St John Chrysostom’s Homiletic Commentary onActs 9:1-22

The following is  excerpted from St John Chrysostom’s 19th and 20th homilies on Acts of Apostles.  These homilies are online in a convenient hyper-text format at New Advent. I’ve reproduced from my unedited source only the parts pertinent to today’s first reading.

FROM HOMILY 19

“And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest, and desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.” (ch. ix. 1, 2.) He fiftly mentions Paul’s zeal, and shows that in the very midst of his zeal he is drawn. “Yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter,” and not yet sated with the murder of Stephen, he was not yet glutted with the persecution of the Church, and the dispersion. Lo, this was fulfilled which was spoken by Christ, that “they which kill you shall think they offer worship to God.” (John xvi. 2.) He then in this wise did it, not as the Jews: God forbid! For that he did it through zeal, is manifest from his going abroad even to strange cities: whereas they would not have cared even for those in Jerusalem; they were for one thing only, to enjoy honor. But why went he to Damascus? It was a great city, a royal city: he was afraid lest that should be preoccupied. And observe his strong desire and ardor (and), how strictly according to the Law he went to work: he goes not to the governor, but “to the priest. That if he found any of this way:” for so the believers were called, probably because of their taking the direct way that leads to heaven. And why did he not receive authority to have them punished there, but brings them to Jerusalem! He did these things here with more authority. And mark on what a peril he casts himself. He17 was not afraid lest he should take any harm, but (yet) he took others also with him, “that if,” it says, “he found any of this way, whether they were men or women”-Oh, the ruthlessness!-”he might bring them bound.” By this journey of his, he wished to show them all (how he would act): so far were they from being earnest in this matter. Observe him also casting (people) into prison before this. The others therefore did not prevail: but this man did prevail, by reason of his ardent mind. “And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven: and he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou Me?” (v. 3, 4.) Why not in Jerusalem? why not in Damascus? That there might be no opening for different persons to relate the occurrence in different ways, but that he alone should be the authentic narrator (aciopistoj), he that18 went for this purpose. In fact, he says this [both in his oration on the stairs], and when pleading before Agrippa. “Fell to the earth”: (ch. xxii, 6: xxvi. 12) for excess of light is wont to shock, because the eyes have their measure: it is said also that excess of sound makes people deaf and stunned (as in a fit) (apoplhgaj). But19 him it only blinded, and extinguished his passion by fear, so that he should hear what was spoken. “Saul, Saul,” saith He, “why persecutest thou me?” And He tells him nothing: does not say, Believe, nor anything whatever of the kind: but expostulates with him, all but saying, What wrong, great or small, hast thou suffered from Me, that thou doest these things? “And he said, Who art Thou Lord?” (v. 5) thus in the first place confessing himself His servant. “And the Lord said, I am Jesus, whom thou persecutest:” think not thy warring is with men.20 And they which were with him heard the voice of Paul, but saw no person to whom he answered-for (the Lord) suffered them to be hearers of what was less important. Had they heard the other Voice, they would not have believed; but perceiving Paul answering (some person), they marvelled. “But arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.” (v. 6.) Observe, how He does not immediately add all, but first softens his mind. In the same way He called the disciples also a second time.21 “It shall be told thee,” etc.: He gives him good hopes, and (intimates) that he shall recover his sight also. “And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus” (v. 7, 8):-the spoils of the devil (ta skeuh autou), “his goods” (Matt. xiii. 29), as from some city, yea, some metropolis which has been taken. And the wonder of it is, the enemies and foes themselves brought him in, in the sight of all! “And for three days he neither did eat nor drink, being blinded.” (v. 9.) What could equal this? To compensate the discouragement in the matter of Stephen, here is encourment, in the bringing in of Paul: though that sadness had its consolation in the fact of Stephen’s making such an end, yet it also received this further consolation: moreover, the bringing in of the villages of the Samaritans afforded very great comfort.-But why did this take place not at the very first, but after these things? That it might be shown that Christ was indeed risen. This furious assailant of Christ, the man who would not believe in His death and resurrection, the persecutor of His disciples, how should this man have become a believer, had not the power of His resurrection been great indeed? Be it so, that the other Apostles favored (His pretensions22 ): what say you to this man? Why then not immediately after His resurrection? That his hostility might be more clearly shown as open war. The man who is so frantic as even to shed blood and cast men into prisons, all at once believes! It was not enough that he had never been in Christ’s company: the believers must be warred upon by him with vehement hostility: he left to none the possibility of going beyond him in fury: none of them all could be so violent. But when he was blinded,23 then he saw the proofs of His sovereignty and loving kindness: then he answers, “Lord, what wilt Thou have me to do?” that none may say that he played the hypocrite, he that was even eager for blood, and went to the priests, and flung himself upon such dangers, in persecuting and bringing to punishment even them that were in foreign parts-under these circumstances he now acknowledges His sovereignty. And why was he shone upon by that light not within the city, but before it? The many would not have believed, since even there (at Jerusalem when the people heard the voice which came from above, they said that “it thundered” (John xii. 29, supra, note 2, p. 123); but this man was authority enough in reporting what was his own affair. And bound he was brought in, though not with bonds upon him: and they drew him, who had expected to draw the others. “And he eat not, neither drank:” he condemned himself for the past, he confessed, prayed, besought God. But should any say, This was the effect of compulsion: (we answer) The same thing happened to Elymas: then how came it that he was not changed? (ch. xiii. de Laud. Pauli Hom. iv. §1, t. ii. p. 491.) What (evidence) could be more compulsory than the earthquake at the Resurrection, the report of the soldiers, the other miracles, the seeing Himself risen? But these things do not compel (belief) they are calculated to teach (it) (ouk anagkastika alla didaktika). Why did not the Jews believe when they were told of these things? That he spoke truth was manifest: for he would not have been changed, had this not happened; so that all were bound to believe. He was not inferior to them that preached the Resurrection, and was more credible, by being all at once converted. He had no intercourse with any of the believers; it was at Damascus that he was converted, or rather before he came to Damascus that this happened to him. I ask the Jew: Say, by what was Paul converted? He saw so many signs, and was not converted: his teacher (Gamaliel, supra, p. 87, note 1) was converted, and he remained unconverted. Who convinced him-and not only convinced, but all at once inspired him with such ardent zeal? Wherefore was it, that he wished even to go into hell itself24 for Christ’s sake? The truth of the facts is manifest.
But, as I said, for the present let us take: shame to ourselves (when we think of) the eunuch, both in his baptism and his reading. Do ye mark how he was in a station of great authority, how he was in possession of wealth, and even on his journey allowed himself no rest? What must he have been at home, in his leisure hours, this man who rested not even on his travels? What must he have been at night? Ye that are in stations of dignity, hear: imitate his freedom from pride,25 (de Lazaro, Conc. iii. §3, t. i. p. 748. c) his piety. Though about to return home, he did not say to himself: “I am going back to my country, there let me receive baptism;” those cold words which most men use! No need had he of signs, no need of miracles: from the Prophet merely, he believed. (b) But26 why is it (so ordered) that he sees (Philip) not before he goes to Jerusalem, but after he has been there? It was not meet that he should see the Apostles under persecution. Because27 he was yet weak, the Prophet was not easy; (but yet the Prophet) catechized him. For even now, if any of you would apply himself to the study of the Prophets, he would need no miracles. And, if you please, let us take in hand the prophecy itself. “He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened He not His mouth: in His humiliation His judgment was taken away: and who shall declare His generation? for His life is taken from the earth.28 (v. 22, 23.) It is likely he had heard that He was crucified, [and now he learns], that “His life is taken away from the earth,” and the rest that “He did no sin, nor deceit in His mouth:” that He prevailed to save others also: [and] who He is, Whose generation is unutterable. It is likely he had seen the riven rocks there (on the spot), and (had heard) how the veil was rent, and how there was darkness, and so forth: and all these things Philip mentioned, merely taking his text from the Prophet. It is a great thing, this reading of the Scriptures! That was fulfilled which was spoken by Moses, “Sitting, lying down, rising up, and walking, remember the Lord thy God.” (Deut. vi. 7.) For the roads, especially when they are lonely, give us opportunity for reflection, there being none to disturb us. Both this man is on the road and Paul on the road: howbeit the latter no than draws, but Christ alone. This was too great a work for the Apostles: and, greater still, in that, the Apostles being at Jerusalem, and no person of authority at Damascus, he nevertheless returned thence converted: yet those at Damascus knew that he did not come from Jerusalem converted, for he brought letters, that he might put the believers in bonds. Like a consummate Physician, when the fever was at its height, Christ brought help to him: for it was needful that he should be quelled in the midst of his frenzy. For then most of all would he be brought down, and condemn himself as one guilty of dreadful audacity. (a) For these things Paul deplores himself, saying, “Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show all His long suffering. (1 Tim. i. 13-16.) Verily one has reason to admire this eunuch. He did not see Christ, he saw no miracle: he beheld Jerusalem standing yet entire (sunestwta): he believed Philip. How came he to behave thus? His soul was earnest (memerimnhmenh). Yet the thief (on the cross) had seen miracles: the wise men had seen a star; but this man, nothing of the kind. So great a thing is the careful reading of the Scriptures! What of Paul then! did he not study the law? But he, it seems to me, was specially reserved, for the purpose which I have already mentioned by anticipation, because Christ would fain draw to Himself the Jews by inducements from every quarter. For had they been in their right mind, nothing was so likely to do them good as this; for this, more than miracles and all else, was calculated to attract them: as,29 on the other hand, nothing is so apt to prove a stumbling block to men of duller minds. See then how, after the Apostle, we have God also doing miracles. They accused the Apostles after these [miracles of theirs]; they cast them into prison: see thereupon God doing the miracles. For instance, the bringing them out of prison, was His miracle: the bringing Philip, His miracle: the bringing Paul over, was His.-Observe in what way Paul is honored, in what way the eunuch. There, Christ appears, probably because of his hardness, and because Ananias30 would not (else) have been persuaded. Conversant with these wonders, let us show ourselves worthy. But many in these times, even when they come to church, do not know what is read; whereas the eunuch, even in public (ep agoraj) and riding in his chariot, applied himself to the reading of the Scriptures. Not so you: none takes the Bible in hand: nay, everything rather than the Bible.

Say, what are the Scriptures for? For as much as in you lies, it is all undone. What is the Church for? Tie up31 the Bibles: perhaps the judgment would not be such, not such the punishment: if one were to bury them in dung, that he might not hear them, he would not so insult them as you do now. For say, what is the insult there? That the man has buried them. And what here? That we do not hear them. Say, when is a person most insulted-when he is silent, and one makes no answer, or, when he does speak (and is unheeded)? So that the, insult is greater in the present case, when He does speak and thou wilt not hear: greater the contempt. “Speak not to us” (Is. xxx. 10), we read, they said of old to the Prophets: but ye do worse, saying, Speak:32 we will not do. For there they turned them away that they should not even speak, as feeling that from the voice itself they got some sort of awe and obligation; whereas you, in the excess of your contempt, do not even this. Believe me, if you stopped our33 mouths by putting your hands over them, the insult would not be so great as it is now. For say, whether shows greater contempt, he that hears, even when hindering by this action, or, he that will not even hear? Say-if we shall look at it as a case of an insult offered-suppose one person to check the party insulting him, and to stop his mouth, as being hurt by the insults, and another person to show no concern, but pretend not even to hear them: whether will show most contempt? Would you not say the latter? For the former shows that he feels himself hit: the latter all but stops the mouth of God. Did ye shudder at what was said? Why, the mouth by which God speaks, is the mouth of God. Just as our mouth is the mouth of our soul, though the soul has no mouth, so the mouth of the Prophets is the mouth of God. Hear, and shudder. There, common (to the whole congregation) stands the deacon crying aloud, and saying, “Let us attend to the reading.” It is the common voice of the whole Church, the voice which he utters, and yet none does attend. After him begins the Reader, “The Prophecy of Esaias,” and still none attends, although Prophecy has nothing of man in it. Then after this, he says, “Thus saith the Lord,34 and still none attends. Then after this punishments and vengeances, and still even then none attends. But what is the common excuse? “It is always the same things over again.” This it is most of all, that ruins you. Suppose you knew the things, even so you certainly ought not to turn away: since in the theatres also, is it not always the same things acted over again, and still you take no disgust? How dare you talk about “the same things,” you who know not so much as the names of the Prophets? Are you not ashamed to say, that this is why you do not listen, because it is “the same things over again,” while you do not know the names of those who are read, and this, though always hearing the same things? You have yourself confessed that the same things are said. Were I to say this as a reason for finding fault with you, you would need to have recourse to quite a different excuse, instead of this which is the very thing you find fault with.-Do not you exhort your son? Now if he should say, “Always the same things!” would not you count it an insult? It would be time enough to talk of “the same things,” when we both knew the things, and exhibited them in our practice. Or rather, even then, the reading of them would not be superfluous. What equal to Timothy? tell me that: and yet to him says Paul, “Give attention to reading, to exhortation. (1Tim. iv. 13.) For it is not possible, I say not possible, ever to exhaust the mind of the Scriptures. It is a well which has no bottom. “I said,” saith the Preacher, “I am become wise:35 and then it departed from me.”- (Eccles. vii. 24.) Shall I show you that the things are not “the same?” How many persons, do you suppose, have spoken upon the Gospels? And yet all have spoken in a way which was new and fresh. For the more one dwells on them, the more insight does he get, the more does he behold the pure light. Look, what a number of things I am going to speak of:-say, what is narrative? what is prophecy? what is parable? what is type? what is allegory? what is symbol? what are Gospels? Answer me only to this one point, which is plain: why are they called Gospels, “good tidings?” And yet ye have often heard that good news ought to have nothing sad in it: yet this “good news” has abundance of sadness in it. “Their fire,” it saith, “shall never be quenched: their worm shall not die:” (Mark ix. 44.) “Shall appoint his portion,” it saith, “with the hypocrites,” with them that are “cut asunder: then shall He say, I know you not: Depart from Me, ye that work iniquity.” (Matt. xxiv. 51; vii. 23.) Surely,36 we do not deceive ourselves, when we imagine that we tell you in your own mother-tongue (‘Ellhnisti) these good tidings? You look downcast; you are stunned; you are struck all of a heap, unable to hold up your heads. “Good news” should have nothing in it of a duty to be done, but rather should counsel what is good: whereas these “Gospels” have endless duties to be done. And again, to mention other things, as for instance, Except a man hate father and mother, he is not worthy of Me” (Luke xiv, 26): and “I am not come to bring peace upon earth, but a sword” (Matt. x. 34; Luke xii. 51): and “In the world ye shall have tribulation-John xvi. 33.) excellent37 good tidings these, are they not! For good news is such as this-”You shall have this and that good thing:” as in common life men say one to another, “What shall I have for my good news? Your father is coming, or, your mother:” he does not say, “You must do this or that.”-Again, tell me, how do the Gospels differ from the Prophets? Why are not the Prophecies also called Gospels, good tidings? For they tell the same things: for instance, “The lame shall leap as an hart.” (Is. xxxv. 6.) “The Lord shall give the word to them that preach the Gospel” (Ps. lxviii. 11): and, “A new heaven and a new earth.” (Is. lxv. 17.) Why are not those also called Gospels? But if, while you do not so much as know what “Gospels” mean, you so despise the reading of the Scriptures, what shall I say to you?-Let me speak of something else. Why four Gospels? why not, ten? why not twenty? If “many have taken in hand to set forth a narrative” (Luke i. 1), why not one person? Why they that were disciples (i.e. Apostles)? why they that were not disciples? But why any Scriptures at all? And yet, on the contrary, the Old Testament says, “I will give you a New Testament.” (Jer. xxxi. 31.) Where are they that say, “Always the same things?” If ye knew these, that, though a man should live thousands of years, they are not “the same things,” ye would not say this. Believe me, I will not tell you the answers to any of these questions; not in private, not in public: only, if any find them out, I will nod assent. For this is the way we have made you good-for-nothing, by always telling you the things ready to your hands, and not refusing when we ought. Look, you have questions enough: consider them, tell me the reasons. Why Gospels? Why not Prophecies? Why duties, to be done, in the Gospels? If one is at a loss, let another seek the answer, and contribute each to the others from what he has: but now we will hold our peace. For if what has been spoken has done you no good, much less would it, should we add more. We only pour water into a vessel full of holes. And the punishment too is all the greater for you. Therefore, we will hold our peace. Which that we may not have to do, it rests with yourselves. For if we shall see your diligence, perhaps we will again speak, that both ye may be more approved, and we may rejoice over you, in all things giving glory to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ: to Him be glory and dominion now and ever, and world without end. Amen.

FROM HOMILY 20

ACTS IX. 10, 12.-”And there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and to him said the Lord in a vision, Ananias. And he said, Behold, I am here, Lord. And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and inquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul, of Tarsus: for, behold, he prayeth, and hath seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming in, and putting his hand on him, that he might receive his sight.”

What may be the reason that He neither drew any one of high authority and importance, nor caused such to be forthcoming for the purpose of instructing Paul?1 It was, because it was not meet that he should be induced by men, but only by Christ Himself: as in fact this man taught him nothing, but merely baptized him; for, as soon as baptized (fwtisqeij), he was to draw upon himself the grace of the Spirit, by his zeal and exceeding earnestness. And that Ananias was no very distinguished person, is plain. For, “the Lord,” it says, “spake unto him in a vision, and Ananias answered and said, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to Thy saints at Jerusalem.” (v. 13.) For if he spoke in objection to Him, much more would he have done so, had He sent an Angel. And this is why, in the former instance, neither is Philip told what the matter is; but he sees the Angel, and then the Spirit bids him go near to the chariot. But observe here how the Lord. relieves him of his fear: “He is blind,” saith He, “and prayeth, and art thou afraid?” In the same way Moses also is afraid: so that the words betokened that he was afraid, and shrunk from the task, not that he did not believe. He said,” have heard from many concerning this man.” What sayest thou? God speaketh, and thou hesitatest? They did not yet well know the power of Christ. “And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on Thy name.” (v. 14.) How was that known? It is likely that they, being in fear, made minute enquiries. He does not say this, as thinking that Christ does not know the fact, but, “such being the case, how,” says he, “can these things be?” As in fact those (in the Gospel) say, “Who can be saved?”-(Mark x. 26.) This is done, in order that Paul may believe him that shall come to him: “he hath seen in a vision:” it hath showed him beforehand: “he prayeth,” saith (the Lord): fear not. And observe, He speaks not to him of the success achieved: teaching us not to speak of our achievements. And,2 though He saw him afraid, for all this He said it not. “Thou shall not be disbelieved:”"he hath seen,” saith He, “in a vision a man (named) Ananias:” for this is why it was “in a vision,” namely, because he was blind. And not even the exceeding wonderfulness of the thing took possession of the disciple’s mind, so greatly was he afraid But observe: Paul being blind, in this way He restored to. sight. “But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto Me, to bear My name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: for I will show him how great things he must suffer for My name’s sake.” (v. 15, 16.) “Not only,” saith He, “shall he be a believer, but even a teacher, and great boldness shall he show: before Gentiles and kings’-such shall be the spread of the doctrine!-that just as He astonished (him) by the former, so He may (startle him even more) by the latter.3 “And Ananias went, and entered into the house, and laid his hands upon him, and said, Brother Saul”-he straightway addresses him as a friend by that name-”Jesus, Who appeared unto thee in the way in which thou camest”-and yet Christ had not told him this, but he learnt it from the Spirit-” hath sent me unto thee, that thou mayest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.” (v. 17.) As he said this, he laid his hands upon him. “And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales.” (v. 18.) Some say this was a sign of his blindness. Why did he not blind his eyes (entirely)? This was more wonderful, that, with his eyes open, he did not see: (v. 8) which was just his case in respect of the Law, until4 the Name of Jesus was put on him. “And he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized. And having taken food, he recovered strength.” (v. 19.) He was faint, therefore, both from his journey and from his fear; both from hunger, and from dejection of mind. Wishing therefore to deepen his dejection, He made the man blind until the coming of Ananias: and, that he might not imagine the blindness to be (only) fancy, this is the reason of the scales. He needed no other teaching: that which had befallen was made teaching (to him). “And he was with the disciples which were at Damascus certain days. And straightway in the synagogues he preached Jesus,5 that He is the Son of God.” (v. 20.) See, straightway he was a teacher in the synagogues. He was not a ashamed of the change, was not afraid while the very things in which he was glorious afore-time, the same he destroyed. Even6 from his first appearance on the stage here was a man, death-dealing, ready for deeds of blood: seest thou what a manifest sign (was here)? And with this very thing, he put all in fear: for, said they, Hither also is he come for this very thing. “But all that heard him were amazed, and said: Is not this he that destroyed them which called on this name in Jerusalem, and came hither for that intent, that he might bring them bound unto the chief priests? But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ.” (v. 21, 22.) As one learned in the Law, he stopped their mouths, and suffered them not to speak. They thought they were rid of disputation in such matters, in getting rid of Stephen, and they found another, more vehement than Stephen.7

(Recapitulation.) But let us look at what relates to Ananias.8 The Lord said not to him, Converse with him, and catechize him. For if, when He said, “He prayeth, and hath seen a man laying his hands upon him.” (v. 11, 12.) He did not persuade him, much less had He said this. So that he shall not disbelieve thee, “he hath seen in a vision.” Observe how in the former instance neither is Philip told all immediately. Fear not, He saith: “for this man is a chosen vessel for Me. (v. 15.) He more than sufficiently released him of his fear, if the case be so that this man shall be so zealous in our cause, as even to suffer many things. And justly he is called “a vessel” (or, instrument)-for reason shows that evil is not a physical quality: “a vessel of election” (or, chosen instrument), He saith; for we choose that which is approved. And let not any imagine, that (Ananias) speaks in unbelief of what was told him, as imagining that Christ was deceived: far from it! but affrighted and trembling, he did not even attend to what was said, at hearing the name of Paul. Moreover, the Lord does not tell that He has blinded him: at the mention of his name fear had prepossessed his soul: “see,” he says, “to whom Thou art betraying me: `and hither for this very purpose is he come, to bind all that call upon Thy Name.’ I fear, lest he take me to Jerusalem: why dost Thou cast me into the mouth of the lion?” He is terrified, even while he speaks these words; that from every quarter we may learn the energetic character (arethn) of the man. For that these things should be spoken by Jews, were nothing wonderful: but that these (the believers) are so terrified, it is a most mighty proof of the power of God. Both the fear is shown, and the obedience greater after the fear. For there was indeed need of strength. Since He says, “a vessel of election,” that thou mayest not imagine that God is to do all, He adds, “to bear My Name before Gentiles and kings, and the children of Israel. Ananias has heard what he most desired-that against the Jews also he will take his stand: this above all gave him courage. “For I,” saith He, “will show him how great things he must suffer for My Name’s sake.” At the same time also this is said by way of putting Ananias to the blush: If he, that was so frantic, shall suffer all things, and thou not willing even to baptize him! “It is well,” saith he: “let him continue blind” (this9 is why he says these words): “he is blind: why dost Thou at all bid me open his eyes, that he may bind (men) again?” Fear not the future: for that opening of his eyes he will use not against you, but for you (with reference to that saying, “That he may receive his sight” (v. 12), these words are spoken): for not only will he do you no harm, but he “will suffer many things.” And what is wonderful indeed is,10 that he shall first know “how great things he shall suffer,” and then shall take the field against the perils.-” Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus”-he saith not,” Who made thee blind,” but, “Who appeared with thee in the way, hath sent me unto thee that thou mayest receive thy sight” (v. 17): observe this man also, how he utters nothing boastful, but just as Peter said in the case of the lame man, “Why look ye on us, as though by our own power or holiness we had made him to walk,” (ch. iii. 12) so here also he saith, “Jesus, Who appeared unto thee.” (b) Or,11 (he saith it) that the other may believe: and he saith not, He that was crucified, the Son of God, He that doeth wonders: but what? “He that appeared unto thee:” (speaking) from what the other knew: as Christ also added no more, neither said, I am Jesus, the Crucified, the Risen: but what? “Whom thou persecutest.” Ananias said not, “The persecuted,” that he may not seem as it were to rave over him (epenqousian), to deride him, “Who appeared unto thee in the way:” and yet He did not (visibly) appear, but was seen by the things done. And immediately he added, wishing to draw a veil over the accusation: “That thou mayest receive thy sight.” I came not to reprove the past, but to bestow the gift: “that thou mayest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.” (a) With hands laid on, he spake these words. “And immediately there fell from his eyes,” etc. (v. 18: a double blindness is removed.-And why saith it, “Having taken food, he was strengthened?” (v. 19.) Because they that are in such case become relaxed: he had no heart to partake of food before, until he obtained the mighty gifts. (c) It seems to me, that both Paul and Cornelius, at the very instant when the words were spoken, received the Spirit. And yet (in this case) the giver was no great one. So true is it, that there was naught of man’s in the things done, nor aught was done by man, but God was present, the Doer of these things. And at the same time (the Lord) both teaches him to think modestly of himself, in that He does not bring him to the Apostles who were so admired, and shows that there is nothing of man here. He was not filled, however, with the Spirit which works signs: that in this way also his faith might be shown; for he wrought no miracles. “And straightway,” it says, “in the synagogues he preached Jesus”- (v. 20) not that He is risen-not this: no, nor that He liveth: but what? immediately he strictly expounded the doctrine-”that this is the Son of God. And all that heard him were amazed,” etc. (v. 21.) They were reduced to utter incredulity. And yet they ought not to have wondered only, but to worship and reverence. “Is not this he,” etc. He had not merely been a persecutor, but “destroyed them which called on this Name”—they did not say, “on Jesus;” for hatred, they could not bear even to hear His name—and what is more marvellous still, “and came hither for this purpose,” etc. “We cannot say, that he associated with the Apostles before.” See by how many (witnesses) he is confessed to have been of the number of the enemies! But Paul not only was not confounded by these things, nor hid his face for shame, but “increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews” (v. 22), i.e. put them to silence, left them nothing to say for themselves, “proving, that this is very Christ.” “Teaching,” it says: for this man was a teacher.

Friday, May 13: Aquinas’ Catena Aurea on Today’s Gospel (John 6:52-59)

Ver  52. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?53. Then Jesus said to them, Verily, verily, I say to you, Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you have no life in you.54. Whoso eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, has eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

AUG. The Jews not understanding what was the bread of A peace, strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us His flesh to eat? Whereas they who eat the bread strive not among themselves, for God makes them to dwell together in unity.

BEDE. The Jews thought that our Lord would divide His flesh into pieces, and give it them to eat: and so mistaking Him, strove.

CHRYS. AS they thought it impossible that He should do as He said, i.e. give them His flesh to eat, He shows them that it was not only possible, but necessary: Then said Jesus to them, Verily, verily, I say to you, Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, you have no life in you.

AUG. As if He said, The sense in which that bread is eaten, and the mode of eating it, you know not; but, Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, you have no life in you.BEDE And that this might not seem addressed to them alone, He declares universally, Whoso eats My flash, and drinks My blood, has eternal life.

AUG. And that they might not understand him to speak of this life, and make that an occasion of striving, He adds, has eternal life. This then he has not who eats not that flesh, nor drinks that blood. The temporal life men may have without Him, the eternal they cannot. This is not true of material food. If we do not take that indeed, we shall not live, neither do we live, if we take it: for either disease, or old age, or some accident kills us after all. Whereas this meat and drink, i.e. the Body and Blood of Christ, is such that he that takes it not has not life, and he that takes it has life, even life eternal.

THEOPHYL. For it is not the flesh of man simply, but of God: and it makes man divine, by inebriating him, as it were, with divinity.

AUG. There are some who promise men deliverance from eternal punishment, if they are washed in Baptism and partake of Christ’s Body, whatever lives they live. The Apostle however contradicts them, where he says, The works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkeness, revelings, and such like; of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. Let us examine what is meant here. He who is in the unity of His body, (i.e. one of the Christian members,) the Sacrament of which body the faithful receive when they communicate at the Altar; he is truly said to eat the body, and drink the blood of Christ. And heretics and schismatics, who are cut off from the unity of the body, may receive the same Sacrament; but it does not profit them, may, rather is hurtful, as tending to make their judgment heavier, or their forgiveness later. Nor ought they to feel secure in their abandoned and damnable ways, who, by the iniquity of their lives, desert righteousness, i.e. Christ; either by fornication, or other sins of the like kind. Such are not to be said to eat the body of Christ; forasmuch as they are not to be counted among the members of Christ For, not to mention other things, men cannot be members of Christ, and at the same time members of an harlot.

AUG. By this meat and drink then, He would have us understand the society of His body, and His members, which is the Church, in the predestined, and called, and justified, and glorified saints and believers. The Sacrament whereof, i.e. Of the unity of the body and blood of Christ, is administered, in some places daily, in others on such and such days from the Lord’s Table: and from the Lord’s Table it is received by some to their salvation, by others to their condemnation. But the thing itself of which this is the Sacrament, is for our salvation to every one who partakes of it, for condemnation to none. To prevent us supposing that those who, by virtue of that meat and drink, were promised eternal life, would not die in the body, Ho adds, And I will raise him up at the last day; i.e. to that eternal life, a spiritual rest, which the spirits of the Saints enter into. But neither shall the body be defrauded of eternal life, but shall be endowed With it at the resurrection of the dead in the last day.

Ver 55. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.56. He that eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, dwells in me, and I in him.57. As the living Father has sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eats me, even he shall live by me.58. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eats of this bread shall live for ever.59. These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.

BEDE. He had said above, Whoso eats My flesh and drinks My blood, has eternal life: and now to show the great difference between bodily meat and drink, and the spiritual mystery of His body and blood, Ho adds, For My flesh its meat indeed, and My blood its drink indeed.

CHRYS. i.e. this is no enigma, or parable, but you must really eat the body of Christ; or He means to say that the true meat was He who saved the soul.

AUG. Or thus: Whereas men desire meat and drink to satisfy hunger and thirst, this effect is only really produced by that meat and drink, which makes the receivers of it immortal and incorruptible; i.e. the society of Saints, where is peace and unity, full and perfect. On which account our Lord has chosen for the types of His body and blood, things which become one out of many. Bread is a quantity of grains united into one mass, wine a quantity of grapes squeezed together. Then He explains what it is to eat His body and drink His blood: He that eats My flesh, and drinks My blood, dwells in Me, and I in him. So then to partake of that meat and that drink, is to dwell in Christ and Christ in you. He that dwells not in Christ, and in whom Christ dwells not, neither eats His flesh, nor drinks His blood: but rather eats and drinks the sacrament of it to his own damnation.

CHRYS. Or, having given a promise of eternal life to those that eat Him, He says this to confirm it: He that eats My flesh, and drinks My blood, dwells in Me, and I in him.

AUG. As for those, as indeed there are many, who either eat that flesh and drink that blood hypocritically, or, who having eaten, become apostates, do they dwell in Christ, and Christ in them? Nay, but there is a certain mode of eating that flesh, and drinking that blood, in the which he that eats and drinks, dwells in Christ, and Christ in him.

AUG. That is to say, such an one eats the body and drinks the blood of Christ not in the sacramental sense, but in reality.

CHRYS. And because I live, it is manifest that he will live also: As the living Father has sent Me, and I live by the Father, even so he that eats Me, even he shall live by Me. As if He said, As the Father lives, so do I live; adding, lest you should think Him unbegotten, By the Father, meaning that He has His source in the Father. He that eats Me, even he shall live by Me; the life here meant is not life simply, but the justified life: for even unbelievers live, who never eat of that flesh at all. Nor is it of the general resurrection He speaks, (for all will rise again,) but of the resurrection to glory, and reward.

AUG. He said not, As I eat the Father, and live by the Father, so he that eats Me, even he shall live by Me. For the Son does not grow better by partaking of the Father, as we do by partaking of the Son, i.e. of His one body and blood, which this eating and drinking signifies. So that His saying, I live by the Father, because He is from Him, must not be understood as detracting from His equality. Nor do the words, Even he that eats Me, the same shall live by Me, give us the equality that He has. He does not equalize, but only mediates between God and man. If, however, we understand the words, I live by the Father, in the sense of those below, My Father is greater than I, then it is as if He said, That I live by the Father, i.e. refer my life to Him, as my superior, my humiliation in my incarnation is the cause; but He who lives by Me, lives by Me by virtue of partaking of My flesh.

HILARY. Of the truth then of the body and blood of Christ, no room for doubting remains: for, by the declaration of our Lord Himself, and by the teaching of our own faith, the flesh is really flesh, and the blood really blood. This then is our principle of life. While we are in the flesh, Christ dwells in us by His flesh. And we shall live by Him, according as He lives. If then we live naturally by partaking of Him according to the flesh, He also lives naturally by the indwelling of the Father according to the Spirit. His birth did not give Him an alien or different nature from the Father.

AUG. That we who cannot obtain eternal life of ourselves, might live by the eating that bread, He descended from heaven: This is the bread which comes down from heaven.

HILARY. He calls Himself the bread, because He is the origin of His own body. And lest it should be thought that the virtue and nature of the Word had given way to the flesh, He calls the bread His flesh, that, inasmuch as the bread came down from heaven, it might be seen that His body was not of human conception, but a heavenly body. To say that the bread is His own, is to declare that the Word assumed His body Himself.

THEOPHYL. For we do not eat God simply, God being impalpable and incorporeal; nor again, the flesh of man simply, which would not profit us. But God having taken flesh into union with Himself; that flesh is quickening. Not that it has changed its own for the Divine nature; but, just as heated iron remains iron, with the action of the heat in it; so our Lord’s flesh is quickening, as being the flesh of the Word of God.

BEDE. And to show the wide interval between the shadow and the light, the type and the reality, He adds, Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eats of this bread shall live for ever.

AUG. The death here meant is death eternal. For even those who eat Christ are subject to natural death; but they live for ever, because Christ is everlasting life.

CHRYS. For if it was possible without harvest or fruit of the earth, or any such thing, to preserve the lives of the Israelites of old for forty years, much more will He be able to do this with that spiritual food, of which the manna is the type. He knew how precious a thing life was in men’s eyes, and therefore repeats His promise of life often; just as the Old Testament had done; only that it only offered length of life, He life without end. This promise was an abolition of that sentence of death, which sin had brought upon us. These things said He in the synagogue, as He taught in Capernaum; where many displays of His power took place. He taught in the synagogue and in the temple, with the view of attracting the multitude, and as a sign that He was not acting in opposition to the Father.

BEDE. Mystically, Capernaum, which means beautiful town, stands for the world: the synagogue, for the Jewish people. The meaning is, that our Lord has, by the mystery of the incarnation, manifested Himself to tile world, and also taught the Jewish people His doctrines.

Father Callan’s Commentary on Acts 9:1-22

Please Note: The verse numbering of this translation may not match that of others.

I’ve added just a few brief notes of my own (in red) to this commentary. I hope to add some more later today or tomorrow. I’ll mark the post title as UPDATED if this plan comes to fruition.

1. And Saul, as yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest,
2. And asked of him letters to Damascus, to the synagogues: that if he found any men and women of this way, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.

Saul was of the tribe of Benjamin, but a native of Tarsus in Cilicia, and therefore by birth a Roman citizen. As a youth he was taken to Jerusalem and studied at the feet of Gamaliel. He belonged to the strictest sect of the Pharisees and was zealous above all others for the Pharisaic observances. St. Paul was most probably converted in a.d. 35, and was about thirty years old at the time. See on Acts 7:57.

Full of deadly hate towards the Christian, Saul was not satisfied with what happened to St. Stephen, but, continuing to persecute the Church, he wanted to extend the persecution outside of Palestine. He therefore went to the High Priest, Annas, and requested “letters” authorizing him to persecute the Christians in Damascus, if he should find there any men or women of this way, i.e., of the Christian way of living. Damascus was the capital of Syria and situated about 125 miles northeast of Jerusalem. It was taken by the Romans under Pompey, but later (a.d. 37-38) fell to the Arabian king Aretas in the latter’s war with Herod Antipas. The Jews in Damascus at this time were very numerous, and their synagogues were many.

St. Paul wanted to bring any Christians he might find in Damascus to Jerusalem, in order that they might there be punished by the supreme council, or Sanhedrim, for what was considered their apostasy and blasphemy.

3. And as he went on his journey, it came to pass that he drew nigh to Damascus; and suddenly a light from heaven shined round about him.

There are three distinct accounts given of the conversion of St. Paul,—here, in chapter 22, and in chapter 26. The first is for Christian readers, the second was addressed to Jews, and the third to Agrippa and Festus.

A light . . . shined, etc. ; i.e., a heavenly illumination appeared at midday (Acts 26:13).

4. And falling on the ground, he heard a voice saying to him: Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?

Saul, Saul, etc. These words show the tenderness and compassion of Christ both toward the persecutor and the persecuted members of His mystical body, the Church. To persecute the faithful was to persecute our Lord Himself; to persecute the body was to persecute the Head.

5. Who said: Who art thou, Lord? And he: I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.  It is hard for thee to kick against the goad.

I am Jesus. Our Lord stood before St. Paul in His glorified humanity, all radiant with light. It is hard for thee to kick, etc. These words are wanting here in the best MSS., but they are found in Acts 26:14. The goad was a long stick with an iron point at the end, used by drovers to urge on oxen or cattle. To kick against it was to suffer injury. The goad in St. Paul’s case was the grace of God, the interior promptings of which he was resisting.

6. And he trembling and astonished, said: Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?
7. And the Lord said to him : Arise, and go into the city, and there it shall be told thee what thou must do. Now the men who went in company with him, stood amazed, hearing indeed a voice, but seeing no man.

Prostrate and trembling before his Master, Paul asks only to know what he should do; and our Lord tells him to go into the city of Damascus, and there God shall declare to him His will by means of Ananias. Paul must first be baptized and received into the Church by the ministers appointed by God.

Lord, what wilt Thou have me do? An imortant theme in Luke/Acts See Luke 3:10, 12, 14; Acts 2:37.

The men . . . stood amazed. Those in company with St. Paul had also fallen to the ground (Acts 26:14), but were now standing in amazement.

The rationalists contend that there is a plain contradiction between the statement of this verse, ” the men . . . stood amazed,” literally, speechless, and Acts 26:14, where Paul declare they all fell to the ground. Answer: There is no reason why both statements could not have been true. As just said above, the men in company with St. Paul could first have fallen to the ground from fright, and then stood up in amazement at what they saw and heard. But Pape and other critics hold that the ειστηκεισαν of the present verse has the sense of an emphatic etvai, which could simply mean that the men became amazed and speechless; thus there would be no difference between the statement here given and that in Acts 26:14.

Hearing indeed a voice, etc. In Acts 22:9 St. Paul seems to say the very contrary of this. Answer: Just as in Acts 22:9 the companions saw a light, but perceived no person, so here they heard a human voice, i.e., a noise, but understood no words.  “Audiebant vocem solam, non vocem cum verbis” (Bengel). Hence there is no contradiction.

The marginal reading of this verse in the Revised Edition of Oxford has rendered the words  ακουοντες μεν της, hearing the sound. But when St. Luke in Acts 22:9 speaks of the articulate voice of Christ which was audible to St. Paul alone, he employs the phrase ηκουσαν φωνην. Thus the same word, φωνή, by a different grammatical construction, may signify an inarticulate sound which all Paul’s company heard, or the distinct and articulate voice which Paul alone heard.

8. And Saul arose from the ground; and when his eyes were opened, he saw nothing. But they leading him by the hands, brought him to Damascus.
9. And he was there three days, without sight, and he did neither eat nor drink.

He saw nothing,—his eyes being still dazzled by the brightness that shone in our Lord’s glorified body. His sight was withheld from him for three days, doubtless to give him time to consider in prayer and without distraction what had happened to him.

10. Now there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias. And the Lord said to him in a vision: Ananias. And he said: Behold I am here, Lord.

Ananias was certainly a devout Christian, and an influential member of the Church at Damascus, but more we do not know about him. Some have thought he was one of the seventy-two disciples of our Lord.

11. And the Lord said to him: Arise, and go into the street that is called Strait, and seek in the house of Judas, one named Saul of Tarsus. For behold he prayeth.

Strait was a broad street in Damascus running from east to west; it still exists in part. Of Judas here mentioned nothing further is known. Tarsus was the capital of CiHcia in southeastern Asia Minor.

12. (And he saw a man named Ananias coming in, and putting his hands upon him, that he might receive his sight.)

Some take this verse to be a parenthesis inserted by St. Luke for sake of clearness; others, with less probability, think it a continuation of the words of our Lord.

13. But Ananias answered: Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints in Jerusalem.
14. And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that invoke thy name.

Ananias was much surprised that our Lord should ask him to go to so great a persecutor of the faithful in Jerusalem, and one who had come to Damascus for the express purpose of continuing his persecutions of the ”saints,” as the Christians were commonly called.

15. And the Lord said to him: Go thy way; for this man is to me a vessel of election, to carry my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel.

A vessel of election; i.e., a chosen instrument to carry the Gospel to the whole world. Vas electionis of the Vulgate is a Hebraism meaning chosen instrument. The Jews were not excluded from Paul’s labor and preaching, but his chief work was among the Gentiles. By kings were perhaps meant Agrippa, Felix, Festus, and Nero.

16. For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name’s sake.

He must suffer, etc. See 2 Cor 11:23-29; 12:10; Col 1:24, where we find described some of the Apostle’s sufferings. For a very good, non-technical commentary on 2 Corinthians see SECOND CORINTHIANS, by Thomas Stegman, S.J.  See also St Thomas Aquinas’ LECTURES ON SECOND CORINTHIANS (online). See also Aquinas’ LECTURES ON COLOSSIANS (online).

17. And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house. And laying his hands upon him, he said: Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus hath sent me, he that appeared to thee in the way as thou earnest; that thou mayest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.
18. And immediately there fell from his eyes as it were scales, and he received his sight; and rising up, he was baptized.

The sudden cure of St. Paul’s blindness shows that it was miraculous. He was baptized. Baptism is necessary for membership in the Church of Christ and for eternal salvation. The necessary instruction which should precede it was given, in St. Paul’s case, by our Lord Himself (Gal 1:11, 12).

19. And when he had taken meat, he was strengthened. And he was with the disciples that were at Damascus, for some days.

He was with the disciples, etc.; i.e., with the Christians who were in Damascus. St. Paul at this time remained only a few days at Damascus, and then went into Arabia, where he stayed for a while (Gal 1:17, 18). Returning later to Damascus, he tarried there for some time before undertaking his first journey to Jerusalem. This visit to Jerusalem was three years after his conversion. St. Luke omits all mention of St. Paul’s stay in Arabia, because it was not to his purpose; but he speaks in the present verse of the Saint’s first visit to Damascus, and in verse 22 he is talking of the second one before going to Jerusalem.

It is vain for Weiss, Wendt, Weizaeher, and others to contend that St. Luke here (verses 19-28) and St. Paul, writing to the Galatians (Gal 1:17, 18), are in contradiction. Neither of these inspired writers intended to give his readers a complete history of the events he touched upon, but only to group together those things which he deemed necessary and suitable to his purpose and scope. These latter being different, each writer, although treating of the same event, omits irrelevant details which the other gives. But while St. Luke has here omitted St. Paul’s journey into Arabia and his sojourn there, he has not failed to give evidence that such an omission has been made. In the present verse the author speaks of St. Paul’s stay in Damascus as covering only “some days,” and of his preaching as surprising or “astonishing” the Jews; but in verses 22, 23 there is question of events that took place only after “many days had passed,” and after which period of time St. Paul had “increased much in strength,” and was not only surprising the Jews by his preaching, but was “confounding” them so much by his arguments that they were ” consulting together to kill him.” That St. Luke’s “many days “  may mean a long period must be admitted from his frequent use of the adjective in the sense of long duration. Cf. Luke 8:27, 20:9; Acts 8:11; 14:3, 21; 18:18, etc. For similar use of “days ” in the sense of a long period cf. 1 Chron 23:1, 28; 2 Chron 24:15; Job 8:9; 7:1; 1 Kings 2:28; Prov 3:2, 16, etc.

Since, therefore, it is usual with the sacred writers to indicate longer periods of time by such expressions as “after many days,” it is evident that a considerable space intervened between the ”some days” and the surprising preaching of verses 19-21, and the “many days” and confounding preaching of verses 22, 23; to this longer intervening space, then, we are to ascribe St. Paul’s retirement to Arabia and his three years’ sojourn there before returning to Damascus.

20. And immediately he preached Jesus in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God.
21. And all that heard him, were astonished, and said: Is not this he who persecuted in Jerusalem those that called upon this name: and came hither for that intent, that he might carry them bound to the chief priests?

Immediately St. Paul began to declare to the Jews in the synagogues of Damascus that Christ was the Son of God and the promised Messiah. The Jews and Christians alike were astonished and could not understand the change so suddenly produced in one who, till then, had been the great enemy of the Christians, and had come to Damascus for the purpose of persecuting them there. Soon, however, he departed for Arabia, where in solitude he was instructed by Christ Himself in regard to the doctrine of the Gospel.

22. But Saul increased much more in strength, and confounded the Jews who dwelt at Damascus, affirming that this is the Christ.

After his period of solitude and prayer in Arabia, during which he became more familiar with Christian doctrines, St. Paul revisited Damascus, and not only preached Christ to the Jews with great force, but combated them, answered their difficulties, reducing them to silence.

Thursday, May 12: Today’s Posts and Links

Today’s Mass Readings.

Today’s Divine Office.

UPDATE: Resources for Sunday Mass, May 15 (Fourth Sunday of Easter).

Father Callan’s Commentary on Today’s First Reading (Acts 8:26-40).

St John Chrysostom’s Homily 19 on the Acts of Apostles.

Aquinas’ Catena Aurea on Today’s Gospel (John 6:44-51).

St Augustine’s 26th Tractate on John. Read paragraph numbers 4 through 13.

Yesterday’s Posts.