Acts 13

Acts 13:1

Ammonius of Alexandria: “And Manaean, who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch.” Behold the customs of each of them: not even the fact of being brought up together saves them both. See how absolutely evil Herod was, for he did not want to be converted. But his foster brother Manaean certainly changed a great deal, because he was considered worthy of the gift of prophecy. — CATENA ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 13.1

John Chrysostom: “Now there were in the Church that was at Antioch, certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.” He still mentions Barnabas first: for Paul was not yet famous, he had not yet wrought any sign. — Homily on Acts 27

Acts 13:2

Ammonius of Alexandria: It must be noticed that the Holy Spirit does not speak to those who happen to be there by chance but to those who serve him and observe fasting. And it must be noticed again that they did not lay hands on the deacons at random but on those who were previously fasting and praying. — CATENA ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 13.2

Bede: Separate for me Barnabas and Saul for the work, to which I have called them. It seems that Saul, according to the order of history, in the thirteenth year after the passion of the Lord, received the apostleship with Barnabas and the name of Paul. But in the fourteenth year, according to the agreement of James, Cephas, and John, he set out to teach the Gentiles. Nor does the ecclesiastical history contradict, saying that the apostles were commanded to preach in Judea for twelve years. — Commentary on Acts

Bede: The Holy Spirit said: Set apart for me Barnabas and Paul for the work to which I have called them. This seems to have happened after the death of Herod, who died in the third year of the reign of Claudius, which, according to the chronicles, is the thirteenth year after the passion of the Lord. Since it is clear that Paul, along with Barnabas, was set apart for the apostleship after so much time had passed since the Lord’s passion, it becomes evident that those who wrote or accepted the book we mentioned above about the death of Saint Mary are greatly mistaken. For it is written in that same fabrication, as we have often said, that in the second year after the Lord’s ascension, when that most blessed Mother of God was about to die, the apostles, who had already been dispersed throughout the world to preach, suddenly came together in a cloud to visit her; among them was Paul, recently converted to the faith, and immediately made an apostle to the Gentiles with Barnabas. But it happened very differently: that is, he was not ordained an apostle in the second year after the Lord’s passion, but in the thirteenth. Anyone who believes blessed Luke understands this; and thus the aforementioned book about the death of blessed Mary, being obviously mistaken in its timing, also proves to be of dubious faith in other respects. — Retractions on Acts

John Chrysostom: “As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate Me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.” What means, “Ministering?” Preaching. “Separate for Me,” it says, “Barnabas and Saul.” What means, “Separate for Me?” For the work, for the Apostleship. See again by what persons he is ordained. By Lucius the Cyrenean and Manaen, or rather, by the Spirit. The less the persons, the more palpable the grace. He is ordained henceforth to Apostleship, so as to preach with authority. — Homily on Acts 27

John Chrysostom: But mark also the authority of the Holy Ghost: “As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate Me Barnabas and Saul.” What being would have dared, if not of the same authority, to say this? “Separate,” etc. But this is done, that they may not keep together among themselves. The Spirit saw that they had greater power, and were able to be sufficient for many. And how did He speak to them? Probably by prophets: therefore the writer premises, that there were prophets also. And they were fasting and ministering: that thou mayest learn that there was need of great sobriety. In Antioch he is ordained, where he preaches. Why did He not say, Separate for the Lord, but, “For me?” It shows that He is of one authority and power. — Homily on Acts 27

Acts 13:3

John Chrysostom: “And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.” Seest thou what a great thing fasting is? A great, yes a great good is fasting: it is circumscribed by no limits. When need was to ordain, then they fast: and to them while fasting, the Spirit spake. — Homily on Acts 27

Pseudo-Basil: The Lord, upon appearing to Paul from heaven, said, “Go to Damascus, and you shall be told that you are my chosen vessel,” because [the Lord] had established him as the herald of the gospel to all the world. Then Ananias said to him, when he arrived in Damascus, “Brother Saul, see once more: the God of the fathers has preordained you.”8 And lest you think this word [i.e., God] refers to Christ, he adds, “to do his will and to know his just one Jesus.” [Paul], making this calling and preordaining a title, says, “Paul a slave of Jesus Christ, called apostle.”10 Then he says something else regarding this calling, “Set aside for the gospel of God.” The Acts of the Apostles taught that the Spirit directed the setting aside, for it says, “While the apostles were fasting and praying, the Holy Spirit said, ‘Set aside for me Paul and Barnabas for the work to which I have called them.’ ” If the Lord, the God of the fathers, chose him whom he had preordained, while the Son called him forth, and the Spirit, using the operation of [the divine] nature, set the same one aside, how is there a difference of nature in the Trinity in which an identity of operation is found? — AGAINST Eunomius 5

Acts 13:4

John Chrysostom: As soon as they were ordained they went forth, and hasted to Cyprus, that being a place where was no ill-design hatching against them, and where moreover the Word had been sown already. In Antioch there were (teachers) enough, and Phoenice too was near to Palestine; but Cyprus not so. However, you are not to make a question of the why and wherefore, when it is the Spirit that directs their movements: for they were not only ordained by the Spirit, but sent forth by Him likewise. “And when they were come to Salamis, they preached the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews.” Do you mark how they make a point of preaching the word to them first? — Homily on Acts 28

John Chrysostom: “So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost, departed unto Seleucia; and from thence they sailed to Cyprus.” It shows that the Spirit did all. — Homily on Acts 27

Acts 13:5

Bede: They preached the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews. Due to ignorance of the places, I believed it should be noted once: Wherever you see a synagogue of the Jews, know that occurrences in the city are described. — Commentary on Acts

Dionysius of Alexandria: There is, besides, another John mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, with the surname Mark, whom Barnabas and Paul attached to themselves as companion, and of whom again it is said: “And they had also John to their minister.” But whether this is the one who wrote the Revelation, I could not say. For it is not written that he came with them into Asia. — Containing Various Sections of the Works, On the Authorship of Revelation

John Chrysostom: “And when they were come to Salamis,” the metropolis of Cyprus, “they preached the word of God.” They had spent a year in Antioch: it behooved that they should go hither also (to Cyprus) and not sit permanently where they were (the converts in Cyprus): needed greater teachers. See too how they remain no time in Seleucia, knowing that (the people there) might have reaped much benefit from the neighboring city (of Antioch): but they hasten on to the more pressing duties. When they came to the metropolis of the island, they were earnest to disabuse the proconsul. — Homily on Acts 28

Acts 13:6

Bede: Whose name was Bar-Jesus. It is incorrectly read as Barjesus, when it should be read as Bar-Jew, that is, sorcerer, or in evil. I believe that the name Jesus is written with the same letters but with a mark above. For it is not fitting for a wicked man and sorcerer to be called the son of Jesus, that is, the Savior, whom conversely Paul calls the son of the devil. — Commentary on Acts

Bede: They found a certain magician, a Jewish false prophet, whose name was Barjesus. In Greek it adds more: Which is interpreted as Elimas. — Retractions on Acts

John Chrysostom: “And when they had gone through the isle unto Paphos, they found a certain sorcerer, a false prophet, a Jew, whose name was Bar-jesus: which was with the deputy of the country, Sergius Paulus, a prudent man; who called for Barnabas and Saul, and desired to hear the word of God. But Elymas the sorcerer (for so is his name by interpretation) withstood them, seeking to turn away the deputy from the faith.” Again a Jew sorcerer, as was Simon. And observe this man, how, while they preached to the others, he did not take it much amiss, but only when they approached the proconsul. And then in respect of the proconsul the wonder is, that although prepossessed by the man’s sorcery, he was nevertheless willing to hear the Apostles. So it was with the Samaritans: and from the competition the victory appears, the sorcery being worsted. Everywhere, vainglory and love of power are a (fruitful) source of evils! — Homily on Acts 28

Tertullian: Both he and that other magician, who was with Sergius Paulus, (since he began opposing himself to the same apostles) was mulcted with loss of eyes. The same fate, I believe, would astrologers, too, have met, if any had fallen in the way of the apostles. — On Idolatry

Tertullian: Smitten were both Ananias and Elymas -Ananias with death, Elymas with blindness-in order that by this very fact it might be proved that Christ had had the power of doing even such (miracles). — On Modesty

Acts 13:7

Jerome: As Sergius Paulus, proconsul of Cyprus, was the first to believe in his preaching, he took his name from him because he had subdued him to faith in Christ. — ON ILLUSTRIOUS MEN 5.4

John Chrysostom: But that it is no flattery that (the writer) says, “he was with the proconsul, a prudent man,” you may learn from the facts; for he needed not many discourses, and himself wished to hear them. — Homily on Acts 28

Acts 13:8

Bede: However, Elymas the magician (for so his name is interpreted) withstood them, seeking to turn away the proconsul from the faith. And this too is more in the Greek: Because he was gladly listening to them. — Retractions on Acts

Tertullian: Many attempts were also wrought against the apostles by the sorcerers Simon and Elymas, but the blindness which struck (them) was no enchanter’s trick. — A Treatise on the Soul

Acts 13:9

Augustine of Hippo: The apostle Paul, who was previously called Saul, had no other reason, it seems to me, for choosing this name but to point out his own smallness as the least of the apostles. Hence, in order to praise this grace of God, he frequently fought courageously and vigorously against the proud and the arrogant and those who relied on their own works. After all, the grace of God was really seen more clearly and more obviously in him. — ON THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER 7.12

Bede: Saul, who is also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit. From Sergius Paulus the proconsul, because he subjugated him to the faith of Christ, he took the name of Paul. And the subsequent sections of this account deal with the miracles of Paul. For it was fitting that he should give the completion to apostolic acts, whom the Lord had long chosen despite him kicking against the goads. — Commentary on Acts

Bede: But Saul, who is also Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, and so on. Just as Barnabas’ name was changed immediately after his renunciation, so that instead of Joseph he was called Barnabas, which is, instead of “increased,” “son of consolation.” For after he was increased and added to the number of the elect, he immediately deserved to be both called and to be “son of παράκλησις,” that is, “of consolation” through the received grace of the Spirit; so Saul, after receiving the rank of apostleship, was named Paul. Because he had become humble from being proud, he was rightly called Paul instead of Saul: for Saul was named after the impious and persecutor king Saul, but Paul is named from humble and small spirit. For Paul means “small.” Hence, interpreting his own name in a certain way, he himself would say: For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the Church of God (I Cor. XV). — Retractions on Acts

Cassiodorus: “Then Saul, otherwise Paul, filled with the Holy Ghost, said. “This continues what started above. While Sergius the proconsul and Paulus the prudent man listened, the apostle Paul, filled with the Holy Ghost, vigorously reproved Bar-jesu the false prophet; and to show that his invective had been for the love of the Lord, he said to him: “Thou shalt be blind, and shalt not see the sun at all for a time.” Then a dark mist coming upon him shut up his natural sight in such a way that he sought someone else’s hands to help him leave. The performance of this miracle being ascertained, the judges who saw it were converted, believing that a doctrine proven to be displayed by such miracles was truly that of the supreme God. — Complexiones on the Acts of the Apostles

John Chrysostom: “But Saul, who is also Paul,"-here his name is changed at the same time that he is ordained, as it was in Peter’s case. — Homily on Acts 28

Acts 13:10

John Chrysostom: “Filled with the Holy Ghost, looked upon him, and said, O full of all guile and all villany, thou child of the devil:” and observe, this is not abuse, but accusation: for so ought forward, impudent people to be rebuked “thou enemy of all righteousness;” here he lays bare what was in the thoughts of the man, while under pretext of saving he was ruining the proconsul: “wilt thou not cease,” he says, “to pervert the ways of the Lord?” (He says it) both confidently, It is not with us thou art warring, nor art thou fighting (with us), but “the ways of the Lord” thou art perverting, and with praise (of these, he adds) “the right” ways. — Homily on Acts 28

John Chrysostom: Observe, how he said nothing to the sorcerer, until he gave him an occasion: but they only “preached the word of the Lord.” Since (though Elymas) saw the rest attending to them, he looked only to this one object, that the proconsul might not be won over. Why did not (Paul) perform some other miracle? Because there was none equal to this, the taking the enemy captive. And observe, he first impeaches, and then punishes, him. He shows how justly the man deserved to suffer, by his saying, “O full of all deceit”: (“full of all,”) he says: nothing wanting to the full measure: and he well says, of all “deceit,” for the man was playing the part of a hypocrite.-“Child of the devil,” because he was doing his work: “enemy of all righteousness,” since this (which they preached) was the whole of righteousness (though at the same time): I suppose in these words he reproves his manner of life. His words were not prompted by anger, and to show this, the writer premises, “filled with the Holy Ghost,” that is, with His operation. — Homily on Acts 28

Acts 13:11

Bede: Behold, the hand of the Lord is upon you, and you will be blind. The Apostle, mindful of his own example, knew that it was possible to rise from the darkness of the eyes of the mind to light. For he did not deserve to have the eyes of the flesh, who labored to take away the eyes of the mind from others. — Commentary on Acts

Bede: And immediately a mist and darkness fell upon him. The name of darkness in Greek is placed in the singular number σκότος, which the Latin interpreter did not follow, because this name does not have a singular number in Latin as we have similarly taught above. — Retractions on Acts

Isidore of Pelusium: Be reasonable now. What happened to the magician through the intervention of the apostle is not contrary to the divine commandment that commands us to love our enemies. But since that man distorted the ways of preaching and drove the proconsul away from the faith through which the entire multitude could easily have been admitted to salvation, Paul punished that blasphemer on the basis of his own way of working things out. After he was warned by being blinded he was then led to knowledge. Indeed he was taught through Paul to cure his infidelity with a remedy, just as Paul cured the contradictions of the law. After he set the limit “until the right time” for judgment so that it might cause in itself the recuperation of the man, he changed his ways for the better. — CATENA ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 13.10

John Chrysostom: “And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon thee, and thou shalt be blind.” It was the sign by which he was himself converted, and by this he would fain convert this man. As also that expression, “for a season,” puts it not as an act of punishing, but as meant for his conversion: had it been for punishment, he would have made him lastingly blind, but now it is not so, but “for a season” (and this), that he may gain the proconsul. For, as he was prepossessed by the sorcery, it was well to teach him a lesson by this infliction (and the sorcerer also), in the same way as the magicians (in Egypt) were taught by the boils. “And immediately there fell on him a mist and a darkness: and he went about seeking some to lead him by the hand.” — Homily on Acts 28

John Chrysostom: “And now behold the hand of the Lord is upon thee.” It was not vengeance then, but healing: for it is as though he said: “It is not I that do it, but the hand of God.” Mark how unassuming! No “light,” as in the case of Paul, “shone round about him.” “Thou shalt be blind,” he says, “not seeing the sun for a season,” that he may give him opportunity for repentance: for we nowhere find them wishing to be made conspicuous by the more stern (exercise of their authority), even though it was against enemies that this was put forth: in respect of those of their own body (they used severity), and with good reason, but in dealing with those without, not so; that (the obedience of faith) might not seem to be matter of compulsion and fear. It is a proof of his blindness, his “seeking some to lead him by the hand.” — Homily on Acts 28

John Chrysostom: He first convicted the sorcerer (and showed), what he was; and that he was such, the sign showed: “thou shalt be blind, not seeing the sun” this was a sign of the blindness of his soul: “for a season”: he says, to bring him to repentance. — Homily on Acts 28

Acts 13:12

John Chrysostom: “Then the deputy, when he saw what was done, believed, being astonished at the doctrine of the Lord.” But observe, how they do not linger there, as (they might have been tempted to do) now that the proconsul was a believer, nor are enervated by being courted and honored, but immediately keep on with their work, and set out for the country on the opposite coast. — Homily on Acts 28

John Chrysostom: And the proconsul sees the blindness inflicted, “and when he saw what was done, he believed:” and both alone believed not merely this, but, “being astonished at the doctrine of the Lord”: he saw that these things were not mere words, nor trickery. Mark how he loved to receive instruction from his teachers, though he was in a station of so high authority. — Homily on Acts 28

Acts 13:13

Cassiodorus: “Now when Paul and they that were with him had sailed from Paphos,” etc. When Paul and Barnabas had sailed from Paphos with the rest who had come with them, they came to Perge in Pamphilia, and passed through it. John, departing from them at Perge, returned to Jerusalem. Paul and Barnabas, walking through Perge, came to Antioch in Pisidia. Entering the synagogue there, they listened to a reading of the prophets and the law. The rulers of the synagogue sent to them, saying that, if any one of them had a word of exhortation, he should speak, just as they did in other cities, where the truth they spoke was believed. Then Paul, having obtained silence with a gesture of his hand, preached the Lord Christ’s doctrine to the people, explaining what was said with the testimonies of the prophets in order to bring the people to the fullest faith by revealing the truth; assuring them that the Lord Christ was the only one who justified the severity of the law by the gift of his grace; telling them they should be careful, as the Scripture warns, not to refuse to believe what the truth itself was known to tell them. — Complexiones on the Acts of the Apostles

Dionysius of Alexandria: There is, besides, another John mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, with the surname Mark, whom Barnabas and Paul attached to themselves as companion, and of whom again it is said: “And they had also John to their minister.” But whether this is the one who wrote the Revelation, I could not say. For it is not written that he came with them into Asia. But the writer says: “Now when Paul and his company loosed from Paphos, they came to Perga in Pamphylia: and John, departing from them, returned to Jerusalem.” I think, therefore, that it was some other one of those who were in Asia. For it is said that there were two monuments in Ephesus, and that each of these bears the name of John. — Containing Various Sections of the Works, On the Authorship of Revelation

John Chrysostom: “Now when Paul and his company loosed from Paphos, they came to Perga in Pamphylia; and John departing from them returned to Jerusalem.” And here again they entered the synagogues, in the character of Jews, that they might not be treated as enemies, and be driven away: and in this way they carried the whole matter successfully. — Homily on Acts 28

John Chrysostom: And (Paul) said not to the sorcerer, “Wilt thou not cease to pervert” the proconsul? What may be the reason of John’s going back from them? For “John,” it says, “departing from them returned to Jerusalem”: (he does it) because they are undertaking a still longer journey: and yet he was their attendant, and as for the danger, they incurred it (not he).-Again, when they were come to Perga, they hastily passed by the other cities, for they were in haste to the metropolis, Antioch. — Homily on Acts 28

Acts 13:14

Bede: They came to Antioch in Pisidia. There are two cities named Antioch: one in Coele-Syria, founded by King Seleucus, which was formerly called Reblata, which they say has the nearby spring of Daphne, and enjoys its abundant waters, in which the disciples were first named Christians; but the other Antioch, of which there is now mention, is in the province of Pisidia. — Commentary on Acts

John Chrysostom: “But when they departed from Perga, they came to Antioch in Pisidia, and went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and sat down.” And here again they entered the synagogues, in the character of Jews, that they might not be treated as enemies, and be driven away: and in this way they carried the whole matter successfully. — Homily on Acts 28

John Chrysostom: “They sat down in the synagogue,” he says, and, “on the sabbath day”: that they might prepare the way beforehand for the Word. And they do not speak first, but when invited: since as strangers, they called upon them to do so. Had they not waited, there would have been no discourse. Here for the first time we have Paul preaching. And observe his prudence: where the word was already sown, he passes on: but where there was none (to preach), he makes a stay: as he himself writes: “Yea, so have I strived to preach the Gospel, not where Christ was named.” Great courage this also. Truly, from the very outset, a wonderful man! crucified, ready for all encounters, he knew how great grace he had obtained, and he brought to it zeal equivalent. — Homily on Acts 28

John Chrysostom: But it is well done, that “they entered the synagogue on the sabbath day” when all were collected together. — Homily on Acts 28

Acts 13:15

Alexander of Jerusalem: Such was the case at Laranda, where Evelpis was thus exhorted by Neon; and at I conium, Paulinus was thus exhorted by Celsus; and at Synada, Theodorus also by Atticus, our blessed brethren. And it is probable that this is done in other places also, although we know not the fact.

John Chrysostom: “And after the reading of the Law and the Prophets, the rulers of the synagogue sent unto them, saying, Ye men and brethren, if ye have any word of exhortation for the people, say on.” From this point, we learn the history of Paul’s doings, as in what was said above we have learned not a little about Peter. — Homily on Acts 28

John Chrysostom: “And after the reading of the Law and the Prophets, the rulers of the synagogue sent unto them, saying, Ye men and brethren, if ye have any word or exhortation for the people, say on.” Behold how they do this without grudging, but no longer after this. If ye did wish this (really), there was more need to exhort. — Homily on Acts 28

Acts 13:16

John Chrysostom: Behold Barnabas giving place to Paul - how should it be otherwise? - to him whom he brought from Tarsus; just as we find John on all occasions giving way to Peter: and yet Barnabas was more looked up to than Paul: true, but they had an eye only to the common advantage. “Then Paul stood up,” it says - this was a custom of the Jews - “and beckoned with his hand.” And see how he prepares the way beforehand for his discourse: having first praised them, and showed his great regard for them in the words, “ye that fear God,” he so begins his discourse. And he says not, Ye proselytes, since it was a term of disadvantage. “The God of this people chose our fathers: and the people” - See, he calls God Himself their God peculiarly, Who is the common God of men; and shows how great from the first were His benefits, just as Stephen does. This they do to teach them, that now also God has acted after the same custom, in sending His own Son; as Christ Himself does in the parable of the vineyard - “And the people,” he says, “He exalted when it sojourned in the land of Egypt” - and yet the contrary was the case: true, but they increased in numbers; moreover, the miracles were wrought on their account: “and with an high arm brought He them out of it.” Of these things (the wonders) which were done in Egypt, the prophets are continually making mention. — Homily on Acts 29

Acts 13:18

John Chrysostom: And observe, how he passes over the times of their calamities, and nowhere brings forward their faults, but only God’s kindness, leaving those for themselves to think over. “And about the time of forty years suffered He their manners in the wilderness.” — Homily on Acts 29

Acts 13:19

Bede: And destroying seven nations in the land of Canaan, He allotted their land to them by lot, as after four hundred and fifty years, and after this He gave them judges. How this number can be understood, we said in the preceding book of our exposition. But it should be known that in the Greek it is written differently: And destroying the nations in the land of Canaan, seven, He allotted their land to them by lot. And after this, about four hundred and fifty years, He gave them judges until Samuel the prophet. How this agrees with the statement which is contained in the book of Kings, that from the exodus of Israel from Egypt until the building of the temple, there were four hundred and ninety years, is not within our capacity to explain, unless perhaps he followed the popular saying in speaking, which is proven that blessed Stephen did in the discourse held with the Jews about the burial of the twelve patriarchs. — Retractions on Acts

Bede: He distributed their land to them by lot, as it were after four hundred and fifty years. God had said to Abraham that his seed would be a stranger in a foreign land for four hundred years. And again he said: “In Isaac shall your seed be called.” From the birth of the seed until the exodus of Israel from Egypt, there were (as Exodus writes) four hundred and five years. Add to these the forty years in the desert, and five in the land of Canaan, during which it seems that the land rested from battles, and the lot was cast, and you will find four hundred and fifty years. — Commentary on Acts

John Chrysostom: Then the settlement. “And when he had destroyed seven nations in the land of Canaan, He divided their land to them by lot.” And the time was long; four hundred and fifty years. “And after that He gave unto them judges about the space of four hundred and fifty years, until Samuel the prophet.” Here he shows that God varied His dispensations towards them at divers times. — Homily on Acts 29

Acts 13:21

Bede: And God gave them Saul for forty years. I believe, because the Book of Kings does not explicitly state how many years Saul reigned, that the Apostle, speaking popularly, wished to say what common rumor held. But searching more diligently there, as the books of Chronicles also testify, we found that Samuel and Saul governed Israel for forty years. For it says, “In the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel came out of Egypt, Solomon began to build the temple of the LORD, in the fourth year of his reign.” When you add to the three hundred and ninety-six years, during which the judges ruled, as indicated in their book, the forty years of David and the four of Solomon, forty remain, of which, as Josephus testifies, Samuel spent twenty and Saul spent the other twenty in governance. — Commentary on Acts

Bede: And God gave them Saul, the son of Kish, a man of the tribe of Benjamin, for forty years. And in this place concerning the kingdom of Saul, the apostle seems to have followed popular opinion, as we have already said in the previous book; but what I said there, because Eusebius, following Josephus, assigned forty years to the rule of Samuel and Saul, divided equally between them, subsequently, upon more diligent inspection of the histories of Josephus, I saw that he did not write those forty years of that age but assigned twelve only to Samuel and twenty years to Saul. But also, having more carefully reread the books of Chronicles, I noticed why Eusebius did not want to follow the authority of Josephus in this place, just as he did not in the years of Joshua, to whom Josephus attributes twenty-six years, while he thought it better to annotate twenty-seven. This, therefore, was the reason: because if he followed him, he could by no means have the prescribed number of four hundred and eighty years from the exodus of Israel from Egypt until the temple began to be built, but would find in his codices ten years less of the same age. This he endured because, following the Septuagint interpreters, he neglected to place Ahialon the judge, who ruled the people for ten years after Abessa, in his Chronicles. But realizing that ten years of the prescribed calculation were missing in the sacred history according to the Edition he followed, he took care to add these from his own where it seemed convenient and less contrary to the sacred history. Thus, he adds one year to the times of Joshua, eight to the times of Samuel and Saul, and to complete the tenth number, he includes the fourth year of Solomon’s reign, in which the temple began to be built: which whoever follows the Hebrew truth finds should not be done. And what I wrote in the preceding book, that the judges ruled the people from Moses to Samuel for three hundred and ninety-six years, I followed the authority of the Chronicles, not yet noticing that it does not agree with the Hebrew truth. — Retractions on Acts

John Chrysostom: “And afterward they desired a king:” and still not a word of their ingratitude, but throughout he speaks of the kindness of God. “And God gave unto them Saul the son of Cis, a man of the tribe of Benjamin, by the space of forty years.” — Homily on Acts 29

Acts 13:22

Apostolic Constitutions: It is plain that he could not endure to be under David’s government, of whom God spake: “I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after my heart, who will do all my commands.” — CONSTITUTIONS OF THE HOLY APOSTLES

John Chrysostom: “And when he had removed him, He raised up unto them David to be their king: to whom also He gave testimony, and said, I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after Mine own heart, which shall fulfil all My will. Of this man’s seed hath God according to His promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus.” This was no small thing that Christ should be from David.

Observe how he twines the thread of his discourse alternately from things present, from the prophets. Thus, “from this man’s seed according to the promise” - the name of David was dear to them; well then, is it not a thing to be desired that a son of his, he says, should be their king?

The Promise then, he says, the fathers received; ye, the reality. And observe, he nowhere mentions right deeds of theirs, but only benefits on God’s part: “He chose: Exalted: Suffered their manners:” these are no matters of praise to them: “They asked, He gave.” But David he does praise, and him only, because from him the Christ was to come. “I have found David, the son of Jesse, a man after Mine own heart, which shall fulfil all My will.” Observe also; it is with praise that he says of him, “David after that he had served the will of God:” just as Peter - seeing it was then the beginning of the Gospel - making mention of him, said, “Let it be permitted me to speak freely of the patriarch David.” Also, he does not say, Died, but, “was added to his fathers.” — Homily on Acts 29

Pseudo-Clement: Does not the case of David instruct you, whom God “found a man after His heart,” one faithful, faultless, pious, true? This same man saw the beauty of a woman— I mean of Bathsheba — when he saw her as she was cleansing herself and washing unclothed. This woman the holy man saw, and was thoroughly captivated with desire by the sight of her. See, then, what evils he committed because of a woman, and how this righteous man sinned, and gave command that the husband of this woman should be killed in battle. You have seen what wicked schemes he laid and executed, and how, because of his passion for a woman, he perpetrated a murder— he, David, who was called “the anointed of the Lord.” Be admonished, O man: for, if such men as these have been brought to ruin through women, what is your righteousness, or what are you among the holy, that you consort with women and with maidens day and night, with much silliness, without fear of God? Not thus, my brethren, not thus let us conduct ourselves; but let us be mindful of that word which is spoken concerning a woman: “Her hands lay snares, and her heart spreads nets; but the just shall escape from her, while the wicked falls into her hands.” [Ecclesiastes 7:26] Therefore let us, who are consecrated, be careful not to live in the same house with females who have taken the vow. For such conduct as this is not becoming nor right for the servants of God. — Two Epistles on Virginity

Acts 13:24

John Chrysostom: Then John bears witness to this: “When John had first preached before His coming the baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel. And as John fulfilled his course, he said, Whom think ye that I am? I am not He. But, behold, there cometh one after me, whose shoes of His feet I am not worthy to loose.” And John too not merely bears witness to the fact, but does it in such sort that when men were bringing the glory to him, he declines it: for it is one thing not to affect an honor which nobody thinks of offering; and another, to reject it when all men are ready to give it, and not only to reject it, but to do so with such humility.

Then he adduces John: then again the prophets, where he says, “By condemning they fulfilled,” and again, “All that was written:” then the Apostles as witnesses of the Resurrection: then David bearing witness. For neither the Old Testament proofs seemed so cogent when taken by themselves as they are in this way, nor yet the latter testimonies apart from the former: wherefore he makes them mutually confirm each other.

“Of this man’s seed,” etc. “When John,” he says, “had first preached before His entry” - by entry he means the Incarnation - “the baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel.” Thus also John, writing his Gospel, continually has recourse to him: for his name was much thought of in all parts of the world. And observe, he does not say it “Of this man’s seed,” etc. from himself, but brings John’s testimony. — Homily on Acts 29

Origen of Alexandria: It must be said, on the one hand, that the Old [Testament] is not a Gospel since it did not show “the one coming” but announced him beforehand, and on the other that the entire New [Testament] is the gospel, speaking not just in a way similar to the beginning of the Gospel, “Behold, the lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world,” but encompassing manifold praises and teachings of the one on whose account the Gospel is the gospel. — COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF John 1.17

Acts 13:25

Bede: He said: “Whom you think me to be, I am not.” In Greek it is more fully said: “I am not the Christ.” — Retractions on Acts

Origen of Alexandria: If the passage about the sandals has a mystic meaning we should not reject an investigation of it. Now I consider that the full humanization, when the Son of God assumes flesh and bones, is seen in one of his shoes. The other humbling is the descent to Hades, whatever that Hades might be, and the journey with the Spirit to the prison. As to the descent into Hades, we read in the sixteenth psalm, “You will not abandon my soul to Hades.” As for the journey in prison with the Spirit, we read in Peter in his Catholic epistle, “Put to death,” he says, “in the flesh but quickened in the Spirit, in which also he went and preached to the spirits in prison, which at one time were disobedient, when the long-suffering of God once waited in the days of Noah while the ark was in preparation.” He, then, who is able worthily to set forth the meaning of these two journeys is able to untie the strap of the sandals of Jesus. Such a one is whoever bends down in his mind and goes with Jesus as he goes down into hades, and whoever descends from heaven and the mysteries of Christ’s divinity to the advent that he had to spend with us when he took on humanity (as his sandals). Now he who put on humanity also put on the dead, since “for this end Jesus both died and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and the living.” This is why he put on both the living and the dead, that is, the inhabitants of the earth and those of hades, that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. Who, then, is able to stoop down and untie the latchet of such sandals, and having untied them not to let them drop, but by the second faculty he has received to take them up and bear them, by bearing the meaning of them in his memory? — COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF John 6.18

Acts 13:26

Bede: “Men, brothers, sons of the lineage of Abraham, and those among you who fear God.” In Greek it adds: “Listen.” — Retractions on Acts

John Chrysostom: “Men and brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent. For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew Him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning Him. And though they found no cause of death in Him, yet desired they Pilate that He should be slain.”

On all occasions we find them making a great point of showing this, that the blessing is peculiarly theirs, that they may not flee from Christ, as thinking they had nothing to do with Him, because they had crucified Him. “Because they knew Him not,” he says: so that the sin was one of ignorance. See how he gently makes an apology even on behalf of those crucifiers. And not only this: but he adds also, that thus it must needs be.

“Men and brethren,” etc. For since they were possessed by fear, as having slain Him, and conscience made them aliens, the Apostles discourse not with them as unto Christicides, neither as putting into their hands a good which was not theirs, but one peculiarly their own. “For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers:” as much as to say, not ye, but they: and again, apologizing even for those, “Because they knew Him not, and the voices of the Prophets which are read every sabbath day, in condemning Him, they fulfilled them.” A great charge it is against them that they continually hearing heeded not. But no marvel: for what was said above concerning Egypt and the wilderness, was enough to show their ingratitude.

“Men and brethren, children of the stock of Abraham” - he also calls them after their father - “unto you was the word of this salvation sent.” Here the expression, “Unto you,” does not mean, Unto you Jews, but it gives them a right to sever themselves from those who dared that murder. And what he adds, shows this plainly. “For,” he says, “they that dwell at Jerusalem, because they know Him not.” And how, you will say, could they be ignorant, with John to tell them? What marvel, seeing they were so, with the prophets continually crying aloud to them? Then follows another charge: “And having found no cause of death in Him:” in which ignorance had nothing to do. For let us put the case, that they did not hold Him to be the Christ: why did they also kill Him? And “they desired of Pilate, he says, that He should be slain.” — Homily on Acts 29

Acts 13:28

Hippolytus of Rome: But since also they frame an account concerning the action of the zodiacal signs, to which they say the creatures that are procreated are assimilated, neither shall we omit this: as, for instance, that one born in Leo will be brave; and that one born in Virgo will have long straight hair, be of a fair complexion, childless, modest. These statements, however, and others similar to them, are rather deserving of laughter than serious consideration. For, according to them, it is possible for no Aethiopian to be born in Virgo; otherwise he would allow that such a one is white, with long straight hair and the rest. But I am rather of opinion, that the ancients imposed the names of received animals upon certain specified stars, for the purpose of knowing them better, not from any similarity of nature; for what have the seven stars, distant one from another, in common with a bear, or the five stars with the head of a dragon? — The Refutation of All Heresies - Book 4

Acts 13:29

John Chrysostom: “And when they had fulfilled all that was written of Him, they took Him down from the tree, and laid Him in a sepulchre. But God raised Him from the dead. And He was seen many days of them which came up with Him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who are His witnesses unto the people” - that He rose again.

And how so? “By condemning Him, they fulfilled the voices of the prophets.” Then again from the Scriptures. And observe also, as one moved by the Spirit Himself, he continually preaches the Passion, the Burial. “Having taken Him down from the tree.” Observe, what a great point they make of this. He speaks of the manner of His death. Moreover they bring Pilate conspicuously forward, that the fact of the Passion may be proved by the mention of the tribunal by which he was condemned, but at the same time, for the greater impeachment of those His crucifiers, seeing they delivered Him up to an alien. And he does not say, They made a complaint against Him, but, “They desired, though having found no cause of death in Him, that He should be slain.”

“Who appeared,” he says, “for many days to them that came up with Him from Galilee to Jerusalem.” Instead of which he says, “Who are His witnesses unto the people,” to wit, “The men which came up with Him from Galilee to Jerusalem.” Then he produces David and Isaiah bearing witness.

“And when they had fulfilled all that was written of Him.” Observe what a point he makes of showing that the whole thing was a Divine Dispensation. See, by saying what did they persuade men? By telling them that He was crucified? Why, what could be less persuasive than this? That He was buried - by them to whom it was promised that He should be salvation? that He who was buried forgives sins, yea, more than the Law has power to do?

“Who are His witnesses,” he says, “unto the people” - the people that slew Him. Who would never have been so, were they not strengthened by a Divine Power: for they would never have borne such witness to blood-thirsty men, to the very persons that killed Him. — Homily on Acts 29

Acts 13:30

Severus of Antioch: Do not be troubled by the fact that Jesus is said to have been raised by God. Indeed, if Jesus is none other than the incarnate Word, he is also the power of the Father through whom everything occurs. This is according to the words, “Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God.” He himself will be considered to have raised himself while he is also said to have been raised by the Father to whom all things are referred as the eternal source and cause. Christ himself, in fact, says, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” — CATENA ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 13.30-31

Theodoret of Cyrus: So it is clear to them that pay attention that at the raising of the body the Son is said by Paul to have been raised from the dead, for he refers what concerns the body to the Son’s person. Similarly when he says “the Father gave life to the Son,” it must be understood that the life [the Father gave the Son] was given to the flesh. For if he himself is life, how can the life receive life? — DIALOGUE 3

Acts 13:31

Origen of Alexandria: By comparing what the prophetic Scriptures tell us of Jesus with what his history tells us, we find nothing dissolute about him recorded. For even those who conspired against him and looked for false witnesses to aid them did not find any plausible grounds for advancing a false charge of licentiousness against him. His death was indeed the result of a conspiracy and bore no resemblance to the death of Asclepius by lightning. And what is venerable about the madman Dionysus, clothed in female garments, that he should be worshiped as a god? If those who defend such beings resort to allegorical interpretations, we must examine each individual allegory to ascertain whether it is well founded and whether those beings who were torn down by the Titans and cast from their heavenly throne can have a real existence and deserve respect and worship. But when our Jesus “appeared to the members of his own troop”—for I will take the word that Celsus employs—he really did appear. But Celsus makes a false accusation against the gospel, saying that what appeared was a shadow. Let their histories and that of Jesus be carefully compared. Will Celsus hold that the former are true, but the latter are inventions, even though the histories of Jesus were recorded by eyewitnesses who showed that they clearly understood the nature of what they had seen by their actions and who manifested their state of mind by what they cheerfully underwent for the sake of his gospel? Now who, desiring to act in conformity with right reason, would yield assent at random to what is related in their histories and without examination refuse to believe what is recorded of Jesus? Again, when it is said of Asclepius that a great multitude both of Greeks and Barbarians acknowledge that they have frequently seen and still see no mere phantom but Asclepius himself healing and doing good and foretelling the future, Celsus expects us to believe this; and he finds no fault with believers in Jesus, when they express their belief in such stories. But when we give our assent to the disciples who were eyewitnesses of the miracles of Jesus and who clearly manifested the honesty of their convictions (because we see their guilelessness, as far as it is possible to see the conscience revealed in writing), we are called by him a set of “silly” individuals. — AGAINST CELSUS 3.23-24

Acts 13:32

Bede: “And we declare to you the promise made to our fathers, that God has fulfilled this to our children.” In Greek it reads more consistently: “That God has fulfilled this to their children.” It follows: — Retractions on Acts

John Chrysostom: “And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that He hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second Psalm, Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee.”

But, “He hath raised up Jesus again: This day,” he says, “I have begotten thee.” Aye, upon this the rest follows of course. Why did he not allege some text by which they would be persuaded that forgiveness of sins is by Him? Because the great point with them was to show, in the first place, that He was risen: this being acknowledged, the other was unquestionable.

The reading “In the Second Psalm” is the best attested. If it is correct, we must suppose that what we now call the first psalm was considered introductory and that our second psalm was counted as the first. The expression “this day have I begotten thee” refers evidently to the resurrection of Christ. The resurrection is conceived as the solemn inauguration of Christ into his office as theocratic king represented under the figure of begetting. — Homily on Acts 29

Origen of Alexandria: Let Celsus, and those who agree with him, tell us whether it is at all like “an ass’s shadow” that the Jewish prophets predicted the birth place of him who became the ruler of those who had lived righteous lives and are called the “heritage” of God, that Emmanuel was conceived by a virgin, that such signs and wonders were performed by him who was the subject of prophecy, that his word spread so speedily that the voice of his apostles went forth into all the earth, that he suffered after his condemnation by the Jews, and that he rose again from the dead. For was it by chance that the prophets made these announcements with no conviction of the truth in their minds, moving them not only to speak but to believe their announcements should be committed to writing? And did so great a nation as that of the Jews, who had long ago received a country of their own to dwell in, recognize certain men as prophets and reject others as false prophets, without any conviction of the soundness of the distinction? And was there no motive that induced them to class the words of those persons who were later deemed to be prophets with the books of Moses, which were held as sacred? And can those who charge the Jews and Christians with folly show us how the Jewish nation could have continued to exist had there not been among them a promise of the knowledge of future events? And how, while each of the surrounding nations believed in agreement with their ancient institutions that they received oracles and predictions from those whom they accounted gods, this people alone—who were taught to view with contempt all those who were considered gods by the heathen as not being gods, but demons, according to the declaration of the prophets, “For all the gods of the nations are demons”—had among them no one who professed to be a prophet and who could dissuade those with a desire to know the future from deserting to the demons of other nations? Judge, then, whether it was necessary that the whole nation that had been taught to despise the deities of other lands should have an abundance of prophets, who made known events that were of far greater importance in themselves and that surpassed the oracles of all other countries. — AGAINST CELSUS 3.2

Acts 13:33

Bede: Because God fulfilled this promise to your children by raising Jesus, as it is written in the second psalm: “You are my Son, today I have begotten you.” It should not be thought that this example from the psalm pertains to the resurrection of Christ, which he has just mentioned, but to his very incarnation, about which he spoke earlier. For the following verse clearly testifies about the resurrection. Since he was speaking earlier about his incarnation, passion, and resurrection, he wanted to confirm both with testimonies from the psalm. Therefore, he says, “You who are eternal, Son before the ages, now appear born in time.” Some codices have: “As it is written in the first psalm,” which is thus explained, the first and second psalms being considered as one work, which begins in blessedness and ends in blessedness. — Commentary on Acts

Bede: “Raising up Jesus, as it is also written in the second psalm.” The holy Father Hilary thus remembers this place: “But what is now in the psalm: ‘You are my Son; today I have begotten you’ (Psalm II), does not pertain to the birth from the Virgin, nor to the regeneration of the bath, but to the Firstborn from the dead, according to apostolic authority. For in the book of the Acts of the Apostles it is said thus: ‘We announce to you the good news of the promise made to our fathers; God has fulfilled this to our children, raising our Lord Jesus Christ, as it is written in the psalm: You are my Son; today I have begotten you, when he raised him from the dead, no longer to return to decay’ (Acts XII). Therefore, this voice of God the Father according to the Apostle is heard on the day of resurrection.” And shortly after, recalling the opinion of the Apostle, where he says about him: “Who, being in the form of God, did not consider equality with God as something to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant” (Philippians II), and so on: “And in the glory of God the Father, today he is born begotten, that is, in the enduring form of God previously, the assumption of the form of a servant is honored by the reward of death, and a new but not unusual nativity happens under time, since to resume the glory of God the Father, who was found in the form of a servant from the form of God, the firstborn from the dead was born.” — Retractions on Acts

Cyril of Alexandria: The only one who knows the Father and who is only known by the Father as his Wisdom and Word and as “the Angel of great counsel” according to the prophet, perfectly explains to us the mystery of the incarnation. Since he was Son by nature and by truth and had shone forth from the very essence of God the Father, he was made flesh, that is, man, according to John. He desired to be called the brother of those who are in the world and to be born according to flesh like us. However, he was before time and sat with his parent even though he was made flesh. The Father knew him also as Son and said to him, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you.” Observe the explicit confession, nay rather, the proclamation! Indeed, he said, “you are” in order to point out that he existed before time. Actually, he was never in time but was always the same, to be sure, the Son. And he added, “today I have begotten you,” in order to indicate his final generation according to the flesh that he voluntarily underwent in the womb of the holy Virgin so that he was also called “begotten of God.” — CATENA ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 13.33

Acts 13:34

Bede: Because I will give you the holy and faithful promises of David, that is, whatever I promised David, I will surely and faithfully fulfill to you, namely, that Christ would be born from his lineage. For Isaiah, tasting the mysteries of the New Testament in this way, says: “And I will make with you an everlasting covenant, the holy and sure blessings of David” (Isaiah 55:3). This is read in the Hebrew truth: “And I will make with you an eternal covenant, the faithful mercies of David.” — Commentary on Acts

John Chrysostom: “And as concerning that He raised Him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, He said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David. Wherefore he saith also in another Psalm, Thou shall not suffer Thine Holy One to see corruption. For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption: but He, Whom God raised again, saw no corruption.”

“The faithful mercies,” the abiding mercies, those which never perish. Paul loved them exceedingly. And observe, he does not enlarge on the ingratitude of the fathers, but puts before them what they must fear. For Stephen indeed with good reason does this, seeing he was about to be put to death, not teaching them; and showing them, that the Law is even now on the point of being abolished: but not so Paul; he does but threaten and put them in fear. And he does not dwell long on these, as taking it for granted that the word is of course believed; nor enlarge upon the greatness of their punishment, and assail that which they affectionately love, by showing the Law about to be cast out: but dwells upon that which is for their good, telling them that great shall be the blessings for them being obedient, and great the evils being disobedient. — Homily on Acts 29

Richard Challoner: I will give you the holy: These are the words of the prophet Isaias, 55. 3. According to the Septuagint, the sense is: I will faithfully fulfil the promises I made to David.

Acts 13:35

Severus of Antioch: From [the tomb] Christ was raised for us and rose as the true lord of incorruptibility, so that we also, by rising up from our tombs to the anticipated resurrection, may run toward heaven and to the clouds in which he returns in his divine glory. — CATENA ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 13.35-36

Acts 13:38

John Chrysostom: “Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this Man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: and by Him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.”

Observe how Paul here is more vehement in his discourse: we nowhere find Peter saying this. “Through this man,” nay more, by Him, “is remission of sins.” And besides, he wished to bring them to a longing desire of this great thing. Well then, His death was not dereliction, but fulfilling of Prophecy. For the rest, he puts them in mind of historical facts, wherein they through ignorance suffered evils without number.

And observe, he does not say, From which ye would not, but, “from which ye could not be justified by the Law of Moses.” “Every one,” he says: be who he may. For those ordinances are of no use, unless there be some benefit accruing therefrom. This is why he brings in forgiveness later: and shows it to be greater, when, the thing being otherwise impossible, yet this is effected. — Homily on Acts 29

Acts 13:39

Ammonius of Alexandria: It should be noticed that those who believe in Christ are justified and obtain absolution from their sin. In fact, the law of Moses was not unjust. Rather, it was difficult and able to justify only those who had followed the entire law perfectly. Therefore it was clearly incapable of correcting people because the one who had fallen into a single crime was made guilty of all. Thus the law was not able to justify. And, since the law itself was incapable of justifying anyone, its inability to correct made people incapable of being justified by the precepts of the law. — CATENA ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 13.39

Acts 13:40

John Chrysostom: Then too he adds the terrifying words: “Beware therefore, lest that come upon you, which is spoken of in the prophets; Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish: for I work a work in your days, a work which ye shall in no wise believe, though a man declare it unto you.”

And this he hints in the conclusion, saying, “Look, ye despisers, and behold.” And observe how, this being harsh, he cuts it short. Let not that, he says, come upon you, which was spoken for the others, that “I work a work which ye shall in no wise believe, though one declare it unto you.” Marvel not that it seems incredible: this very thing was foretold from the first - that it would not be believed. “Behold, ye despisers,” as regards those who disbelieve in the Resurrection.

This too might with reason be said to us: “Behold ye despisers.” For the Church indeed is in very evil case, although ye think her affairs to be in peace. For the mischief of it is, that while we labor under so many evils, we do not even know that we have any. — Homily on Acts 29

Acts 13:41

Bede: “Look, despisers, and be amazed, and perish.” In Greek it is written thus: “Listen, despisers, and be amazed; look, and perish.” — Retractions on Acts

Acts 13:42

Cassiodorus: “And as they went out, they desired them, that on the next sabbath, they would speak unto them the words of God.” As Paul and Barnabas went out of the synagogue, a crowd of Jews begged them to speak their words about the Lord Christ again on the following sabbath. On the next sabbath, as the people had very eagerly come together to hear them, some of the Jews, moved with great envy, tried to contradict them. Paul and Barnabas replied to them: “It indeed behoved us first to speak the word of God to you; but because you have rejected it, we turn to the Gentiles as we have been commanded.” At these words, the Gentiles rejoiced and received the Christian doctrine most readily. But the disappointed contradictors stirred up honorable women and the chief men of the city, and expelled Barnabas and Paul from their territory. Barnabas and Paul, coming to Iconium, converted many people to the Lord; and an uproar arose against them again, stirred up by their adversaries; but it was immediately calmed with the help of the Lord. It came to pass under these circumstances that some people sided with the apostles while others sided at all costs with the Jews. — Complexiones on the Acts of the Apostles

John Chrysostom: Do you mark Paul’s wisdom? He not only gained admiration at the time, but put into them a longing desire for a second hearing, while in what he said he dropped some seeds as it were, and forbore to solve the questions raised, or to follow out the subject to its conclusion, his plan being to interest them and engage their good-will to himself, and not make people listless and indifferent by casting all at once into the minds of those who first heard him. He told them the fact, that “through this Man is remission of sins announced unto you,” but the how, he did not declare. — Homily on Acts 30

Acts 13:43

Bede: They were speaking, urging them to remain in the grace of God. Hence in the Greek follows a verse, which our Codices do not have: But the word was spread throughout the whole city, and then what we have is added: On the next Sabbath, almost the whole city gathered to hear the word of God. — Retractions on Acts

Bede: Many Jews and devout converts followed them. It is better read: “And worshipers of God,” as we have seen in the Greek. This means those who were Gentiles by nature but Jews by religion, whom the Greeks call proselytes. — Commentary on Acts

John Chrysostom: “And when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and worshipping proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas” - after this point he puts Paul first - “who, speaking unto them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God.” Do you observe the eagerness, how great it is? They “followed” them, it says. Why did they not baptize them immediately? It was not the proper time: there was need to persuade them in order to their steadfast abiding therein. — Homily on Acts 30

John Chrysostom: See the Apostles on all occasions exhorting, not merely accepting men, nor courting them, but, “speaking unto them,” it says, “they persuaded them to continue in the grace of God.” — Homily on Acts 30

Acts 13:44

John Chrysostom: “And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.” Not merely were the multitudes drawn to them, but how? they besought to have the same words spoken to them again, and by their actions they showed their earnestness. — Homily on Acts 30

Acts 13:45

John Chrysostom: “But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and contradicted the things spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming.” See malice wounded in wounding others: this made the Apostles more conspicuous - the contradiction which those offered. In the first instance then they of their own accord besought them to speak (and now they opposed them): “contradicting,” it says, “and blaspheming.” O recklessness! — Homily on Acts 30

John Chrysostom: Why did they not contradict before this? Do you observe who on all occasions they were moved by passion? And they not only contradicted, but blasphemed also. For indeed malice stops at nothing. — Homily on Acts 30

Acts 13:46

Ammonius of Alexandria: Therefore God declares that nothing is unworthy of salvation or of entering the kingdom, nor, on the contrary, does he judge that humankind deserves damnation. Rather, we judge ourselves, through our freely committed malice, to be unworthy of eternal life and worthy of eternal damnation. Therefore the judgment is in ourselves as well as the lot of our future state. — CATENA ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 13.46

John Chrysostom: “Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.” Do you mark how by their contentious behavior they the more extended the preaching, and how the Apostles here gave themselves the more to the Gentiles, having by this very thing pleaded their justification, and made themselves clear of all blame with their own people at Jerusalem? See how by their “envy” they bring about great things, other than they looked for: they brought it about that the Apostles spake out boldly, and came to the Gentiles! For this is why he says, “And speaking out boldly, Paul and Barnabas said.” — Homily on Acts 30

John Chrysostom: But see what boldness of speech! “It was necessary,” he says, “that the word should have been spoken first to you, but since ye put it from you” - it is not put as affronting though it is in fact what they did in the case of the prophets: “Talk not to us,” said they, “with talk”: “but since ye put it from you” - it, he saith, not us: for the affront on your part is not to us. For that none may take it as an expression of their piety that he says, “Ye judge not yourselves worthy,” therefore he first says, “Ye put it from you,” and then, “We turn unto the Gentiles.” The expression is full of gentleness. He does not say, We abandon you, but so that it is possible - he would say - that we may also turn hither again: and this too is not the consequence of the affront from you, “for so hath the Lord commanded us.” — Homily on Acts 30

John Chrysostom: They were to go out to the Gentiles: but observe the boldness coming with measure: for if Peter pleaded in his justification, much more these needed a plea, none having called them there. But by saying “To you first,” he showed that to those also it was their duty to preach, and in saying “Necessary,” he showed that it was necessary to be preached to them also. “But since ye turn away from it” - he does not say, “Woe unto you,” and “Ye are punished,” but “We turn unto the Gentiles.” With great gentleness is the boldness fraught! Also he does not say, “Ye are unworthy,” but “Have judged yourselves unworthy. Lo, we turn unto the Gentiles.” — Homily on Acts 30

Tertullian: Therefore Paul and the apostles themselves, mindful of the precept of the Lord, bear this solemn testimony before Israel, which they had now filled with their doctrine-saying, “It was necessary that the word of God should have been first delivered to you; but seeing ye have rejected it, and have not thought yourselves worthy of eternal life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.” And from that time they turned their steps away, as those who went before them had laid it down, and departed into the way of the Gentiles, and entered into the cities of the Samaritans; so that, in very deed, their sound went forth into all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. — On Flight in Persecution

Acts 13:47

Bede: For the Lord has commanded us: I have set you as a light to the Gentiles. What was specifically said to the Lord Christ, the apostles now consider said to themselves, remembering that they are his members, just as he himself, because of the unity of the same body, said: “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” (Acts 9:4). — Commentary on Acts

John Chrysostom: “For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have sent thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.” For that the Gentiles might not be hurt at hearing this, as if the case were so that, had the Jews been in earnest, they themselves would not have obtained the blessings, therefore he brings in the prophecy, saying, “A light of the Gentiles,” and, “for salvation unto the ends of the earth.” — Homily on Acts 30

John Chrysostom: “Then why have ye not done this?” It was indeed needful that the Gentiles should hear, and this not before you: it is your own doing, the “before you.” “For so hath the Lord commanded us: I have set thee for a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation,” i.e. for knowledge which is unto salvation, and not merely of the Gentiles, but of all men, “unto the ends of the earth.” — Homily on Acts 30

Tertullian: Now who was it that said; “Let there be light? " And who was it that said to Christ concerning giving light to the world: “I have set Thee as a light to the Gentiles” -to them, that is, “who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death? " (None else, surely, than He), to whom the Spirit in the Psalm answers, in His foresight of the future, saying, “The light of Thy countenance, O Lord, hath been displayed upon us. — Against Marcion Book V

Acts 13:48

Ignatius of Antioch: And those that were of a stony heart have become the children of Abraham, the friend of God; and in his seed all those have been blessed who were ordained to eternal life in Christ. — Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians

John Chrysostom: “And hearing this the Gentiles” - this, while it was more cheering to them, seeing the case was this, that whereas those were of right to hear first, they themselves enjoy the blessing, was at the same time more stinging to those - “and the Gentiles,” it says, “hearing this were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and believed, as many as were ordained unto eternal life”: i.e., set apart for God. Observe how he shows the speediness of the benefit. — Homily on Acts 30

John Chrysostom: “As many as were ordained unto eternal life”: this is also a proof, that their having received these Gentiles was agreeable with the mind of God. But “ordained,” not in regard of necessity: “whom He foreknew,” saith the Apostle, “He did predestinate.” — Homily on Acts 30

Acts 13:49

John Chrysostom: “And the word of the Lord was borne through all the region.” No longer in the city only were their doctrines disseminated, but also in the whole region. For when they of the Gentiles had heard it, they also after a little while came over. — Homily on Acts 30

Acts 13:50

Ammonius of Alexandria: “Honest rich women,” the text says, “and pious,” but not faithful. They certainly were Greek-Jewish women. In fact they, being most evil and imitators of the archevil demon and transgressor, endeavor through women to close to men the way of salvation, just as that one closed paradise to men through Eve until the proper time. But the divine Jesus opens it again for those who believe in his name and also allowed them to enter there, the first of whom entered with him as a thief. — CATENA ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 13.50

John Chrysostom: “But the Jews stirred up the devout and honorable women, and the chief men of the city, and raised persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and expelled them out of their coasts.” “The devout women,” instead of the proselyte-women. They did not stop at “envy,” but added deeds also. Do you see what they effected by their opposing the preaching? to what dishonor they brought these “honorable women”? — Homily on Acts 30

John Chrysostom: “But the Jews stirred up the devout women, and raised persecution” - observe even of what is done by the women, they are the authors - “and cast them,” it says, “out of their coasts,” not from the city merely. — Homily on Acts 30

Acts 13:51

Bede: But shaking the dust off their feet against them, they went to Iconium. The dust is shaken off the feet according to the precept of the Gospel as a testimony of their labor, that they entered their city and that the apostolic preaching reached them; or the dust is shaken off so that they take nothing from them, not even what is necessary for sustenance, who have rejected the Gospel. — Commentary on Acts

John Chrysostom: “But they shook off the dust of their feet against them, and came unto Iconium.” Here now they used that terrible sign which Christ enjoined, “If any receive you not, shake off the dust from your feet”; but these did it upon no light ground, but because they were driven away by them. This was no hurt to the disciples; on the contrary, they the more continued in the word. — Homily on Acts 30

John Chrysostom: Then, what is more terrible, “they shook off the dust of their feet against them, and came unto Iconium. But the disciples, it says, were filled with joy, and with the Holy Ghost.” The teachers were suffering persecution, and the disciples rejoiced. — Homily on Acts 30

Acts 13:52

Bede: And the disciples were filled with joy and the Holy Spirit. In the Greek it is: “But the disciples,” so that we may understand, while the Jews were persecuting the faith, the disciples were enriched in contrast with spiritual joy. — Commentary on Acts

John Chrysostom: “And the disciples were filled with joy, and with the Holy Ghost,” for the suffering of the teacher does not check his boldness, but makes the disciple more courageous. — Homily on Acts 30