|
ACTS XXII. 17-20.
"And it came to pass, that, when I was come
again to Jerusalem, even while I prayed in the
temple, I was in a trance; and saw him saying
unto me, Make haste, and get thee quickly out
of Jerusalem: for they will not receive thy
testimony concerning me. And I said, Lord,
they know that I imprisoned and beat in every
synagogue them that believed on thee: and when
the blood of thy martyr Stephen was shed, I
also was standing by, and consenting unto his
death, and kept the raiment of them that slew
him."
SEE how he thrusts himself (into danger),
I came, he says, after that vision, "to
Jerusalem. I was in a trance," etc.
Again, this is without witness: but observe,
the witness follows from the result. He said,
"They will not receive thy testimony:" they
did not receive it. And yet from calculations
of reason the surmise should have been this,
that they would assuredly receive him. For I
was the man that made war upon the Christians:
so that they ought to have received him. Here
he establishes two things: both that they are
without excuse, since they persecuted him
contrary to all likelihood or calculation of
reason; and, that Christ was God, as
prophesying things contrary to expectation, and
as not looking to past things, but fore-knowing
the things to come. How then does He say,
"He shall bear My name before the Gentiles
and kings and children of Israel?" (Acts
ix. 15.) Not, certainly persuade.
Besides which, on other occasions we find the
Jews were persuaded, but here they were not.
Where most of all they ought to have been
persuaded, as knowing his former zeal (in their
cause), here they were not persuaded. "And
when the blood of Thy martyr Stephen," etc.
See where again his discourse terminates,
namely, in the forcible main point (eis to
ipktrot kefalaion): that it was he that
persecuted, and not only persecuted but killed,
nay, had he ten thousand hands (mtriais kersin
anairpn) would have used them all to kill
Stephen. He reminded them of the murderous
spirit heinously indulged (by him and them).
Then of course above all they would not endure
him, since this convicted them; and truly the
prophecy was having its fulfilment: great the
zeal, vehement the accusation, and the Jews
themselves witnesses of the truth of Christ!
"And he said unto me, Depart: for I will
send thee far hence unto the Gentiles. And
they gave him audience unto this word, and then
lifted up their voices, and said, Away with
such a fellow from the earth: for it is not fit
that,he should live." (v. 21, 22.)
The Jews would not endure to hear out all his
harangue, but excessively fired by their wrath,
they shouted, it says, "Away with him; for
it is not fit that he should live. And as they
cried out, and cast off their clothes, and
threw dust into the air, the tribune commanded
him to be brought into the castle, and bade that
be should be examined by scourging; that he
might know wherefore they cried so against
him." (v. 23, 24.) Whereas both the
tribune ought to have examined whether these
things were so--yes, and the Jews themselves
too --or, if they were not so, to have
ordered him to be scourged, he "bade examine
him by scourging, that he might know for what
cause they so clamored against him." And yet
he ought to have learnt from those clamorers,
and to have asked whether they laid hold upon
aught of the things spoken: instead of that,
without more ado he indulges his arbitrary will
and pleasure, and acts with a view to gratify
them: for he did not look to this, how he
should do a righteous thing, but only how he
might stop their rage unrighteous as it was.
"And as they bound him with thongs, Paul said
unto the centurion that stood by, Is it lawful
for you to scourge a man that is a Roman and
uncondemned?" (v. 25.) Paul lied not,
God forbid: for he was a Roman. if there was
nothing else, he would have been afraid (to
pretend this), lest he should be found out,
and suffer a worse punishment. (See Sueton.
Vit. Claud. 25.) And observe he does not
say it peremptorily (atlps), but, "Is it
lawful for you?" The charges brought are two,
both its being without examination, and his
being a Roman. They held this as a great
privilege, at that time: for they say that (it
was only) from the time of Hadrian that all
were named Romans, but of old it was not so.
He would have been contemptible had he been
scourged: but as it is, he puts them into
greater fear (than they him). Had they
scourged him, they would also have dismissed the
whole matter, or even have killed him; but as
it is, the result is not so. See how God
permits many (good results) to be brought about
quite in a human way, both in the case of the
Apostles and of the rest (of mankind). Mark
how they suspected the thing to be a pretext,
and that in calling himself a Roman, Paul
lied: perhaps surmising this from his poverty.
"When the centurion heard that, he went and
told the tribune, saying, Take heed what thou
doest: for this man is a Roman. Then the
tribune came, and said unto him, Tell me, art
thou a Roman? He said, Yea. And the
tribune answered, With a great sum obtained I
this freedom. And Paul said, But I was free
born. Then straightway they departed from him
which should have examined him: and the tribune
also was afraid, after he knew that he was a
Roman, and because he had bound him." (v.
26-29.)--"But I," he says, "was
free born." So then his father also was a
Roman. What then comes of this? He bound
him, and brought him down to the Jews. "On
the morrow, because he would have known the
certainty whereof he was accused of the Jews,
he loosed him from his bands, and commanded the
chief priests and all their council to appear,
and brought Paul down, and set him before
them." (v. 30.) He discourses not now to
the multitude, nor to the people. "And
Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said,
Men and brethren, I have lived in all good
conscience before God until this day." (ch.
xxiii. 1.) What he means is this: I am not
conscious to myself of having wronged you at
all, or of having done anything worthy of these
bonds. What then said the high priest? Right
justly, and ruler-like, and mildly: "And
the high priest Ananias commanded them that
stood by him to smite him on the mouth. Then
said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee,
thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me
after the law, and commandest me to be smitten
contrary to the law? And they that stood by
said, Revilest thou God's high priest? Then
said Paul, I wist not, brethren, that he was
the high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt
not speak evil of the ruler of thy people."
(v. 3-5.) Because "I knew not that he
was high priest." Some say, Why then does he
defend himself as if it was matter of
accusation, and adds, "Thou shalt not speak
evil of the ruler of thy people?" For if he
were not the ruler, was it right for no better
reason than that to abuse (him or any) other?
He says himself, "Being reviled, we bless;
being persecuted, we suffer it" (1 Cor.
iv. 12); but here he does the contrary, and
not only reviles, but curses. They are the
words of boldness, rather than of anger; he did
not choose to appear in a contemptible light to
the tribune. For suppose the tribune himself
had spared to scourge him, only as he was about
to be delivered up to the Jews, his being
beaten by their servants would have more
emboldened him: this is why Paul does not
attack the servant, but the person who gave the
order. But that saying, "Thou whited wall,
and dost thou sit to judge me after the law?"
instead of, Being (thyself) a culprit: as if
he had said, And (thyself) worthy of stripes
without number. See accordingly how greatly
they were struck with his boldness; for whereas
the point was to have overthrown the whole
matter, they rather commend him. (infra, v.
9.) "For it is written," etc. He wishes
to show that he thus speaks, not from fear, nor
because (Ananias) did not deserve to be called
this, but from obedience to the law in this
point also. And indeed I am fully persuaded
that he did not know that it was the high
priest, since he had returned now after a long
interval, and was not in the habit of constant
intercourse with the Jews; seeing him too in
the midst among many others: for the high priest
was no longer easy to be seen at a glance, there
being many of them and diverse. So, it seems
to me, in this also he spoke with a view to his
plea against them: by way of showing that he
does obey the law; therefore he (thus)
exculpates himself.
(Recapitulation.) But let us review what has
been said. "And when I was came again to
Jerusalem," etc. (v. 17.) How was it,
that being a Jew, and there brought up and
taught, he did not stay there? Nor did he
abide there, unless he had a mind to furnish
numberless occasions against him: everywhere
just like an exile, fleeing about from place to
place. "While I prayed in the temple," he
says, "it came to pass that I was in a
trance." (To show) that it was not simply a
phantom of the imagination, therefore "while he
prayed" (the Lord) stood by him. And he
shows that it was not from fear of their dangers
that he fled, but because they would "not
receive" his "testimony." (v. 18.) But
why said he "They know I imprisoned?" (v.
19.) Not to gainsay Christ, but because he
wished to learn this which was so contrary to all
reasonable expectation. Christ, however, did
not teach him (this), but only bade him
depart, and he obeys: so obedient is he.
"And they lifted up their voices," it says,
"and said, Away with him: it is not fit that
this fellow should live." (v. 22.) Nay,
ye are the persons not fit to live; not he, who
in everything obeys God. O villains and
murderers! "And shaking out their clothes,"
it says, "they threw dust into the air" (v.
23), to make insurrection more fierce,
because they wished to frighten the governor.
And observe; they do not say what the charge
was, as in fact they had nothing to allege, but
only think to strike terror by their shouting.
"The tribune commanded," etc. and yet he
ought to have learnt from the accusers,
"wherefore they cried so against him. And as
they bound him, etc. And the chief captain was
afraid, after he learnt that he was a Roman."
Why then it was no falsehood. "On the
morrow, because he would know the certainty
wherefore he was accused of the Jews, etc.,
he brought him down before the council." (v.
24-30.) This he should have done at the
outset. He brought him in, loosed. This
above all the Jews would not know what to make
of. "And Paul," it says, "earnestly
beholding them." It shows his boldness, and
how it awed themto entreptikon). "Then the
high priest Ananias." etc.ch. xxiii. 1,
2.) Why, what has he said that was
affronting? What is he beaten for? Why what
hardihood, what shamelessness! Therefore
(Paul) set him down (with a rebuke) "God
shall smite thee thou whited wall." (v.
3.) Accordingly (Ananias) himself is put
to a stand, and dares not say a word: only
those about him could not bear Paul's
boldness. They saw a man ready to die * * *
for if this was the case,Paul) had but to hold
his peace, and the tribune would have taken
him, and gone his way; he would have sacrificed
him to them. He both shows that he suffers
willingly what he suffers, and thus excuses
himself before them, not that he wished to
excuse himself to them--since as for those, he
even strongly condemns them--but for the sake
of the people. "Violating the law, commandest
thou me to be beaten?" Well may he say so:
for to kill a man who had donethem) no injury,
and that an innocent person, was a violating of
the law. For neither was it abuse that was
spoken by him, unless one would call Christ's
words abusive, when He says, "Woe unto you,
Scribes and Pharisees, for ye are like unto
whited walls." (Matt. xxiii. 27.)
True, you will say: but if he had said it
before he had been beaten, it would have
betokened not anger, but boldness. But I have
mentioned the reason of this. And (at this
rate) we often find Christ Himself "speaking
abusively" to the Jews when abused by them; as
when He says, "Do not think that I will
accuse you." (John v. 45.) But this is
not abuse, God forbid. See, with what
gentleness he addresses these men: "I wist
not," he says, "that he was God's high
priest" (v. 4, 5): and, (to show) that
he was not dissembling he adds, "Thou shalt
not speak evil of the ruler of thy people." He
even confesses him to be still ruler. Let us
also learn the gentleness also, that in both the
one and the other we may be perfect. For one
must look narrowly into them, to learn what the
one is and what the other: narrowly, because
these virtues have their corresponding vices hard
by them: mere forwardness passing itself off for
boldness, mere cowardice for gentleness: and
need being to scan them, lest any person
possessing the vice should seem to have the
virtue: which would be just as if a person
should fancy that he was cohabiting with the
mistress, and not know that it was the
servant--maid. What then is gentleness, and
what mere cowardice? When others are wronged,
and we do not take their part, but hold our
peace, this is cowardice: when we are the
persons ill-treated, and we bear it, this is
gentleness. What is boldness? Again the
same, when others are the persons for whom we
contend. What forwardness? When it is in our
own cause that we are willing to fight. So that
magnanimity and boldness go together, as also
(mere) forwardness andmere) cowardice. For
he that (does not) resent on his own behalf,
Will hardly but resent on behalf of others: and
he that does not stand up for his own cause,
will hardly fail to stand up for others. For
when our habitual disposition is pure from
passion, it admits virtue also. Just as a body
when free from fever admits strength, so the
soul, unless it be corrupted by the passions,
admits strength. It betokens great strength,
this gentleness; it needs a generous and a
gallant soul, and one of exceeding loftiness,
this gentleness. Or, think you, is it a small
thing to suffer ill, and not be exasperated?
Indeed one would not err if in speaking of the
disposition to stand up for our neighbors, one
should call it the spirit of manly courage. For
he that has had the strength to be able to
overcome so strong a passion (as this of
selfishness), will have the strength to dare
the attack on another. For instance, these are
two passions, cowardice and anger: if thou have
overcome anger, it is very plain that thou
overcomest cowardice also: but thou gettest the
mastery over anger, by being gentle: therefore
(do so) with cowardice also, and thou wilt be
manly. Again, if thou hast not got the better
of anger, thou art become forward and
pugnacious); but not having got the better of
this, neither canst thou get the better of
fear; consequently, thou wilt be a coward too:
and the case is the same as with the body; if it
be weak, it is quickly overcome both by cold and
heat: for such is the ill temperament, but the
good temperament is able to stand all
(changes). Again, greatness of soul is a
virtue, and hard by it stands prodigality:
economy is a virtue, the being a good manager;
hard by it stands parsimony and meanness.
Come, let us again collate and compare the
virtues (with their vices). Well, then, the
prodigal person is not to be called
great-minded. How should he? The man who is
overcome by numberless passions, how should he
be great of soul? For this is not despising
money; it is only the being ordered about by
other passions: for just as a man, if he were
at the beck and bidding of robbers to obey their
orders, could not be free (so it is here).
His large spending does not come of his contempt
of money, but simply from his not knowing how to
dispose of it properly: else, were it possible
both to keep it and to lay it out on his
pleasure, this is what he would like. But he
that spends his money on fit objects, this is
the man of high soul: for it is truly a high
soul, that which is not in slavery to passion,
which accounts money to be nothing. Again,
economy is a good thing: for thus that will be
the best manager, who spends in a proper
manner, and not at random without management.
But parsimony is not the same thing with this.
For the former indeed, not even when an urgent
necessity demands, touches the principal of his
money: but the latter will be brother to the
former. Wells then, we will put together the
man of great soul, and the prudent economist,
as also the prodigal and the mean man: for both
of these are thus affected from littleness of
soul, as those others are (from the
opposite). Let us not then call him
high-souled, who simply spends, but him who
spends aright: nor let us call the economical
manager mean and parsimonious, but him who is
unseasonably sparing of his money. What a
quantity of wealth that rich man spent, "who
was clothed in purple and fine linen?" (Luke
xvi. 19.) But he was not high-souled: for
his soul was possessed by an unmerciful
disposition and by numberless lusts: how then
should it be great? Abraham had a great soul,
spending as he did for the reception of his
guests, killing the calf, and, where need
was, not only not sparing his property, but not
even his life. If then we see a person having
his sumptuous table, having his harlots and his
parasites, let us not call him a man of a great
mind, but a man of an exceedingly little mind.
For see how many passions he is enslaved and
subject to--gluttony, inordinate pleasure,
flattery: but him who is possessed by so many,
and cannot even escape one of them, how can any
one call magnanimous? Nay, then most of all
let us call him little-minded, when he spends
the most: for the more he spends, the more does
he show the tyranny of those passions: for had
they not excessively got the mastery over him,
be would not have spent to excess. Again, if
we see a person, giving nothing to such people
as these, but feeding the poor, and succoring
those in need, himself keeping a mean
table--him let us call an exceedingly
high-souled man: for it is truly a mark of a
great soul, to despise one's own comfort, but
to care for that of others. For tell me, if
you should see a person despising all tyrants,
and holding their commands of no account, but
rescuing from their tyranny those who are
oppressed and evil entreated; would you not
think this a great man? So let us account of
the man in this case also. The passions are the
tyrant: if then we despise them, we shall be
great: but if we rescue others also from them,
we shall be far greater, as being sufficient not
only for ourselves, but for others also. But
if any one, at a tyrant's bidding, beat some
other of his subjects, is this greatness of
soul? No, indeed: but the extreme of
slavery, in proportion as he is great. And now
also there is set before ustrokeitai) a soul
that is a noble one and a free: but this the
prodigal has ordered to be beaten by his
passions: the man then that beats himself,
shall we call high-souled? By no means. Well
then * *, but let us see what is greatness of
soul, and what prodigality; what is economy,
and what meanness; what is gentleness, and
(what) dulness and cowardice; what boldness,
and what forwardness: that having distinguished
these things from each other, we may be enabled
to passthis life) well-pleasing to the Lord,
and to attain unto the good things promised,
through the grace and mercy of our Lord Jesus
Christ, to Whom be the glory for ever and
ever. Amen.
|
|