respect of a building, the things
done by those (Judaizers).” We have transposed τὰ ὑπ᾽ ἐκ
γεγ. to its proper place. He
interprets ἀνασκ. with
reference to Gal. i. 6. μετατίθεσθε. | “To
whom,” he says, “we gave no such commandment. It seemed
good therefore to us being assembled with one accord, to send chosen
men unto you together with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men that have
hazarded their lives for the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
(v. 25, 26.) If
“beloved,” they will not despise them, if they “have
hazarded their lives,” they have themselves a right to be
believed. “We have sent,” it saith, “Judas and Silas,
who shall also tell you the same things by word of mouth.”
(v. 27.) For it was necessary
that there should be not merely the Epistle there by itself, lest they
should say that Paul and Barnabas had suppressed775
775 συνήρπασαν
Ben. ipsos extorsisse: but the word is used in
the Greek of Chrysostom’s time, in the sense
“conceal,” for which Schneider s. v. refers to Valesius on
Harpocrat. p. 145. Gronov. in which sense we have rendered it above. Or
perhaps, “had wrested it” to make it speak in their
favor. Τὸ
ζητούμενον
συναρπάζειν
is a logical phrase, used of one who commits a
petitio principii. St. Chrys. however can hardly be correctly
reported here: for the letter itself would show, if it were believed to
be genuine, that Paul and Barnabas neither συνήρπασαν
nor ἄλλα
ἀντ᾽ ἄλλων
εἰπαν. He may rather
be supposed to have said in substance as follows: “Had Paul and
Barnabas returned alone as the bearers of an oral communication, it
might be suspected that they gave their own account of the matter: had
they come alone, bearing the Epistle, its genuineness might have been
called in question: but by sending the Epistle by the hands of men of
their own and of high consideration, they left no room for doubt as to
the fact of their decision. On the other hand, to have sent these men
alone, would have looked like putting a slight upon Barnabas and Paul:
but by sending the messengers with them, they showed ὅτι
ἀξιόπιστοι
εἰσιν, and by the
eulogy expressed in the Epistle itself they stopped the mouths of the
gainsayers.” | (the real purport), that they said one
thing instead of another. The encomium passed upon Paul stopped their
mouths. For this is the reason why neither Paul comes alone nor
Barnabas (with him), but others also from the Church; that he may not
be suspected, seeing it was he that advocated that doctrine: nor yet
those from Jerusalem alone. It shows that they have a right to be
believed. “For it seemed good,” say they, “to the
Holy Ghost and to us” (v.
28):
not making themselves equal (to Him776
776 The innovator completely mistakes the meaning of this clause: not
having the text to guide him, he supposes it to refer to Silas and
Judas, and alters thus: “It shows how worthy of credit they are:
not making themselves equal, ‘it says: they are not so mad. In
fact, this is why it adds that expression, Which have hazarded their
lives, etc. And why does it say, “It seemed good to the Holy
Ghost and to us,” and yet it had sufficed.”
etc.—Below, he has “‘To lay upon you no greater
burden.’ This they say, because they have to speak,” etc.
But all this belongs to ἔδοξεν ἡμῖν
q.d. “You need not fear us, neither is it of
condescension that we speak, or to spare you as being weak—quite
the contrary—it seems good to the Holy Ghost “and to
us.” | )—they
are not so mad. But why does it put this (so)? Why did they add,
“And to us,” and yet it had sufficed to say, “To the
Holy Ghost?” The one, “To the Holy Ghost,” that they
may not deem it to be of man; the other, “To us,” that they
may be taught that they also themselves admit (the Gentiles), although
themselves being in circumcision. They have to speak to men who are
still weak and afraid of them: this is the reason why this also is
added. And it shows that it is not by way of condescension that they
speak, neither because they spared them, nor as considering them weak,
but the contrary; for great was the reverence of the teachers also.777
777 πολλὴ γὰρ
καὶ τῶν
διδασκάλων
αἰδὼς ἦν.
It is not clear whether this means, Great was the reverence shown by
the teachers also towards them—as in St. Peter’s
ὥσπερ
κἀκεῖνοι—and therefore they did not treat them as
“weak;” or, great was their reverence towards their
teachers, so that had they laid upon them a greater burden, they would
have borne it. | “To lay upon you no greater
burden”—they778
778 mss. and Edd. have this clause,
ἄνω κάτω
βάρος
καλοῦσι after Πνεύματος
γάρ ἦν
νομοθεσία, and give the καὶ πάλιν to συναγαγόντες. After the clause “For that was a superfluous
burden” seems to be the proper place for these sentences from
below, see note 3, infra. “It shows that the rest are not
necessary but superfluous, seeing these things are necessary.
“From which if ye keep yourselves ye shall do well.” It
shows that nothing is lacking to them, but this is
sufficient.” | are ever
calling it a burden—and again, “save these necessary
things:” for that was a superfluous burden. See here a brief
Epistle, with nothing more in it (than was needed), neither arts of
persuasion (κατασκευὰς) nor reasonings, but simply a command: for it was the
Spirit’s legislating. “So when they were dismissed they
came to Antioch, and having gathered the multitude together, they
delivered to them the epistle.” (v. 30.) After the epistle, then (Judas and Silas) also themselves
exhort them by word (v.
31):
for this also was needful, that (Paul and Barnabas) might be quit of
all suspicion. “Being prophets also themselves,” it says,
exhorted the brethren “with many words.” It shows here the
right that Paul and Barnabas have to be believed. For Paul also might
have done this, but it behooved to be done by these.779
779 Here insert from below: “For it might have been done also
without letters—they did this.” | “And after they had tarried there
a space, they were let go in peace. (v. 33.)
No780
780 What follows consists of notes which the redactor did not bring to
their proper places. “No more faction—admired it,”
see note 1, p. 207. “It shows—the Spirit,” may belong
either to the comment on κρίνω ἐγὼ, or to that on “It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and
to us.”—“It shows that the
rest—sufficient,” see note 1. These parts being removed,
the remainder forms the continuation of the sentence, “it
behooved to be done by these,” note 2. The concluding
words καὶ
μετ᾽εἰρήνης
are the reporter’s abridgment of the text
“καὶ
[ἐπεστήριξαν,
ποιήσαντες
δὲ χρόνον
ἀπελυθησαν] μετ᾽
εἰρήνης. |
more faction. On this occasion, I suppose, it was that they received
the right hand, as he says himself, “They gave to me and Barnabas
right hands of fellowship.” (Gal. ii. 9.) There he says,
“They added nothing to me.”781
781 The author here assumes the identity of the two visits of Paul to
Jerusalem contained in Acts xv. and Gal i. and ii. This has always been
the prevailing view. For a full discussion of this and other views, see
Gloat, Com. on the Acts ii. 80–84.—G.B.S. |
(ib. 6.) For they confirmed
his view: they praised and admired it.—It shows that even from
human reasonings it is possible to see this, not to say from the Holy
Ghost only, that they sinned a sin not easy to be corrected. For such
things need not the Spirit.—It shows that the rest are not
necessary, but superfluous, seeing these things are necessary.
“From which if ye keep yourselves,” it saith, “ye
shall do well.” It shows that nothing is lacking to them, but
this is sufficient. For it might have been done also without letters,
but that there may be a law in writing (they send this Epistle): again,
that they may obey the law (the Apostles), also told those men (the
same things), and they did this, “and confirmed them, and having
tarried a space were let go in peace.”
Let us not then be offended on
account of the heretics. For look, here at the very outset of the
preaching, how many offences there were: I speak not of those which
arose from them that were without; for these were nothing: but of the
offences which were within. For instance, first Ananias, then the
“murmuring,” then Simon the sorcerer; afterwards they that
accused Peter on account of Cornelius, next the famine,782
782 The famine is mentioned among the offences within, perhaps because
it may have led some to question the Providence of God: see above, p.
159. | lastly this very thing, the chief of
the evils. For indeed it is impossible when any good thing has taken
place, that some evil should not also subsist along with it. Let us not
then be disturbed, if certain are offended, but let us thank God even
for this, because it makes us more approved. For not tribulations only,
but even temptations also render us more illustrious. A man is no such
great lover of the truth, only for holding to it when there is none to
lead him astray from it: to hold fast to the truth when many are
drawing him away, this makes the proved man. What then? Is this why
offences come? I am not speaking as if God were the author of them: God
forbid! but I mean, that even out of their wickedness He works good to
us: it was never His wish that they should arise: “Grant to
them,” He saith, “that they may be one” (John xvii. 21):
but since offences do come, they are no hurt, to these, but even a
benefit: just as the persecutors unwillingly benefit the Martyrs by
dragging them to martyrdom, and yet they are not driven to this by God;
just so is it here. Let us not look (only at this), that men are
offended: this very thing is itself a proof of the excellence of the
doctrine—that many stimulate and counterfeit it: for it would not
be so, if it were not good. And this I will now show, and make on all
hands plain to you. Of perfumes, the fragrant spices are they which
people adulterate and counterfeit; as, for instance, the amomum leaf.
For because these are rare and of necessary use, therefore there come
to be spurious imitations likewise. Nobody would care to counterfeit
any common article. The pure life gets many a false pretender to it: no
man would care to counterfeit the man of vicious life; no, but the man
of monastic life.—What then shall we say to the heathen? There
comes a heathen and says, “I wish to become a Christian, but I
know not whom to join: there is much fighting and faction among you,
much confusion: which doctrine am I to choose?” How shall we
answer him? “Each of you” (says he) “asserts,
‘I speak the truth.’” (b) No783
783 mss. and Edd. transpose the parts marked
a and b. The old text, however, by retaining τί οὖν at the end of a, as well as at the beginning of
c, enables us to restore the order, so that then the
clause μηδὲν ὅλως
εἰδὼς ἐν
ταῖς
Γραφαῖς, no
longer disturbs the sense. | doubt: this is in our favor. For if we
told you to be persuaded by arguments, you might well be perplexed: but
if we bid you believe the Scriptures, and these are simple and true,
the decision is easy for you. If any agree with the Scriptures, he is
the Christian; if any fight against them, he is far from this rule.
(a) “But which am I to believe, knowing as I do nothing at
all of the Scriptures? The others also allege the same thing for
themselves. What then (c)if the other come, and say that the
Scripture has this, and you that it has something different, and ye
interpret the Scriptures diversely, dragging their sense (each his own
way)?” And you then, I ask, have you no understanding, no
judgment? “And how should I be able (to decide),” says he,
“I who do not even know how to judge of your doctrines? I wish to
become a learner, and you are making me forthwith a teacher.” If
he say this, what, say you, are we to answer him? How shall we persuade
him? Let us ask whether all this be not mere pretence and subterfuge.
Let us ask whether he has decided (κατέγνωκε) against the heathen (that they are wrong). The fact784
784 Edd. πάντως τι
ἐρεῖ. A. B. C.
πάντως
ὅτι ἐρεῖ.
“In any wise he will affirm the ὅτι, therefore let us ask the αἰτίας δἰ
ἅς.” | he will assuredly affirm, for of
course, if he had not so decided, he would not have come to (enquire
about) our matters: let us ask the grounds on which he has decided, for
to be sure he has not settled the matter out of hand. Clearly he will
say, “Because (their gods) are creatures, and are not the
uncreated God.” Good. If then he find this in the other parties
(αἰρέσεις), but among us the contrary, what argument need we? We all
confess that Christ is God. But let us see who fight (against this
truth), and who not. Now we, affirming Him to be God speak of Him
things worthy of God, that He hath power, that He is not a slave, that
He is free, that He doeth of Himself: whereas the other says the
reverse. Again I ask: if you would learn (to be) a physician,785
785 εἰ ἰατρὸς
μέλλοις
μανθάνειν. Mod. text adds, “Say, Do you accept out of hand and
as it chances, whatever you are told?” The connection is:
“Apply your mind to what you hear, whether from us or from them,
and see whether of us is consistent. Just as you would if you wished to
learn medicine: there also you would find conflicting opinions and you
would exercise your judgment upon them, not accept all without
examination. Do so here; and in the instance which has been taken, you
will see that we, affirming the Son to be God, carry out our
affirmation consistently; whereas they (the Arians) say indeed that He
is God but in fact deny Him the essential properties of
Deity.”—Edd. and all our mss. Υἱ&
232·ν λέγομεν
ἡμεῖς
ἐπαληθεύομεν
κ. τ. λ. We must read
either Θεὸν or Υἱ& 232·ν
Θεὸν. | * * *? And yet among them are many
(different) doctrines. For if you accept without more ado just what you
are told, this is not acting like a man: but if you have judgment and
sense, you shall assuredly know what is good. We affirm the Son to be
God, we verify (ἐπαληθεύομεν) what we affirm: but they affirm indeed, but (in fact)
confess not.—But786
786 Connection: I have mentioned one simple criterion: here is another
palpable and visible mark. Heretics take their names from men, the
founders of their sects, τοῦ
αιρεσιάρχου
δηλοῦντος A. B. καλοῦντος
C., τὸ
ὅνομα Sav.
marg. δηλοῦντες, which we adopt. But indeed the reasons you allege are
mere pretence, etc. | to mention
(something) even plainer: those have certain persons from whom they are
called, openly showing the name of the heresiarch himself, and each
heresy in like manner: with us, no man has given us a name, but the
faith itself. However, this (talk of yours) is mere pretence and
subterfuge. For answer me: how is it that if you would buy a cloak,
though ignorant of the art of weaving, you do not speak such words as
these—“I do not know how to buy; they cheat
me”—but do all you can to learn, and so whatever else it be
that you would buy: but here you speak these words? For at this rate,
you will accept nothing at all. For let there be one that has no
(religious) doctrine whatever: if he should say what you say about the
Christians—“There is such a multitude of men, and they have
different doctrines; this a heathen, that a Jew, the other a Christian:
no need to accept any doctrine whatever, for they are at variance one
with another; but I am a learner, and do not wish to be a
judge”787
787 The sentence is left unfinished: “it would be no
wonder,” “this would be at least consistent,” or the
like: then εἴ
δὲ εἴξω B.
C. ἤξω(sic) A., ἥξω D. Mod. text οὐδὲ
ἕξω: all corrupt. The sense seems to require, “If you have
thought fit,” or “gone so far as.” | —but if you have yielded
(so far as) to pronounce against (καταγινώσκειν) one doctrine, this pretext no longer has place for you.
For just as you were able to reject the spurious, so here also, having
come, you shall be able to prove what is profitable. For he that has
not pronounced against any doctrine at all, may easily say this: but he
that has pronounced against any, though he have chosen none, by going
on in the same way, will be able to see what he ought to do. Then let
us not make pretexts and excuses, and all will be easy. For, to show
you that all this is mere excuse, answer me this: Do you know what you
ought to do, and what to leave undone? Then why do you not what you
ought? Do that, and by right reason seek of God, and He will assuredly
reveal it to thee. “God,” it saith, “is no respecter
of persons, but in every nation he that feareth Him, and worketh
righteousness, is accepted with Him.” (ch. x. 34, 35.) It cannot be that he
who hears without prejudice should not be persuaded. For just as, if
there were a rule, by which everything behooved to be put straight, it
would not need much consideration, but it would be easy to detect the
person who measures falsely (τὸν
παραμετροὕντα
λαβἕιν), so is
it here. “Then how is it they do not see it at a glance?”
Many things are the cause of this: both preconceived opinion, and human
causes (αἰτίαι).
The others, say you, say the same thing about us. How? For are we
separated from the Church? have we our heresiarchs? Are we called after
men—as one of them has Marcion,788
788 Sav. marg. adds “another, Paul of
Samosata.” | another
Manichæus, a third Arius, for the author and leader (of his sect)?
Whereas if we likewise do receive an appellation from any man, we do
not take them that have been the authors of some heresy, but men that
presided over us, and governed the Church. We have no “masters
upon the earth”—God forbid—we have “One Master
that is in heaven.” (Matt. xxiii. 9,
10.)
“And those also,” says he, “say the same.” But
there stands the name set over them, accusing them, and stopping their
mouths.—How789
789 Διὰ τί
πολλοὶ
γεγόνασιν
῞Ελληνες, καὶ
οὐδεὶς κ. τ.
λ. Mod. text omits διὰ τι.
The first clause seems to be corrupt, or misplaced: for to say that
“there have been many heathen, and none of them has asked these
questions” (about Christian doctrines), would contradict all that
precedes: and if it means, There were many Greeks, and diverse schools
of philosophy among them, and yet none was deterred from the study of
philosophy by those differences, this would not be true. But if this be
transposed to the following sentence, which relates to the ῞Ελληνες at Antioch, then Chrys. says: “Among philosophers also there
were these differences, and yet) etc. How is it that (at Antioch) many
Greeks became (Christians) and yet none of them asked these questions?
Why did they not say,” etc. | is it, there
have been many heathen, and none of them asked these questions: and
among the philosophers there were these (differences), and yet none of
those holding the right party (αἵρεσιν) was hindered (thereby)?—Why did not (those believers) say,
when (the others) raised these questions, “Both these and those
are Jews: which must we believe?” But they believed as they
ought. Then let us also obey the laws of God, and do all things
according to His good pleasure,790
790 Edd.
have a longer peroration from F, partly followed by D. “And live
according to His will while we are yet in this life present, that with
virtue having accomplished the remaining time of our life, we may be
able, etc., and together with them which have pleased Him be found
worthy of honor, by the grace and loving-kindness of His only-begotten
Son, and the All-holy and Life-giving Spirit, the One true Godhead, now
and ever, world without end.” Amen. | that having
virtuously passed this life present, we may be enabled to attain unto
the good things promised to them that love Him, by the grace and mercy
of our Lord Jesus Christ, with Whom to the Father and the Holy Ghost
together, be glory, dominion, honor, now and ever, world without end.
Amen.E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|