Theophylact of Ohrid

12th century · AD 1107 · Eastern & Byzantine · 6,638 passages

In his own words on Acts

Acts 1:1
He (Luke) reminds Theophilus of his Gospel in order to point to his very careful approach to the matter; because at the beginning of that work of his he says: "it seemed good to me also to write to you in order," and not in just any way, but as "those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word delivered them to us" (Luke 1:2, 3). So he reminds him of the Gospel in order to recall the care with which it was written; and he recalls this so that, having in mind the same careful approach in composing the present book as well, he might be as attentive as possible to what is being written. Therefore he had no need this time for any other endorsement; since the one who was deemed worthy to write about what he heard, and who is trusted in what he wrote, justly deserves far greater trust when he sets forth not what he heard from others, but what he himself saw. For this reason he does not say: "the first Gospel, which I preached," but: "the former treatise"; since he was free from arrogance and humble-minded and thought that the title "Gospel" was above his work, although the Apostle so honors him for this work, calling him "the brother whose praise in the Gospel is throughout all the churches" (2 Cor. 8:18). But by his expression "of all things" he seems to contradict the Evangelist John. John says that it was not possible to describe everything; while he says: "I wrote of all things from the beginning even to the ascension." So what shall we say to this? That by the expression "of all things" Luke indicates that he did not omit any of the things that are essential and necessary, from which the divinity and truth of the preaching are recognized; because both Luke and each of the Evangelists in their Gospels placed at the head of everything that from which the divinity and truth of the preaching are recognized, and moreover in such precise form, as if according to some pattern. In a similar manner John the Theologian himself also set forth all these things. They did not omit a single one of those features through which, on the one hand, the ministry of the Word in the flesh is recognized and becomes an object of faith, and on the other, the majesty of His divinity shines forth and is revealed. John says that if one were to describe in parts and briefly everything that the Lord said and did, even then the world could not contain the books that would be written (John 21:25); but all the more could it not contain them if someone wished to set forth in writing all the deeds and words of the Lord with an investigation of their meaning; because the human mind can neither contain nor comprehend their meanings and the reasons for which the Lord acted and spoke, for the reason that everything He did in human nature, He did as God; from this perspective the deeds and words of Christ can neither be expressed in speech nor conveyed in writing. However, I also allow that this addition is a hyperbolic figure of speech and does not unconditionally say that the world could not contain the books that would be written if the exposition were more extensive. One may also say that this Evangelist (John), as one who developed theoretical contemplation more than the others, truly knows all the works and deeds of the Savior — not only those which He manifested in the flesh, but also those which He accomplished from eternity, both without a body and with a body. If someone were to undertake to describe the features of the nature, origin, distinction, essence, and so forth of each of these deeds, then, even if one were to allow the possibility of this, it would be impossible for the world to contain the books that would be written. And if someone understands the word "world" not simply as the world, but as a person lying in evil and thinking about worldly and carnal things — because the word is understood this way in many places of Scripture — in this case too John speaks truly, that if someone wished to describe all the miracles performed by Christ, such people, disposed by the multitude and greatness of Christ's deeds to come to unbelief rather than to faith, could not contain what was written. And this is precisely why the Evangelists often pass over in silence a whole crowd of those who were healed and bypass a multitude of miraculous acts, indicating only the general fact that many were delivered from various diseases, that there were many miracles, and so on, but do not enumerate them; because for people incapable of understanding and deceived, the enumeration in detail of many miracles usually served as an occasion for unbelief and unwillingness to listen to the preaching rather than for coming to faith and a disposition to listen. He means the miracles and the teaching — yet not this alone, but also that Jesus taught by deed; for He did not merely exhort people in word to do this or that while not doing it Himself, but by the deeds which He Himself performed, He persuaded them also to imitate Him and to be zealous for virtue. One should know that Theophilus was one of those converted to the faith by Luke himself. And do not marvel that Luke showed such great care for one man that he wrote two complete books for him; for he was a keeper of the well-known saying of the Lord, in which it is said: "It is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish" (Matt. 18:14). Why then, writing to Theophilus alone, did he write not one book but divide the subjects into two books? For the sake of clarity and so as not to burden the reader; and indeed they were divided also by content; and therefore he rightly divided the subjects of his narrative into two books.
Commentary on Acts
Acts 1:2
"Having given commandments through the Holy Spirit," that is, having spoken spiritual words to them; there was nothing human in this, because He gave commandments through the Spirit. Just as the Lord Himself, out of humility and in accommodation to His listeners, said: "If I cast out demons by the Spirit of God" (Matt. 12:28), so here "having given commandments through the Spirit" is said not because the Son had need of the Spirit, but because where the Son acts, the Spirit also cooperates and is co-present as consubstantial. And what did He command? "Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you" (Matt. 28:19-20). "Having given commandment," it says, "He was taken up." He did not say "He ascended," but still speaks of Him as of a man. From this we also see that Jesus taught the disciples even after His resurrection; but no one has transmitted the exact duration of this time. John spent more time with Him than the others; but no one reported all of this clearly, because the disciples directed their attention to other things.
Commentary on Acts
Acts 1:3
Having spoken first about the ascension, he then speaks also about the resurrection. Since you heard that He ascended, lest you think that He was taken up by others, Luke added: "to whom He also presented Himself alive"; because if He stood before them having accomplished the greater miracle, then much more could He accomplish the lesser. "During forty days," but not every day for all forty days, because He was not with them constantly as before the resurrection, but appeared and withdrew again, elevating their thoughts and not allowing them to cling to Him in the same manner as before. With great caution and wisdom He gradually developed in them two aspects — both faith in His resurrection and the conviction to regard Him as above man, although the one contradicted the other, because from faith in the resurrection there was bound to arise the notion of many human aspects, while from His being above man — the opposite. Nevertheless, both were confirmed in their own time, namely "during forty days," from the day of the resurrection to the day of the ascension into heaven. During these days He both ate and drank with them, showing by this that He was the very One who was crucified and buried and rose from the dead. Why then did He appear not to all, but only to the apostles? Because to many who did not understand this ineffable mystery, His appearance would have seemed a phantom. If even the disciples themselves at first did not believe and were troubled, and even needed to touch Him with their hand and to share a meal with Him, then how would His appearance have struck the crowd? For this reason He made the proof of His resurrection indisputable and universal through the miracles that the apostles performed by the power of the grace they received; so that the resurrection became an evident fact not only for those who had to be convinced of it with their own eyes, but also for all people of subsequent ages. The Lord Himself called the Kingdom, in which He promised the disciples to drink a new cup together with them, the Kingdom of the Father, calling the new drink that which He drank together with them after His resurrection; at that time He also partook of new food together with them — He partook not in the same manner as He had eaten and drunk with them before, prior to the resurrection, because then, having become like us in all things except sin, He ate and drank as we do, voluntarily allowing the flesh to demand the necessary consumption of food; therefore He voluntarily permitted the state of hunger. But after the resurrection He drank and ate no longer out of necessity, but only so that all might believe in the reality of His bodily nature, and likewise that He suffered voluntarily and rose again, as befits God. Thus, He called the extraordinary food that He ate and the extraordinary drink that He drank together with the disciples after the resurrection new food and new drink — that is, partaking of common salt and common food with them. But how this was — it is not for us to explain, because it was something extraordinary; it occurred not because nature demanded food, but out of condescension, for the purpose of proving the resurrection.
Commentary on Acts
Acts 1:4
And opening to them the mysteries of the Kingdom of God, He commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem. Why did He command them to do so? Earlier, when they were fearful and trembling, He led them out to Galilee so that they could fearlessly hear what He had to say to them, since they were ready to abandon the work to which they had been called. Now, when they had listened and spent forty days together, He commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem. Why was this? Because just as no one allows soldiers who must attack a great opposing force to go out against it before they have had time to arm themselves, and just as no one would agree to release horses before the charioteer has mounted, so too the Lord does not permit the apostles to appear at the contest before the descent of the Holy Spirit, lest the vast majority overpower and capture them. Moreover, the Lord does not permit them to depart from Jerusalem not only for this reason, but also because many here too were destined to believe, and thirdly, so that no one might say that, having left their own people, they went off to seek glory among strangers. Therefore they spread the undeniable proofs of the Resurrection among those very people who killed the Lord, who crucified and buried Him, and in that very city where they had the audacity to commit such lawlessness. When did they hear this command? When He said to them: "It is better for you that I go; for if I do not go, the Comforter will not come to you" (John 16:7); and again: "I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Comforter" (John 14:16). But why did the Comforter not come while He was still present, nor immediately after His departure, but eight or nine days later, that is, at the time when the day of Pentecost arrived? Furthermore, how is it that when the Holy Spirit had not yet descended, He said: "Receive the Holy Spirit" (John 20:22)? To this it must be said that He spoke thus in order to arouse in them the desire, readiness, and capacity to receive the Holy Spirit, and they received Him when He descended; or He spoke of what was yet to be as though it already existed and was present, just as when He spoke of the ability to "tread on serpents and scorpions and over all the power of the enemy" (Luke 10:19). However, it should also be said that the gifts of the Spirit are various and manifold: there is the gift of purification and perfection, the gift of sanctification and sanctifying power, the gift of tongues and prophecy, the gift of miracles and interpretation, and a multitude of other gifts. So, given the distinction and diversity of the gifts of the Spirit, nothing any longer prevented the apostles from receiving the grace of the Spirit in various ways. But the full communication of the Spirit to them, which made the apostles perfect and capable of perfecting others, was at Pentecost, when He descended upon them in the form of fiery tongues and entirely filled them with His power. The Lord departed, and then the Holy Spirit came, and He came at Pentecost and not immediately, so that they would be filled with longing and only then receive the grace. And if the Holy Spirit had come while the Son was still present, and then the Son had departed while the Spirit remained, there would not have been as much consolation for them, because they were very reluctant to part from their Teacher. Therefore He ascends and the Spirit comes not immediately, so that after some despondency He might awaken in the disciples a desire and awareness of the necessity of the promise given to them, and so that at the time of the descent they would experience pure and complete joy. Moreover, it was fitting that our flesh should first appear in the heavens and that the fullest reconciliation should be accomplished, and only then should the Holy Spirit descend. Know, then, what obligation to remain in Jerusalem the Lord placed upon them through the given promise. So that after the Ascension they would not scatter again, He holds them all there by this expectation, as if by certain bonds, and by the promise of more advantageous hopes disposes them toward a stronger desire for those hopes, even though they were unknown. But no one would err in saying that even then they received a certain power and grace of the Spirit — not such as to raise the dead, but they received the power to forgive sins. Therefore He also added: "Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained" (John 20:23), showing by this what kind of power exactly He was granting them. At that time He clothed them with precisely this power; but after forty days He grants them the power to work miracles; therefore He also says: "ye shall receive power" (Acts 1:8), and so forth.
Commentary on Acts
Acts 1:5
Having said that they should wait for the promise of the Father, which they had heard from the Lord, He added: "for John baptized with water," etc., and by this He clearly shows His distinction from John, and no longer as obscurely as before, when He said: "He who is least in the Kingdom of Heaven is greater than he" (Matt. 11:11). Now He speaks clearly: "John baptized with water, but you… will be baptized with the Holy Spirit," and He shows that even they became greater than John, since they too would baptize with the Holy Spirit. He did not say: "I will baptize you with the Holy Spirit," but: "you will be baptized," everywhere leaving us examples of humility; since from John's testimony it is already known that it was the Lord who baptizes: "He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire" (Matt. 3:11). But how is it said "you will be baptized" when there was no water in the upper room? It is said this way because what was properly meant here was baptism by the Spirit, through Whom even the water itself becomes effective, just as it is also said of the Lord Himself that He was anointed, though He was never anointed with oil, but received the Spirit. However, it can be shown that the apostles were baptized not only with the Spirit but also with water, only at different times. Over us both baptisms are performed at the same time, but then they were performed separately, because the apostles were first baptized by John with water, and then with the Holy Spirit. Why then did the Lord not announce when the Holy Spirit would descend, but says only: "after a few days from now"? He says this so that they would not fall into despondency; and He did not say definitely when the Holy Spirit would descend so that, awaiting Him, they would constantly keep watch. And so, what is surprising in the fact that He does not tell them about the end of the world, when, for the reason we have indicated, He did not wish to announce even this near hour? The expression "you will be baptized" signifies the abundance and, as it were, the richness of communion with the Holy Spirit, just as one who is baptized in water, being immersed with the whole body, perceptibly feels this, as it were, whereas one who simply receives water is not entirely sprinkled, not over all parts of the body. And so, in what has now been said there is no contradiction with what is said in the Divine Gospels, for it is clear that although after the resurrection of Christ from the dead the apostles were told: "receive the Holy Spirit," and they did receive Him, yet there it is said precisely that they received the Holy Spirit. Here, however, the expression "you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit" signifies the outpouring and richness of the grace to guide others, which the Lord granted them upon ascending to the Father. Just as, having faith, they come to Him and say: "increase our faith" (Luke 17:5), so here too, to the communion of the Spirit that they already had, they received, upon the descent of the Holy Spirit upon them, the capacity for a more powerful union with Him.
Commentary on Acts
Acts 1:6
Intending to ask, they come to the Teacher together, so as to influence Him by their number; for they knew that His previous answer, namely: "of that day and hour no one knows" (Matt. 24:36), was such an answer not because of ignorance, but because He was avoiding the question. Therefore they ask again. When they heard that they were to receive the Holy Spirit, then they wished to learn about this and to be delivered from afflictions as those now worthy, since they did not want to subject themselves to extreme dangers again. They do not ask "when," but: "is it at this time that You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?" "Is it not now," they say — so strongly did they desire that day. It seems to me, however, that for them it was still unclear what this kingdom was, since the Holy Spirit had not yet come, Who would have instructed them. They do not ask: "when will it come," but: "are You restoring" it Yourself? So highly did they already think of Him.
Commentary on Acts
Acts 1:7
Therefore He also converses with them without insistence, because He no longer says that "of that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son" (Mark 13:32), but rather says: "It is not for you to know the times or the seasons." He did not ascribe the knowledge of the fulfillment of times to the Father because He Himself did not know, but because the question itself was superfluous; and therefore He profitably answered it with silence. His purpose in this was to cut short the excessive curiosity of His disciples, since He was sending them to preach the Kingdom of Heaven, and not to designate the number of times. He does not tell them about this time, though He taught them far greater things — with the purpose that, as we have mentioned more than once, He might compel them to be watchful, and also because, not knowing this, they lost nothing, since He revealed to them truths far higher than this — He revealed that He is the Son of God, that He is equal to the Father, that He rose again, that there will be a resurrection of the dead, that judgment will come, and that He sat down at the right hand of the Father. Tell me then, what is more important — to know that He will reign, or when? Moses learned the beginning of the world and when and over how many ages it was created, and he counts the years, although to know the beginning is generally harder than the end. However, the apostles were not asking the Lord about the final consummation of the ages, "saying: is it at this time that You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?" But He did not reveal even this to them, and as He had answered before, deflecting them from this thought so that they would not think that deliverance from afflictions was near, but would know that they would yet be subjected to many dangers, so He answers now as well, only more gently: "but you shall receive power." Then, so that they would not ask Him again, He immediately ascended. Moreover, so that they would not ask: "Why do You leave us in perplexity regarding this matter?" — the Son says: "which the Father has placed in His own authority." But the authority of the Father is, of course, also the authority of the Son, because "as the Father raises the dead and gives life, so also the Son gives life to whom He will" (John 5:21). If in those cases where something extraordinary and miraculous must be accomplished, the Son acts with the same authority as the Father, then all the more so in cases requiring knowledge, because to raise the dead, and moreover with authority equal to that of the Father, is far more important than to know the day.
Commentary on Acts
Acts 1:8
Why then did Christ not answer what the disciples were asking, but said: "you shall receive power"? In answer to them He said: "it is not for you to know," and only then added: "but you shall receive power." These words explain in a certain way the descent and, so to speak, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Here it is necessary to mention the Phrygian heresy, which held that the Spirit the Comforter was sent two hundred years after the ascension of Christ upon women considered to be prophetesses, Priscilla and Maximilla, and upon Montanus, who was infected with the same madness as they; then, they say, the promise was fulfilled: "I will send" the Comforter "unto you" (John 16:7). — But why does He declare to them that which they did not ask about, namely: "you shall receive power"? Because He is the Teacher; and it is the calling of a teacher to teach not what the student wants, but what is profitable to know. Since before He had said: "Do not go on the path to the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans" (Matt. 10:5), wishing that the word of God be preached first to the Jews, and now it was to spread throughout the entire world, He fittingly adds "in all Judea and Samaria and even to the end of the earth." The saying "you shall be My witnesses" is both an exhortation and an immutable prophecy, because they bore witness to their preaching to the uttermost ends of the earth.
Commentary on Acts
Acts 1:9
He rose in such a way that they did not see it, but His ascension they did see; since even seeing did not resolve everything on this occasion: they saw the end of the resurrection, but did not see its beginning; they saw the beginning of the ascension, but did not see its end. Why? Because there it was unnecessary to see the beginning, since the Risen One Himself was before them and spoke of it, and since the tomb itself showed that He was not in it; but here it was necessary to know the end as well, since the eyes cannot reach the full height and sight could not determine whether He ascended into heaven or, having risen to a certain height, stopped. Therefore the Angels, appearing before them, revealed to them what they could not comprehend by means of sight. And the cloud lifted Him up because it is a symbol of the Lord's and Divine power, since in a cloud one cannot see a symbol of any other power. Therefore David also says of the Father: "You make the clouds Your chariot" (Ps. 104:3), and in another place: "Behold, the Lord rides on a swift cloud" (Isa. 19:1). And many other passages speak of the same thing. However, the Lord did this too not simply and not without purpose, but knowing that if He were to ascend invisibly to them, as He also descended and, even more so, as He came down, then even at the manifestation of the Spirit they would not believe that this was the very same Spirit Whom a few days before He had promised to send; knowing that in such a case He would prepare in them the suspicion that He Himself had not come from heaven either; knowing, finally, that in such a case, if having ascended invisibly He then called Paul from heaven, if He sent from there to Peter a sheet not made by hands (see Acts 10:11), they would not have believed that He was doing this after His departure from them in the flesh — knowing all this, He ascended "while they were looking toward heaven." From the cloud of the Virgin He enters into a cloud, and by means of a cloud ascends to where He was before. The expression "where He was" understand not in the sense of place, and not in the sense that He laid aside the flesh and His incarnate Divinity became as before incorporeal; no, the expression "where He was" — attend to me — points to the height of incorporeality within corporeality, to the greatness of bodilessness within bodiliness, to the self-existing value of His voluntary humiliation in the incarnation of His immutability, to the fact that in visible form He no longer moves about or dwells among people. They did not say "being lifted up" or "being carried," but "ascending." If He, before the cross, clothed still in a body subject to suffering and heaviness, walked upon the waters, then no one should doubt that He, after having received an incorruptible body, cleaved through the air.
Commentary on Acts
Acts 1:10
Having said, "Why do you stand gazing into heaven?" — they did not allow them to remain any longer in that place and hope to see Him again, but urged them to return at last to Jerusalem for the work of preaching. Angels everywhere serve Him as Lord — both at His birth, and at His resurrection, and at His ascension, and before this, prior to His appearance in the world in the flesh. But the Angels appeared in such a way that people could see them. The expression "in white apparel" indicates either the purity of the Angels, or the illumination that was to be granted to the holy apostles. The expression "they saw Him" must be understood differently. Knowing that men of corrupted mind would appear who would say that He was not from heaven, or did not come from heaven, and did not ascend into heaven, but was transported to some place beyond the bounds of the earth — among whom are also the followers of the sect of Vitalis — knowing this, the Lord ascended before the eyes of the apostles, while they were gazing intently into heaven.
Commentary on Acts
Acts 1:11
"He will come," it says, not "He will be sent." "He will come in the same way," that is, with a body. This is what they desired to hear, and also that He will come again in the days of judgment on a cloud (cf. Matt. 24:30). The Evangelist calls the Angels "men," presenting the event in the form in which it appeared to sight, since the Angels had indeed taken on the appearance of men so as not to frighten them. Two men appeared because "by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established" (Matt. 18:16).
Commentary on Acts
Acts 1:12
When did "then they returned"? When they heard what was said by the Angels, because they would never have torn themselves away from the place if the Angels had not informed them about the second coming. And it seems to me that this happened on a Sabbath, because Luke would not have indicated the distance in this way: "from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath day's journey away." The length of the journey that Jews were permitted to travel on the Sabbath day was fixed. Josephus in his twentieth book of Antiquities relates that the Mount of Olives was eight stadia from Jerusalem. And Origen in his fifth book says: "The Sabbath journey was three cubits." Indeed, the holy tabernacle with the ark preceded the camp by such a distance and was placed at such a distance from it as worshippers were permitted to travel on the Sabbath. This distance is one mile.
Commentary on Acts
Acts 1:13
He prudently enumerates the disciples. Since one of them betrayed, another denied, and a third did not believe, he shows that, apart from the betrayer, all were present.
Commentary on Acts
Acts 1:14
But how does he say, "with Mary the mother of Jesus"? Although the evangelist said that "from that time the disciple… took Her to his own" (John 19:27), this in no way contradicts the foregoing, because if that very disciple was there, then nothing prevented Her from being present as well. Why does he not mention Joseph here? He does not mention him because Joseph had already died, for if the brothers believed and were present — they who had often expressed disbelief before — then all the more would Joseph have proved faithful and would not have wished to withdraw from the company of the apostles, had he still been alive, since he never expressed any doubt.
Commentary on Acts
Acts 1:15
"In those days," that is, in the days before Pentecost, "Peter, standing in the midst of the disciples, said," as the fervent disciple and the one to whom Christ entrusted His flock, and, finally, as the first. But pay attention: he does everything with the common consent and nothing on his own will and authority.
Commentary on Acts
Acts 1:16
"In those days," that is, in the days before Pentecost, "Peter, standing in the midst of the disciples, said," as the fervent disciple and the one to whom Christ entrusted His flock, and, finally, as the first. But pay attention: he does everything with the common consent and nothing on his own will and authority. He persuades even on the basis of prophecy and does not say that David said, but: "the Holy Spirit foretold through the mouth of David"; then he adds "concerning Judas, who was the guide of those who seized Jesus." Notice here too the wisdom of this man — notice how in the narrative he does not insult and does not speak of Judas as despised and most despicable, but simply states what happened.
Commentary on Acts
Acts 1:17
Then he adds "concerning Judas, who was the guide of those who seized Jesus." Notice here too the wisdom of this man — notice how in the narrative he does not insult and does not speak of Judas as despised and most despicable, but simply states what happened; and he does not say that the Jews acquired, but: Judas "acquired the field," and rightly so, because the owner in fairness should be considered the one who put up the money, even if others made the purchase. And the payment was his.
Commentary on Acts
Acts 1:18
He speaks of the punishment which Judas suffered in the present life, and not of the future punishment, because the souls of weak people do not pay as much attention to the future as to the present. Observe: he elaborated not on the transgression, but on the punishment for it, because Judas did not die in the noose, but lived on even after, since he was taken down before he strangled to death. Papias, a disciple of John, relates this more clearly in the fourth book of the Exposition of the Sayings of the Lord. He says thus: "Judas presented a great example of impiety in this world, whose body swelled to such a degree that he could not pass where a wagon could drive through, and not only could he himself not pass, but not even his head alone. The lids of his eyes, they say, swelled so much that he could not see the light at all, and his eyes themselves could not be seen even by means of a medical dioptra, so deep were they from the outer surface… After great sufferings and torments he died, they say, on his own estate; and that estate remains deserted and uninhabited even to this day; even to this day no one can pass by that place without holding their nostrils with their hands. Such is the stench that spread from his body even to the ground." This served as a certain consolation for the apostles. But just as the bowels of Judas burst open, so too did the bowels of the heretic Arius.
Commentary on Acts
Acts 1:19
The Jews gave the village the name "Akeldama" on account of what happened with Judas. Peter brings up this fact here, presenting as witnesses the enemies who gave this land such a name.
Commentary on Acts
Acts 1:20
The words "let his habitation be desolate" (see also Ps. 68:26) were said about this land and about the house of Judas, for what could be more desolate than a cemetery, and a public cemetery at that, which is what this land became? And the words: "let another take his office" (see also Ps. 108:8) point to the rank of the priesthood.
Commentary on Acts
Acts 1:21
He presents the matter as shared with the brethren, so that it would not meet with objections and would not give occasion for disputes. Therefore at the beginning of the discourse he also said: "Men and brethren, it is necessary to choose from among you," — entrusting the choice to all, and at the same time granting honor to those chosen, and freeing himself from reproach on the part of anyone whatsoever. And that this is how it had to be, he himself says and brings a prophet as witness. From whom was the choice to be made? "From those who were with us the entire time." He says this because it necessarily had to be so. And he did not say: "from honorable men who are with us," because then it would have seemed that he was insulting the rest. But now the matter was decided by time.
Commentary on Acts
Acts 1:22
"Was together with us a witness of His resurrection," so that the company of disciples would not be diminished in any way. He says: "a witness of the resurrection," and not of anything else, for whoever proves worthy to testify that the Lord, who ate and drank with the disciples, and was crucified, and rose again — to such a person it is all the more possible and necessary to entrust testimony about the other events as well, because what was sought was the resurrection, since it was accomplished in secret, while the rest happened openly.
Commentary on Acts
Acts 1:23
"And they appointed two." Why not many? So that no great disorder would arise, and besides, the matter concerned only a few. What kind of men were they? Perhaps they were from the number of the Seventy who had been with the twelve apostles, or from other believers, but more fervently believing and more devout than the rest. Such were both Joseph and Matthias. He calls Joseph both Barsabbas and Justus, perhaps because among them these names referred to one person; but perhaps a new name was also given on account of a change in way of life; finally, the surname was perhaps assigned according to one's occupation. Why does James, who had received the episcopate in Jerusalem, not begin the discourse, but yields the right to address the people to Peter? Because he was filled with humility; at that time they thought nothing of human considerations, but had in view the common benefit. For this very same reason the apostles also yield the seat to him and do not rival him, and do not contend with him.
Commentary on Acts
Acts 1:24
They cry out in prayer to the Knower of Hearts at the fitting time. They do not go on to say "choose," but "show… the one whom You have chosen," knowing that with God all things are determined before human thought.
Commentary on Acts
Acts 1:25
"To go to his own place." The place which Matthias was worthy to occupy, Luke calls "his own" or "one's own," because just as Judas, even before he fell from it, from the time he became sick with the disease of love of money and betrayal, was already alienated from this place, so too even before Matthias occupied this place, from the time he made himself worthy of such a gift, it became his own possession. And in another sense: "to his own place": each person by his own deeds prepares for himself either a good or a bad place. So when Luke says this, he says that Judas went "to his own place" — a bad one, which he prepared for himself by the betrayal of Jesus; because places are not good or bad for us by nature, but by our own deeds we prepare a place for ourselves. The word "place" has many meanings. It signifies, among other things, a certain office; thus, we say "the place of a bishop or a presbyter." One can see the same thing also from the opposite perspective, depending on how each person prepares his own place for himself by his own deeds: thus one can hold the place of a false teacher and a false apostle, just as of a tyrant and an author of other criminal deeds. So, since Judas too, having been carried away by the passion of avarice, took the place of a traitor, it is rightly said of him: "to go to his own place." Having lost through his actions his place in the ranks of the apostles, he prepared for himself "his own place."
Commentary on Acts
Acts 1:26
Everywhere he calls the election "receiving a lot," showing by this that everything occurs according to God's love for mankind and God's choosing, and reminding them of ancient events, because just as the Levites, so also them God chose for Himself by lot. Why do they prefer election by lot? Because they did not yet consider themselves worthy to learn about this through any sign, and the Holy Spirit had not yet descended upon them; nor was there need for a sign, because the lot held great significance. If already in the case when neither prayer nor the wisdom of men helped to determine the correct judgment regarding Jonah, but on the contrary, the lot meant so much, then all the more so in this case.
Commentary on Acts
Acts 2:1
Why did this happen "when the day of Pentecost had come"? Because when the sickle was to come down upon the harvest, when it was time to gather the fruits, then the sickle of the word also had to come down; and as if in place of a sickle, the sharpened Holy Spirit descended. And Christ says: "The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few" (Matt. 9:37), and in another place: "Look at the fields, how they are already white for harvest" (John 4:35). Having received the firstfruits, Christ Himself was the first to offer them up, and He Himself was the first to send the sickle. Why then did He send it "when the day of Pentecost had come"? Because this had to happen when the feast came again, so that those who had been present at the cross of Christ could see this as well. The descent of the Holy Spirit took place on the day of Pentecost for the following reason. On the day of Pentecost in the Old Testament, the law was given. And so, on the same day that the law written on tablets was given, on that same day the legislation of the Holy Spirit was granted, inscribed not on tablets but on hearts. On the day of Pentecost the people of Israel received the law in the wilderness of Sinai, because on the fourteenth day of the first month by the lunar reckoning, when they celebrated the feast of unleavened bread and the mystery of Pascha, the sons of Israel went out of Egypt. From the fourteenth day count seventeen days to the end of the month, then thirty days of the following month and three days of the third. That is how many days Pentecost falls after the feast of unleavened bread or Pascha. Thus, from the fourteenth day of the first month to the third day of the third month is fifty days. Therefore it is said: "In the third month after the departure of the sons of Israel from the land of Egypt… the Lord said to Moses: Go to the people, [declare] and sanctify them today and tomorrow" (Exod. 19:1, 10). This the Lord says at the new moon. "On the third day," it continues, "the Lord will come down in the sight of all the people upon Mount Sinai" (v. 11). And so, on the same day that the law was given, it was fitting that the grace of the Spirit should also be granted, because just as the Savior, being about to undergo the holy passion, was pleased to surrender Himself to that passion not at any other time but at the time when the lamb was slain, so as to unite the truth with the very figure, so also the descent of the Holy Spirit, by the good pleasure from above, was granted not at any other time but at the time when the law was given, in order to show that both then and now the Holy Spirit is the Lawgiver. Thus, in the Old Testament the law was given on the fiftieth day. And after their arrival in the promised land, the Israelites established a feast in memory of this event, and at this time they offered to God from the firstfruits of the new harvest and from the new ears of grain; and this was a symbol of the feast. Since on the day of Pentecost they brought in sheaves of new fruits and various persons gathered under one sky, on this same day it was fitting that the firstfruits from every nation of all peoples living under heaven should be gathered into one sheaf of piety and, according to the apostolic word, be brought to God. A sheaf of ears of grain served as a prototype of this, in order to prefigure the sheaves of souls chosen from different countries and brought to God.
Commentary on Acts
Acts 2:2
Why was the descent of the Holy Spirit not without sensible symbols? Because if even with this they said, "they are full of new wine" (Acts 2:13), what would they not have said if this had not occurred? The sound was not simply a sound, but a sound from heaven and a sudden one, so as to astonish them all the more. "As if from a rushing mighty wind." He says that the descent of the Spirit was with great and powerful swiftness and caused everyone to come together and run there. "Filled the whole house." The Holy Spirit filled the whole house to show that this gift was given not to anyone individually, but to the whole fullness of the Church, because the house was a symbol of the Church, as the font is a symbol of water, and this is a sign of abundance and power. But the house was not filled with fire, because that would have forced them to flee.
Commentary on Acts
Acts 2:3
"Divided tongues, as of fire." The Lord, who suffered in the flesh by voluntary passion and rose from the dead, co-raised with Himself us also, who were dead in sin, and destroyed the power of the devil. Therefore, from Pascha until Pentecost, we do not make prostrations during prayer, celebrating the victory over our enemies: "They stumbled and fell, but we have risen and stand upright" (Ps. 19:9). But at the appearance to us of the Holy Spirit in fiery tongues, we bow our knees, unable to endure the sight and showing that through the Holy Spirit we have come to know the perfect worship of the Holy Trinity, because God "is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth" (John 4:24). What is most wonderful of all is that the tongues divided "and rested one upon each of them." He says well that they divided, so that you might learn that the power sent by the Comforter is one and the same. He also says well "as of fire" and "as of a rushing mighty wind," so that you might not think anything sensible concerning the Spirit. Therefore, it was not simply wind, not simply fire, but the Holy Spirit appearing there. Observe: when John saw the Holy Spirit, he saw Him in the form of a dove, but the apostles needed to see Him in the form of fire. "Rested one upon each of them," that is, they remained and began to dwell, because the expression "rested" is a sign of firm and permanent abiding. Upon whom did the Holy Spirit rest — upon the twelve only, or upon the hundred and twenty? Clearly upon all, because the apostle Peter does not cite the words of the prophet in vain when he says: "And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God, I will pour out of My Spirit upon all flesh" (v. 17). And they did not simply receive, but "were all filled with the Holy Spirit," and moreover all of them, not the apostles only. Observe: when they "continued with one accord in prayer and supplication" (Acts 1:14), when they were filled with love, then the Spirit descends. Why then did He appear in the form of fire? In order to show that He is of one and the same essence with Him Who appeared above the bush also in the form of fire. And He rested upon their heads; and from the head He filled the entire person; and fire was seen upon their heads — not burning, but sanctifying and illuminating. Why then did they receive tongues not upon their mouths but upon their heads? Not upon the tongue, that is, not upon the physical organ was the Spirit given, lest they think that they were uttering from their own bellies and from their own mouths what they did not possess. But just as waters rising to the sky occupy the summits of mountains and only from the heights descend into the valleys, so the grace of the Spirit, having occupied the upper part of the head as though it were a mountain, then spread to the brain, then to the mouth and to the heart, and from the head filled the entire person completely. Why then, I repeat again, upon the head? Because the apostles were being ordained at that time as teachers of the whole world, and ordination is performed in no other way than upon the head. Thus, by the tongues being above their heads, the form of ordination is shown, because ordination is performed through the laying on of hands upon the head, and this form of ordination remains in force even to this day. Since the descent of the Holy Spirit now occurs in an invisible manner, the Gospel book is placed upon the head of the one being ordained as a bishop; and when it is placed, one should see in this nothing other than a fiery tongue resting upon the head — a tongue on account of preaching, fiery by virtue of the words "I came to cast fire upon the earth" (Luke 12:49). He did not say that the tongues settled or were placed, but "rested"; nor did he say "occupied the surface," but "rested upon each of them," in order to show that every man who performs the sacred ministry is a throne of God.
Commentary on Acts
Acts 2:4
The grace of God was pleased to ordain from the beginning that the word of the apostles should be effective; for what use are preachers if there are no listeners? And since the firstfruits from among the Gentiles were to become partakers in the faith from the very first days, Luke adds: "and they began to speak in other tongues." Why then did the apostles receive the gift of tongues before other gifts? Because they were to go forth into all lands; and just as at the time of the building of the tower one language was divided into many, so now many languages were united in one man, and one and the same man, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, began to speak in Persian, and in Roman, and in Indian, and in many other languages. And this gift was called the gift of tongues, because the apostles could speak in many languages. "As the Spirit gave them utterance." The apostles did not speak of themselves, but spoke forth from the Spirit of God, proclaiming, that is, understanding and declaring, the testimonies concerning Christ spoken by the holy prophets.
Commentary on Acts
Acts 2:5
"Devout men." The very fact that, having left their homelands, they dwelt in Jerusalem was a sign of their devoutness. Especially since people who had set out from various countries to take up residence in Jerusalem had left behind homes and relatives. The expression "out of every nation" is used in place of the expression "of many tongues," because in Scripture the word "all" is often used instead of "many"; thus, in this sense the following is said: "I will pour out of My Spirit upon all flesh" (Joel 2:28), and: "all seek their own, not the things which are Jesus Christ's" (Phil. 2:21), and: "there is none righteous, no, not one" (Rom. 3:10). By the expression of totality, Scripture in these places denotes many.
Commentary on Acts
Acts 2:6
"When this sound occurred, the multitude gathered and was confounded," that is, was confused, was amazed. Since this happened in a house, it is evident that the people came running from outside. "For every man heard them speak in his own dialect." They knew that the believers, and especially the apostles (since those gathered directed their gaze more upon the apostles), were Galileans; and yet they spoke in an astonishingly great number of languages. "The people… were confounded," naturally, because those who had gathered supposed that the event threatened them for the evil deed they had committed against Christ; and their conscience was tearing their souls apart, since the killing of Christ was still fresh in their memory and they were afraid of everything. But this strengthened the apostles, since the listeners themselves made it known to them that this was a miraculous gift, because the apostles did not realize that a certain expression was Parthian, but learned this from the listeners. He also mentions hostile nations — Cretans, Arabians, and others; this was a symbol that they would conquer all, since in Jerusalem there were many captives. Thus, the testimony came from everywhere: from citizens, from foreigners, and from proselytes.
Commentary on Acts
Acts 2:7
Everywhere alongside virtue there is vice. Some marveled, others reviled. The former were truly devout; they lived in Jerusalem precisely because the law permitted them to appear three times a year at the temple in Jerusalem.
Commentary on Acts
Acts 2:13
But pay attention to the madness of the others: "they are full," they say, "of sweet wine," even though the time was not such as would allow one to suppose anything of the sort, because it was the feast of Pentecost and the third hour; but malice stops at nothing. And most importantly: when some, who were partly Jews, partly Romans, partly foreigners, and perhaps partly even from among those who had crucified Him — in short, from nearly all nations — hearing the preaching of the apostles, marveled and affirmed that the apostles were speaking in their languages, there were found a few who nevertheless reviled the apostles. Did those who reviled understand when the apostles spoke in different languages, or not? If they did not understand, then how does it follow that the apostles were speaking in all languages? But if they did understand, then how did they dare accuse them of drunkenness, having before them witnesses who would convict them — those very men who heard and understood that the apostles were speaking in different languages and that they were not drunk? Let someone else resolve this; but I maintain the opposite: if they had not understood, they would in no way have reduced the miracle to drunkenness (they would not have called the miracle drunkenness), for why would one even bother to demean something that causes no one any annoyance? Therefore Luke also calls them revilers, as if blasphemers and slanderers. So then, they slandered while understanding what was being said, but they slandered because they were displeased with what was being said, since the apostles were glorifying the great deeds of God. In what way, then, understanding what was being said, did they attribute it to drunkenness? On account of great madness and excessive cruelty. For it is the custom of many, if they are displeased with what is being said, to consider the speaker either demon-possessed, or insane, or to accuse him of drunkenness and of not understanding what he is saying, even though the one who speaks speaks soundly, while the reviler, in accusing him, listens to and understands him. But these men, accusing the apostles of drunkenness, displayed even greater audacity, because although they themselves listened to them in their own language, they supposed that other people, people of the most diverse dialects, did not understand them. They themselves understood what was being said, but about the rest — on whose account they slandered the apostles as drunk — they thought that those people did not understand the miracle. Just as at the time when the Lord was casting out demons, they understood and saw these miraculous acts, yet instead of the proper glorification they slandered the Lord, claiming that He performed them by the power of Beelzebul; and likewise, seeing every kind of disease and suffering being healed, they made these miraculous acts an occasion for envy, denunciations, and murder — so also now, being unable to deny the miraculous and supernatural character of the languages, they nevertheless dared to reduce the miracle to drunkenness. But pay attention also to the cunning device. Since it was incredible that anyone would be drunk at such an hour, and especially people who had experienced many dangers and terrors, they attribute everything to the quality of the wine, calling it "sweet." Here insolence strives only to say something, not to say something more substantial. Therefore what they express is obscure, full of foolishness and madness. Notice how malice is exposed both by the time of year and the hour of day. Where would gleukos come from in the days of Pentecost? Gleukos is what new wine is called. Furthermore, drunkenness gives the power to speak in different languages — drunkenness, which deprives one even of one's native tongue! See what God arranges. The Jews would have refused to enter and listen if they had not suspected that this was slander. The Lord permitted the slander in order to gather many listeners.
Commentary on Acts
Acts 2:14
Above you saw providence; here observe courage, because if all the listeners were amazed, then was it not equally amazing that a simple and unlearned man raised his voice amid such a multitude, despite the fact that there were both slanderers and those capable of killing? Is this not beyond human strength? But look: immediately upon raising his voice, he (that is, Peter) exposes the deception, proving that they are not drunk. But neither are they in a frenzy. What then is happening with him and the eleven? Peter was expressing the common opinion and common voice and was the mouth of all, while the eleven stood by, bearing witness to what he was saying. "He raised his voice," that is, he began his speech with great boldness so that immediately, at its beginning, they would feel the grace of the Spirit. The one who could not withstand the question of a weak servant girl, that very same man speaks with such boldness among the people and murderers. Before receiving the gift of tongues, Peter was frightened when only one doorkeeper servant girl questioned him, and he said: "I do not know this Man" (Mark 14:71). There, one servant girl and great fear; here, a countless multitude and a voice full of great boldness.
Commentary on Acts
Acts 2:15
He did not say: "they are not drunk, as you" slander, but: "as you suppose," because he already speaks more gently and does not wish to insistently prove that they said this out of malice, but attributes ignorance to them rather than exposing them for impiety, preparing for them a path to conversion. And what does the objection mean, that it is not customary to get drunk at the third hour? But Peter did not dwell on it, because they themselves did not really think this about the apostles, but said it only out of slander.
Commentary on Acts
Acts 2:16
He refers not to the name of Christ, not to the promise of Christ, but to the promise of the Father. Note also the prudence of Peter. He did not pass over the prophecy in silence, but neither did he speak directly about what concerns Christ: that He, after being crucified and rising again, promised them, the apostles, this gift. If he, Peter, had said this, he would have ruined everything; although this could have proven the Divinity of Christ, it would have seemed incredible. The question, however, is that they should believe what is being said; and that which would have seemed incredible would have caused them to waver. Nothing is able to resolve these perplexities except prophetic testimony. Therefore, when any doubtful question arises, do not resort to reasoning. Rational arguments are refuted just as easily as they are constructed, but who shall destroy the voice of God? Reasoning is destroyed; Scripture is not destroyed.
Commentary on Acts
Acts 2:17
It does not say: "I will pour out My Spirit," but: "of My Spirit." Not the Spirit, but the gift of the Spirit is poured out "upon all flesh," and specifically upon that which has believed, that is, upon the Gentiles. But he does not yet reveal this to them, and the words "upon all flesh" give them good hopes and do not allow them to claim the expected blessings for themselves alone; through this very thing he also cuts off envy at its very root. But pay attention to how diverse the revelation of the Holy Spirit is. One, having the grace of the Spirit, prophesies; another, incapable of this ministry, receives the gift of visions: thus Peter at the sixth hour of the day sees a vessel, Cornelius at the ninth hour sees an Angel. A vision of the heart is not called a "glance" or a "gaze," but a "vision." One sees a vision in one way; one sees a theorem in another way, when one sees not with the eyes; one is instructed by images in yet another way, such as those that are presented in sleep.
Commentary on Acts
Acts 2:19-20
With these words the prophet clearly foretells in advance both the future judgment, and the destruction of Jerusalem, and the captivity of the Jews, and the events that were to take place at the cross of Christ, and finally, what happened to the Jews as a result of the Roman war, when much blood was shed by the Romans in Judea, when smoke billowed from the burning of cities and villages. Through this the Jews bore punishment for their audacity against Christ, an audacity which even the sun itself could not endure and closed its eye, its luminous power, and the moon changed its silver-like appearance into a red light. They say, however, that many similar phenomena occurred in the sky also during the destruction of Jerusalem; so testifies Josephus Flavius. Moreover, with the words "the moon" shall be turned "into blood," the prophet also points to the excessive cruelty of the slaughter (that is, the crucifixion of the Lord). But why does this happen at the third hour? To show the miraculous nature of this phenomenon: the brilliance of fire is seen in the middle of a bright day, when everyone is in the public square! However, the composer of liturgical hymns understands what was said by the prophet thus: blood signifies the incarnation, fire signifies the Divinity, the vapor of smoke signifies the Holy Spirit, who overshadowed the Virgin with His descent and filled the world with fragrance, and by the day of the Lord he means the day of the resurrection.
Commentary on Acts
Acts 2:21
But the Lord says: "I will pour out of My Spirit… before the great day of the Lord comes." Say to the Jew: "If the Godhead has one person and one name, and if God speaks of Himself, then why did He not say: 'before My day comes'?" If, says Peter, you sin now with impunity, do not place your hope in this, because this is only the beginning of that great and difficult day. Having moved and frightened their hearts by this, he calms them and allows them to nourish good hopes. "And it shall come to pass that whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved." But not simply calls, because it is said: "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord!'" (Matt. 7:21), no, but whoever calls with sincerity and with a good life. Having now included in his speech a word about faith (about the necessity of faith), because salvation depends on calling upon, he makes his speech easy to understand. The name of the Lord, according to Paul's explanation, is called upon in the name of Christ, but Peter on this occasion did not venture to reveal this to his listeners.
Commentary on Acts
Acts 2:22
This word is not flattery; but since Peter had strongly rebuked them, he now condescends to them and reminds them of the forefathers, persuading them to recall their faith, and begins again from the beginning so as not to upset them, since he intended to remind them about Jesus. Previously, listening to the prophet, they could not be upset. And see how he says nothing about lofty truths, but begins from aspects that speak of the great humility of Jesus. "The Nazarene," he says, calling Jesus by His homeland, which seemed very insignificant. Just as in those cases when Christ is called the Power of God and the Wisdom of God, we refer these names to His Divinity, so in those cases when He is called a man and one who died for our sins, we refer these names to His flesh. And He Himself once said: "You seek to kill Me, a Man who has told you the truth" (John 8:40), and another time said: "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30). From this, on the basis of the first text, arose the Samosatian heresy, which held that Jesus was a mere man. "By powers and wonders and signs." This same thought is also expressed by the words of the Apostle Paul, that He "was declared to be the Son of God with power" (Rom. 1:4), that is, the Son whose deeds and miracles proved that He is truly the Son of the Father, because there is no difference between the statement "to declare the Son of God with power" and the statement "to attest to Him by powers and wonders and signs, which God performed through Him." Truly God acts as if through the Son, because through Him He also "made the ages" (Heb. 1:2). And by the expression "among you" he calls them as witnesses of what he says; "among you" means not secretly, not in a corner.
Commentary on Acts
Acts 2:23
Then, having attacked their lawlessness, he tries to relieve them of responsibility for it and says: "by the determined counsel," showing by this that they did not do what they dared by their own power, but because He Himself consented to it and because it was determined from above. Furthermore, lest it should seem that they were innocent — since although this was determined, yet they were the murderers — lest it should seem so, he adds: "by the hands of lawless men," that is, either through the traitor Judas, or through the soldiers who crucified Christ. Although it is known that those who nailed Him to the cross committed lawlessness, nevertheless Peter first speaks of this unclearly, so as not to drive them to despair.
Commentary on Acts
Acts 2:24
"God raised Him." How did he dare to say among the murderers that Christ was risen? And if it is said that the Father raised Him, this is because of the weakness of the listeners, for through whom does the Father act? Through His power, and the power of the Father is Christ. Therefore, He raised Himself, even though it is said that the Father raised Him. "Having loosed the pains of death." He shows that death too was in travail and suffered terribly when it took hold of Him, because the Old Testament calls the pangs of death in travail a danger and calamity for it. A woman in travail does not retain what is within her, and does not act, but suffers and hastens to be delivered. Peter beautifully called the resurrection a loosing of the pains (bonds) of death, so that one may say: having burst open the pregnant and travailing womb, Christ the Savior appears and comes forth as if from some birthing womb, that is, from the bonds of death and from the midst of Hades. Therefore He is also called the firstborn from the dead. The anointed wrestlers were elusive to their opponents, and the anointed snake charmers were safeguarded and protected from the teeth of the serpent. When Christ, mystically anointed by His Spirit, entered into combat with death and submitted to this destroyer, then the adversary who appeared was crushed, because it was "not possible for death to hold Him." It was not possible because it was found that He was born of God, and that all manner of change or alteration was foreign to Him, and that He rose again so as to die no more.
Commentary on Acts
Acts 2:25
Next he brings forward David, who surpasses all human reason, because this kind of thing is prophecy, and says: "For David says concerning Him," and not concerning himself; and again he begins from the side of humility. Although this has been accomplished now, it was foreordained from of old: God consented to this from the beginning and foreordained it from the beginning. "I saw the Lord before me always." He calls the Father the Lord of Jesus, because Jesus took on the form of a servant. If it is said here that the Father is "at the right hand" of the Son, while in other places it is said that the Son is "at the right hand" of the Father, this signifies their equality.
Commentary on Acts
Acts 2:26
"Even my flesh shall rest in hope." Since Jesus, having accepted death, put off that flesh which He had assumed according to the plan of the economy, in order to raise it again from death, it is fitting that His flesh nourished itself with hope in expectation of the resurrection.
Commentary on Acts
Acts 2:27
Although the words "You will not leave my soul in Hades" are accepted by some as words spoken in the person of David, without, however, having the ability to prove their thought, nevertheless they rightly and piously say that the body rose to be incorruptible and spiritual, since the risen flesh after the resurrection is a spiritual and incorruptible body.
Commentary on Acts
Acts 2:28
"The path of life," that is, that path which the souls of the righteous traversed together with the Redeemer, coming out from the nethermost places. In the words "You will fill me with joy before Your face," by "face" one should understand the manifestation of the Lord in the Divine image and His regard toward us, by which He more closely regarded us.
Commentary on Acts
Acts 2:29
Having set forth the testimony of David, he adds "men and brethren." When he intends to say something great, he preliminarily employs this expression to encourage and conciliate them. But where there was nothing that could be harmful, he speaks with great moderation. If he had simply said: "This was said by David," he would have appeared harsh and would have aroused their anger rather than made them obedient. But by showing great honor to the blessed David, he achieves the result that the idea that this prophecy was spoken about Christ becomes readily acceptable. His entire speech is constructed in this same spirit. Thus, having said that David "both died and was buried," he did not say "and did not rise," but: "and his tomb is with us to this day." This is equivalent to the expression "and did not rise." Further, he does not pass directly to Christ, but again glorifies David, and through these praises of David the purpose of the discourse is achieved, because this is said so that the Jews, for the sake of the honor they show to David and for the sake of his lineage, would accept the word about the resurrection of Christ, so that if this were not the case (that is, if they did not accept the word about the resurrection), they would both show disregard for the prophecy and undermine respect for themselves.
Commentary on Acts
Acts 2:30
"God promised with an oath." He did not say "promised," but "promised with an oath," indicating by this the immutability of the promise. "To set on the throne." Throne is used in place of Kingdom in many places of Divine Scripture; for example: "Thy throne, O God, is forever" (Ps. 44:7). But in what way does He sit on the throne of David? In that He is King both of the Jews, and all the more of those who crucified Him.
Commentary on Acts
Acts 2:31
"To raise up Christ in the flesh." He says this because according to His Divinity He has from eternity and always sat together with the Father; and he ascribes everything to the Father, so that the listeners might more easily accept what is being said.
Commentary on Acts
Acts 2:32
Again he points to the Father, although the previous indication was sufficient. But he knew how beneficial this was for the listeners in their acceptance of what was especially necessary.
Commentary on Acts
Acts 2:33
By the expression "having been exalted," David indicated the ascension and that He (Jesus) is in the heavens, but even this was not clear at first. Look: at the beginning of his speech, when he also brought the prophet Joel as a witness, he did not say that Christ sent the Holy Spirit, but said that the Father sent Him. But when he had reminded them both of the signs of Christ and of what had been done against Christ, and when he had boldly declared the truth about His resurrection, then at last he says that Christ poured out the Holy Spirit, that consequently the prophet spoke of Him: "And it shall come to pass in the last days" (v. 17). By "promise" he means either the one He Himself promised to the apostles, or the one which the Father promised to Jesus before the cross and sufferings. And since Peter was about to declare a great and lofty truth—that Christ poured out the Holy Spirit—he obscures it by saying that the Father gave Him this promise, because no matter what anyone says, if he concludes his word without benefit, he speaks in vain and to no purpose. Peter also shows that the cross not only did not humble Jesus, but gave Him even more splendor. If then, according to the voice of John: "He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire" (Matt. 3:11), the Father gave Him the promise, then now He has fulfilled the promise.
Commentary on Acts
Acts 2:34
"He himself says: 'The Lord said to my Lord…'" Here Peter speaks already without fear, since what was said above emboldened him. But what is the meaning of the words "The Lord said to my Lord!"? If David himself calls Him (Jesus) Lord, then all the more the Jews should not deny this. In the words "Sit at My right hand" we perceive the equal honor of the Father and the Son, since the concepts of "right" or "left" are inconceivable in relation to an incorporeal essence.
Commentary on Acts
Acts 2:35
By David's words "until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet," Peter instilled fear in them as a means of conquering them. And so as not to undermine their faith in him, he ascribes everything to the Father. After having spoken of great matters, he brings his discourse back again to the deeds of Jesus' humility. And who these enemies are, the apostle explains, crying out: "The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death, for He hath put all things under His feet" (1 Cor. 15:26–27).
Commentary on Acts
Acts 2:36
"God has made this Jesus both Lord and Christ." The expression "has made" is used instead of "appointed," because the speech is not about existence nor about hypostatic being.
Commentary on Acts
Acts 2:37
You see how much condescension there is and how it is more capable than severity of penetrating the hearts of people and softening them. Although the blessed Peter does remind them in this passage of their audacities, he reminds them gently, adding nothing offensive to them. They were ashamed of Peter's condescension, that is, of the fact that with them—who had put to death the Lord Himself, who had raised their hands against the apostles and wished to destroy them—Peter spoke with care, as a father and teacher. "They were cut to the heart," it says: they were not simply convinced, but came to know themselves, for they say: "What shall we do, men and brethren?"—as if being at a loss and anxious about their audacities. Those whom they formerly called deceivers they now call brethren, and yet they do not dare to use this title before the face of those whom they so call, but wish to declare through it their love and how strongly the Jews had become disposed toward the apostles. Therefore, as the beginning of Peter's speech shows, the apostles themselves also called them by this name.
Commentary on Acts
Acts 2:38
Although the question was posed to all the apostles, "Peter" again answers — since the apostles themselves preferred his mouth — and says: "Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ." These words do not contradict the following words of the Gospel: "Baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28:19), because the Church confesses the Holy Trinity as undivided, so that, by virtue of the unity of the three hypostases in essence, the one baptized in the name of Christ is baptized into the Trinity, since the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are undivided in essence. If the name of the Father were not God, and the name of the Son were not God, and the name of the Holy Spirit were not God, then one would have to say "in the name of God Jesus Christ," or even simply — only "in the Son." But Peter says in the "name of Jesus Christ," knowing that the name of Jesus is God, just as the name of the Father and the name of the Holy Spirit are also God.
Commentary on Acts
Acts 2:39
"And you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Note: Peter showed that the gift of Christ and the gift of the Holy Spirit are one and the same gift, since their dignity is also one and the same. Speaking above, he called this gift a promise, which "belongs to you… and to your children," because a gift is more valuable when the blessings pass also to one's heirs, "and to all who are far off." If this gift is for those who are far off, then all the more so for you who are near. Pay attention to when he pointed out to the Jews the calling of the Gentiles, saying "and to those who are far off." When? When he found them cut to the heart and having come to know themselves. When the soul condemns itself, then it can no longer envy.
Commentary on Acts
Acts 2:41
Here is the fulfillment of the prophecy which says: "Who has heard such a thing? Who has seen such things? Shall a land be born in one day? Shall a nation be brought forth in one moment? For as soon as Zion was in labor, she brought forth her sons" (Is. 66:8).
Commentary on Acts
Acts 2:43
"There was... fear on every soul," because they did not disregard what was happening as something accidental. Since Peter was filled with abundant grace and was revealing the promises and the future, it was very natural that they were seized with fear, especially since he confirmed his words with the miracles and signs he performed. As with Christ—first signs, then teaching, then miracles—so also now.
Commentary on Acts

Quoted verbatim from public-domain English translations of the fathers — Aquinas's Catena Aurea, the Ante-Nicene and Nicene & Post-Nicene Fathers, and related editions. Each quotation links to its source.