Against the Manichaeans.

1. The disciples, intending to ask (the Lord) something, approach Him all together, and they do this in order to persuade Him to answer by their very numbers. They knew that His former words – "Of that day and hour no one knoweth" (Matt. 24:36) – were spoken by Him in order to divert the question from Himself – not out of ignorance, but out of unwillingness to answer. That is why they come to Him again and ask; and they would not have asked if they had really been convinced (of His ignorance). Since they heard that they would receive the Holy Spirit, they wanted to know (that time) how they were already worthy of it and ready to be delivered (from troubles). They did not want to plunge themselves into danger, but to enjoy peace, since what had already happened to them was important, but on the contrary, they were in extreme danger. Wherefore, having said nothing to Him about the Spirit, they asked, "Is it not at this time, O Lord, that Thou dost restore the kingdom to Israel?" but: "Is it not at this time?" — so they wanted to know this day. That is why they approach with great reverence. And it seems to me that they did not understand quite clearly what this kingdom was, since they had not yet been taught by the Spirit. And they did not say, "When will it be?" "But what?" "Is it not at this time, O Lord, that Thou dost restore the kingdom to Israel?" — as if it had already been destroyed. Thus they asked because they were still attached to sensible objects, though not to the same extent as before. They have not yet become better; however, Christ was already thought of above. And since they have been exalted, He also converses with them more exalted; He no longer tells them that "of that day" even the Son does not know (Mark 13:32), but what? "It is not your business to know the times or seasons which the Father has set in His own power" (v. 7). You seek too much, he says, although they already knew what was much more important. And so that you may understand this exactly, see how many things I will enumerate. Tell me, what is more important than what was revealed to them? They learned that Christ is the Son of God, and that God has a Son of equal honor; they knew that there would be a resurrection; they knew that Christ ascended and sat down at the right hand of the Father. They also learned what is even more amazing than this, that the flesh sits in grief and that angels worship it. They learned that the Lord would again come to judge the whole world, and that then they too would sit as judges of the twelve tribes of Israel; they learned that the Jews were rejected, and that the Gentiles would enter the kingdom of God in their place. To know what it will be is a great thing; and to comprehend that someone will ever reign is nothing great in this. Paul learned what "no man can tell" (2 Cor. 12:4), learned everything that preceded this world. What is more difficult to know: the beginning or the end? Obviously, the former. And this Moses learned, and by counting the years, he shows when (it was) and how long it was. Solomon also knew this, which is why he said: "I will not forget to count the things of the world" (Proverbs 8:21). And so, that (that time) is near, the apostles later learned about it, just as Paul says: "The Lord is near, do not be anxious about anything" (Phil. 4:5-6); but at that time they did not yet know, although the signs were indicated to them. And Christ, as He said, "In a few days" (v. 5), but did not specify the exact time, desiring that they should watch, and so He does now. On the other hand, they also do not ask about the end (of the world), but about the kingdom, which is why they said: "Is it not at this time, O Lord, that Thou dost restore the kingdom to Israel?" but then He answered them with greater severity, so that they would not think that their deliverance was near, and He exposed them to dangers, but now not so, but with greater meekness. And so that (His words) do not seem offensive to them and only an excuse — listen to how He immediately promises to grant them that which they would rejoice at — and namely, He added: "But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and ye shall be witnesses unto me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even unto the uttermost part of the earth" (v. 8). Then, so that they would not question Him again, He immediately ascended. Therefore, just as there He darkened them with fear and by saying, "I do not know," so here He was also darkened by the fact that after these words He ascended. They had a strong desire to know about this and would not depart (from Christ), and yet it was very necessary that they should not know. Tell me: what do the pagans no longer believe, that there will be an end, or that God was made man, came from the womb of the Virgin, and appeared to people with flesh? Isn't it the last? No doubt you will say so. But I am ashamed to constantly talk about it as if it were some kind of indifferent subject. And lest they, in turn, say, Why dost thou value this matter so highly, He says, "The Father hath put it in His power." But the authority of the Father and His authority are one and the same, as is evident from what He says: "As the Father raises the dead and gives life, so also the Son gives life to whom He will" (John 5:21). If where He should act, He acts with the same authority as the Father, then where it is necessary to know, He does not know with the same authority? Raising the dead is obviously much more than knowing that day. If He is doing a most important thing with the authorities, then is it not much more likely that He is doing another, less significant thing?

2. But to make it clear to you, I will explain with an example. Just as we, when we see that a child is crying and constantly asking us for some thing he does not need, we hide this thing far away, show our empty hands and say: "See, we do not have it," so did Christ deal with the Apostles. But that child, although we do not show (the thing we are asking for), continues to cry, knowing that he has been deceived. Then we leave him and go away, saying: "So-and-so is calling me," and we give him something else in return for what he asks, in order to distract him from the thing he has chosen, and we praise this thing of ours more than that, and having given it, we depart. Christ did the same. The disciples asked; He said He didn't have it, and the first time He even frightened them. When they began to ask again, He again said that He did not have Him, but only now He did not frighten them, but, having shown what He had done, He also expressed a plausible reason, namely: "The Father has put it in His power." What then? Do you not know the things that belong to the Father? Do you know Him Himself, but do you not know what belongs to Him? You yourself said: "No one knows the Father except the Son" (Matt. 11:27). Moreover (it is said): "The Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God" (1 Cor. 2:10); and you don't know even that? Far from it. He did not say this so that we should think so; He shows Himself ignorant in order to distract the disciples from an inappropriate question. They were afraid to ask again, lest they hear, "Are you also so incomprehensible?" (Mark 7:18)? — because now they feared Him much more than before. "But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you." Just as there He did not answer what was asked, because the teacher's business is to teach not what the disciple wants to know, but what is useful for him, so now He predicts what they needed to know in order not to be afraid. They were still weak, and in order to inspire them with boldness, He encouraged their souls and covered their difficulties. Since He was soon to leave them, when He conversed with them, He did not say anything sorrowful directly; But how? To the words of sorrow he adds praise, as if to say: do not be afraid, for you "but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you will be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the ends of the earth." Previously He said: "Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and enter not into the city of the Samaritans" (Matt. 10:5), and now He wants them to preach "in all Judea and Samaria"; therefore, what he did not say then, he now added, saying: "And even to the ends of the earth." And after he had told them what was most terrible, that they should not ask him again, "he was lifted up in their eyes, and a cloud took him out of their sight," v. 9. Do you see that they preached and fulfilled the gospel? Verily, He has granted them a great deed! Where, he says, you were afraid, in Jerusalem, there preach first, and then "even to the ends of the earth." Then again the confirmation of what was said: "In their eyes," says (the writer), "and the cloud took Him." They did not see when He was resurrected, but they saw when "the cloud took Him," since even here the sight could not comprehend everything. They saw the end of the resurrection, but they did not see the beginning; but the ascension saw the beginning, but did not see the end. It was superfluous to see the beginning of the resurrection, when the one who proclaimed it was present, and when the tomb showed that He was not there; and what followed the ascension had to be learned from the word. Since the eyes could not penetrate the heights and show whether He had ascended to heaven exactly, or only to heaven, as it were, then look what is happening. That it was Jesus they knew from what He had conversed with them, since they could no longer discern Him by sight because of the distance; and that He was going to heaven had already been explained to them by the angels themselves. See how it is arranged that not everything is known from the Spirit, but also from sight. Why did "the cloud take Him"? And this is a sign that He ascended to heaven. Not fire, not a chariot of fire, as was the case with Elijah, but "a cloud took Him"; And this was a symbol of heaven. Thus the prophet says: "Thou makest the clouds Thy chariot" (Psalm 103:3), although this is said of the Father. Therefore, the expression "the cloud took" means: on the symbol of the Divine power, since no other power is represented anywhere on the cloud. Listen again to what another prophet says: "The Lord will sit on a light cloud" (Isaiah 19:1).

3. This happened when the question concerned an important subject, when the disciples were very attentive to what was being said, when they were excited and did not doze. And on Mount Sinai, when Moses entered into darkness (Exodus 24:15), the cloud was also for Christ's sake, and not for Moses' sake. (Christ) did not only say: I am departing, so that the disciples would not lament again; but at the same time said, "I send the Spirit." And that He went to heaven, they saw with their own eyes. Oh, what a vision they were vouchsafed! "And when," it is said, "they were looking up to heaven while he was ascending, suddenly two men in white robes stood before them, and said, 'Men of Galilee! Why do you stand and look up to heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven" (vv. 10, 11). They use the demonstrative word: "This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven" (v. 11). Again a bright image! Certain angels, having put on human form, suddenly appeared and said: "Men of Galilee." For the very reason that they said, "Men of Galilee," they already seemed to the disciples worthy of faith. And if this were not their goal, why would they need to point out to their disciples their homeland, which they knew? And by their very appearance they attracted disciples to themselves and showed that they were from heaven. Why does not Christ Himself say this to the disciples, but the angels? He Himself had conversed with them about all things before, so that through the angels He only reminded them of what they had already heard. And they did not say, "Whom ye have seen ascended," but, "Whom ye have seen ascending into heaven," to show that His ascension is an ascension; but it is proper for the flesh to be exalted. That is why they say: "He who has ascended from you into heaven will come in the same way" — he will not be sent, but "will come." Where is the minority (of the Son)? "A cloud took Him." Beautiful, since He Himself ascended to the cloud, which is why He who ascended is the same One Who also descended (Ephesians 4:10). But see how one thing is said in relation to their thoughts, and the other in accordance with the dignity of God. However, the minds of those who were watching were now exalted; The Lord granted them no small knowledge of the Second Coming. The words, "He will come in the same way," mean that He will come with a body, as they wanted to hear, and that He will come again to judgment in the same way, on a cloud. "Suddenly," it is said, "two men in white robes stood before them." Why is it said, "of a man"? Because (the angels) took the perfect form of men, so that (the disciples) would not be afraid. "And they said, Men of Galilee! Why do you stand and look up to heaven?" With such words they show their friendliness, and do not allow them to wait for His return immediately. What is more important, they talk about, and they are silent about the less important. That He "will come in the same way," and that He is to be expected from heaven, they say; and when they are silent about it. In this way they distracted the disciples from that spectacle and turned them to their speech, so that the disciples, no longer having the opportunity to see Christ, would not think that He had not ascended, but would stop in thought at their words. If the disciples had said before, "Where are you going?" (John 13:36), so much the more would be said now. "Is it not at this time, O Lord, that Thou dost restore the kingdom to Israel?" They knew His meekness so much that even after His sufferings they asked Him: "Is it not at this time, O Lord, that Thou restore?" True, He had already said to them: "Take heed, do not be terrified, for all these things must be, but this is not yet the end," and Jerusalem will not yet be taken captive (Matt. 24:6); But now they are asking about the kingdom, not about the end. However, after the resurrection, He no longer stretches out a long word to them. They ask, thinking that they themselves will be in glory if this comes to pass; but He did not declare whether He would build (this kingdom) or not. Why did they need to know about it? Wherefore, being afraid, they no longer said, "What is the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?" (Matt. 24:3), but: "Thou dost restore the kingdom to Israel"? They thought it had already been revealed; yet He showed in parables that it is not near; and when they asked Him, He did not answer the question, but the following: "You will receive power when the Holy Spirit descends upon you." See, He did not say that (the Spirit) would be sent, but, "He will come down," to show His equal honor. How then do you, Doukhobor, dare to call Him a creature? "And ye shall be witnesses unto Me." He had hinted at ascension, or rather, and now he reminded them again of what they had heard before. It has already been shown that He ascended to heaven. "A cloud," it is said, "is darkness under His feet" (Ps. 96:2; 17:10); and this is the meaning of the words: "and the cloud took Him," that is, the Lord of heaven. As the king's chariot points to the king, so the king's chariot was sent to Him, so that the disciples would not say anything sorrowful and would not suffer the same thing as Elisha, who tore the robe when his teacher ascended. What then do (the angels) say? "This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way." And (it is said): "Two men stood before them." And so it should be, for "in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be firm" (2 Cor. 13:1). That's exactly what they say. "In white," it is said, "clothes." As before at the tomb (the women) had already seen an angel "in shining garments" (Luke 24:4), who announced to them what they were thinking about, so the angel is a witness to the ascension of Christ. However, this, as well as the resurrection, was repeatedly predicted by the prophets.

4. Angels are everywhere messengers, for example, at the birth of Christ, again at the (annunciation) of Mary, as well as at the resurrection; so also at the ascension; And at the Second Coming, the angels will appear as forerunners. Since they said: "This is Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven," in order not to perplex the disciples, they added: "He will come in the same way." The disciples were somewhat relieved when they heard that He would come again, and He would come in the same way, and would not be inaccessible. It is not without reason that the word "from you" is used, but it shows Christ's love for the disciples, their election, and that He will not forsake those whom He has chosen. Thus, Christ Himself testified to the resurrection, since after the Nativity, or better, and before the Nativity, the most surprising thing was that He raised Himself: "Destroy this temple," He said, "and I will raise it up in three days" (John 2:19); And the angels testify to the coming to come, saying, "He will come in the same way." Therefore, if anyone desires to see Christ, if anyone grieves that he has not seen Him, let him, having heard of His future coming, lead a perfect life, and then he will surely see Him, and will not be deceived in hope. He will come with greater glory, but also on a cloud, also with a body; and it is much more wonderful to see Him descending from heaven than ascending from the earth. That He would come, the angels said; but for what purpose, this was not added. This is a confirmation of the resurrection, because if He ascended with a body, how much more did He rise with a body. Where are those who do not believe in the resurrection? Who are they, tell me? Pagans, or Christians? I don't know, or better, I know quite well. These are pagans, who do not believe in the very creation of creation. It is their business not to admit that God creates anything out of nothing, and not to admit that He will resurrect what is buried. But they are ashamed that they do not acknowledge the power of God, and hence, in order to avoid reproach for this, they say: "Not because we say this, but because there is no need of a body." It is truly opportune to say: "The ignorant speaketh foolishness" (Isaiah 32:6). Aren't you ashamed when you don't admit that God creates out of nothing? But if He creates from something that exists, how does He differ from people? But where does evil come from, they say? Is it because you do not know where evil comes from, that you must introduce another evil in the knowledge of evil? There are two inconsistencies here: the first is that you dare to say so; for if you do not acknowledge that God created things out of nothing, how much more will you not know where evil comes from; and the second is that, by saying this, you introduce evil that is unborn. Think how bad it is to wish to find the source of evil, but not to know it, to bring in another one! Seek whence evil comes, and do not blaspheme God. But how, you say, do I blaspheme? What are you saying? Do you not blaspheme when you introduce unborn evil, when you admit that it is equal to God, that it has the same power that it is unborn? See what Paul says: "His invisible things, His eternal power and Godhead, are visible from the foundation of the world, through the contemplation of the creatures" (Romans 1:20); but the devil, on the contrary, said that both are of matter, so that we would no longer know God from anywhere. Which is more difficult, tell me: Is it to make evil by nature beautiful (if it exists: I speak in accordance with your opinion, because nothing can be done by nature that is evil, contributing to good), or to create out of nothing? What is easier, I am talking about quality, to introduce a non-existent quality, or to transform the existing into its opposite? What is easier – to build a house that does not exist, or to rebuild a ruined house again? Obviously, the former. But this is (in your opinion) impossible. Therefore as it is impossible, so it is impossible to transform anything into its opposite.

5. Tell me: which is more difficult, to prepare the world, or to make the dirt produce the effects of the world? Which of the two is more agreeable, tell me (we subject God to our reasoning, but it is not we, no, but you): Shall we arrange the eyes, or should we make the blind man, while remaining blind, see, be sharper than the sighted, take advantage of blindness in order to see, and deafness in order to hear? I think it is the former. Tell me, then, what is more difficult, you leave to God, and what is easier, you do not? But what do I say about this? And the souls themselves, in their opinion, come from the essence of God. But see how much (in their teaching) is impious and senseless. First, in order to show that evil is from God, they introduce another evil, more impious than this: they say that evil is contemporary with God, and that God is not in the least older than it, thus daring to attribute to evil so great a precedence. Secondly, it is said that evil is immortal, because the unborn does not perish. Do you see what blasphemy? From this it follows either that nothing came from God, or that there is no God. Thirdly, by this, as I have already said, they contradict themselves and raise upon themselves the greater wrath of God. Fourthly, to a substance which cannot exist by itself (υλη αστατος) they ascribe such great power. Fifthly, it is said that the cause of God's goodness was evil, and that without it the Good One would not be Good. Sixthly, they block for us the path to the knowledge of God. Seventh, God is brought down into people, into plants and trees. For if our soul is from the essence of God, and during transmigration it passes into pumpkins, melons, and onions, then, consequently, the essence of God will also be in pumpkins. If we say that the Holy Spirit formed the temple in the Virgin, they laugh; if we say that He dwelt in a spiritual temple, they laugh again; and they themselves are not ashamed to bring down the essence of God into pumpkins, melons, flies, caterpillars, and donkeys, inventing some new form of idolatry. "But the onion (you say) is not in God, but God in the bulb — let not the onion be God." Why do you not allow God to transmigrate into bodies? "Low," you say. In this case, even lower is that (what you say). "No, not low." Is that so? At least with us, if it were, it is truly low. Do you see the crowd of wickedness? But why do they not want the body to be resurrected? What will they say? That the body is evil? How, tell me, do you know God? Whence hast thou knowledge of things? How can a philosopher be a philosopher if the body does not help him in the least? Damage your senses and learn something you need to know. What would be more senseless than the soul if it had damaged feelings from the very beginning? If injury to one member alone, that is, to the brain, is completely detrimental to it, then what will it be good for, if others are also damaged? Show me a soul without a body. Do you not hear what the physicians say: the illness that befalls the soul is completely darkened? How long will you not hang yourself? Tell me: a body made of matter? Ok. Therefore, it would be necessary to hate him. Why do you nourish it, why do you warm it? Therefore you should have killed yourself; he would have to free himself from prison. Moreover, God cannot conquer matter (υλη) unless He is mixed with it; It cannot command it until it is with it and spreads throughout its entire composition. What impotence! And the king does all things, giving commands; and God cannot command evil? In general, if matter did not partake of some good, it could not exist. For evil, by its nature, cannot exist unless it is united with some good; therefore, if it had not been mixed with good before, it would have perished long ago — such is the property of evil. Let someone be voluptuous, and let him not restrain himself in the least: will he live ten days? Let anyone be a robber, unscrupulous in relation to all, even in relation to other robbers: will he live? Let someone be a shameless thief who, without blushing, steals in public: will such a person save his life? Evil cannot exist by itself, if there is not something good in it, although not much; therefore, according to their teaching, it received its origin from God. Let there be a city inhabited by evil people: can it exist? And let these people be evil not only to the good, but also to themselves: obviously, (such a city) cannot exist. Truly, "calling themselves wise, they have become fools" (Romans 1:22). If the body is evil, then everything that is visible without distinction — water, earth, sun, and air — is also evil, because air is also a body, although it is neither solid nor solid. Therefore, it is opportune to say: "The transgressors of the law have told me their reasoning" (Psalm 118:85). But let us not hearken unto them; on the contrary, let us shield our ears from them. There is, indeed there is a resurrection of the body. it is the tree to which Christ was bound when he was scourged. "With Him," the apostles said (about Christ), "they ate and drank" (Acts 10:41). Let us believe in the resurrection and act worthy of it, so that we may also be vouchsafed future blessings in Christ Jesus our Lord, with Whom the Father, with the Holy Spirit. By the Spirit, glory, dominion, honor, now and ever, and unto the ages of ages. Amen.

CONVERSATION 3

"Then they returned to Jerusalem from a mountain called the Mount of Olives, which is near Jerusalem, at the distance of the Sabbath journey" (Acts 1:12).

The office of the bishop. — His work and dignity.

1. "Then they returned." When – "then"? When they heard (the words of the angels). The disciples would not have endured (separation from the Lord) at all, if they had not been promised that He would come another time. And it seems to me that this happened on the Sabbath: otherwise the writer would not have marked the distance in this way, would not have said: "From the mountain called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, at the distance of the Sabbath journey," if they had not traveled on the Sabbath day through the space of the journey determined for that day. "And when they came, they went up into the upper room, where they dwelt" (v. 13). This means that they remained in Jerusalem after the resurrection. "Peter," it is said, "and James, John." Not only John and his brother are already mentioned, but also Andrew and Peter: "Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas the brother of James." It was not without reason that he mentioned the disciples by name: since one of them became a traitor, another renounced, and a third did not believe, he shows that, except for one traitor, all were intact. "They all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with some of the women" (v. 14). Well done! Prayer is a powerful weapon in the midst of temptation. This, on the one hand, they had already been sufficiently taught by the Teacher Himself, and on the other hand, they were also disposed by the present temptation: for this reason they ascend to the upper room, because they were greatly afraid of the Jews. "With women," says (the writer), since (in the Gospel) he said that they followed Christ. "And to Mary, the Mother of Jesus, and to His brethren." But how does (John) say that then "the disciple took her unto himself" (John 19:27)? After Christ gathered the disciples again, she was with them again. "With His brethren," he says of those who did not believe in Christ before. "And in those days Peter stood in the midst of the disciples, and said" (v. 15). Peter is always the first to speak, partly because of the vivacity of his character, and partly because Christ entrusted him with His flock, and he was the first in the countenance. "(And there was a congregation of about a hundred and twenty people): Men, brethren! It was necessary to fulfill that which the Holy Spirit had foretold in the Scriptures" (v. 16). Why did he not ask Christ only in his own person to give him someone instead of Judas? Or why don't the apostles (all together) make a choice for themselves? Peter is now better than he was before: this is how the first question can be answered. As to why they ask for the replenishment of their congregation not simply, but by revelation, I will point out two reasons: first, that they were engaged in other work; and the other was that it was the greatest proof that Christ was with them. He, even in his absence (visibly), chose himself as accurately as when he was with them: and this was no small consolation for them. But see how Peter does everything by common consent, and does not dispose of anything arbitrarily and as a ruler. And he did not simply say, "In the place of Judas we elect so-and-so"; But in order to reassure the disciples about what has happened, see how he begins his speech. This event, indeed, caused them no small bewilderment; And there is nothing surprising in this: if even now many talk about him, then what should they naturally have said then? "Men," he says, "brethren." If the Lord called them brethren, then it was all the more fitting for Peter to be addressed in such a way, which is why he exclaims so in the presence of all. Such is the dignity of the church and its angelic state! No one was then separated from the others, neither man nor woman. And it is desirable for me that the churches be like this now. At that time, no one cared about anything mundane, no one cared about home. That is how useful temptations are! What a blessing it is to have misfortunes! "That which the Holy Spirit had foretold in the Scriptures had to be fulfilled." He constantly comforts them with prophecy. In every case, Christ acts in the same way. In the same way, Peter shows that there is nothing strange in this event, but that it has already been foretold. "It was necessary," he says, "to be fulfilled that which the Holy Spirit had foretold in the Scriptures through the mouth of David." He does not say, "David said," but, "The Spirit is through him." Notice at the very beginning of the book what kind of teaching he uses. You see, it was not in vain that I said at the beginning of this work that this book (depicts) the dispensation (πολιτεία) of the Spirit. "The Holy Spirit foretold by the mouth of David"; See how he assimilates the prophet and exposes his name, knowing that it will be profitable for them that this saying belongs to David, and not to another prophet. "Of Judas, the Former Leader." Note here also the wisdom of this man: he does not revile or dishonor (Judas), does not say that he was a villain and the most terrible evildoer, but simply explains what happened. He does not even call him a traitor, but tries, as far as it was possible for him, to lay the blame on others. However, he does not strongly accuse them either: "former," so to speak, "the leader of those who took Jesus." And before he pointed out the place where this saying of David is located, he reminds us of the fate that befell Judas, in order to confirm through the present and in the future, and to show that (Judas) had already received punishment. "He was numbered among us, and received the lot of this ministry; but he hath acquired the land with an unrighteous reward" (v. 17, 18). He depicts the temper (of Judas) and imperceptibly reveals (his) guilt worthy of punishment. He does not say, "The Jews (gained)," but, "He acquired the land with an unrighteous reward." And since people with weak souls look not so much at the future as at the present, he tells about the punishment that befell him in the present life. "And when he fell down." He did well to stop his speech not on the crime of Judas, but on the punishment that befell him. "His belly was split, and all his intestines fell out." This served as a consolation for them. "And this became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the land in their native language is called Akeldama, that is, the land of blood" (v. 19).

2. The Jews gave this name to the village, not for the sake of the village, but for the sake of Judah; and Peter carried him to the village itself and brought the enemies themselves as witnesses. Both by saying, "named," and by adding, "in their native dialect," he really wants to express it. Then, having first pointed out the event, he decently quotes a prophecy and says: "And in the book of Psalms it is written, Let his court be desolate, and let there be no one who dwells in it; and let another take his dignity" (v. 20; Ps. 68:26). This is (said) about the village and about the house. "And let another take his dignity," i.e., the rulership, the priesthood. Consequently, it is not according to my thought that this is done, but according to the will of Him Who foretold it. Lest it seem that he was undertaking too great a deed, such as Christ did, he brought the prophet as a witness. "Therefore it is necessary," he says, "that one of those who have been with us all the time" (v. 21). Why does he consult with them? So that this matter would not become a subject of dispute, so that there would be no strife between them. For if this happened to the apostles themselves, how much more would it happen to those people. This he always avoids; That is why He said at the very beginning: "Men, brethren," it is necessary to choose from among us. He leaves this matter to the judgment of the majority, and through this he makes those who are elected venerable, and he turns aside the enmity of others, since such cases always give rise to great evil. And this, that it is necessary to do this, (to choose), to this he brings the prophet as a witness; And from what persons it is necessary (to make a choice), he himself explains, saying: "One of those who have been with us all the time." If he had said, "It is necessary that these men be able," he would have insulted the rest; and now he left the matter to time, saying not simply, "We were," but, "All the time that the Lord Jesus dwelt and dealt with us, from the baptism of John to the day in which he ascended from us, he was with us a witness of his resurrection" (vv. 21, 22). What is this thing for? So that the (apostolic) face does not remain incomplete. What then? Couldn't Peter himself have been elected? Very possible. But he does not do this, so as not to appear partial; and on the other hand, he has not yet received the Holy Spirit. "And they set two: Joseph, who is called Barsabbas, who is called Justus, and Matthias" (v. 23). It was not Peter himself who ordained them, but all of them; and he gave an opinion, showing, however, that it did not belong to him, but had already been (proclaimed) in prophecy from ancient times, so that he was only an interpreter, and not a teacher. "Joseph, who is called Barsabbas, who is called Justus." The writer put both names, perhaps because (Joseph) had namesakes, since there were many namesake among the apostles, for example: James Zebedee and James Alpheus, Simon Peter and Simon the Zealot, Judas James and Judas Iscariot. On the other hand, this name could have been given to him as a result of a change in life, or, perhaps, at his will. "And they appointed two: Joseph, who was called Barsabbas, who was called Justus, and Matthias; and they prayed, and said, Thou, O Lord, knower of the hearts of all, shew one of these two, whom thou hast chosen to receive the lot of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas fell away to go to his own place" (vv. 23-25). They decently mention the crime of Judas, and thereby show that they are looking for a witness not in order to increase the number (of the apostles), but in order to prevent him from decreasing. "And they cast lots for them," because the Holy Spirit was not yet with them, "and the lot fell on Matthias, and he was numbered among the eleven apostles" (v. 26). "Then," it is said, "they returned to Jerusalem from the mountain called the Mount of Olives, which is near Jerusalem, at the distance of the Sabbath day's journey" (v. 12). Thus says (the writer), wishing to show that they do not undertake a long journey, so as not to be exposed to any danger, since they were still trembling and afraid. "And when they came, they went up into the upper room" (v. 13). They did not dare to appear in the city, nor did they go up to the upper room in vain, but so that it would not be easy to take them by surprise.

"They all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication" (v. 14). Do you see how they watched, "continued in prayer," and moreover, "with one accord," as if with one soul? In these words lies the testimony of both. Joseph, perhaps, was no longer alive; therefore it is not mentioned (here). It is impossible that this man, who first believed (in Christ), should not be a believer now that the brethren also believed. For this reason, of course, it is nowhere seen that he ever looked upon Christ as a (simple) man, while the Mother said: "Thy father and I have sought Thee with great sorrow" (Luke 2:48). Therefore he knew Him before all others; and Christ said to His brothers: "The world cannot hate, but it hates Me" (John 7:7). Look also at the modesty of James: he accepted the bishopric in Jerusalem, and yet in the present case he says nothing. Notice also the deep humility of the other disciples: they yield the throne to him and no longer argue among themselves, so that that Church was as it were in heaven; there was nothing worldly in it; it shone not with walls or marble, but with the jealousy of the persons who composed it. "And there was a congregation of about a hundred and twenty men," it is said, there were them. Among them, probably, were seventy disciples, whom Christ Himself had chosen, as well as others from among the most zealous in the faith, for example, Joseph and Matthias; there were also many women who followed Him and were always together.