Dr. Jeannie Constantinou: In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

Illumine our hearts, O Master who loves mankind, with the pure light of thy divine knowledge, and open the eyes of our minds to understand thy Gospel teachings. Implant in us also the fear of thy blessed commandments, that, trampling down all carnal desires, we may enter upon a spiritual manner of living, both thinking and doing such things that are well-pleasing to thee, for thou art the illumination of our souls and bodies, O Christ our God, and to thee we ascribe glory, together with thy Father who is from everlasting, and thine all-holy and good and life-giving Spirit, now and ever and unto the ages of ages. Amen.

Well, good evening, dear brothers and sisters, and welcome to Search the Scriptures Live. I’m Dr. Jeannie Constantinou. So glad you could be with us today, or you’re listening afterwards, and this is today, September 12, 2022. We are continuing our study of the first part of Acts, and this is really the last story we’re going to discuss from Acts. It’s a holdover from our last lesson, which was about Ananias and Sapphira, or some people pronounce it Sapphīra.

But before we get into the lesson, we do have a couple of things to announce. First of all, next week there will be no live show again. I’m sorry to be not consistent here lately. The reason is that Ancient Faith, all of the employees, the people who work at Ancient Faith Radio, they’re going to be on a retreat next week, so we’re going to let them go away and do their thing, because everybody needs to go on retreat. So there will be no live shows. You probably already heard that. There’ve been other announcements, I’m sure, on other live shows.

So you won’t be hearing any live shows the following week, but after that, when we return, we’re going to come back with something brand new: a brand-new series here on Search the Scriptures Live. It’s going to be about the Gospel of Matthew. It’s going to be an in-depth study of Matthew, of course, according to the Fathers of the Church, and most of that is St. John Chrysostom. So I hope you will join us with that and join us for that study. It should be very good, and I’m looking forward to it a lot. It’s been a long time since we took a plunge into one of the gospels in depth.

The other thing is, of course, this past week we had some difficulties with the app, with the Ancient Faith app. Some of you who listen to this program delayed, you log onto the app; you couldn’t find it, and that’s because the old app wasn’t working properly and we are just on the cusp of starting a brand-new app, but the old app is up and running. And you’re going to be hearing announcements about this, but when the new app is ready, you’re going to want to upload that one, and that promises to be more user-friendly and much better than the old app. So that’s what happened. There were a lot of—a lot of things happened all at the same time, unfortunately.

This other thing I wanted to bring up was an email I received, questions last week, in the past week, and I thought I would address those now before we continue to discuss Ananias and Sapphira. Ananias and Sapphira, as you know, it’s a very sort of shocking story, one of the most shocking stories, I would say, in the New Testament, and we will read it again, in case you forgot what it is. But maybe we should go ahead and do that now, and then we will address this listener’s question. All right?

So this is chapter five in the book of Acts. Now what it’s telling us is that the young Church was growing in Jerusalem. It was attracting a lot of believers, and people were living as one body. Really, the very, very beginning of the Church, the primitive Church, people lived as a community; they shared everything in common. And many people were motivated or inspired to sell everything and give it to the Church, and then the Church provided for the needs of all the people.

So just prior to this story, we have the example of Barnabas, whom we know also from later stories in the book of Acts who was a co-worker of St. Paul. He sold some land and he gave it all to the Church; they say laid it at the feet of the apostles. That’s a way of saying he donated it. So here is the story of Ananias and Sapphira.

But a man named Ananias and his wife, Sapphira, sold a piece of property. And with his wife’s knowledge, he kept back some of the proceeds and brought only a part of it and laid it at the apostles’ feet. But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back part of the proceeds of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? How is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.” When Ananias heard these words, he fell down and died, and great fear came upon all who heard of it. The young men rose and wrapped him up and carried him out and buried him.

After an interval of about three hours, his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. And Peter said to her, “Tell me whether you sold the land for so much,” and she said, “Yes, for so much.” But Peter said to her, “How is it that you have agreed together to tempt the spirit of the Lord? Hark! The feet of those that have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.” Immediately she fell down at his feet and died. When the young men came in, they found her dead, and they carried her out and buried her beside her husband. And great fear came upon the whole church and upon all who heard these things.

So that’s Acts 5:1-11, and this is the story under question, under discussion. Just to remind you about what we discussed last week, we went through what St. John Chrysostom said about this story. Even though it is not— I also told you that there is some discussion about whether or not it’s Peter who basically causes them to die or whether it’s God, and there’s actually disagreement about this. But most likely it’s not Peter’s words or Peter who makes this decision, but it is God, but Peter sees or perceives what is going to happen to them. So it’s not necessarily his words that cause them to die, but he sees that God is going to allow them to die at that very moment, to take away their life basically at that moment.

We talked about what St. John Chrysostom had to say about this pretty shocking story, and Chrysostom has a lot to say, and his point is that this was sacrilege. The sin that they committed was sacrilege; this is the first point he makes. Now what does this mean, that you steal from the Church? Now, it’s not explicit in the text, but it’s understood from what Peter says that they tried to deceive him. So they lied to the Holy Spirit; they lied to the Church. So how did they deceive him? Because Peter says, “It was yours to do whatever you want.” It’s not that everybody who joined the Church was required to sell everything and give all of the proceeds, but they, once they decided to do it, they came with part of it, and they lied about how much, you see.

So they didn’t have to give any of it to the Church, and when they decided to sell it, they could have given part of it to the Church. The question was the fact that they lied, that they dedicated this land to the Church and then they lied about it. So Chrysostom said this is sacrilege and this is one of the worst sins. When we make a promise to the Church, it is extremely important when we dedicate something to the Church or make a promise to the Church, we have to keep that promise, because then they basically converted it to their own use.

The other question is why weren’t they given some opportunity to repent. Why weren’t they said, “This is an evil deed,” and they just died? Well, this is one of the things we’re going to talk about today. But Chrysostom believed that they would not have repented, that they were so corrupted by Satan that Satan—because he said, “Satan has filled your heart”—Satan had filled their hearts, and they would not have responded even to this, and instead, for whatever reason, God chose to have them die at this point rather than infect the rest of the Church body, and actually, as an act of mercy, prevent them from a more serious sin.

And we talked about how this act and the suddenness of their death and the question about their spiritual state in the next life, it’s kind of similar in certain ways to Judas’s decisions, because Judas also could have repented for what he did in betraying the Lord, but he didn’t! They could have repented, but it seems clear that they did not. So Peter gave the wife the opportunity to come clean, and Chrysostom says she should have realized by Peter’s questioning that he understood that they were not telling the truth.

So it’s kind of a shocking story, but it’s a very important story, because what we see here is that sometimes Church leaders may choose to apply very strict discipline to protect the flock, to protect the rest of the body of Christ. We do see that sometimes, and that’s important, and we shouldn’t be judging our Church leaders if they choose to do that, or of course if God chooses to do this.

So we see two reactions in the Church. Sometimes our clergy are lenient, for pastoral reasons. Sometimes our people criticize our clergy for that. They say, “Well, they were too lenient. Why did Fr. So-and-so allow this?” or “Why did Bishop So-and-so allow this?” Other times they’re very strict. They could apply the canons of the Church, for example, with akrivia—that means exactness—with strictness. And then sometimes people question them or criticize them: “Why did Bishop not give an exemption in this case? Why did Father choose to apply this standard?” And so it is very common, unfortunately, in certain sometimes very sensitive situations in the Church for people to question and criticize either the priest or the bishop for allowing something or for disallowing something, according to the standards of the Church.

Well, the problem with this is that they cannot— Well, first of all, the bishop will not defend himself. He’s not going to answer you. He doesn’t answer to you. Who do you think you are to question, “Why did the bishop allow this? Why did the bishop not allow this? How come he allowed it in one case and not in another case?” The bishop is not going to answer to you; it’s none of your business, first of all. It involves the bishop, the priest, and the person involved, whatever the canon is that is being applied or they’re seeking to have some kind of relaxation of the canon. That has nothing to do with you.

Sometimes what we get is only part of the story, so if we overreact—“Oh, the bishop is so terrible he did this, or he did not do this,” or the priest. The priest cannot explain himself because he has been instructed by the bishop. When there’s a canonical question, for example, the bishop is the person who decides. Sometimes the bishops aren’t sure, and they will consult a canonical expert, and usually those are one of our professors who are experts in canon law. Once they make a decision, they tell the priest what to do, and it’s out of the priest’s hands. The priest conveys the decision to the person. Sometimes it’s about marriage or it’s about a baptism or a funeral or something like this. These are very sensitive issues. And then the people in the community for example see the decision was made—the person wasn’t allowed to have a Church funeral or they weren’t allowed to be married in the church or something like this, the baby wasn’t allowed to be baptized—something happened. And then people react: This is terrible, how dare the priest make this decision, how dare the bishop do that or not do this. And you don’t know the facts.

So this is why, one reason why we need to be very careful about expressing our opinion about such things. And if you hear somebody express an opinion about something like this, you should tell them that it’s not their business to comment about it. If you want to say anything at all, you have to say, “Well, Father obviously has his reasons for doing this, and we don’t know what those reasons are.” And so the last time I can think of where something like this happened—I’m not thinking about this big to-do that happened with a certain baptism in Greece, but I’m thinking about something that happened here in a local parish a few years ago when somebody died who was not allowed to be buried in the Church.

There was a big to-do and some people— She was a member in the choir, and some people in the choir stopped coming to the choir in this. I don’t know what the details were, but I remember we were discussing this in the choir. I remember saying to the people we have to trust Fr. So-and-so, that he knows what he’s doing, that we don’t know. “Oh, yes, I know!” said some people. “I know her very well, and I know her life and I know”—no, you don’t. You don’t, so stay out of it. This has nothing to do with you. Sometimes we are bothered by things that happen in the Church, by decisions that are made. This obviously not that it didn’t cause a person to die; it’s not to the extreme that we’re talking about here in Acts 5, but I’m just cautioning you to be very careful about judging the clergy based on decisions that you think very well you know exactly everything, all of the details, and in fact you do not.

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been in a situation where people told me they know the truth and they know all the facts, and really they don’t. And I happened to know, not because presvyteres know everything, not because the priest’s wife happens to know everything, but sometimes people tell us. We don’t— We’re not privy to these things either. These things are private matters within families, but sometimes a family member, usually the wife, tells us what’s going on, so I know things and I can’t say anything. The priest can’t say anything; the bishop isn’t going to say anything. So really we need to be very careful about minding our own business, because we’re judging others. You see that? You think you’re showing more compassion, you care more about the person and all these terrible clergy, they’re setting these rules. Well, you really don’t know what you think you know. So I would caution you that this is a very dangerous thing.

It also, by criticizing the clergy, we’re sowing division in the parish. So what does this have to do with Ananias and Sapphira? Well, here we have to be very, very careful that we don’t make judgments, because sometimes the bishop or the priest might think that a situation is so serious that they cannot allow somebody to receive Communion, for example, or to be a sponsor in baptism or something like this. It’s a painful decision. It’s something that they would rather not do, but they are doing it for the good of the rest of the parish. You don’t understand that; you don’t really know what’s going on.

So for whatever reason, Ananias and Sapphira drop dead! Why? Chrysostom says it was to protect the rest of the parish from the evil influence which they clearly would have influence, or this is kind of an infection on the rest of the body of Christ. So that was God’s decision, or Peter’s decision if you interpret it that way. We have to respect that and understand that we don’t always know what’s going on, the reasons for that.

The other possibility is that they would have grown worse. They would have become more wicked. So rather than allow them to continue in their wickedness, their life was ended at that point. And this is something else that we sometimes read in the Fathers of the Church, and something that we find kind of hard to believe. I will just share one thing with you. My mother-in-law, who’s my late mother-in-law, Fr. Costas’s mom, was a woman of tremendous wisdom. She was I think 92 when she fell asleep in the Lord, and she used to tell me things. Sometimes I would listen and think, “Well, I’m not so sure about that.” It didn’t seem to make sense to me. But she had lived a long time, and she had a lot of sort of folk wisdom, but she was also a very spiritual person—not an educated person, but a deeply spiritual person.

There were times that she told me things that I kind of wasn’t so sure about, or I was sort of dismissive of. Okay, I listened, and I didn’t really accept it. But as I’ve gotten older, I’ve begun to realize so many of the things she said to me are not only true, but I’ve found them in the Fathers of the Church. I don’t think she read about them in the Fathers of the Church. She just came to that understanding because of her own spirituality.

Among the things that she said is that sometimes God allows people to die too young because they are already ready for the kingdom, or to prevent them from falling into some more serious sin later, because she has seen that in her own life, or for whatever reason she came to that understanding. I was like, “Well, I’m not so sure about that,” but I’ve actually read that among the Fathers of the Church, among the saints of the Church. So we don’t really know how these things happen or why they happen, but we’re going to discuss how we’re supposed to react to it.

But before we get to our break, let’s get to the first part of a two-part question that came tin this past week from Kimberly in Raleigh, North Carolina. Thanks for writing, Kimberly. And as usual, I always forget to say the phone number if you wish to call in with a comment or a question, you can call into us by calling 855-237-2346. We are livestreaming on Facebook and other places—I don’t remember what they are! I just get into the zone, and I forget about everything. So thank God for the people at AFR that keep everything running, our wonderful producer here, Trudi, who keeps all these things going and answers your phone calls and takes the questions and things like this.

So she has two questions. I’m going to read the second one first. Here’s what she said:

OrthodoxWiki’s page on the apostles lists Paul among the Twelve instead of Matthias, and the page on Paul says that he “was chosen by God to take the place of Judas as evidenced by Orthodox hymnography and iconography.”

So she’s quoting the exact thing on the page.

I’ve never heard this before and can’t find anything about it on other Orthodox websites. Is this an actual tradition of the Church? I want something more authoritative than OrthodoxWiki before I change my view on this.

Good thinking, Kimberly! I think you should not rely on OrthodoxWiki or anything on Wikipedia. We have to be very careful, because anybody could say anything on Wikipedia. All right, let’s start with this.

I would not agree with this, because the exact wording was that God—was that Paul was chosen by God to take the place of Judas as evidenced by Orthodox hymnography. Obviously that’s untrue, because we see in the book of Acts, in chapter one, Matthias was chosen to take the place of Judas, not Paul. So the reason for this statement, I’m assuming, whoever posted it on OrthodoxWiki—it’s wrong—is possibly because we call Paul an apostle, yes, and that in Orthodox churches when you see the twelve apostles, very often they’re above the iconostasis. We never see Matthias, the poor fellow; we see Paul. We see in the very center Peter and Paul. It’s not that God chose Paul to take the place. Obviously, historically, the place was taken by Matthias; Paul was not even in the picture at the time, so we cannot say that. So let’s be very careful.

There is something that is— So why does the Orthodox Church have Paul up with the Twelve? It’s not because God chose him to take the place; it’s because of the Church’s recognition of the contribution of St. Paul and the fact that the Church ultimately accepted him as an apostle. So when we did our little background or introduction to Paul and we went through all of the epistles of Paul, I told you that St. Paul was not regarded as an apostle during his lifetime by most of the Church. And if you read his epistles, you will see that that’s the case. He always has to fight for his apostleship, especially in 2 Corinthians. The whole letter is devoted to Paul saying why he really is an apostle.

Because the rest of the people in the Church didn’t accept him as an apostle. Why not? What qualifications did you have to have? You had to be with the Lord from the beginning, and you had to be an eyewitness of the resurrection. These requirements are seen in Acts 1, when Peter says, “We have to choose somebody to replace Judas.” It was somebody who was with them from the beginning, from the time that they were having the ministry in Galilee, because the apostles were called to be eyewitnesses to the Lord, to everything the Lord did, but especially his resurrection. Paul did not become a follower of Jesus Christ until after the Ascension. He never saw the risen Lord. He encountered him on the road to Damascus, yes. And Paul called himself an apostle, yes. And we could say that God approved of him as an apostle; Paul says this so often and the Church in the end also recognized that Paul truly is an apostle, and deserved that title, but no one else got that title.

Now, this is something else you have to remember. The term “apostle” is not limited only to the Twelve in the early Church. Today, when we say “apostle,” we mean the Twelve, but in the early Church, an apostle was anyone who was an eyewitness to the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and we know that that term was applied to other people besides just the Twelve. If you read the New Testament carefully, you will see that the Twelve are called “the Twelve.” The term “the Twelve” and an “apostle” was not synonymous. Today, we use the term “apostle” to differentiate the Twelve from other disciples, but not in the era of the early Church. And one of the places that I already pointed this out to you is in Romans 16, at the very end, when St. Paul is greeting people in the Roman Church. He says, “Greet Andronicus and Junia, my relatives who are noteworthy among the apostles.” That’s a man and a woman, a husband and wife, relatives of Paul. They are not among the Twelve. So the term “apostle” was used much more broadly in the early Church than it is today. So be careful before saying what God has done, if you’re going to post anything on OrthodoxWiki, be super careful about that.

So we’re going to take a little break at this point. When we return, we’re going to address the first part of Kimberly’s question, and that has to do with why we, if we all receive the Holy Spirit, as the people did at the time of the early Church, why aren’t we all performing miracles and wonders and things like this? How do we explain that? So join me after the break.

Okay, so let’s just continue with the other question that Kimberly had, and it has to do with Acts of the Apostles. So here it is.

Hello, Dr. Jeannie. I am reading through the Acts of the Apostles. I’m struck by how clear it is that the same spirit that had spoken through the prophets in the Old Testament is the spirit given to all of the disciples of the early Church. They are guided by the Holy Spirit in what they speak, how they act, and what they go, with miracles and signs, showing that God is with them, on every page. The difference from the Old Testament is that the Holy Spirit is now given to the whole Church instead of a select few, and that same gift is granted to all of us through chrismation today.

But if we all receive the Holy Spirit at chrismation, why do we not see the same degree of signs and wonders that are recorded in Acts? Why is it such a struggle to discern the will of God? We have modern-day saints and wonder-workers that we can point to, but isn’t that no different from the Old Testament, where prophets arose, but most people did not have the Holy Spirit with them? What does it mean for us that we have received the Holy Spirit?

That’s a great question, and I did address some things along these lines when we talked about receiving the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, which is how we began our whole series here. We started with the Lord’s Ascension and the receiving of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost a while ago; that was back in June, I guess. So May and June we were talking about these things.

You are correct that we have all received the Holy Spirit. It is different from what happened to the prophets of the Old Testament, but what hasn’t changed is how receptive we are, and this makes a difference between what the apostles experienced and the early Church experienced and the rest of us. So what happens is, yes, we have received the Holy Spirit in a way different from the Old Testament. This is true, because we are living after the time of Pentecost. There is a famous reading in the book of Hebrews that we hear three times a year as an epistle for the Sunday epistle reading, and that says about all the saints of the Old Testament. And there were people who were saintly, who had the Holy Spirit even if they weren’t designated as prophets. The Holy Spirit was active in the world before, of course, the coming of Christ, before Pentecost; not just among the prophets, but we mention them specifically in the Creed.

And then it says, “Yet all these—” Remember how it says they stopped the mouths of lions and quenched raging fires and received their dead by resurrection and that kind of thing, all that incredible language about how they were living in dens and caves in the earth and dressed in the skin of animals. This says all these— Even though they had faith, because these were great people of God of the Old Testament, they did not receive what was promised.

But what was promised? This. This outpouring of the Holy Spirit. What St. Peter talked about at that very first speech that we read together in chapter two of Acts, this outpouring of the Holy Spirit. So we do have something that even those great prophets did not have. And because of that, because of our chrismation, we also receive the body and blood of Christ. We are united to Christ; we experience God in a way that they were unable to.

So why don’t we do miracles? We’ve already discussed that. Why not? Is there anything different about the Holy Spirit that they received, that we received? No, it’s our fault. Look at the way these people were living. They were living as a community, selling everything, giving it to the Church, sharing everything. There was a lack of possessiveness. There was a humility that they showed. There was a love that they showed. There was a trust in God that they showed. So the same spirit that was operating on the early Church is the same spirit that we receive in chrismation, but what are we doing with it? You see, that falls upon us. The Spirit doesn’t just come and, willy-nilly, cause us to be able to do miracles, but we all have that potential, because Jesus promised that we would do greater things than what even he did.

So why aren’t we? It’s not because the Holy Spirit wasn’t given to us in the same way that it was given to the people in the early Church. It’s that we’re not doing anything with it. We don’t really take it seriously. And I don’t know what else to say about that, except to think of what Chrysostom talked about St. Paul. Why was St. Paul such a great saint? And why is anybody a saint, versus the rest of us who are not saints? It has to do with the effort that they expended to respond to God, the love and devotion that they have for God, which was all-encompassing. And we just don’t have that. We think we do. We like to feel like we are devout and committed Christians, but most of the day goes by and we don’t think about God too much. Maybe we do a little bit, but we have our own agenda. We’re not really devoting our lives to God. We’re not really following the Gospel the way it was meant to be followed, not the way these people are, anyhow.

So that’s one answer, but the second answer that some people say, including some of the Fathers of the Church, is that it was necessary in this early period of the Church to pour out the Spirit with a kind of abundance that allowed the Church to get going. And I think you could also see how this would be the case. Think about the fact that we have here a small Jewish sect. They’re still in Jerusalem. Why should anybody believe their words, what they say about Jesus Christ? It was the signs that were being done by the apostles, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit among these believers that convinced a lot of people to join them. And the same is the case with the Gentiles. When Paul and other apostles went out to preach, they did all these amazing signs and wonders, and this was kind of necessary; otherwise, all they would really have were words.

We don’t stand in need of that so much any more, because we are living in a different time, in a time when we do know about the Christian faith. Before, in the very, very beginning of the Church, all these people regarded as crazy or as complete heretics. Among the Jews, they are complete heretics; among the pagans, they are insane, because they were worshiping somebody who was crucified. So this outpouring of the Spirit, these displays of power that even St. Paul refers to, was one of the ways that people came to the Church. Later it was not as necessary, but still there should be more.

All of us should be doing these things, but we’re not. So I want to tell you what St. John Chrysostom said about St. Paul. What made Paul a saint? It’s very simple. That when St. Paul— Because St. Paul says the following, and Chrysostom was commenting about this passage. St. Paul talks about how he persecuted the Church of God. He said:

I am the least of the apostles. I don’t deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the Church of God. But, by the grace of God, I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain.

Chrysostom says about that passage that St. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 16. “His grace toward me was not in vain.” What does that mean, “in vain”? It was not wasted. So St. John Chrysostom, commenting on this says this:

What does it mean that the grace of God was not wasted on St. Paul? It means that when God gave his grace to St. Paul, Paul responded, and because of this God gave him more grace, and Paul responded to that, and because of it he gave him more grace, and Paul responded to that.

In other words, Paul was like a field in which God sowed this seed of the word, and Paul grew with it, and the more he responded to God, God gave him more and more grace. That’s what makes a saint! So we have— There’s nothing that distinguishes us from St. Paul except our desire to respond to God as fully and completely as possible in the spiritual life. We’re not willing to do it, because we can’t be bothered. It’s too much trouble; it’s too much sacrifice. We don’t really want to commit ourselves to God, because we know that he might ask us something we don’t want to do.

So this is the truth. St. Paul did not receive some different spirit. There’s nothing special about Paul or even the Virgin Mary, for that matter. This is what distinguishes us from the Catholics. She wasn’t sort of kept without sin by God. God didn’t do anything miraculous to her. She acquired this holiness through the grace of God working with her and her response to God, and we call that synergy in the Orthodox Church. So what they had in the early Church we don’t have, because we’re not committed the way they were, because we’re not living the life.

I think that the more affluence we have in our society and the more distractions we have—our telephones, our television, all kinds of things—distract us from God and take us away from God. We’re just not focused on God; he’s not a priority the way he was for those first Christians. So that’s how I would answer you, Kimberly, and thanks for the question.

Let’s go back to Ananias and Sapphira, because we’re going to talk about why this happened and what this says. So we know why—well, we sort of talked about already why it happened. And this was a judgment of God upon them. My concern with the story, when people write to me and they’re disturbed by the story, is not what happened to Ananias and Sapphira. I don’t think we’re too concerned about them. They’re already dead; they’ve been dead for a long time. But my concern is how this shows our attitude, and our attitude about questioning what happened, because we ask the question, “Why did God do this?” or “Why did Peter do this?” “Why did God allow this? Why weren’t they given a chance to repent? Why did they…? Why was the reaction of God or St. Peter so harsh?”

So when we ask this question, we are showing that we are judging God, and that’s where I want to put our focus today. We have to be very careful about this, because to ask that question, “Why did this happen?” is because we think that this was not “fair.” It’s not consistent with what we think Christ should have done or God did. We even have the original question came from anonymous; it came from another email question. And he says, “This is like the God of the Old Testament.” What, we have two different Gods!? There’s a God of the Old Testament, there’s a God of the New Testament? No, there’s one God, and he has one standard. But he has this idea that somehow there’s this harsh God who was too harsh with Ananias and Sapphira, and we ask the question, “How could God allow that? Why would he do this?” As soon as we begin to ask such questions, dear brothers and sisters, we are judging God, and that is very dangerous. That should never happen, never happen.

And this is one reason why I mentioned before judging our clergy about canonical decisions. Somebody decides to baptize somebody or marry somebody or allow them to do something or not: this is— You do not question that. You are not in a position to know. Very similarly or even more importantly, we do not question God! We have to accept that what God did is what he thought was the right thing to do. And you say, “Oh, that’s not fair!” So what are you saying? God is not just? You know better than God what true justice is? How can you possibly say this!?

So these are acts, these are thoughts of impiety. These are unacceptable thoughts. We need to change our attitude when we react this way. We have to recognize that we need a different phronema. So we’re pointing the finger at God and saying that God is not just, and we should really be looking at ourselves. We should really be saying, “You know what, I don’t deserve even this temporary life.” Isn’t that what our saints say? “Forgive me, God, I’m not even worthy of the breath that I take.” Don’t we all deserve to die? Don’t we all deserve to be judged that way? So how dare we say that God is not just, God is not fair, because they weren’t given an opportunity to repent! Instead we should be repenting of having that thought, and saying, “God, change my mind; change my attitude,” because when we judge God, it’s a type of unbelief, for which we ourselves will be judged.

So that’s what we’re going to be spending the rest of our time this evening on. I’m going to read to you. I have two Fathers of the Church who talk a lot about this in different places. It’s Cyril of Alexandria and St. John Chrysostom. So St. Cyril, in his homilies on John, said the following; he said:

God is not unjust to inflict wrath on us.

And he’s quoting there Romans, the wrath of God.

Since he is righteous by nature, he will surely decide correctly, and direct his judgment in accordance with his own nature, even though we ourselves may not understand the path of his oikonomia that is above us.

So he’s saying God, if we believe that God is just and righteous— I mean, don’t we say that? God is righteous; that’s dikaios. The righteousness of God, the justice of God, is something that’s a given. If you believe that God is just and not capricious, erratic, cruel; if you believe that, then how could you question how could God do this? Isn’t it better to simply say God knows what he’s doing, and he made this decision based on his correct judgment? The same thing happens when people— when we say, well, we have to do these things in order to be saved, and then somebody argues with us, “Well, what about people who never heard of Jesus Christ? What about people in China? What about this and what about that?” Why are you concerned with them? Look at yourself. God knows what’s fair; God knows what’s just. Are you saying God would be unjust toward those people? Of course not!

So there are certain parameters. When we theologize, dear brothers and sisters, there are certain boundaries, certain parameters, that we do not cross, at least Orthodox theologians. There are certain things that are a given, and they’re never violated, and our decisions have to be made within those strict parameters, and one of them is that God is love and God has perfect knowledge and perfect justice. So all of those things exist in the Person of God, who, by the way, sent his own Son for us. And you’re thinking God is going to be unjust? We don’t deserve what we receive from God, do we? So if you accept that, then you have to say, “I don’t understand why this happened to Ananias and Sapphira, but I assume that God—who is perfect holiness, perfect love, perfect justice—knows better than I do, and I won’t inquire any further. And I certainly won’t question God: How could God allow this?” Can you see the evil in that very question? Yes, it is evil because it comes from the evil one who wants us to doubt God, to question God. Can you see that? So that’s why that’s so dangerous.

So St. Cyril says—and this is about the question how. I think this is very interesting, because sometimes we ask this question: How? How is that possible? How could God allow that? And this particular question, this particular statement of St. Cyril, is a reaction to the question of Nicodemus. So when Nicodemus came to Jesus at night—this is in John 3—he said—Jesus said you must be born again in order to see the kingdom of God, and Nicodemus says, “How is that possible? Am I to enter into my mother’s womb and be born again?”

So Cyril here is talking about Nicodemus’s doubt and the fact that he uses the word “how.” Here is St. Cyril of Alexandria, explaining that when we don’t understand something, we should seek to understand it, but not ask the question how. So here it is, St. Cyril:

We should derive some benefit from this and set our own life aright by the things that make others fall.

I’m going to repeat that, because I think it has everything to do with Ananias and Sapphira. They fell. What are we going to learn from it? That’s the question! The question is not, “How could God do that to them?” but “What are we supposed to learn from it?” Obviously, the early Church learned something from it: not to lie to the Holy Spirit, not to commit sacrilege, not to say—not to lie to the apostles, not to lie to the Church. But there’s got to be more to it than this. I’m going to read that again. Here’s what St. Cyril says.

We should derive some benefit from this and set our own life aright by the things that make others fall. Let us then be found more skillful in the hunt for what is beneficial, even if it comes through the wickedness of others.

Did you hear what he said? Let us look for what is beneficial in the story. That’s what we’re supposed to focus on. What are we supposed to learn from this story? Why is it there? So that we may benefit; so that we may not do what they did.

Let us hunt (Cyril says) for what is beneficial, even if it comes through the wickedness of others, and let us avoid saying how to what God does. Instead, let us rather take care to attribute to him the knowledge of the way he does his own works.

That means you should keep your mouth shut about that and trust God. Do you believe in God? Don’t you believe that he knows what he’s doing? Why would you even think to ask the question, “How could God allow that to happen? Why did this happen?”? There’s a lot of impiety in that. There’s a problem with your phronema if you’re asking that question. We should teach ourselves; we should reproach ourselves. We should repent for asking the question. These statements are not directed to you, the person who wrote the question, anonymous; he knows who he is. The statement is not directed to you as a specific person. Many people have asked me this question. It’s a natural thing that comes to our mind, but it shows how far we are from the love of God, from the understanding of God. This shows an arrogance on our part, as soon as we ask this question, “How could God allow that?” So we have to correct ourselves, dear brothers and sisters; let’s correct ourselves.

So Chrysostom made the same point in his comments on Paul’s epistles, epistle to the Romans, because Paul had said everyone has sinned. “All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” And we can also add elsewhere that St. Paul wrote that “God wills that all people be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth.” This is a very well-known phrase in the Orthodox tradition. God wants everyone to be saved, and then Chrysostom asks, if that’s the case, why aren’t all people going to be saved? Here’s Chrysostom.

Now, if all have sinned, how are some to be saved and some to perish? It is because all were not minded to come to him. For his part, all were saved, because all were called.

He invites all of us, but everybody’s not going to be saved, because not everybody responds to God. That’s our doing; that’s our choice. So everybody chooses not to be saved, and that’s what we have here with Ananias and Sapphira. They chose to behave differently than the rest of the Church, and it was so evil, it was so wicked, because Satan corrupted them to the core. To say, “Satan has filled your heart,” it’s not like a little mistake they can repent from, but there must have been a very deep-seated wickedness.

Chrysostom begins to discuss a passage in Romans about the wisdom of God and the plan of God, and we discussed this back when we were discussing the book of Romans, which we went through verse by verse. The question was why—Paul was asking the question why most of the Jewish people did not accept Christ, and so he makes the comparison of a pot and a potter. There are some very important excerpts—I’m going to read to you some very important excerpts of things that Chrysostom said, and I think they’re important because they realign our way of thinking to something appropriate. And actually this is patristic and it is biblical, because this is the conclusion that St. Paul came to, that we’re not in a position to question God. By this, he was not teaching predestination when he gave the comparison of the pot and the potter. The clay doesn’t have any right—the clay doesn’t ask the potter, “Why did you make me this way?” Because, frankly, we are all faced with things we don’t understand, but we have to be very careful not to judge God.

Now, I’m not telling you, “Don’t study the Bible, don’t ask questions”; I’m just saying that if you reach a conclusion that something is wrong or unjust because it doesn’t fit with your particular sensibilities—what you think is right or just—we’re judging God. And a lot of people have this reaction, and we have to be very, very careful, because the reason why we’re reacting this way, rather than having the opposite reaction and saying, “I’m a worse sinner. I don’t deserve this beautiful life that I have. I don’t deserve the next breath that I take, but God is merciful to me”—rather than having that reaction, saying, “Thank you, God. Teach me what I should learn from the story of Ananias and Sapphira,” instead we’re judging God: “Why did he do that? How could he do that? Why didn’t he let them repent?” Rather than attributing to God, as St. Cyril said, “knowledge of his own ways”… God knows what is best! That’s a simple answer, but it’s always the right answer.

Instead, this disturbs us because we have become complacent about sin, about sacrilege, about “that was their particular sin,” about lying to God, lying to the Church, lying to others—whatever it is. We have become complacent! And instead of really mourning over our sins, instead of really grieving for our sins as we should, instead we say, “Well, that’s okay. God will forgive me.” We’re not really— We don’t take our repentance very seriously. We’re not really taking our spiritual life seriously. If we did, we’d be doing those miracles that Kimberly was talking about. So all of us have a very long road to travel. We’re certainly not in a position to judge God.

So Chrysostom also discusses how the Bible expresses judgment of God. For example, when, before Jacob and Esau are born, it says in Genesis, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” That makes us very uncomfortable. Why does God say this when they haven’t done anything? They’re not even born yet. And Chrysostom says it’s because he knows—because God knows the future—what Jacob will become and what Esau will become. He knows about Ananias and Sapphira. He knows everything. So we have to allow God to be God, and not be questioning his judgments.

Let’s take a little break at this point, and when we come back we will hear from St. John Chrysostom about Jacob and Esau and God’s judgments and why he makes the judgments that he makes.

Okay, so we were talking about St. John Chrysostom. By the way, yes, you just heard the promo from Fr. Evan. Phenomenal show, by the way. And we do need to remind you that Ancient Faith Radio is entirely listener-supported. This ministry is so important. It is so important to many people around the world, and it’s kind of easy to just listen to it as though… You know, we don’t play commercials; you don’t have to listen through commercials or anything like that. It would be so easy to just sort of become complacent and not contribute, but we do need the support to keep Ancient Faith Radio on the air. Phenomenal ministry we want it to continue long, long, long into the future. We were talking about— So please do support Ancient Faith Radio. Please take that to heart.

We were talking about Jacob and Esau and what Chrysostom says about this. Listen to this.

What was the cause, then, why one was loved and the other hated?

By the way, that’s a human expression, “I hated Esau.” God doesn’t hate, but it’s a way—it’s a Hebraic expression of saying that he didn’t like him; he didn’t approve of him. He approves of Jacob; he doesn’t approve of Esau.

Why is it that one served and the other was served? It was because one was wicked and the other was good. And yet the children were not yet born! One was honored and the other condemned. With what intent, then, did God say this? Because he does not wait, as humans do, to see the issue from their acts what is good and what is not good. Even before these, he knows which one is wicked and which one is not.

Okay, so his point is God, unlike us, doesn’t wait to see how they’re going to turn out. When we have children, we don’t know how they’re going to turn out. We try our best and we hope for the best, but we don’t know. God already knows, before they’re born, what’s going to happen. So here he shows his foreknowledge by saying that. It’s not that he makes one good and the other one evil. It’s not that he has some bias toward Jacob and doesn’t like Esau for some other reason. It’s that he knows how they’re going to turn out.

So in Romans 9, Paul writes, “For I will have mercy, he says, on whom I will have mercy, and I will show compassion on whom I will show compassion.” So this is a quotation from Exodus 33:19, when God is speaking to Moses. Here again, Chrysostom says he’s not answering Moses, why did God choose to punish some people and not other people; why is the pharaoh punished and not other people? Chrysostom says:

You say that pharaoh was hardened and disobedient? Was he alone in not even one other person? How was it that he came to be severely punished? What the blessed Paul aimed at was to show by all that he said that only God knows who are worthy, and human beings never know, even if we seem to know ever so well. But that in this sentence of his (that’s God’s decision) there are many aberrations.

In other words, people make mistakes. We think that we know, but when we make a decision— This is why we’re not supposed to judge people. We think we know, we think we’re in a position to judge, we think we have all the facts, we’re very confident in ourselves—but the fact is, as Chrysostom puts it here, it’s translated: there are many aberrations. People make mistakes.

He that knows the secret of the heart, only he knows with certainty who deserves a crown and who punishment and vengeance. Hence it is that many of those who are esteemed good by human beings he convicts and punishes; and those suspected to be bad he crowns, after showing it not to be so.

So we’ve seen this. How many people we think, “Oh, that’s a really good person,” and we find out they’re very corrupt or they’re a tremendous sinner; or there are a lot of stories of lives of the saints where somebody seems to be a very ordinary person or even maybe a sinful person, and they’re actually a saint. Only God knows that. So Chrysostom continues and says that:

Thus God forms his sentence, not according to the judgment of us slaves but after his own keen and incorrupt decision.

So he compares—Chrysostom then compares the judgment of God to people who are experts in certain areas. I thought this was a wonderful analogy. People have a certain expertise in areas. You might be an expert quilter. You might be an expert craftsman of jewelry, or maybe you know furniture; you have an expertise in that area, or art. I can go to a museum and see a painting, and I don’t know what makes it so great. I say, “Well, that’s a very nice painting, but I’m not an expert in art to explain this.” But a person who has expertise, who truly knows, they can look at that and say, “Look at the shading, look at the brush strokes, look at the texture, look at the perspective.” I just say, “Well, I don’t like that painting. It looks like a child painted it.” Then somebody explains it to you and you’re like: “Wow, I had no idea.”

Just like you’re listening to this program. I have a specific expertise in the Bible, and I explain things and people are like: “Wow, that’s much more complicated than I thought. It goes much deeper than I thought.” God is like that. So here Chrysostom gives us an analogy that we can understand as human beings. There are people who have expertise, people who are—who don’t have that expertise, have an opinion, but it’s an uninformed opinion. They may look at something and think it looks great, but actually it’s no good. Why? Because they don’t know. Only an expert knows. So, for example, here’s Chrysostom.

For if in the case of these arts, which are perishable, and indeed in other matters, those that are good judges do not use the grounds on which the uninstructed form their decision in selecting out of what is put before them, but from points which they themselves are well aware of, they may at times disparage that which the uninstructed approve, and decide upon what they disparage.

So in other words, people who don’t know might think that something is really good, really well done, is very well done, but they don’t have an expertise in that area. So they say the person really knows says, “No, look at this shape, look at this form, look at the line of the body.” This is why this person was judged: in their figure skating, they got this kind of a— You might look and say, “Wow, that’s a great performance,” but a person who really knows music or skating or whatever it is, they know better, and they can say, “No, it was terrible!” So that’s because you lack expertise, so you’re not in a position to make that judgment. So he’s making that analogy. So Chrysostom says:

Just as judges of precious stones and workmen in other arts, just as they are able to judge, much more will the God who loves mankind, the infinite wisdom who alone has clear knowledge of all things, does not allow men’s guesses, but will, out of his own exact and unfailing wisdom, pass his sentence upon all men. Hence it was that he chose the publican, the thief, and the harlot, but dishonored priests and elders and rulers, and cast them out. And this one may see happening in the case of martyrs also. Many, accordingly, of those who were utterly cast aside have been crowned in the time of trial; and on the other hand, some who were held to be great by many have stumbled and fallen. Do not, then, call the Creator to account.

He says don’t judge God.

Nor say, “Why is it that this one was crowned or another punished?” for he alone knows how to do these things with exactness. For this reason, he says, “Jacob I have loved and Esau I have hated,” that it was with justice you know it was from the result.

In other words, God was right, because we see, after we see the end of their lives, what happened to them. So God knew in advance what would become of them.

And if he should stay even long happily in a state of vice, he will not be overlooked, for God who knows all things will draw him out.

Oh, I skipped a line there.

It was not a mere exhibition of works that God searches after, but a nobleness of choice, an obedient temper. For a man of this kind, if he should ever sin, through some surprise, will speedily recover himself, and even if he should stay long in a state of vice, he will not be overlooked, but God who knows all things will draw him out.

Okay, so he’s saying he knows the disposition of the person. This is why Chrysostom concluded that Ananias and Sapphira would not repent, even if they were given an opportunity to repent, because God doesn’t give them this opportunity to repent. And Judas was given an opportunity, because he didn’t die right after betraying the Lord, but he did not repent.

So he that is corrupted here, even if he seems to do good things, will perish, because he does this with an ill intention.

So what do we do? We look at the person; we look at the outward person. “Oh, they do so many outward good things. Oh, look at the good deeds that they do. Oh, look how pious they are!” God knows the heart. There could be a person that we completely disregard, we have no regard for, and yet that person could be the holiest person in the parish; we don’t know. That’s why we’re not supposed to judge, because only God knows. And other people who seem to be very well regarded might be going to hell. We don’t like to think about this, but that’s why we’re not supposed to judge. In one way, to think this person is wonderful, or to think this person is terrible. Instead, we’re supposed to consider everybody else better than us. That’s the safest thing; that’s what the saints do. That’s what we are called to do.

Then he mentions—here Chrysostom mentions David.

After committing murder and adultery, since he did this as being carried away by surprise…

In other words, it wasn’t a pattern, but it was a one-time thing that he did.

...not from his habitual habit of wickedness, speedily washed it out. The Pharisee, however, who had not perpetrated any such crime but even had good deeds to boast of, lost all because of a bad spirit.

So look at how the intention and—I’m going to go ahead and use the word again—phronema: what was the attitude of David once Nathan confronted him? He repented deeply—immediately, sorrowfully, deeply. And we have this amazing psalm:

Have mercy upon me, O God, according to your great mercy, and according to the abundance of thy tender mercies, blot out my transgression.

This is the psalm we all know so well in the Orthodox Church. David wrote that in his repentance! And yet, the Pharisee, even though he did all of these good deeds, because of his attitude was not found justified by God. So this is what we have to look at.

As Chrysostom continues, he’s reading from Romans, which says, “For God says to Moses: I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy; I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.” And here he’s explaining—he’s saying to Moses, “I don’t have to give account to you, Moses.” He says this after they worshiped the golden calf, and Moses did not understand why God was accepting certain things and not other things; why God punished some people and not other people.

So Fr. Costas has just wandered into the room, and I know that you guys—like, I’m not finished here, but I know you like to hear from Fr. Costas. Come closer, Fr. Costa. Come on, Father. Go ahead, Father! Oh, the next podcast, Fr. Costas is saying. Oh, come here and talk into the microphone; everybody loves to hear you. Come on! Speak up loudly. Go ahead.

Fr. Costas Constantinou: God bless. God bless all of us, dear brothers and sisters. I’m very happen and glad and proud of you listening to my wife. I’ve been listening to her for many, many years, and I was really benefitted in my spiritual life.

Dr. Constantinou: Oh, that’s nice.

Fr. Costas: I would like to say a few things at your next podcast if you allow me.

Dr. Constantinou: Of course.

Fr. Costas: Tonight your podcast was excellent, and you know very well that I am your strictest critic!

Dr. Constantinou: [Laughter] Yes, indeed! What are spouses for? So, Fr. Costas wants to continue to have this discussion the next time we meet, not next week, because we will not have a program next week, but perhaps the following week. So we will do something at that time.

Fr. Costas: As you wish.

Dr. Constantinou: Now you’ve heard it, so Fr. Costas, I wanted him to say it, so that he promises to come back next time, two weeks from today. We’re going to have a discussion with Fr. Costas.

Fr. Costas: I would like to speak about giving and my recent experiences in my country, Cyprus, when I visited.

Dr. Constantinou: What about righteousness and the righteousness of God and things like this? This is an area you’ve been studying also.

Fr. Costas: I thought I did, but I will do a little bit of that, too.

Dr. Constantinou: Okay, very good. So now you’ve heard it—

Fr. Costas: I just need to do a little bit of research first.

Dr. Constantinou: You have plenty of time for research. You’ve got two weeks, Fr. Costa. Okay, so let’s continue with what we’re saying.

Fr. Costas: God bless you.

Dr. Constantinou: Thank you, Father.

Okay, so the point here is that—and we might not quite finish with what Chrysostom says; I think we will tonight. So God did not give Moses a reason for what he did. He doesn’t answer Job, does he? Does he explain to Job why Job has suffered all of these things? Of course not! He just asks Job question after question after question after question until Job repents of the fact that he questioned God. Isn’t that what we’re talking about? We’re still talking about the same thing. He questioned God.

So we don’t want to be doing this sort of thing. It’s a big mistake to make. Let us continue with what Chrysostom says about this. He says, “It is not—” He’s speaking as though it is God speaking. When God says, “I will have compassion upon whom I will have compassion; I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy,” these kind of thing, it’s not suggesting predestination, which is how some Protestants interpret this verse. Instead, we have to remember the context. Moses was questioning God. And Chrysostom says that God is basically saying:

It is not yours to know, Moses, who is deserving of my love, but leave this to me. And if Moses had no right to know, much less do we.

So as Paul continues, he says, “Who are you, man, that replies against God?” His point is that—Chrysostom is telling us that God has foreknowledge; God is incomprehensible; God is above our reason; and it’s important to us to respect the judgment of God. And this is why St. Paul made this statement. Here are the words of Chrysostom:

So when he has made this preparatory step and his hearer has hushed and has softened down his spirit, then with great felicity he introduces the answer. He does not say it is impossible to answer questions of this kind, but that it is presumptuous to raise them.

In our case, our question is why did this happen to Ananias and Sapphira, but it could be anything. Why did God allow this person to die and not this other person? He doesn’t say it’s impossible to answer the question but that it is a presumptuous to raise them. We should not even ask the question.

It is our business (this is Chrysostom) to obey what God does, not to be curious if we do not know the reason for these things. For this reason, St. Paul says, “Who are you that replies against God?” For the expression, “Who are you?” does much more to correct him than saying, “You are nothing.” He says, “Who are you that answers God? Who are you that criticizes God? Who are you that opposes God?” for the saying things ought to be so or not to be so—

In other words, when we say, “Why did God do this?” we are saying that this shouldn’t have happened or that something else should have happened is what he means here. And Chrysostom says:

Do you see how he scares them, how he terrifies them, how he makes them tremble rather than be questioning and curious?

So really what St. Paul is trying to do here, Chrysostom is pointing out, is to instruct us in the way that we ought to be thinking about these things, in a more spiritual manner.

So these passages in Romans are often used by some Protestants to defend the doctrine of predestination, that God is saying, or Paul is saying that God has a right to be capricious, to be arbitrary; he will choose some arbitrarily or destroy others simply on a whim, that we have nothing to contribute to our own salvation. And somehow people say that this honors God! That is not what St. Paul is saying, because in fact time and again he calls people to repent. He calls people to change their conduct, to change their way of life. And if God practiced predestination and it was completely arbitrary, then God would not be justice; God would not be love!

Chrysostom points out that these passages are not suggesting that we have no free will, that this is how it is often interpreted. When it’s interpreted outside of the context of Paul’s larger argument, when it is interpreted outside of the context of the tradition of the Church, and which we never taught—the Church never taught predestination—we arrive at these ridiculous interpretations.

So it is in verse 20 and 21 of Romans 9 that St. Paul says:

Shall the thing formed say to the thing that formed it, “Why have you made me thus?” Has not the potter the power of the same lump to make one a vessel of honor and the other of dishonor?”

So this is St. Paul with Paul’s argument. Now here’s Chrysostom.

Here he is saying this, not to do away with free will, but to show what point we ought to obey God, for, when we are attempting to call God to account, we ought to be as little disposed to it as the clay is.

You see his point? He’s not using this—Paul is not saying this to say we have no say in what happens, but that we should be like clay: we have no opinion about it; we have nothing to say about what God does.

For we should not only abstain from criticizing or questioning, but even speaking or thinking of it at all. We should become like that lifeless matter which follows in the potter’s hands and lets itself be drawn about anywhere he may please. And this is the only reason he applied this illustration (this is Chrysostom), not that it is to any annunciation of the rule of life, but to the complete obedience and silence enforced upon us. This we ought to observe in all cases, that we are not to take the illustrations entirely, but select what is good from them, and the reason for which they were introduced, and to let the rest alone.

Why was this introduced, this image of the potter and the clay? Why? It was to show us that we have no right to question God, not to tell us that God is going to do whatever he wants and there is a predestination and it has nothing to do with us. Can you see that? It’s a very excellent argument.

Do not suppose (this is Chrysostom again) that this is said by Paul as an account of the creation, nor as implying a necessity over the will…

In other words, that you have no free will.

...but to illustrate the sovereignty, the difference of dispensations. For if we do not take it in this way, diverse incongruities will follow.

In other words, you’ll be drawn into the wrong ideas, heretical notions. Chrysostom:

For if here he were speaking about free will, and those who were good and not so, he will be himself the maker of these, and man would be free from all responsibility. At this rate, Paul will also be shown to be at variance with himself…

In other words, Paul would be disagreeing with himself. If Paul were teaching predestination here, he would be disagreeing with himself.

...because he always bestows chief honor upon free choice. There is nothing else, then, which he here wishes to do except to persuade the hearer to yield entirely to God, and at no time to call him to account for anything whatsoever. For, as the potter of the same lump makes whatever he pleases and no one forbids it, thus also when God, of the same race of humans, punishes some and honors others, do not be curious or meddlesome, but only worship. Imitate the clay. For he works nothing at random or mere hazard, even though you are ignorant of his wisdom, and yet you allow the other of the same lump to make diverse things and find no fault…

In other words, we allow other people to make their own decisions; we don’t find fault with others.

...but of him you demand an account of his punishments and his honors and will not allow him to know who is worthy and who is not so. But since the lump (he means the clay) is of the same substance, you assert that they are of the same disposition.

Do you see what Chrysostom is doing here? He’s saying because we’re all clay, because we’re all humans, you’re assuming that we’re all the same in our disposition, in our interior life, but that’s not true. God knows, and we do not.

You assert that there are the same dispositions.

And basically you’re also saying we should all be treated exactly alike. And Chrysostom says that:

This is monstrous! It is not even—yet not even it is on the potter that the honor and dishonor of the things made that the lump depends, but on the use made by those that handle them; so it depends upon the free choice. Still, as I said before (this is Chrysostom), one must take this illustration to have one purpose only, which is that we should not contravene God, but yield to his incomprehensible wisdom.

So there you have it. Well, dear brothers and sisters, we’ve come to the end of our discussion of [the] first chapters of [the] Acts of the Apostles. A little bit of a surprise: Fr. Costas came in to tell us that he wants to join our conversation; he wants to share with us some of the things that he experienced a few years ago when he was serving in the Church of Cyprus. That won’t be next week. Next week there will be no live shows, because everybody at AFR is going to be on retreat. That would be September 19.

But September 26, Fr. Costas promised to join us here, and I think that since he’s going to join us, we’re going to let him have free rein to discuss what he would like to talk about. I’m not sure exactly what he’s going to talk about, but perhaps if you have any questions from any of the things that Fr. Costas has talked about in the past and you want to submit them to me via email… We’re going to hear from Fr. Costas. That means that at the end of September, September 29, I think it would be the next time—the 26th, which would be two weeks from tonight, we will be hearing from Fr. Costas.

We’re not going to be starting our study of Matthew; we’ll put that off to the following week. But I think it will be worth it, because we’ll get to hear from Fr. Costas, from whom we have not heard for quite a while. So I hope you will join us at that time, and have a wonderful next week next week. And remember to support Ancient Faith Radio. I’m glad that they’re going to go away to have their retreat. That’s a very important thing that we need to do to support and to maintain our spiritual life. And I want to thank our wonderful producer, Matushka Trudi, for all the work she does, and everybody here at Ancient Faith. Let’s support this ministry; it’s important.

Now let’s close with our prayer..

Lord, let your servants depart in peace according to your word, for our eyes have seen your salvation which you have prepared before the face of all peoples, a light to enlighten the Gentiles and the glory of your people Israel. Amen.

Good night.