John § 58

Over the brook Cedron, i. e. of cedars. It is the genitive in the Greek. He goes over the brook, i. e. drinks of the brook of His Passion. Where there was a garden, that the sin which was committed in a garden, He might blot out in a garden. Paradise signifies garden of delights.

And when he had delivered to us the representative mysteries of his precious body and blood, Judas not being present with us, he went out to the Mount of Olives, near the brook Kidron, where there was a garden.

Matthew proceeds with his narrative … as follows: "Then Jesus came with them to a place called Gethsemane." This is mentioned also by Mark. Luke, too, refers to it, although he does not mention the piece of ground by name.… There, we understand, was also the garden that John brings into notice when he gives his narrative.

When the grand and lengthened discourse was concluded which the Lord delivered after supper, and on the eve of shedding His blood for us, to the disciples who were then with Him, and had added the prayer addressed to His Father, the evangelist John began thereafter the narrative of His passion in these words: "When Jesus had so spoken, He went forth with His disciples over the brook Cedron, where was a garden, into the which He entered, and His disciples. And Judas also, who betrayed Him, knew the place; for Jesus oft-times resorted thither with His disciples." What he here relates of the Lord entering the garden with His disciples did not take place immediately after He had brought the prayer to a close, of which he says, "When Jesus had spoken these words:" but certain other incidents were interposed, which are passed over by the present evangelist and found in the others; just as in this one are found many things on which the others are similarly silent in their own narratives.

Let us, therefore, not take His words, "When Jesus had spoken these words, He went forth with His disciples over the brook Cedron, where was a garden, into the which He entered, and His disciples," as if it were immediately after the utterance of these words that He entered the garden; but let the clause, "When Jesus had spoken these words," bear this meaning, that we are not to suppose Him entering the garden before He had brought these words to a close.

(Tr. cxii) The discourse, which our Lord had with His disciples after supper, and the prayer which followed, being now ended, the Evangelist begins the account of His Passion. When Jesus had spoken these words, He came forth with His disciples over the brook Cedron, where was a garden, into which He entered, and His disciples. But this did not take place immediately after the prayer was ended; there was an interval containing some things, which John omits, but which are mentioned by the other Evangelists.

(de Con. Ev. iii. c. 3.) A contention took place between them, which of them was the greater, as Luke relates. He also said to Peter, as Luke adds in the same place, Behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he might sift you as wheat, &c. (Luke 22:31) And according to Matthew and Mark, they sang a hymn, and then went to Mount Olivet. (Mat. 26:30. Mark 14:26) Matthew lastly brings the two narratives together: Then went Jesus with His disciples to a place which is called Gethsemane. That is the place which John mentions here, Where there was a garden, into the which He entered, and His disciples.

(Tr. cxii) When Jesus had spoken these words, shows that He did not enter before He had finished speaking.

Second, it treats of those things which accompany the passion, in a fourfold manner.

"When he had said these things," etc. Above he treated of the things antecedent to the passion, namely from the end of the eleventh chapter; here he treats of those things in which the passion is consummated. And because in the passion he was apprehended and judged, slain and buried, therefore this part is divided into four parts. In the first, it treats of Christ's apprehension; in the second, of his condemnation, there: "And they led him to Annas"; in the third, of his passion, there: "Then they took Jesus," etc.; in the fourth, of the manner of burial, at the end of the nineteenth chapter, there: "After these things, he asked Pilate."

First, concerning Christ's apprehension. In the first part, therefore, in which it is shown what Christ's apprehension was like, three things are demonstrated: first, that it was wondrous; second, that it was voluntary, there: "Jesus therefore, knowing what things were to come upon him"; third, that it was ignominious, there: "The band therefore, and the tribune," etc. In the first part, therefore, he proceeds thus. He shows first the coming of Christ to the place known to the betrayer; second, the coming of the betrayer to that place, there: "Judas therefore," etc.

Continuing therefore what was said with what is to be said, he states: "When he had said these things," supply: which were said before; "Jesus went out with his disciples across the brook Cedron." This crossing was prefigured in 2 Kings 15: "The king also passed over the brook Cedron." Cedron is a genitive plural, that is, across the brook of cedars, because those trees were there. "He went out" from the city, because he was apprehended and suffered outside; Hebrews, last chapter: "Christ suffered outside the gate," etc. "Where there was a garden, into which he entered, he and his disciples," not as one fleeing or hiding himself, but seeking quiet; Song of Songs 6: "I went down into my garden, that I might see"; Psalm: "In peace is his place made."

Question I. But it is asked here first concerning what John says, that after the prayer he went out across the torrent Cedron: because, as Augustine says, in the Harmony of the Evangelists, when the discourse was finished, a dispute arose as to which of them seemed to be the greater. And it must be said that the word of blessed John is not to be understood precisely as meaning that it was immediately after the prayer, but that it was after the prayer and not before.

Question II. Likewise, Matthew twenty-six says that Jesus came to the village which is called Gethsemane. Luke twenty-two says that going out, he went according to his custom to the Mount of Olives: John, that it was across the torrent Cedron. There seems to be a contradiction here. Augustine responds in the third book of the Harmony of the Evangelists: "The Mount," he says, "of Olives is this place, whose name Matthew and Mark called Gethsemane: and there we understand there to have been a garden, which John commemorates." And Victor says that "that village is situated at the foot of the Mount of Olives."

The place was a garden, typifying the paradise of old. For in this place, as it were, all places were recapitulated and our return to humanity's ancient condition was consummated. For the troubles of humanity began in paradise, while Christ's suffering, which brought us deliverance from all the evil that happened to us in times past, began in [this] garden.

An awful thing is death, and very full of terror, but not to those who have learnt the true wisdom which is above. For he that knows nothing certain concerning things to come, but deems it to be a certain dissolution and end of life, with reason shudders and is afraid, as though he were passing into non-existence. But we who, by the grace of God, have learnt the hidden and secret things of His wisdom, and deem the action to be a departure to another place, should have no reason to tremble, but rather to rejoice and be glad, that leaving this perishable life we go to one far better and brighter, and which hath no end. Which Christ teaching by His actions, goeth to His Passion, not by constraint and necessity, but willingly. "These things," it saith, "Jesus spake, and departed beyond the brook Cedron, where was a garden, into the which He entered, and His disciples."

He journeyeth at midnight, and crosseth a river, and hasteth to come to a place known to the traitor, lessening the labor to those who plotted against Him, and freeing them from all trouble; and showeth to the disciples that He came willingly to the action, (a thing which was most of all sufficient to comfort them,) and placeth Himself in the garden as in a prison.

But how came Judas there, or whence had he gained his information when he came? It is evident from this circumstance, that Jesus generally passed the night out of doors. For had He been in the habit of spending it at home, Judas would not have come to the desert, but to the house, expecting there to find Him asleep. And lest, hearing of a "garden," thou shouldest think that Jesus hid Himself, it addeth, that "Judas knew the place"; and not simply so, but that He "often resorted thither with His disciples." For ofttimes He was with them apart, conversing on necessary matters, and such as it was not permitted to others to hear. And He did this especially in mountains and gardens, seeking a place free from disturbance, that their attention might not be distracted from listening.

The evangelist did not say "Jesus, having prayed in this manner," but "having said these things." For the preceding discourse was not a prayer, but a conversation, and was for the consolation of the disciples. Jesus goes in the middle of the night, crosses the river, and hastens to come to the place known to His betrayer. He gives Himself up to the murderers in order to show that He goes to His suffering voluntarily, and frees the Jews from the labor of seeking Him. Lest they be troubled, going here and there searching for Him, He Himself goes to them, He Himself gives Himself into their hands; for in the garden they find Him, as if in some prison. The garden, in which our salvation had its beginning, may be compared to paradise. For in a garden we fell from paradise; in a garden, we see, Christ's saving passion also begins, and sets right all the former calamities.

2271 Before his passion, as we saw above, our Lord prepared his disciples in many ways: teaching them by his example, comforting them with his words, and aiding them by his prayers. Now the Evangelist begins the history of the passion: first, he sets forth the mystery of the passion; secondly, the glory of the resurrection (20:1).

Christ's passion was effected partly by the Jews, and partly by the Gentiles. Thus, he first describes what Christ suffered from the Jews; secondly, what he suffered from the Gentiles (19:1). He does three things regarding the first: he shows how our Lord was betrayed by a disciple; secondly, how he was brought before the high priests (v 13); and thirdly, how he was accused before Pilate (v 28).

In regard to Christ's betrayal, the Evangelist mentions three things: first, the place; secondly, the procedure; and thirdly, the willingness of Christ to submit to the betrayal (v 4). The place of the betrayal was shown to be appropriate in three ways: because it was outside the city; it was private and enclosed; and it was known to the traitor.

2272 The place of the betrayal was some distance from the city, and so Judas could more easily do what he intended. The Evangelist says, When Jesus had spoken these words, the words we have read above. But since what Christ said belonged to his prayer, it would seem more appropriate for the Evangelist to say, "When Jesus had prayed." The Evangelist put it the way he did to show that Christ did not pray because of any need of his own, since he was the one who, as man, prayed, and who, as God, heard the prayer. Rather, Christ prayed in order to teach us. Thus this prayer is described as "spoken words."

2273 He went forth with his disciples, but not immediately after this prayer, as Augustine notes. Other things happened, omitted by this Evangelist, but mentioned by the others. For example, there was an argument among the disciples about who was to be regarded as the greatest (Lk 22:24); before setting out he said to Peter: "Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail" (Lk 22:31); again, the disciples recited a hymn with the Lord, as Matthew (26:30) and Mark (14:26) report. And so we should not think that they went out immediately after the words of the previous chapter, but that Christ said these things before they went out.

2274 He went forth across the Kidron brook. Matthew and Mark say that they went to the Mount of Olives, and then to a garden called Gethsemane. There is no conflict here, because all of them are referring to the same place, for the Kidron brook is at the foot of the Mount of Olives, where there was a garden called Gethsemane. In Greek, Kidron is genitive plural; and so in effect he is saying a brook "of cedars." Perhaps there were many cedar trees planted there.

It is fitting for this mystery that he cross a brook, because the brook indicates his passion: "He will drink from the brook by the way; therefore he will lift up his head" (Ps 110:7). Again, it is fitting that he cross the Kidron brook for Kidron is interpreted to mean an overshadowing, and by his passion Christ removed the shadow of sin and of the law, and stretching out his arms on the cross, he protected us under the shadow of his arms: "Hide me in the shadow of your wings" (Ps 17:8).

2275 The place was especially suitable for the betrayal. He says, there was a garden, which he and his disciples entered. This was especially suitable because Christ was satisfying for the sin of our first parent which had been committed in a garden (for paradise means a garden of delights). It was also suitable because by his passion he is leading us into another garden and paradise to receive a crown: "Today you will be with me in Paradise" (Lk 23:43).

"Judas also," he says, "who betrayed Him, knew the place; for Jesus oft-times resorted thither with His disciples." There, accordingly, the wolf, clad in a sheep's skin, and tolerated among the sheep by the profound counsel of the Father of the family, learned where he might opportunely scatter the slender flock, and lay his coveted snares for the Shepherd.

(Tr. cxii) There the wolf in sheep's clothing, permitted by the deep counsel of the Master of the flock to go among the sheep, learned in what way to disperse the flock, and ensnare the Shepherd.

"And Judas also, who betrayed him, knew the place." And the reason is added: "Because Jesus often resorted thither with his disciples." Victor: "Judas had noted this place, because the Lord had been accustomed to come to it often." This place was at the foot of the Mount of Olives; Jesus went there frequently; Luke 21: "During the days he was teaching in the temple, but at night going out, he abode on the Mount of Olives."

Question III. Likewise it is asked: why did the Lord go out of the city at night? It seems that he wished to hide. Chrysostom responds that he did this not only then, but was also accustomed to do so often, so that he might withdraw from the tumult of men and speak about necessary things.

Lest you think that Jesus withdrew to the garden with the purpose of hiding, the Evangelist adds that Judas also knew this place. Therefore Jesus departs to this place rather with the purpose of revealing Himself than of hiding. Judas knows this place because Jesus often used to go there. For the Lord loved to withdraw to desolate places and tranquil retreats, especially when He was imparting something mysterious. Why did Judas know that Jesus was currently in the garden, and did not expect to find Him sleeping in a house? He knew that the Lord spent many nights outside the city and the house, and therefore went out at that time as well. And another interpretation: he knew that the Lord during the feast especially had the custom of teaching His disciples something lofty. And, as we have said, He taught His disciples mystical things in mystical places. And since it was then a feast, Judas surmised that Jesus was there, and was, as usual, discoursing with His disciples concerning the feast.

Judas knew that at the feast time our Lord was wont to teach His disciples high and mysterious doctrines, and that He taught in places like this. And as it was then a solemn season, he thought He would be found there, teaching His disciples things relating to the feast.

2276 It was also an appropriate place because it was known to the traitor, now Judas, who betrayed him, also knew the place; for Jesus often met there with his disciples, including Judas, who was like a wolf among sheep: "Did I not choose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil?" (6:71). This wolf in sheep's clothing, who had been tolerated among the sheep according to the profound plan of the master, learned where he could scatter the small flock when the time came.

2277 Since Judas had left the supper a while before the others, how did he know that Christ would later be in the garden? Chrysostom says that it was Christ's custom, especially at the major feasts, to bring his disciples there after supper and teach them the deeper meaning of the feasts, things that others were not ready to hear. And so, because this was an important feast, Judas surmised that Christ would be going there after supper. It was Christ's custom to teach his disciples these sublime matters in the mountains or in private gardens, seeking places free from disturbance so they would not be distracted: "I will allure her, and bring her into the wilderness, and speak tenderly to her" (Hos 2:14).

"Judas then," he adds, "having received a cohort, and officers from the chief men and the Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns, and torches, and weapons." It was a cohort, not of Jews, but of soldiers. We are therefore to understand it as having been received from the governor, as if for the purpose of securing the person of a criminal, and by preserving the forms of legal power, to deter any from venturing to resist his captors: although at the same time so great a band had been assembled, and came armed in such a way as either to terrify or even attack any one who should dare to make a stand in Christ's defense. For only in so far was His power concealed and prominence given to His weakness, that these very measures were deemed necessary by His enemies to be taken against Him, for whose hurt nothing would have sufficed but what was pleasing to Himself; in His own goodness making a good use of the wicked, and doing what was good in regard to the wicked, that He might transform the evil into the good, and distinguish between the good and the evil.

(Tr. cxii) It was a band not of Jews, but of soldiers, granted, we must understand, by the Governor, with legal authority to take the criminal, as He was considered, and crush any opposition that might be made.

"Judas therefore, having received the cohort." Here is noted the arrival of the betrayer with such persons as could seize and hold and lead him away. Therefore, "having received the cohort," namely from the Gentiles, "and from the chief priests and Pharisees, servants," because he was betraying him to them; in Matthew twenty-six it is said that "he went to the chief priests and said to them: What will you give me, and I will deliver him to you?" "He came there," as the leader of the others, "with lanterns and torches and weapons," lest he could hide in the night: for since they were walking in darkness, they begged light from torches: Job twenty-four: "If the dawn suddenly appears, they regard it as the shadow of death: and thus they walk in darkness as in light"; or defend himself: and they did this because they believed nothing divine was in him, but only human power.

Question IV. Likewise, since Judas had left him at home, why did he not lead the cohort there, but to the garden? Chrysostom responds that he would more gladly have sought him at home, so as to find him sleeping: but he knew that he had the custom of frequently spending the night outside.

Question V. Likewise it is asked: since that cohort was of Gentile soldiers, how did they follow Judas? I respond: They were corrupted by money given or promised. Whence Chrysostom: "They were true soldiers, devising to do all things for the sake of money."

Question VI. Likewise the question is: why did they not come to apprehend him by day, since they had so great a cohort? And Chrysostom responds that they feared the crowds which followed him by day.

Judas then, having received the band of soldiers and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither, with lanterns, and torches, and weapons.

Very appropriately, then, the inspired Evangelist says that Jesus was in the garden, when no number of men, nor any crowd, were congregating together, or contemplated coming to His succour; and that He was alone with His disciples, that He might display, in all its nakedness, the great folly of the thoughts the traitor harboured in his heart. For our conscience is very apt to create alarms in us, and torment us with the pangs of cowardice, whenever we are bent on any unholy deed. Such, I think, was the state of the traitor's mind, when he brought in his train the cohort, armed with weapons of war, together with the officers of the Jews, as though to capture a notorious malefactor. For in all likelihood he knew that he could never take Him, unless He chose to suffer, and encountered death by His own Will. But he had his understanding perverted by his unholy enterprise, and was, as it were, intoxicated by his own excessive audacity; and so he did not see whither he was tending, nor perceive that he was attempting what it was beyond his power to perform. For he thought, that by the multitude of his followers, and by the hand of man, he could prevail over the Divine power of Christ. And be not amazed that the miserable man should be afflicted with such madness, and be convicted of conceiving so ridiculous an idea. For when he gave up the rudder of his mind into another's hand, and sold to the devil the power over his desires, he was wholly possessed by his madness; for the devil leapt upon him once for all, and nestled in his bosom like a poisonous snake. Surely, one may well wonder at the traitor's fall, and find in it cause for ceaseless weeping. He that had just been supping with Christ, and shared His food, and partaken at the Holy Table, and, equally with the rest, had had the benefit of His words exhorting unto righteousness, and had heard Him declare plainly that one of you shall betray Me, so to say, leapt up from his seat at that very Table, and straightway, after reclining with Him at the Board, hurried off to the Jews to earn the reward of his treachery. He gave no thought to Christ's inspiring words, entertained not the desire of future glory, and paid no heed to the honour given unto him; in short, preferred before the perfect blessedness, which has no end, a mean and paltry sum of money, and proved himself the net and snare wherewith the devil entrapped Christ, the prime mover and fellow-worker with the Jews in their iniquity against God.

The following thought, too, moves my scorn in no small degree. The crowd that attended the traitor, when they made their attack upon Christ, carried lanterns and torches. They would seem to have guarded against stumbling in the dark, and falling into pitfalls unawares, for such accidents often happen in darkness. But, alas for their blindness! The miserable men, in their gross ignorance, did not perceive that they were stumbling on the stone concerning which God the Father says: Behold, I lay in Sion a Stone of stumbling and a Rock of offence. They who were on occasion seized with fear of a small pitfall, saw not that they were rushing into the depths of the abyss, and the very bowels of the earth; and they, who were suspicious of the twilight of evening, took no account of perpetual and endless night. For they who impiously plotted against the Light of God, that is, Christ, were doomed to walk in darkness and the dead of night, as the prophet says; and not only so, but also to vanish away into outer darkness, there to give an account of their impiety against Christ, and to be consigned to bitter and endless punishment.

The crowd that attended the traitor, when they made their attack upon Christ, carried lanterns and torches. They would seem to have guarded against stumbling in the dark, and falling into pitfalls unawares, for such accidents often happen in darkness. But, alas for their blindness! The miserable men, in their gross ignorance, did not perceive that they were stumbling on the stone concerning which God the Father says: Behold, I lay in Sion a Stone of stumbling and a Rock of offence. They who were on occasion seized with fear of a small pitfall, saw not that they were rushing into the depths of the abyss, and the very bowels of the earth; and they, who were suspicious of the twilight of evening, took no account of perpetual and endless night. For they who impiously plotted against the Light of God, that is, Christ, were doomed to walk in darkness and the dead of night, as the prophet says; and not only so, but also to vanish away into outer darkness, there to give an account of their impiety against Christ, and to be consigned to bitter and endless punishment.

Take the cross first, therefore, as an indestructible foundation, and build on it the other articles of the faith. Do not deny the crucified. For if you deny him, you have many to arraign you. Judas the traitor will arraign you first. For he who betrayed him knows that Jesus was condemned to death by the chief priests and elders. The thirty pieces of silver bear witness. Gethsemane bears witness, where the betrayal occurred. I am not even speaking yet of the Mount of Olives on which they were with him at night, praying. The moon in the night bears witness; the day bears witness, and the sun, which was darkened. For it endured not to look on the crime of the conspirators. The fire will arraign you by which Peter stood and warmed himself. If you deny the cross, the eternal fire awaits you. I speak harsh words so that you may not experience harsh pains. Remember the swords that came against him in Gethsemane so that you do not feel the eternal sword.

(Nihil tale in G.) The Evangelist had shown how Judas had found out the place where Christ was, now he relates how he went there. Judas then, having received a band of men and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons.

And these men had often at other times sent to seize Him, but had not been able; whence it is plain, that at this time He voluntarily surrendered Himself. And how did they persuade the band? They were soldiers, who had made it their practice to do anything for money.

They persuade a detachment of soldiers to assist them for money; for soldiers are such that they can be bribed with gold. Many of them come, because they fear the followers of Jesus, who were attached to Him on account of His teaching and miracles. They carry with them lanterns and torches, so that Jesus, having hidden in the darkness, would not flee from them. But He so little needed to flee that He Himself goes out to meet them and gives Himself up.

Judas knew that at the feast time our Lord was wont to teach His disciples high and mysterious doctrines, and that He taught in places like this. And as it was then a solemn season, he thought He would be found there, teaching His disciples things relating to the feast.

They carry torches and lanterns, to guard against Christ escaping in the dark.

2278 Now the Evangelist shows the procedure of the traitor. Notice, as we see from Luke (22:4), that after Judas had agreed with the chief priests to betray Christ, he looked for an opportunity to deliver him without disturbing the people. Consequently, he wanted to come to him privately and at night, because during the day Christ was always busy teaching the people. Yet even at night it was possible that he be hindered by a quickly gathering crowd, or by the darkness in which Christ could be spirited away or escape from their hands. So against the crowd, he armed himself with weapons, and against the darkness he brought lanterns and torches. And because some of the crowd might resist, he took a band of soldiers, not from the Jews, but from the governor. In this way, no one would dare to resist because they would see the marks of legitimate authority. Further, some Jews might resist out of zeal for the law, especially because Christ was being taken by Gentiles. For this reason Judas took some servants or officers from the chief priests and the Pharisees: "He has run against God with his head held high" [Job 15:26]; "Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs?" (Lk 22:52)

But Jesus, knowing. Here it is shown that the arrest of Christ was voluntary on Christ's part in four ways: first, in that when he could have hidden, he offered himself: second, that by offering himself he prostrated his enemies: third, that by offering himself he freed his disciples by his command alone: fourth, that he did not permit them to resist.

It is noted therefore first that he was arrested voluntarily, because he could have hidden: whence it says: "But Jesus, knowing all things that were to come upon him," and thereby being able to avoid them before they came: Sirach twenty-three: "The eyes of the Lord are far brighter than the sun," etc. And yet he offered himself: whence it is said: "He went forth and said to them: Whom do you seek? He went forth," that is, he voluntarily offered himself; Isaiah fifty-three: "He was offered, because he himself willed it," etc. In the Psalm: "Let them be confounded and put to shame who seek my soul." Augustine: "They sought him to kill him by raging, but he sought us by dying."

Question I. But it is asked here first concerning this, that the Lord offered himself to the Jews. It seems that he gave them an occasion for doing evil. Chrysostom responds: "The Lord showed all things that were sufficient to call them back," namely by restraining their sight so that they would not recognize him, and by casting them to the ground by his word alone. "But because they persisted in malice and had no excuse, he then delivered himself into their hands."

During the night the traitor appeared, bringing with him the servants of the Jews together with the band of soldiers. For, as we said just now, he thought that he would take Him even against His will, trusting in the number of his followers, and believing that he would find Him lingering in the spot whither He was wont to resort, and that day had not yet dawned to allow of His going forth elsewhere, but that night would be still detaining the Lord in the place of His lying down. Christ, then, in order to show that Judas, in holding either view, had been regarding Him as a mere Man, and that his plans were vain, anticipates their attack and goes out readily to meet them; showing thereby that He well knew what Judas presumed to attempt, and that, though it were easy for Him, through His foreknowledge, to escape unawares, He went of His own Will to meet His sufferings, and was not, by the malice of any man, involved in peril; to the intent that the scorn of philosophers among the Greeks might not be moved thereby, who, in their levity, make the Cross a stumblingblock and a charge against Him, and that Judas, the murderer of his Lord, might not be highly exalted against Christ, thinking that he had prevailed over Him against His Will. He inquires of those who come to capture Him, Whom they have come in search of, not because He did not know (for how could that be?), but that He might thereby prove, that those who were for that very reason come, and were gazing upon Him, were not able so much as to recognise Him of Whom they were in search, and so confirm us in the true conviction that He would never have been taken, if He had not of His own Will gone to those who sought Him. For observe, that when He openly asks, Whom seek ye? they did not at once rejoin, We are here to take Thee Who thus speakest; but they reply, as though He were not yet present or before their eyes, and say, Jesus of Nazareth.

Jesus inquires of those who come to capture him. He asks them whom they have come in search of, not because he did not know (for how could that be?) but that he might prove that those who had come to capture him and were gazing on him were not even able to recognize the very person they were searching for, and thus confirming in us the true conviction that he would never have been taken if he had not of his own will gone to those who sought him. For observe, when he openly asks, "Whom do you seek?" they did not at once reply, "We are here to take you who have just spoken." But rather, they reply, as though he was not present or before their very eyes, saying, "Jesus of Nazareth."

But wherefore doth He say this? Because often when seized by them He had gone out through the midst, without their knowing it. Nevertheless, then also this would have been done, if it had not been His own will that He should be taken. It was at least with a view to teach them this, that He then blinded their eyes, and Himself asked, "Whom seek ye?" And they knew Him not, though being with lanterns and torches, and having Judas with them. Afterwards, as they had said, "Jesus;" He saith, "I am He" whom ye seek.

"Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon Him, went forth, and said, Whom seek ye?" That is, He did not wait to learn this from their coming, but spake and acted without confusion, as knowing all these things. "But why come they with weapons, when about to seize Him?" They feared His followers, and for this reason they came upon Him late at night.

The Lord asks them not because He had need to know; the Evangelist says that He knew "all that would happen to Him." And since He knew what would happen to Him, He asks not out of need to know, but with the purpose of showing that even when He was right before them, they did not see Him and did not recognize Him.

He asks not because He needed to know, for He knew all things that should come upon Him; but because He wished to show, that though present, they could not see or distinguish Him: Jesus saith unto them, I am He.

2279 Now the Evangelist shows the promptness of Christ to willingly undergo betrayal: first, by voluntarily offering himself; secondly, by stopping one of the disciples who was resisting (v 10). In regard to the first, the Evangelist does two things: first, he tells how Christ identified himself to show his power; secondly, to show his patience (v 7). In regard to the first he does three things: first, he states the question Christ asked; secondly, he shows Christ identifying himself, I am he; thirdly, we see the effect this has (v 6).

2280 He does three things regarding the first. First, he recalls Christ's knowledge: Then Jesus, knowing all that was to befall him, came forward; "Jesus knew that his hour had come" (13:1). The Evangelist mentions this for two reasons: first, so that it does not appear that the question he is asking comes from his ignorance; and secondly, so that it does not seem that he is offering himself unintentionally and without knowing that they have come to kill him. He knew everything that would happen to him.

Secondly, he states Christ's question, for although he knew all these things he came forward and said to them, Whom do you seek? But this was not because of his ignorance, as we said. Thirdly, he gives their answer, Jesus of Nazareth. They were seeking him not to imitate him, but to slander and kill him: "You will seek me and die in your sin" (8:21).

"Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. And the servant's name was Malchus." This is the only evangelist who has given us the very name of this servant, as Luke is the only one who tells us that the Lord touched his ear and healed him. The interpretation of Malchus is, one who is destined to reign. What, then, is signified by the ear that was cut off in the Lord's behalf, and healed by the Lord, but the renewed hearing that has been pruned of its oldness, that it may henceforth be in the newness of the spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter? Who can doubt that he, who had such a thing done for him by Christ, was yet destined to reign with Christ? And his being found as a servant, pertains also to that oldness that gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. But when healing came, liberty also was shadowed forth. Peter's deed, however, was disapproved of by the Lord, and He prevented Him from proceeding further by the words: "Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?" For in such a deed that disciple only sought to defend his Master, without any thought of what it was intended to signify. And he had therefore to be exhorted to the exercise of patience, and the event itself to be recorded as an exercise of understanding. But when He says that the cup of suffering was given Him by the Father, we have precisely the same truth as that which was uttered by the apostle: "If God be for us, who can be against us? He that spared not His own Son, but gave Him up for us all." But the originator of this cup is also one with Him who drank it; and hence the same apostle likewise says, "Christ loved us, and gave Himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God of a sweet-smelling savor."

(Tr. cxii) The servant's name was Malchus; John is the only Evangelist who mentions the servant's name; as Luke is the only one who mentions that our Lord touched the ear and healed him.

(Tr. cxii. 5) The name Malchus signifies, about to reign. What then does the ear cut off for our Lord, and healed by our Lord, denote, but the abolition of the old, and the creating of a new, hearing in the newness of the Spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter? To whomsoever this is given, who can doubt that he will reign with Christ? But he was a servant too, hath reference to that oldness, which generated to bondage: the cure figures liberty.

(Tr. cxii) Our Lord condemned Peter's act, and forbad him proceeding further: Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath. He was to be admonished to have patience: and this was written for our learning.

(Tr. cxii) The cup being given Him by the Father, is the same with what the Apostle saith, Who spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all. (Rom. 8:32) But the Giver of this cup and the Drinker of it are the same; as the same Apostle saith, Christ loved us, and gave Himself for us. (Eph. 5:2)

But Simon Peter. Here the fourth sign is noted, that he was apprehended voluntarily: because he restrained Peter who was resisting. The fervor of Peter in defending the Lord is therefore indicated in this, that "having a sword, he drew it," as if unable to restrain himself, "and struck the servant of the high priest," as if not discerning the person, "and cut off his right ear." Chrysostom: "He indicates the impetuosity of the Apostle, because he made his assault at the very head." "And the name of the servant was Malchus"; this, as Chrysostom says, the Evangelist said for the sake of greater certainty. Peter, inflamed with zeal for the Law, struck those evildoers: First Maccabees two: "Mattathias saw and grieved, and his zeal was kindled according to the judgment of the Law, and he approached and slew him."

Spiritually: Peter, recognizing him, cut off the right ear, that is, obedience.

Question II. Likewise it is asked: since Peter so greatly provoked them, why did they not seize him? Chrysostom responds that "no one else restrained them, but that power which previously cast them on their backs."

Question III. Likewise it is asked: since Peter had been commanded not to have a wallet, how then did he have a sword? To this Victor responds that the Lord gave them that command when he sent them to preach; but when the time of persecution was at hand, he commanded that they carry necessities for sustenance and buy swords. And he took this from Luke twenty-two: "He who has a purse, let him take it and a wallet, and he who does not have a sword, let him sell his tunic and buy a sword." Or it can be said that the Lord did not command this because he wished to defend himself, but so that he might show patience to those who seized him, because, although he had weapons, he was unwilling to use them.

What was it, someone may say, that induced the inspired Evangelist to make mention of this, and point out to us the disciple using a sword, contrary to his wont, against those who came to take Christ, and stirred to a |573 hotter and more precipitate fit of wrath than was meet, and Christ thereupon rebuking him? This narrative may, perhaps, seem superfluous; but it is not so. For he has here given us a pattern expressly for our learning; for we shall know, from what took place here, to what lengths our zeal in piety towards Christ may proceed without reproach, and what we may choose to do in conflicts such as this, without stumbling on something displeasing to God. For this typical instance forbids us to draw a sword, or lift up stones, against any man, or to strike our adversaries with a stick, when, through our piety towards Christ, we are in conflict with them: for our weapons are not of the flesh, as Paul saith; but we ought rather to treat even our murderers with kindness when occasion precludes our escape. For it is far better for other men to be corrected for their sins against us by Him That judgeth righteously, than that we ourselves should make excuses for our blood-guiltiness, making piety our plea. Besides, we may call it most irrational to honour by the death of our persecutors Him Who, to set men free from death, Himself cheerfully suffered death. And herein we must surely follow Christ Himself; for if He had been called to die perforce and of necessity, as unable by His own power to repel the assault of His foes, who were invincible through the number of the servants of the Jews, there might perhaps have been nothing unreasonable in those who chose to love Him succouring Him with all their might, and showing the utmost courage in order to rescue Him from the peril, into which He had been brought by the impiety of His foes, against His Will. But since, being truly God, He was able to destroy His adversaries, root and branch, and at the very outset of the conflict, so to say, had given them such a token of His might, as by a single word, and that spoken in courtesy, to lay them low on the earth, for they all fell backward; how could it be right for us, in unbridled and inordinate wrath, to wilfully and recklessly proceed to lengths that He did not, though He might have done so with the utmost ease? We find also traces of the same spirit elsewhere recorded by the holy Evangelists. For our Saviour once came to a village bordering on Judaea, to lodge there. It belonged to the Samaritans; and when He was drawing nigh unto it they roughly drove Him away. The disciples were enraged thereat, and came to Him, and said: Lord, wilt Thou that we bid fire to come down from heaven, and consume them? And the Saviour answered them: Let them alone; know ye not that I can beseech My Father, and He shall even now send Me twelve legions of angels? For He came not as God to use His own innate power against those who vented their fury upon Him; but rather to school us to patient forbearance under every affliction, and to be Himself a type of the most perfect and passionless tranquillity. Therefore also He said: Learn of Me; for I am meek and lowly in heart.

The purpose of Peter in drawing his sword against the adversaries does not trespass outside the commandment of the Law; for the Law bade us requite unreproved evildoers----foot for foot, hand for hand, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. For with what other object did they come armed with swords and staves, equipped with armour, and banded together in numbers, than to wage such a conflict as they thought the disciples would wage in their extremity? For that they brought swords and staves, the Saviour tells us plainly, when He says elsewhere to them: Are ye come out as against a robber with swords and staves to seize Me? I sat daily in the temple teaching, and ye took Me not. The passion of Peter, therefore, was lawful, and accorded with the old enactments; but our Lord Jesus Christ, when He came to give us teaching superior to the Law, and to reform us to His meekness of heart, rebukes those passions which are in accordance with the Law, as incompatible with the perfect accomplishment of true virtue. For perfect virtue consists not in requital of like for like, but is rather seen in perfect forbearance.

Someone may now, perhaps, raise the question, and ask himself. Why did Peter carry a sword? We reply, that the duty of repelling the assaults of evil-doers, according to the Law, brought the need of a sword. For if one of the disciples had chosen to strike the innocent with a sword, how could the same issue have been tried? It is likely, too, that the holy disciples, as they were hurrying at midnight from their place of rest, and expected to find woods and gardens in their way, were suspicious of the attacks of wild beasts; for of these Judaea was very fertile. Perhaps you may rejoin: "But what need had the disciples of a sword? Was not Christ sufficient for them in time of peril; and could not He scare away wild beasts, and release them from all fear on that account?" If you say this, you say well; for Christ can do all things. But we shall find that, though Christ might have effected it otherwise, the disciples continued to live after the manner usual to men. For must we not suppose that Christ was able to turn stones into bread, and out of nothing to create money sufficient to defray their expenses? Still they fetched loaves and carried a purse, taking alms of those who brought them. And when Christ wished to cross the sea in their company, they entered into a ship, though He might have walked over the billows, if He had been so minded. It is fruitless, then, to cavil at the disciples, for following the ordinary usages of mankind.

Peter strikes off the right ear of the servant, and his action points, as in a figure, to the inability of the Jews to hear aright. For they would not hearken to Christ's words. They rather, so to say, honoured the left ear, obeying simply the dictates of their own misguided prejudice, deceiving and being deceived, according to the Scripture; for even when walking in the Law ordained them of old, they turned to doctrines the precepts of men.

Peter's violence was lawful according to the Old Testament, but our Lord Jesus Christ, when he came to give us teaching superior to the Law and to reform us to his meekness of heart, rebukes those passions that are in accordance with the Law as being incompatible with the perfect accomplishment of true virtue. For perfect virtue consists not in retaliation of like for like but is rather seen in perfect forbearance.

We think it is an important matter to obtain penalties from those who have wronged us: an important matter, I say.… But it is far greater and more godlike to put up with injuries. For the former course of action curbs wickedness, but the latter makes people good, which is much better and more perfect than merely not being wicked. Let us consider that the great pursuit of mercifulness is set before us, and let us forgive the wrongs done to us that we also may obtain forgiveness, and let us by kindness lay up a store of kindness.

Is Jesus suddenly arrested? He reproaches indeed, but follows. And if through zeal you cut off the ear of Malchus with the sword, he will be angry and will restore it.… And if you ask for the fire of Sodom on his captors, he will not pour it forth. And if he takes a thief hanging on the cross for his crime, he will bring him into paradise through his goodness.

And one might wonder why they did not seize them with Him, and cut them to pieces, especially when Peter had exasperated them by what he did to the servant. Who then restrained them? No other than that Power which cast them backward. And so the Evangelist, to show that it did not come to pass through their intention, but by the power and decree of Him whom they had seized, has added, "That the saying might be fulfilled which He spake," that "not one," etc.

Peter, therefore, taking courage from His voice, and from what had already happened, arms himself against the assailants, "And how," saith some one, "doth he who was bidden not to have a scrip, not to have two coats, possess a sword?" Methinks he had prepared it long before, as fearing this very thing which came to pass. But if thou sayest, "How doth he, who was forbidden even to strike a blow with the hand, become a manslayer?" He certainly had been commanded not to defend himself, but here he did not defend himself, but his Master. And besides, they were not as yet perfect or complete. But if thou desirest to see Peter endued with heavenly wisdom, thou shalt after this behold him wounded, and bearing it meekly, suffering ten thousand dreadful things, and not moved to anger.

But Jesus here also worketh a miracle, both showing that we ought to do good to those who do evil to us, and revealing His own power. He therefore restored the servant's ear, and said to Peter, that "All they that take the sword shall perish by the sword"; and as He did in the case of the basin, when He relaxed his vehemence by a threat, so also here. The Evangelist adds the name of the servant, because the thing done was very great, not only because He healed him, but because He healed one who had come against Him, and who shortly after would buffet Him, and because He stayed the war which was like to have been kindled from this circumstance against the disciples. For this cause the Evangelist hath put the name, so that the men of that time might search and enquire diligently whether these things had really come to pass. And not without a cause doth he mention the "right ear," but as I think desiring to show the impetuosity of the Apostle, that he almost aimed at the head itself. Yet Jesus not only restraineth him by a threat, but also calmeth him by other words, saying, "The cup which My Father hath given Me, shall I not drink it?" Showing, that what was done proceeded not from their power, but from His consent, and declaring that He was not one opposed to God but obedient to the Father even unto death.

While Jesus was betrayed, he nonetheless did not approve of the avenging sword of even one disciple. And this is someone who, if he wanted to, had legions of angels who would at one word have presented themselves from the heavens. The patience of the Lord was wounded in [the wound of] Malchus. And so, too, he cursed for the time to come the works of the sword. And, by the restoration of health, made satisfaction to him whom himself had not hurt, through patience, the mother of mercy.

Peter saw that the Lord had cast them to the ground; the Lord's words "let them go" filled him with boldness, and he thought that the time had come to take revenge, so he draws his sword and strikes the servant. If you ask why he had a sword, he who was commanded to have "neither bag nor two coats" (Matt. 10:10), know that he needed it for slaughtering the lamb, carried it with him even after the supper; or else, fearing an attack, he had prepared the sword beforehand for such an occasion. If you wonder how he who was told not to strike on the cheek (Matt. 5:39) was ready to commit murder, then hear that Peter was especially avenging not himself but his Teacher. Moreover, they were not yet fully perfect. For afterwards, I ask you to look at Peter: he suffers greatly and rejoices. But now, indignant at the injustice done to his Teacher, he aims at the very head and, failing to cut it off, at least cuts off the ear. Jesus reattaches and heals the ear, and by this miracle again restrains the mad Jews from their zeal for murder. And since the miracle with the ear was great, the evangelist notes the name of the servant, so that readers, in case of doubt, could seek out and investigate whether this really happened as described. I ask you to notice that the cutting off of the right ear of the high priest's servant was a sign of their disobedience. For blindness came upon Israel, so that those who hear would not hear, because of their impiety against the Savior, which was especially strong among the high priests, which is why the sign—the removal of the ear—was on the servant of the high priest. The restoration of the ear points to the future restoration of the understanding of the Israelites, which they have now lost. For Elijah will come and lead them to Christ, and will unite them, the fathers, with us, the sons, as Malachi also prophesied (Mal. 4:6).

Or, he had got one for sacrificing the lamb, and carried it away with him from the Supper.

Or, the cutting off of the high priest's servant's right ear is a type of the people's deafness, of which the chief priests partook most strongly: the restoration of the ear, of ultimate reenlightenment of the understanding of the Jews, at the coming of Elias.

2286 The Evangelist has shown how ready Christ was to suffer his betrayal since he willingly offered himself. He now shows this same readiness because Christ forbade a disciple to resist. First, he mentions the resistance of the disciple; secondly, his being restrained (v 11). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he shows the zeal of the disciple in striking the servant; secondly, we see the name of the servant.

2287 He says that the officers arrested Jesus, but that then Simon Peter, more volatile than that the other disciples, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's slave, who was among the officers, and cut off his right ear. This was not his intention; rather, he wanted to kill him, but the strike to the servant's head missed and struck the ear. Peter aimed for the head so that he could more easily show that he was doing it out of zeal for his Lord: "I have been very jealous for the Lord" (1 Kgs 19:10).

2288 Two questions can be asked about this. Since the Lord had commanded his disciples not to have even two tunics (Mt 10:10), why was it that Peter had a sword? I answer that Christ gave them this command when he sent them out to preach, and it was to be in effect until his passion. But when his passion drew near, Christ revoked it: "When I sent you out with no purse or bag or sandals, did you lack anything?" (Lk 22:35). And then (in v 36): "But now, let him who has a purse take it, and likewise a bag. And let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one." Because of this permission Peter understood that he was allowed to carry a sword.

How could he get a sword so quickly, since our Lord had spoken these words such a short time before? According to Chrysostom, Peter obtained the sword earlier, when he heard that the Jews were planning to deliver Christ over to the chief priests to be crucified. Or, we could say, with the Interlinear, that "sword" is used here for a knife, which he probably had at the paschal meal, and which he took along when they left.

2289 The second question is why Peter struck the servant of the high priest, since our Lord had told them not to resist evil (Mt 5:39). One could answer that they were forbidden to resist someone in order to defend themselves, but this did not apply to defending the Lord. Or, one could say that they had not yet been strengthened by a power coming from above: "Stay in the city, until you are clothed with power from on high" (Lk 24:49). And for this reason they were not yet so perfect that they could not resist evil entirely.

2290 Now the name of the servant is given. Only John mentions this name because, as stated below (v 15), John himself was known by the high priest, and so he also knew some of the priest's servants. Since John was certain of this servant's name, he gives it.

It is Luke (22:51) who adds that our Lord healed the ear. This is appropriate for a mystery: for the servant stands for the Jewish people, who were oppressed by the chief priests: "You eat the fat" (Ez 34:3). Peter, the head of the apostles, takes away this servant's sense of hearing, because he heard the words of the law in a defective way, in a carnal way. But our Lord gave him back a new sense of hearing: "As soon as they heard of me they obeyed me" (Ps 18:44). With this in mind the servant is fittingly named Malchus, which means "king," because through Christ we have become kings by having a new life: "You... have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on earth" (Rev 5:10).

"Then the cohort, and the tribune, and the officers of the Jews, took Jesus, and bound Him." They took Him to whom they had never found access: for He continued the day, while they remained as darkness; neither had they given heed to the words, "Come unto Him, and be enlightened." For had they so approached Him, they would have taken Him, not with their hands for the purpose of murder, but with their hearts for the purpose of a welcome reception. Now, however, when they laid hold of Him in this way, their distance from Him was vastly increased: and they bound Him by whom they themselves ought rather to have been loosed. And perhaps there were those among them who then fastened their fetters on Christ, and yet were afterwards delivered by Him, and could say, "Thou hast loosed my bonds."

(Tr. cxii) They took Him Whom they did not draw nigh to; nor understood that which is written in the Psalms, Draw nigh unto Him, and be ye lightened. (Ps. 34:5. accedite ad eum, Vulg.) For had they thus drawn nigh to Him, they would have taken Him, not to kill Him, but to be in their hearts. But now that they take Him in the way they do, they go backward. It follows, and bound Him, Him by Whom they ought to have wished to be loosed. And perhaps there were among them some who, afterwards delivered by Him, exclaimed, Thou hast broken My chains asunder. (Ps. 116)

"The cohort therefore and the tribune," etc. Here it is shown thirdly that the arrest of Christ was ignominious on the part of the cohort, because they seized and bound him as a robber. Therefore he says: "The cohort therefore," that is, a multitude of soldiers established in one company, "and the tribune," who presided over them, "and the officers of the Jews seized Jesus and bound him." Victor says that "it was the custom of the Jews that whomever they judged worthy of death, they would hand over bound to the governor," and thus as a criminal: therefore in Matthew twenty-six the Lord says to them: "You have come out as against a robber with swords and clubs to seize me." And they bound him, lest he flee, because Judas had said in Mark fourteen: "Whomever I shall kiss, he is the one: seize him and lead him away carefully."

Now that all obstacles had been overcome and Peter had put away his sword, and Christ had, as it were, surrendered himself to the hand of the Jews (though he did not have to die) and it was easier for him to escape, the soldiers and servants together with their guide give way to cruel rage and are transported with the ardor of victory. They took the Lord, who gave himself up wholly to their will, and put chains upon him, even though he came to us to release us from the bondage of the devil and to loose us from the chains of sin.

"Then Jesus was taken; and they bound Him, and led Him away to Annas." Why to Annas? In their pleasure they made a show of what had been done, as though forsooth they had set up a trophy. "And he was father-in-law to Caiaphas."

When the Lord had done everything that could have subdued them, and they did not understand, then He allowed them to lead Him away.

Every thing having been done that could be to dissuade the Jews, and they refusing to take warning, He suffered Himself to be delivered into their hands: Then the band and the captain and officers of the Jews took Jesus.

2294 Now the Evangelist describes how our Lord was taken by the officers and led before the leaders. First, he is led to one of the leaders, Annas; secondly, to another, Caiaphas (v 24). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he mentions how he was presented before Annas; secondly, how he was questioned by Annas (v 19). In regard to the first he does two things: he mentions that he is led to Annas' house; secondly, that Christ's disciples followed him (v 15). In regard to the first he does two things: he mentions what was done to Jesus; secondly, he describes the high priest before whom Jesus was brought (v 13b).

2295 Three things were done to Christ. First, he was seized; for he says, the band of soldiers and their captain and the officers of the Jews seized Jesus, who is not apprehensible: "great in counsel, incomprehensible in thought" [Jer 32:19]. Perhaps they were thinking of the Psalm (71:11): "God has forsaken him; pursue and seize him, for there is none to deliver him." Again, "The breath of our mouth, Christ the Lord, is taken in our sins," that is, on account of our sins, in order to free us: "Even the captives of the mighty shall be taken" (Is 49:25).

Secondly, Christ was bound, and bound him, who came to untie their bonds and break their chains: "You have loosed my bonds" (Ps 116:16).

Thirdly, he was led away, they led him to Annas, so that they might destroy him who came to lead all to the way of salvation: "You have led me, because you became my hope" [Ps 61:4].

After that His persecutors had, through the treason of Judas, taken and bound the Lord, who loved us, and gave Himself for us, and whom the Father spared not, but gave Him up for us all: that we may understand that there was no praise due to Judas for the usefulness of his treachery, but damnation for the willfulness of his wickedness: "They led Him," as John the evangelist tells us, "to Annas first." Nor does he withhold the reason for so doing: "For he was father-in-law to Caiaphas, who was the high priest that same year. Now Caiaphas was he," he says, "who gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people." And properly enough Matthew, when wishing to say the same in fewer words, tells us that He was led to Caiaphas; for He was also taken in the first place to Annas, simply because he was his father-in-law; and where we have only to understand that such was the very thing that Caiaphas wished to be done.

But after that they had bound Jesus, it then appears most clearly that Judas had betrayed Him not for a good, but a most wicked purpose: And led Him away to Annas first.

(Tr. cxiii) Why they did so, he tells us immediately after: For he was father in law to Caiaphas, which was the high priest that same year. Matthew, in order to shorten the narrative, says that He was led to Caiaphas; because He was led to Annas first, as being the father in law of Caiaphas. So that we must understand that Annas wished to act Caiaphas's part.

In order that, while our Lord was condemned by his colleague, he might not be guiltless, though his crime was less. Or perhaps his house lay in the way, and they were obliged to pass by it. Or it was the design of Providence, that they who were allied in blood, should be associated in guilt. That Caiaphas however was high priest for that year sounds contrary to the law, which ordained that there be only one high priest, and made the office hereditary. But the pontificate had now been abandoned to ambitious men.

"And they led him to Annas first." Here begins the second principal part, in which he treats of the condemnation of Christ; and because a manifold examination preceded his condemnation, this part is divided into three. In the first he treats of the examination conducted by Annas: second, by Caiaphas, at the place: "And Annas sent him bound": third, under Pilate, at the place: "They lead Jesus therefore to Caiaphas." In the first, three things are noted: a defect of judgment, a defect of testimony, and the infliction of abuse; which are noted in this, that Christ is first presented to an unjust judge: second, he is denied by Peter, at the place: "Now Simon Peter followed Jesus": third, he is examined, at the place: "The high priest therefore questioned Jesus."

As regards therefore the presentation, it is said: "And they led him," namely Jesus, "to Annas first," because he was older and more ancient and more inveterate in malice; Daniel 13: "Iniquity came forth from the elder judges, who seemed to govern the people." And he gives the reason when he says: "Now he was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was the high priest of that year": therefore the judgment seemed in a certain way to pertain to him. Under the same leaders Christ suffered under whom John preached; Luke 3: "Under the chief priests Annas and Caiaphas, the word of the Lord came upon John, the son of Zechariah, in the desert." And he notes him with suspicion, that he would not judge rightly, because he was the father-in-law of the one who had conspired unto the death of Christ.

Question I. But it is asked here first concerning what is said in Matthew twenty-six, that the officers holding Jesus led him to Caiaphas the chief priest: how does John say that it was to Annas? Likewise, since Annas was not the high priest, why was he led to him? Augustine responds that he was brought to both; but Matthew, wishing to narrate the matter more briefly, says that he was brought to Caiaphas, because in his house he was chiefly examined. To that which is asked, why he was first brought to Annas, a fourfold reason is given: the reason of dignity, because, as Victor says, he had been priest the preceding year: for at that time the high priesthood was purchased. — Another reason, namely of kinship, because he was related to the high priest as his father-in-law. — The third reason of convenience, because his house was on the way. — The fourth reason of malice, as Victor says, "so that Caiaphas might appear of lesser guilt, if Christ were condemned by the sentence of another priest."

They bring Jesus to Annas, who was the father-in-law of Caiaphas. From this we may conclude that he was the prime mover and planner of the iniquity against Christ. Jesus is, therefore, taken away to him first of all.

The divine Scripture says that he completed the entire time of his teaching while Annas and Caiaphas were high priest, showing that the entire time of his teaching was included within the years of their administration. Since he began in the high priesthood of Annas and continued until the reign of Caiaphas, the entire intervening time does not amount to four years. For, since the regulations of the law of that time were already being destroyed, somehow, there was a relaxation of the rule by which the duties of the service of God were for life and by hereditary descent, and different men at different times were entrusted with the high priesthood by the Roman governors and continued in this office for no more than one year. Josephus relates that four high priests intervened in succession from Annas to Caiaphas, speaking as follows in the same text of the Antiquities: "Valerius Gratus put an end to the priesthood of Annas and appointed Ishmael the son of Phabi as high priest, and after a short time he removed this one and named as high priest Eliezer, the son of Annas the high priest. And after a year had passed he removed this one also and passed over the high priesthood to Simon, the son of Kamithus. But no more than a year passed with him in office when Josephus, known also as Caiaphas, became his successor." So, the entire period of our Savior's teaching is shown to be not even a complete period of four years, since four high priests from Annas to the appointment of Caiaphas fulfilled an annual service over a period of four years. The Gospel, therefore, has rightly indicated Caiaphas as the high priest of the year in which the events of the Savior's passion were fulfilled, and from this we also can see that the time of Christ's ministry does not disagree with the foregoing investigation.

But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed.

They bind Him and lead Him away to Annas, with a certain triumph on this occasion and boasting, as though they had won a great victory.

2296 Two reasons can be given why Jesus was first brought to Annas. This could have been done by the order of Caiaphas, the high priest that year. Caiaphas did this because he would have had more of an excuse for condemning Jesus if Annas had already condemned him. The other reason was that they were nearer to the house of Annas, which was on their way. They were fearful that if the people became aroused Jesus might be taken away from them, and so they made straight for the house of Annas.

2297 Here the high priest is described by his relationship to Caiaphas, he was the father‑in‑law of Caiaphas. Then Caiaphas is described as high priest that year. We should remember that according to the law the high priest was to hold his office for life, and when he died to be succeeded by his son. But as the envy and the ambition of the leaders increased, not only did the son not succeed the father, but the office itself was not held for more than a year; and even then it was bought with money, as Josephus says. And so it is not out of character that in the year of that high priesthood, so wickedly obtained, that the high priest acted so despicably.

Josephus relates that this Caiaphas bought the high priesthood for this year. No wonder then if a wicked high priest judged wickedly. A man who was advanced to the priesthood by avarice, would keep himself there by injustice.

"Now it was Caiaphas who had given counsel to the Jews"; above in chapter 11: It is expedient that one man die for the people. Chrysostom: "Therefore he recalls that prophecy, because the salvation of the world was his death, and therefore the hearer, hearing of the bonds of Christ, ought not to be troubled."

They sent Him bound to Caiaphas, the high priest. Now Caiaphas was he which gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people. The sacred and holy Victim, then, that is, Christ, was captured by the malice of Annas and the services of his hirelings; and, ensnared within the net, was led to him that compassed and instigated the slaughter of the innocent. This was Caiaphas, and he was adorned with the office of the priesthood. And by his questions he seems to have begun the shedding of blood, as he also is convicted of having originated the impious enterprise. He receives Jesus bound, and, as the fruit of his counsel and impious designs, the miserable man committed the most impious act that has ever been committed. For what can be more grievous than impiety against Christ?

Having been captured by the malice of Annas and the services of his hirelings and ensnared within the net, Jesus was then led to the one who encompassed and instigated the slaughter of the innocent. This was Caiaphas, and he was adorned with the office of the priesthood. This miserable man committed the most impious act ever committed. For what can be worse than impiety against Christ?

"Now Caiaphas was he which gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people." Why doth the Evangelist again remind us of his prophecy? To show that these things were done for our salvation. And such is the exceeding force of truth, that even enemies proclaimed these things beforehand. For lest the listener, hearing of bonds, should be confounded, he reminds him of that prophecy, that the death of Jesus was the salvation of the world.

The Evangelist recalls the prophecy of Caiaphas (John 11:49–52) in order to show that this was accomplished for the salvation of the world, and that this truth is so important that even His very enemies foretold it. Therefore, lest you, having heard of the bonds, be troubled, he reminds you of the prophecy, namely that both the bonds and the death were salvific, and for this reason the Lord endured them.

2298 He is described by the advice he gave: It was Caiaphas who had given counsel to the Jews that it was expedient that one man should die for the people (in 11:50). The Evangelist recalls this to prevent the hearts of the faithful from faltering. He shows that even by the prophecy of the enemy Christ was captured and killed, not because he was weak and lacked power, but for the salvation of the people, that is, so the entire nation would not perish. For the testimony of one's adversary is very effective; and truth is of such a nature that even its enemy is unable not to speak it.

He followed his Master out of devotion, though afar off, on account of fear.

The temptation of Peter, which took place during the time that the Lord was enduring these injuries, is not placed by all Evangelists in the same order. Matthew and Mark first narrate the injuries inflicted on the Lord and then this temptation of Peter. Luke first describes Peter's temptation, and only after this does he record the reproaches borne by the Lord. John begins with Peter's temptation but then introduces some verses that record what the Lord had to bear, appending the statement that the Lord was sent away from Annas to Caiaphas the high priest, and then at this point he resumes and sums up what he had been relating about Peter's temptation in the house to which Jesus was first conducted. He then gives a full account of that incident and thereafter reverts to the succession of events that happened to the Lord, telling us how Jesus was brought to Caiaphas.

"But Jesus was followed," he says, "by Simon Peter, and another disciple." Who that other disciple is, we cannot affirm with confidence, because it is left unnoticed here. But it is in this way that John usually refers to himself, with the addition, "whom Jesus loved." Perhaps, therefore, it is he also in the present case; but whoever it is, let us look at what follows. "And that disciple," he says, "was known unto the high priest, and went in with Jesus into the palace of the high priest; but Peter stood at the door without. Then went out that other disciple, who was known unto the high priest, and spake unto her that kept the door, and brought in Peter. Then saith the damsel that kept the door unto Peter, Art thou also one of this man's disciples? He saith, I am not." Lo, the pillar of greatest strength has at a single breath of air trembled to its foundations. Where is now all that boldness of the promiser, and his overweening confidence in himself beforehand? What now of those words, when he said, "Why cannot I follow Thee now? I will lay down my life for Thy sake." Is this the way to follow the Master, to deny his own discipleship? is it thus that one's life is laid down for the Lord, when one is frightened at a maid-servant's voice, lest it should compel us to the sacrifice? But what wonder, if God foretold what was true, and man presumptuously imagined what was false? Assuredly in this denial of the Apostle Peter, which had now entered on its first stage, we ought to take notice that not only is Christ denied by one who says that He is not Christ, but by him also who, while really a Christian, himself denies that he is so. For the Lord said not to Peter, Thou shall deny that thou art my disciple; but, "Thou shall deny me." Him, therefore, he denied, when he denied that he was His disciple. And what else did such a form of denial imply, but that of his own Christianity?

(de Con. Evang. iii. vi) The temptation of Peter, which took place in the midst of the contumelies offered to our Lord, is not placed by all in the same order. Matthew and Mark put the contumelies first, the temptation of Peter afterwards; Luke the temptation first, the contumelies after. John begins with the temptation: And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple.

(Tr. cxiii) Who that other disciple was we cannot hastily decide, as his name is not told us. John however is wont to signify himself by this expression, with the addition of, whom Jesus loved. Perhaps therefore he is the one.

"Now Simon Peter followed Jesus." Here he treats of Peter's denial, which he describes in this order. First is noted the occasion of the denial; second, the denial itself; third, from the denial, the cooling of love. The occasion of the denial was in this, that although he was weak, he wished to follow the Lord. Therefore he says: "Now Simon Peter followed Jesus," not perfectly; whence Matthew twenty-six: "But Peter followed from afar," and with another leading; whence he was not alone, but rather "another disciple also," and this one was the guide; whence: "Now that disciple was known to the high priest," and therefore he went with confidence, whence he adds: "And he entered with Jesus into the court of the high priest." Who this was, the Gloss did not determine. It seems nevertheless to have been John, as Victor says, who spoke of himself as of another, as though not fearing.

Question II. Likewise Chrysostom asks: who was that other disciple of whom he says that he was following Jesus? And he responds that it was John, who conceals his own name by reason of humility.

Question III. And then the question is: why does he not remain entirely silent about himself? The response is that he introduces himself in order to strengthen our faith; he conceals his name in order to show that he avoids boasting.

Now that disciple was known unto the high priest, and entered in with Jesus into the court of the high priest.

The Apostle shows great forethought in condescending to mention this fact, and does not scruple to enter into detail where it is profitable for us. For, as he was about to set down in order in his book what was done and said in the palace of the high priest, he was, as it were, compelled to show us how he was able to enter there with Christ; for, he says, he was known unto the high priest. He enters, therefore, without hindrance, his knowledge of the leader of the people----for he has not thought proper to say friendship----allowing him free entrance within the doors. In order, then, that he might convince us that he did not compile his account of what took place in the palace from information drawn from others, but that he himself saw and heard what passed, he has given us this most useful explanation of his knowledge of the high priest.

And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did the other disciple.

While the other disciples, it seems, were panic-stricken, and fled from the present wrath of the murderers, Peter, who was always moved thereto by more fervent passion, clings to his love for Christ, and follows Him at the peril of his life, and watches the issue of events; the other disciple accompanying him, and, with like courage, sustaining a similar resolution. This was John, the truly pious writer of this Divine work. For he calls himself that other disciple, without giving himself a definite name, fearing to seem boastful, and abhorring the appearance of being better than the rest. For the crowning achievements of virtue, if manifested by any of the righteous, yet are never blazoned forth to the world by their own mouth. For it very ill beseems a man to win praise rather out of his own mouth than the conversation of other men. In the Book of Proverbs it is written: Let another man praise thee, and not thine own mouth; a stranger, and not thine own lips.

Let's begin with some things that we ought to know about John, but which we usually don't. John was very likely the Lord's first cousin on their mothers' side. John was a son of Zebedee, and his mother's name was Salome, which we can find out by comparing Mark 16:1 and Matt.27:56. Mark says that the third woman who went to the tomb was Salome and Matthew said it was the mother of Zebedee's children. And then in John 19:25, it says that four women were present at the crucifixion—two Marys from Mark and Matthew, the Lord's mother, and the Lord's aunt. This helps make sense of how the Lord would entrust the care of His mother to John, which on this reading would be her nephew. It also helps explain the particular closeness of Jesus and John (John 21:7).

John was also from a well-to-do family with respectable connections. His father had hired servants (Mark 1:20), and Salome was one of the women who was a financial patroness of the Lord's ministry (Luke 8:3; Mark 15:40). John was known to the high priest (John 18:15-16), and was able to get Peter into the place where the Lord was being tried.

We also know a great deal about John's giftedness and related challenges. Jesus named him, together with his brother, a son of thunder (Mark 3:17). He was a fire-eater, and sometimes succumbed to the temptations that come with that—which would be misdirected zeal and ambition. He was one of the disciples who wanted Jesus to torch a Samaritan village (Luke 9:54), and it was Salome who made the request for James and John to sit at Christ's left and right hand (Matt. 20:20; Mark 10:37). John was not formally trained (Acts 4:13), but was nonetheless a staggering genius. He was a tender and humble man as revealed by all his writings, but it is very plain that this was the result of the Spirit taming a lot of horsepower.

He remained in Jerusalem for a number of years—at least 14 (Gal. 2:9), but then moved to Ephesus, where he wrote his gospel (according to Irenaeus. That was the time during which he was exiled to Patmos. According to early reports, he lived until the reign of Trajan (which started in 98 A.D.)

"And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple." Who is that other disciple? It is the writer himself. "And wherefore doth he not name himself? When he lay on the bosom of Jesus, he with reason concealed his name; but now why doth he this?" For the same reason, for here too he mentions a great good deed, that when all had started away, he followed. Therefore he conceals himself, and puts Peter before him. He was obliged to mention himself, that thou mightest understand that he narrates more exactly than the rest what took place in the hall, as having been himself within. But observe how he detracts from his own praise; for, lest any one should ask, "How, when all had retreated, did this man enter in farther than Simon?" he saith, that he "was known to the high priest." So that no one should wonder that he followed, or cry him up for his manliness. But the wonder was that matter of Peter, that being in such fear, he came even as far as the hall, when the others had retreated.

His coming thither was caused by love, his not entering within by distress and fear. For the Evangelist hath recorded these things, to clear a way for excusing his denial; with regard to himself, he doth not set it down as any great matter that he was known to the high priest, but since he had said that he alone with Jesus went in, lest thou shouldest suppose that the action proceeded from any exalted feelings, he puts also the cause.

Who was this other disciple? The very one who wrote about this, but he conceals himself out of humility. Since he wishes to highlight the virtue that he followed Jesus while the others fled, he therefore conceals himself and places Peter before himself. "Simon Peter followed Jesus," he says, then adds: "and another disciple." So, out of humility he conceals himself. And if he mentioned himself, he mentioned it so that we would know that he describes the events in the courtyard of the high priest in greater detail than the others, since he himself was inside the courtyard. Look again how he deflects praise from himself. Lest you, having heard that John went with Jesus, should think something great of him, he says that he "was known to the high priest." "I," he says, "entered together with Him not because I was supposedly more courageous than the others, but because I was known to the high priest."

2299 Now we see how the disciples joined Christ. First, how Peter and another disciple followed him; secondly, we see how they entered the place where Christ was; thirdly, how one denied him.

2300 In regard to the first he says, Simon Peter followed Jesus, because of his devotedness, but at a distance because of his fear, and so did another disciple, John, who out of humility does not mention himself. We can understand from this that the other disciples fled and abandoned Jesus, as Matthew says (26:56).

2301 In the mystical interpretation, these two disciples indicate the two ways of life in which Christ is followed: the active life, which is signified by Peter, and the contemplative life, signified by John. Those in the active life follow Christ by obedience, "My sheep hear my voice" (10:27). Those in the contemplative life follow Christ by knowledge and contemplation, "We will know and follow you" [Ps 4:3].

2302 These two disciples followed Christ because they loved him more than the others did; and so they were the first to come to the tomb (20:2). And it was these two who came because they were united to each other by a stronger bond of love; and so they are frequently mentioned together in the Gospel and in the Acts, where we read that "They sent to them Peter and John" (Acts 8:14), and again that "Peter and John were going up to the temple at the hour of prayer" (Acts 3:1).

He stood without, as being about to deny his Lord. He was not in Christ, who dared not confess Christ.

"But Peter stood at the door outside," either because he did not dare to enter, or because he was not permitted. Therefore that was true which was said to him above in the thirteenth chapter: "Where I go, you cannot follow me now." "Therefore that other disciple went out, who was known to the high priest," and by reason of his familiarity "spoke to the doorkeeper and brought Peter in." And thus it is manifest that he who entered through another loved but feebly; in which it is signified that disciples ought to help one another; therefore Galatians, last chapter: "Bear one another's burdens, and so you shall fulfill the law of Christ."

But Peter was standing at the door without. So the other disciple, which was known unto the high priest, went out, and spake unto her that kept the door, and brought in Peter.

Peter did not lag behind from any lack of fervour of heart, but only because the vigilance of the damsel at the gate made entrance perilous for those with whom she had no previous acquaintance. And though it might not have been difficult for a man to push a woman aside, yet it might have involved a charge of unruly behaviour. The disciple, therefore, though in great distress of mind, was compelled to stay without, till the other, seeing that he was much grieved thereat, brought him in with himself by speaking to the maiden presiding at the door, and asking as a favour that his companion in jealous fervour might accompany him.

And that Peter would have also entered had he been permitted, he shows by the sequel; for when he went out, and bade the damsel who kept the door bring in Peter, he straightway came in. But why did he not bring him in himself? He clung to Christ, and followed Him; on this account he bade the woman bring him in.

After he had showed his power through these things, our Lord surrendered voluntarily and was bound. First they took him to Annas, who was the father-in-law of Caiaphas the high priest. His disciples Simon Peter and John, who wrote this Gospel, followed him. John, who was known to the high priest, went into the courtyard without fear. Simon … stayed alone outside the gate because he lacked the courage to go in alone and knew no one on the inside. John, when he saw that Simon did not get in, went out and told the woman guarding the gate to let him in. Actually, John's frankness allowed him to be familiar with the high priest.

Concerning Peter, he declares that he followed Jesus out of love for Him, but stopped outside the courtyard because he was not acquainted. That Peter would have entered, if he had been allowed, is evident from the fact that when John came out and told the gatekeeper to let him in, Peter immediately entered. Why then did John not bring him in himself, but told the woman to do it? Because he held fast to Christ, followed Him unceasingly, and did not want to be separated from Him.

2303 Now the order in which they entered is given: John entered first and then he brought in Peter (v 16).

2304 It was John who entered first, with Jesus, as this disciple was known to the high priest... while Peter stood outside at the door. Although John had been a fisherman and had been called as a young man by Christ, he was still known by the high priest, either because John's father was a servant of the high priest, or a relative. John did not mention that the high priest knew him because he was proud, but because of his humility, so that the fact that he was the first to enter, with Jesus, into the court of the high priest, ahead of Peter, would not be ascribed to his virtue and superiority rather than to his acquaintance with the high priest. Thus he says, as this disciple, John himself, was known to the high priest. Consequently, he was able to enter with Jesus into the high priest's court, where Christ had been led. While Peter stood outside; this was like a foreboding of his future denial: "Those who saw me, fled outside from me" [Ps 31:11].

2305 Mystically understood, John enters with Jesus because the contemplative life is one of familiarity with Jesus: "When I enter my house, I shall find rest with her [wisdom]" (Wis 8:16). Peter stands outside because the active life is busy with exterior things: "Mary sat at the Lord's feet and listened to his teaching. But Martha was distracted with much serving" (Lk 10:39).

2306 Here we see how Peter was let in due to John's intervention, because the other disciple, John who was known to the high priest, went out and spoke to the maid who kept the door, with the intention of bringing Peter in, and then he brought Peter in. The mystical interpretation of this is that the active life is brought to Christ by the contemplative life: for just as the lower reason is directed by the higher reason, so the active life is directed by the contemplative life: "Oh send out your light and your truth; let them lead me, let them bring me to your holy hill and to your dwelling" (Ps 43:3).

For although the disciples of Christ were not yet called by such a name,-because it was after His ascension, in Antioch, first that the disciples began to be called Christians,-yet the thing itself, that afterwards assumed such a name, already existed, those who were afterwards called Christians were already disciples; and this common name, like the common faith, they transmitted to their posterity. He, therefore, who denied that he was Christ's disciple, denied the reality of the thing, of which the being called a Christian was only the name. How many afterwards, not to speak of old men and women, whose satiated feelings as regards the present life might more easily enable them to brave death for the confession of Christ; and not merely the youth of both sexes, when of an age at which the exercise of fortitude seems to be fairly required; but even boys and girls could do-even as an innumerable company of holy martyrs with brave hearts and by a violent death entered the kingdom of heaven-what at that moment he was unable to do, who received the keys of that kingdom. It is here we see why it was said, "Let these go their way," when He, who hath redeemed us by His own blood, gave Himself for us; that the saying which He spake might be fulfilled, "Of those whom Thou hast given me I have lost none." For assuredly, had Peter gone hence after denying the Christ, what else would have awaited him but destruction?

(Tr. cxiii) But what wonder, if God foretold truly, man presumed falsely. Respecting this denial of Peter we should remark, that Christ is not only denied by him, who denies that He is Christ, but by him also who denies himself to be a Christian. For the Lord did not say to Peter, Thou shalt deny that thou art My disciple, but, Thou shalt deny Me. (Luke 22:34) He denied Him then, when he denied that he was His disciple. And what was this but to deny that he was a Christian? How many afterwards, even boys and girls, were able to despise death, confess Christ, and enter courageously into the kingdom of heaven; which he who received the keys of the kingdom, was now unable to do? Wherein we see the reason for His saying above, Let these go their way, for of those which Thou hast given Me, have I lost none. If Peter had gone out of this world immediately after denying Christ, He must have been lost.

"The doorkeeper said to Peter." Here is described the second, namely the denial proceeding from weakness; and this is evident in this, that Peter denied the Lord at the voice of a maidservant. Therefore the inquiry of the maidservant is introduced: "Are you not also one of the disciples of this man?" She does not say "of the deceiver," but "of the man," as though speaking with compassion; but Peter, overcome by faintheartedness, denied; whence follows: "He said: I am not." Chrysostom: "What is this, Peter? Did you not say: I will lay down my life for you? above in the thirteenth chapter. What then has happened, that you cannot bear even the questioning of a doorkeeper?"

The maid, therefore, that kept the door, saith unto Peter, Art thou also one of this Man's disciples? He saith, I am not.

As Christ had already foretold to Peter that he would thrice deny our Saviour Christ, and that before the cock crew his faith would fail, the inspired Evangelist relates in detail where, and how, the prophecy was fulfilled. The maid, seated at the door, then, inquires of him whether he was not one of the number of the disciples of Him Who was undergoing the unjust trial. Peter denies it, and parries the question as though it were a charge, saying, "I am not;" not fearing at all to be taken, or shrinking from proclaiming the truth, but disregarding and making light of enduring any kind of evil against his will in comparison with being with Christ. His transgression, then, proceeds from love, and his denial has its root in the love of God; not indeed proceeding from any just reasoning, but, at any rate, testifying to the fervour of his desire to be with Christ.

Peter was permitted to be the first to fall, in order that he might be less severe to sinners from the remembrance of his own fall.… Peter, the teacher and master of the whole world, sinned, and he obtained pardon in order that judges might from there on out have that rule to go by in dispensing pardon.… For this reason I suppose the priesthood was not given to angels. Otherwise, being without sin themselves, they would punish the sins of the people without pity. Rather, man [a human being] is placed over man in order that remembering his own sin, he may be merciful to others who are sinners.

"Art not thou also one of this man's disciples? And he saith, I am not." What sayest thou, Peter? Didst thou not declare but now, "If need be that I lay down my life for Thee, I will lay it down"? What hath happened then, that thou canst not even endure the questioning of a door-keeper? Is it a soldier who questions thee? Is it one of those who seized Him? No, it is a mean and abject door-keeper, nor is the questioning of a rough kind. She saith not, "Art thou a disciple of that cheat and corrupter," but, "of that man," which was the expression rather of one pitying and relenting. But Peter could not bear any of these words. The, "Art not thou also," is said on this account, that John was within. So mildly did the woman speak. But he perceived none of this, nor took it into his mind, neither the first time, nor the second, nor the third, but when the cock crew; nor did this even bring him to his senses, till Jesus gave him the bitter look. And he stood warming himself with the servants of the high priest, but Christ was kept bound within. This we say not as accusing Peter, but showing the truth of what had been said by Christ.

Peter had once almost been lost and taken away from the consecration of the apostolic number by the instigation of the devil through the mouth of the maidservant of the high priest. But when Jesus simply looked on him and turned toward him the lines of his gentle face, he immediately came to himself and, recovering his footing, wept bitterly. Peter, looked on by God in this way, recovered by weeping his place that he had lost by denying.

O Good Shepherd, you who have placed his Spirit among the flocks, Hurry, save your sheep, O Holy One. Forgetful of the fearful waves And transformed by the remark of the maiden, Peter said, "Christ, God, when I was sinking into the depths of the surging wave, I was deservedly frightened. And yet, when asked a simple question, In my denial, I begin to sink. But in my tears, I cry to you: 'Hurry, save your Sheep, O Holy One.' " There is another kind of deep here on land —the maidservant; But at last, finding my captain, I flee for refuge to your safe harbor. O Lord, my tears I will pour out to you for your advocacy, And I will cry out to you because of this: "Hurry, save your sheep, O Holy One."

The woman asks Peter without audacity, without rudeness, but very meekly. For she did not say "are you not also one of the disciples of this deceiver," but rather "of this Man," and these were more the words of one who felt pity and compassion for the person. She said "are you not also one of the disciples" because John was inside the courtyard. This woman spoke so meekly, yet he noticed none of this, and disregarded the prediction of Christ. So weak in itself is human nature when it is forsaken by God. Some, vainly wishing to please Peter, say that Peter denied not because he was afraid, but because he constantly desired to be with Christ and to follow Him; and he knew that if he declared himself a disciple of Jesus, he would be separated from Him, and would not have the opportunity to follow Him and see the beloved. Therefore he denied, saying that he was not a disciple.

Some however foolishly favour Peter, so far as to say that he denied Christ, because he did not wish to be away from Christ, and he knew, they say, that if he confessed that he was one of Christ's disciples, he would be separated from Him, and would no longer have the liberty of following and seeing his beloved Lord; and therefore pretended to be one of the servants, that his sad countenance might not be perceived, and so exclude him: And the servants and officers stood there, who had made a fire of coals, and warmed themselves; and Peter stood with them, and warmed himself.

2307 Now we see the denial of Peter: first, the circumstances or the incitement of his denial; secondly the denial itself (v 17b); thirdly, Peter strengthens his denial (v 18).

2308 The circumstances and incitement of his denial was the question of the maid who kept the door: The maid who kept the door said to Peter, Are not you also one of this man's disciples? She says you also because she knew that John was a disciple of Christ, but she did not mention this to him because of their friendliness. This incident shows how weak Peter was at that time, for he was incited to deny Christ under feeble circumstances. How weak these circumstances were is shown, first of all, from the person who asked him: for it was not an armed soldier or an imposing high priest, but a woman, and a door keeper at that. Secondly, from the very form of the question: she did not say, "Are you a disciple of that traitor?" but rather, Are not you also one of this man's disciples? This seemed to indicate a certain sympathy. We can learn from this that "By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their power by the breath of his mouth" [Ps 33:6], because this same person who denied Christ at the questioning of a maid servant afterwards professed and preached the name of Christ before the chief priests (Acts 4:8).

2309 Now comes Peter's denial, when he says, He said, I am not. We should note, according to Augustine, that Christ is denied not only by those who say that he is not the Christ, but also by those who deny that they are Christians. For Peter at this time did nothing other than deny that he was a Christian. Our Lord permitted Peter to deny him because he wanted the very one who was to be the head of the entire Church to be all the more compassionate to the weak and sinners, having experienced in himself his own weakness in the face of sin: "For we have not a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weakness, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sinning" (Heb 4:15). This is true of Christ, and it can also be said of Peter, with his sins.

Some say that Peter's denial did not come from fear, but from love: for he wanted to always be with Christ and to follow him all the time. But he knew that if he admitted he was a disciple of Christ, he would have been separated from him and expelled. But this does not agree with our Lord's words: for Peter did not deny Christ because he feared to be separated from him, but because he was not willing to lay down his life for Christ. Before, when Peter said, "I will lay down my life for you," Jesus answered, "Will you lay down your life for me? Truly, truly, I say to you, the cock will not crow, till you have denied me three times" (13:37).

Let us also consider in what state he denied. "It was cold," he says. If we consider the temperature, it could not have been cold: but it was cold where Jesus was not recognized, where there was no one to see the light, where the consuming fire was denied. Therefore, it was cold of the mind, not of the body. In the end, Peter was standing by the coals, because he was chilled by emotion. The Jewish flame is wicked: it burns, not warms. It is an evil hearth, which sprinkles a certain soot of error even on the minds of the saints, by which Peter's inner eyes were also darkened.

"And the servants and officers stood beside the fire of burning coals, for it was cold, and warmed themselves." Though it was not winter, it was cold: which is sometimes wont to be the case even at the vernal equinox. "And Peter was standing with them, and warming himself."

(Tr. cxiii) It was not winter, and yet it was cold, as it often is at the vernal equinox.

"Now the servants stood." Here is described the third, namely from the denial the cooling of affection: which is intimated in this, that Peter, now forgetful of the Lord, stood at the charcoal fire with the servants, and again, his interior warmth having grown lukewarm, he sought solace in the exterior; therefore he says: "Now the servants and officers stood at a charcoal fire," who namely had seized the Lord: "because it was cold, and they were warming themselves." Augustine: "It was not winter, and yet it was cold, which is wont to happen sometimes even at the vernal equinox." "Now Peter also was standing and warming himself": for he had lost that fire, of which Luke twelve says: "I came to cast fire upon the earth," because he had grown lukewarm. Bede: "So greatly did the prince of the Apostles grow lukewarm with the cold of unfaithfulness, that at the voice of one maidservant he was afraid to confess Christ."

Now the servants and the officers were standing there, having made a fire of coals; for it was cold, and they were warming themselves: and Peter also was with them, standing and warming himself.

Peter, having passed inside the door, and finding himself encircled by the servants, affects to do what they do (though bowed down with grief and with an intolerable burden of agony at heart), that he might not be convicted by his despondent and sorrowful countenance of feeling sympathy with the Man Who was on trial, and be cast out from the doors which contained all he loved. For it is quite incredible that the disciple should have been so carnally minded as to seek out a means of appeasing the chill of winter, when he was thus heavy with grief. For if he might have enjoyed greater luxuries than this, he could not have borne to do so while Christ was thus afflicted. He intentionally models his behaviour on the apathy of the attendants, and, as though he had no inducement to despondency, shakes off the chill of winter, in order that he might create the belief that he was one of the inmates of the house, and might thus for the future escape answering any further questions with a denial. But the word of the Saviour could not be falsified; for He foretold to the disciple what He, as God, knew would certainly happen.

See how clearly this description of the day of our Savior's passion, a day in which "there shall be no light," was fulfilled, since "from the sixth hour to the ninth hour there was darkness over all the earth." And also the "frost and cold," since according to Luke: "They led Jesus to the palace of the high priest. And Peter followed afar off. And while they kindled a fire in the midst of the hall, he sat down," according to Mark, with the others to warm himself. And John, too, especially mentions the cold, saying, "The servants and the ministers stood, having made a fire of coals, for it was cold, and they warmed themselves." And this day, he says, was known to the Lord and was not night. It was not day, because, as has been said already, "there shall be no light." This was fulfilled when "from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour." Nor was it night, because "at eventide it shall be light" was added, which also was fulfilled when the day regained its natural light after the ninth hour.

Hence it is that it is beforehand remarked of Peter, when on the point of denying our Lord, that it was cold, and Peter stood with them, and warmed himself. For he was now inwardly unenlivened by the warmth of Divine love, but to the love of this present life he was warming up, as though his weakness were set boiling by the persecutors' coals.

(ii. Mor. c. 11) The fire of love was smothered in Peter's breast, and he was warming himself before the coals of the persecutors, i. e. with the love of this present life, whereby his weakness was increased.

With this same thought he also warmed himself. For outwardly he did the same thing as the servants, as one of them, so that they would not detect him by a change in his countenance, drive him out from their midst as a disciple of Christ, and deprive him of the opportunity to see Him.

2310 We see Peter strengthen his denial when we read, Now the servants and officers had made a charcoal fire... Peter also was with them, standing and warming himself, so he would not seem to be one of Christ's disciples. Trying not to seem a disciple, he mixed with the servants and officers standing by the fire because of the cold, which sometimes occurs in March during the early spring. Peter was not attentive to the Psalm: "Be holy with the holy, persevere with those who persevere" [Ps 18:26]. Even the very time of the year corresponded to his heart, in which charity had grown cold: "Most men's love will grow cold" (Mt 24:12).

He does not ask in order to know the truth, but to find out some charge against Him, on which to deliver Him to the Roman Governor to be condemned. But our Lord so tempers His answer, as neither to conceal the truth, nor yet to appear to defend Himself: Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing.

"Now the high priest," etc. Having set forth the denial of Peter, here is subjoined the examination of Christ: in whose examination four things are noted, namely the interrogation by the high priest, the response of Christ, the infliction of injury, and the endurance of patience. The interrogation of the high priest therefore is touched upon when it says: "Now the high priest," namely Annas, "was questioning Jesus about his disciples and his teaching," so that, because he could not bring a charge against him, he might at least catch him in his words: not to learn, but to catch him, Matthew twenty-two.

The high priest therefore asked Jesus of His disciples, and of His teaching.

A teacher of the people, learned in the Law, one of those on whom the Divine bidding lays the duty, "Judge ye righteous judgment," after having taken the Lord, as though He had been a notorious robber, by a band of armed soldiers and a number of impious officers, asks Him of His disciples and of His doctrine, showing thereby that he was in want of charges to bring against Him. For the Man Who was now on trial knew no sin. He asks Him about His doctrine, to elicit from Him whether it accorded with the Mosaic Law, or coincided and concurred with the old dispensation; and what purpose His disciples had implanted in their hearts, whether to submit to be guided by ancient customs, or to practise any strange and novel kind of worship. He did this in malice, for he supposed that Christ would make an outspoken attack on the Law, and that, by pleading for the rejection of the Mosaic dispensation, He would excite the Jews to embittered and furious revilings against Himself, so that He might in the future appear to be paying a just penalty for deliberately fighting against God. For to enter the lists against the Divine commandments, if any mere human being were convicted of any word or deed with that intent, were to declare oneself an open enemy of God. And they were treating Christ as a mere man, and thought that they were doing well to chastise the Lord of the Law for the transgression of the Law, not remembering him that said: Impious is he that saith unto a king, Thou art a law-breaker.

"The high priest then asked Jesus of His disciples, and of His doctrine." O the wickedness! Though he had continually heard Him speaking in the temple and teaching openly, he now desires to be informed. For since they had no charge to bring, they enquired concerning His disciples, perhaps where they were, and why He had collected them, and with what intention, and on what terms. And this he said, as desiring to prove Him to be a seditious person and an innovator, since no one gave heed to Him, except them alone, as though His were some factory of wickedness.

The high priest asks Jesus about the disciples, perhaps in this manner: "Where are they, who are they, for what purpose did He gather them, and what is His intention?" He wanted to convict Him as some kind of innovator or instigator. He also asks about the teaching: what it consists of, whether it differs from the Law, whether it is contrary to Moses, so that he might find in the teaching as well a pretext to kill Him, as one who opposes God.

He asks Him moreover of His doctrine, what it was, whether opposed to Moses and the law, that he might take occasion thereby to put Him to death as an enemy of God.

2311 The high priest then questioned Jesus. First we see Christ's interrogation; secondly, his reply (v 20); thirdly, he is abused for his reply (v 22).

2312 Two charges were brought against Christ by the Jews: he had false and novel teachings: "What is this? A new teaching!" (Mk 1:27); and he was inciting civil discord, gathering his own followers: "He stirs up the people, teaching throughout all Judea, from Galilee even to this place" (Lk 23:5). Consequently, he is interrogated on these two points: first, about his followers, about his disciples, whom were thought to be misled; secondly, about his teaching, regarded as false.

Here is fulfilled the prophecy, I gave my cheek to the smiters. Jesus, though struck unjustly, replied gently: Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou Me?

"And when He had thus spoken, one of the officers who stood by gave Jesus a blow with his open hand, saying, Answerest thou the high priest so? Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if well, why smitest thou me?" What could be truer, meeker, juster, than such an answer? For it is His [reply], from whom the prophetic voice had issued before, "Make for thy goal (literally, take aim), and advance prosperously and reign, because of truth, and meekness, and righteousness." If we consider who it was that received the blow, might we not well feel the wish that he who struck it were either consumed by fire from heaven, or swallowed up by the gaping earth, or seized and carried off by devils, or visited with some other or still heavier punishment of this kind? For what one of all these could not He, who made the world, have commanded by His power, had He not wished rather to teach us the patience that overcometh the world? Some one will say here, Why did He not do what He Himself commanded? for to one that smote Him, He ought not to have answered thus, but to have turned to him the other cheek. Nay, more than this, did He not answer truthfully, and meekly, and righteously, and at the same time not only prepare His other cheek to him who was yet again to smite it, but His whole body to be nailed to the tree? And hereby He rather showed, what needed to be shown, namely, that those great precepts of His are to be fulfilled not by bodily ostentation, but by the preparation of the heart. For it is possible that even an angry man may visibly hold out his other cheek. How much better, then, is it for one who is inwardly pacified to make a truthful answer, and with tranquil mind hold himself ready for the endurance of heavier sufferings to come? Happy is he who, in all that he suffers unjustly for righteousness' sake, can say with truth, "My heart is ready, O God, my heart is ready;" for this it is that gives cause for that which follows: "I will sing and I give praise."

(Tr. cxiii) What can be truer, gentler, kinder, than this answer? He Who received the blow on the face neither wished for him who struck it that fire from heaven should consume him, or the earth open its mouth and swallow him; or a devil seize him; or any other yet more horrible kind of punishment. Yet had not He, by Whom the world was made, power to cause any one of these things to take place, but that He preferred teaching us that patience by which the world is overcome? Some one will ask here, why He did not do what He Himself commanded, i. e. not make this answer, but give the other cheek to the smiter? But what if He did both, both answered gently, and gave, not His check only to the smiter, but His whole body to be nailed to the Cross? And herein He shows, that those precepts of patience are to be performed not by posture of the body, but by preparation of the heart: for it is possible that a man might give his cheek outwardly, and yet be angry at the same time. How much better is it to answer truly, yet gently, and be ready to bear even harder usage patiently.

"When he had said these things." Here the third point is set forth, namely the infliction of injury on account of the response, by deed and by word. By deed: "One of the officers standing by struck Jesus with his palm:" Lamentations three: "He shall give his cheek to the one who strikes him"; and Micah five: "They shall strike the cheek of the judge of Israel." He was injured by word, saying: "Do you answer the high priest thus?" As if to say: you answer foolishly, because one must answer the high priest humbly: whence they said to Paul, Acts twenty-three: "Do you revile the high priest of God?"

For since it is written, "Neither shall revilers inherit the kingdom of God," and again the Lord says in His Gospel, "Whosoever shall say to his brother, Thou fool; and whosoever shall say, Raca, shall be in danger of the Gehenna of fire," how can they evade the rebuke of the Lord the avenger, who heap up such expressions, not only on their brethren, but also on the priests, to whom is granted such honour of the condescension of God, that whosoever should not obey his priest, and him that judgeth here for the time, was immediately to be slain? In Deuteronomy the Lord God speaks, saying, "And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest or to the judge, whosoever he shall be in those days, that man shall die; and all the people, when they hear, shall fear, and shall do no more wickedly." Moreover, to Samuel when he was despised by the Jews, God says; "They have not despised thee, but they have despised me." And the Lord also in the Gospel says, "He that heareth you, heareth me, and Him that sent me; and he that rejecteth you, rejecteth me; and he that rejecteth me, rejecteth Him that sent me." And when he had cleansed the leprous man, he said, "Go, show thyself to the priest." And when afterwards, in the time of His passion, He had received a buffet from a servant of the priest, and the servant said to Him, "Answerest thou the high priest so? " the Lord said nothing reproachfully against the high priest, nor detracted anything from the priest's honour; but rather asserting His own innocence, and showing it, He says, "If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if well, why smitest thou me? " Also subsequently, in the Acts of the Apostles, the blessed Apostle Paul, when it was said to him, "Revilest thou God's priest? " -although they had begun to be sacrilegious, and impious, and bloody, the Lord having already been crucified, and had no longer retained anything of the priestly honour and authority-yet Paul, considering the name itself, however empty, and the shadow, as it were, of the priest, said, "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."

And when He had said this, one of the officers standing by struck Jesus with his hand, saying unto Him, Answerest Thou the high priest so?

It had been foretold, by the mouth of the prophet, that with Christ this would come to pass: I gave My back to the scourge, and My cheeks to them that smite. He was being led on in truth to the end long ago foretold, to the verdict of Jewish presumption, which was also the abolition and determination of our deserved dishonour, for that we sinned in Adam first, and trampled under foot the Divine commandment. For He was dishonoured for our sake, in that He took our sins upon Him, as the prophet says, and was afflicted on our account. For as He wrought out our deliverance from death, giving up His own Body to death, so likewise, I think, the blow with which Christ was smitten, in fulfilling the dishonour that He bore, carried with it our deliverance from the dishonour by which we were burthened through the transgression and original sin of our forefather. For He, being One, was yet a perfect Ransom for all men, and bore our dishonour. But I think the whole creation would have shuddered, had it been suffered to be conscious of such presumption. For the Lord of glory was insulted by the impious hand of the smiter.

And I think that it would display a spirit of pious research to desire to learn why this insolent and presumptuous officer smites Jesus, Who had made no stubborn or angry reply at all, but had returned a very gentle answer to all the charges brought against Him. And it may be observed, that the leader of the Jewish nation had not bidden him smite Jesus, and assail Him with such extravagant impiety. Some may, perhaps, allege as a reason the ordinary and received custom among the officers, when they brought to the rulers men accused of some transgression to compel them to reply courteously, even against their will, and treat them at times with contumely when they returned a rude answer. But I do not think this ever occurred to excite his passion against Christ; and, if we fix our attention on what has already been said, we shall find another reason for his insolence. For we said just now, that certain of the officers, who were bidden to take Jesus, came into collision with the rulers, and returned so far initiated into the mysteries of Christ, and amazed at Him, that they openly declared: Never man so spake. Whereat the Pharisees were greatly enraged, and said: Are ye also led astray? Hath any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on Him? But this multitude, who know not the Law, are accursed. As, then, the Saviour's words reminded the rulers of the indignation then stirred up in them against the officers (for He referred to them as witnesses of His teaching, saying: Behold, these know the things which I said), the officer was charged before them with having been struck with admiration of Christ; and, wishing to repel the suspicion of being well-disposed towards Him, and to divert their thoughts elsewhere, smote Him on the mouth, not suffering Him to say anything that could injure the reckless band of officers.

What then doth the high priest? When it would have been right thus to have made the enquiry, that person did not so. "And when he had thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by smote Him with the palm of his hand." What could be more audacious than this? Shudder, O heaven, be astounded, O earth, at the long-suffering of the Lord, and the senselessness of the servants! Yet what was it that He said? He said not, "Why askest thou Me," as if refusing to speak, but wishing to remove every pretext for senseless behavior; and being upon this buffeted, though He was able to shake, to annihilate, or to remove all things, He doth not any one of these, but speaketh words able to relax any brutality.

And after such an answer they do not marvel at Him, but strike Him on the cheek! What could be more insolent than this? But He Who can shake and destroy all things does nothing of the sort, but speaks words that can tame every brutality.

When Jesus had appealed to the testimony of the people by, an officer, wishing to clear himself, and show that he was not one of those who admired our Lord, struck Him: And when He had thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, Answerest Thou the high priest so?

2317 After telling us of our Lord's answer, the Evangelist now shows how it was rebuked: first, we see the rebuke given by an officer; secondly, our Lord's defense of his answer (v 23).

2318 An officer reproached our Lord's answer, first of all, by an action. He delivered a reproving blow; for the Evangelist says, When he, that is, Jesus, had said this, one of the officers, of the high priest, standing by struck Jesus with his hand. This did not happen by chance; it had been predicted long before and many times: "I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to those who pulled out the beard" (Is 50:6); "Let him give his cheek to the smiter, and be filled with insults" (Lam 3:30); "With a rod they strike upon the cheek the ruler of Israel" (Mic 5:1).

Secondly, the officer reproached Christ with words, saying, Is that how you answer the high priest? We can see from this that Annas was a high priest, and that Jesus had not yet been sent to Caiaphas. This is why Luke mentions two high priests: "in the high‑priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas" (Lk 3:2). Two high priests are mentioned because they alternated as high priests, but that year Annas [really Caiaphas] was the high priest.

2319 Earlier, when the testimony of those who had heard Jesus was being sought, and the chief priests had sent their officers to arrest him (7:32), they themselves were captivated by the words of Jesus and returned saying, "No man ever spoke like this man" (7:46). The officer who now struck Christ was incited to do so in order to show that he had not been one of those in the prior group. He thought that Christ had shown a lack of respect because in saying, Why do you ask me? Ask those who have heard me, he seemed to be finding fault with the high priest for asking a thoughtless question, and it is written: "You will not speak evil of a ruler of your people" [Ex 23:28].

But let us return to what follows in the Gospel narrative. "And Annas sent Him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest." To him, according to Matthew's account, He was led at the outset, because he was the high priest that year. For both the pontiffs are to be understood as in the habit of acting year by year alternately, that is, as chief priests; and these were at that time Annas and Caiaphas, as recorded by the evangelist Luke, when telling of the time when John, the Lord's forerunner, began to preach the kingdom of heaven and to gather disciples. For he speaks thus: "Under the high priests Annas and Caiaphas, the word of the Lord came upon John, the son of Zacharias, in the wilderness," etc. Accordingly these two pontiffs fulfilled their years in turn: and it was the year of Caiaphas when Christ suffered. And so, according to Matthew, when He was apprehended, He was taken to him; but first, according to John, they came with Him to Annas; not because he was his colleague, but his father-in-law. And we must suppose that it was by Caiaphas' wish that it was so done; or that their houses were so situated, that Annas could not properly be overlooked by them as they passed on their way.

(de Con. Evang. iii. vi) This shows that Annas was the high priest, for this was before He was sent to Caiaphas. And Luke in the beginning of his Gospel says, that Annas and Caiaphas were both high priests.

(Tr. cxiii) He was the one to whom they were taking Him from the first, as Matthew says; he being the high priest of this year. We must understand that the pontificate was taken between them year by year alternately, and that it was by Caiaphas's consent that they led Him first to Annas; or that their houses were so situated, that they could not but pass straight by that of Annas.

Sent Him bound, not that He was bound now for the first time, for they bound Him when they took Him. They sent Him bound as they had brought Him. Or perhaps He may have been loosed from His bonds for that hour, in order to be examined, after which He was bound again, and sent to Caiaphas.

"And Annas sent Him," etc. Here is treated the examination conducted under Caiaphas; and this part is divided into two, because first is set forth the leading of Christ to the judge; second, His denial by the disciple, at the words: "And Simon Peter was standing." As to the first point, the Evangelist disposes of it briefly and says that Christ was sent to Caiaphas, treating nothing of the examination conducted by him, because the other Evangelists had said enough. Therefore he says: "Annas sent Him bound to Caiaphas the high priest," by whom He was dishonored and condemned in many ways; as it is said in Matthew twenty-six, that "they spat in His face and struck Him with their fists, and others slapped Him in the face," etc.

Since they found no fault in Him, they lead Him away to Caiaphas, perhaps hoping that he, being more cunning, would find something against Jesus worthy of death, either by catching Him in some answer, or by convicting Him of some deed.

Thinking that as he was more cunning, he might find out something against Him worthy of death.

2322 Now there is mention that he was sent from one high priest to the other. First, it is mentioned that Jesus was sent to the other high priest; secondly, the narration of Peter's denial is completed (v 25).

2323 He says, Annas then sent him bound to Caiaphas the high priest, to whom he was originally being led. We saw before why he had been first brought to Annas. Note the wickedness of Annas: although he ought to have released Christ, since he was without fault, he yet sent him tied to Caiaphas.

But the evangelist, after saying that Annas sent Him bound unto Caiaphas, returns to the place of his narrative, where he had left Peter, in order to explain what had taken place in Annas' house in regard to his threefold denial. "But Peter was standing," he says, "and warming himself." He thus repeats what he had already stated before; and then adds what follows. "They said therefore unto him, Art thou also one of his disciples? He denied, and said, I am not." He had already denied once; this is the second time. And then, that the third denial might also be fulfilled, "one of the servants of the high priest, being his kinsman whose ear Peter cut off, saith, Did I not see thee in the garden with him? Peter then denied again, and immediately the cock crew." Behold, the prediction of the Physician is fulfilled, the presumption of the sick man is brought to the light. For there is no performance of what the latter had asserted, "I will lay down my life for Thy sake;" but a performance of what the former had predicted, "Thou shall thrice deny me."

(Tr. cxiii) After the Evangelist has said that they sent Jesus bound from Annas to Caiaphas, he returns to Peter and his three denials, which took place in the house of Annas: And Simon Peter stood and warmed himself. He repeats what he had said before.

(de Con. Evang. iii. 6) Here we find Peter not at the gate, but at the fire, when he denies the second time: so that he must have returned after he had gone out of doors, where Matthew says he was. He did not go out, and another damsel see him on the outside, but another damsel saw him as he was rising to go out, and remarked him, and told those who were by, i. e. those who were standing with her at the fire inside the hall, This fellow also was with Jesus of Nazareth. (Matt. 26:71, 72) He heard this outside, and returned, and swore, I do not know the man. Then John continues: They said therefore unto him, Art not thou also one of His disciples? which words we suppose to have been said to him when he had come back, and was standing at the fire. And this explanation is confirmed by the fact, that besides the other damsel mentioned by Matthew and Mark in the second denial, there was another person, mentioned by Luke, who also questioned him. So John uses the plural: They said therefore unto him. And then follows the third denial: One of the servants of the high priest, being his kinsman whose ear Peter cut off, saith, Did not I see thee in the garden with Him? That Matthew and Mark speak of the party who here question Peter in the plural number, whereas Luke mentions only one, and John also, adding that that one was the kinsman of him whose ear Peter cut off, is easily explained by supposing that Matthew and Mark used the plural number by a common form of speech for the singular; or that one who had observed him most strictly put the question first, and others followed it up, and pressed Peter with more.

Mystically, by the first denial of Peter are denoted those who before our Lord's Passion denied that He was God, by the second, those who did so after His resurrection. So by the first crowing of the cock His resurrection is signified; by the second, the general resurrection at the end of the world. By the first damsel, who obliged Peter to deny, is denoted lust, by the second, carnal delight: by one or more servants, the devils who persuade men to deny Christ.

"Now he was." Here is set forth the denial of Peter, and the occasion for denying is placed in this, that he was mingled with the servants; whence he says: "And Simon Peter was standing and warming himself," namely with the servants, as above. And from the fact that he was among them, it happened that they questioned him. "They said therefore to him: Are you not also one of His disciples?" And this was the occasion for denying; therefore there follows the repetition of the denial: "But he denied and said: I am not." Peter was terrified at the multitude of bystanders; Sirach seven: "Do not sin against the multitude of the city, nor cast yourself into the people."

Question I. But Chrysostom asks: whence is it that the Evangelists so harmoniously wrote about the denial of Peter, when it would seem that they ought to have concealed the sin of their companion? He responds: They did this indeed "not to accuse the disciple, but wishing to instruct us how great an evil it is not to entrust everything to God, but to trust in oneself."

Question II. Likewise, a question is raised about the manner of denying. For the Lord foretold to him: "You will deny me three times"; and here blessed John says that he only denied that he was his disciple. Augustine responds: "Indeed in this denial of Peter we must observe that Christ is denied not only by the one who says that he is not the Christ, but also by the one who, though he is a Christian, denies that he is one. Hence Peter denied Christ when he denied that he was a disciple of Christ."

Question III. Likewise, a question is raised about the place of Peter's denial. And the other Evangelists seem to say that it was in the house of Caiaphas, as is said in Matthew twenty-six; John seems to say that it was in the house of Annas. I respond to this: There is a disagreement among the expositors. For Bede and Jerome say that it was begun in the house of Annas but completed in the house of Caiaphas; and the other Evangelists speak of the end of the denial, but John looks to the beginning. — Augustine, however, says that it was entirely completed in the house of Annas, as the Evangelist seems to say. And as for what the others say, that it took place in the house of Caiaphas, they say this because Caiaphas was the high priest, and what belonged to Annas belonged also to Caiaphas.

Annas therefore sent Him bound unto Caiaphas, the high priest. Now Simon Peter was standing warming himself. They said therefore unto him, Art thou also one of His disciples? He denied, and said, I am not. One of the servants of the high priest, being a kinsman of him whose ear Peter cut off, saith, Did not I see thee in the garden with Him? Peter therefore denied again: and straightway the cock crew.

The inspired Evangelist, to our profit, checks the course of his narrative, like a horse at full speed, and turns it back again. And why? Because he was bound, before narrating what next ensued, to point out to us Peter's third denial; and this event is best and most appropriately described as it occurred. He therefore designedly refers to what took place at first, and says, that Jesus was sent by Annas to Caiaphas; and shows us that Peter was questioned by the servants who were warming themselves with him at the fire, and also by a kinsman of him whom he had smitten; and that this was the occasion of his third denial. Then He mentions the crowing of the cock, making, it plain to us that no word of our Saviour ever falls to the ground; for He had foreknown and foretold the frailty of His own disciple in the midst of danger. Perhaps the divinely taught compiler of this book would have made no mention at all of this fact, had he not bethought himself of the captious spirit and ceaseless babbling of the adversaries of God. For some of those who seek to make bitter war on the glory of the Saviour would straightway have said: "Show us the denial of Peter, and how, and where, that came to pass which was foretold by Christ, Who, you say, cannot lie. For you maintain that He is Truth, and that He proceedeth from a Father Who is true." It was very essential, therefore, that the inspired Evangelist should narrate to us this occurrence, and show that Christ at all times said what was true.

But perhaps some opponent, abstaining from bringing any such attack against us, will bring a grievous charge against Peter, and accuse the well-beloved disciple of incomparable cowardice, and say that he was so ready to make this verbal repudiation of his Lord, as thrice to fall away and deny Him, when he had not so much as had any actual experience of danger, and when peril was not, indeed, nigh at hand. Talk of this sort may be suitable to those who are not yet initiated in the faith; but I will at once dismiss it, and, bidding farewell to such nonsense, will attempt to make some excuse for the Apostle's conduct, setting forth my argument for the benefit of those who are already accustomed to reflect upon the mysteries contained in the mysterious working of Divine Providence. For it was the bounden duty of the wise Evangelist to make mention of such things, that his hearers might know what even the teachers of the world were in themselves before Christ's Resurrection, and before the Holy Spirit descended upon them; and what they were thereafter, when they had received the grace of the Spirit, Which Christ called power from on high. For any one may see how very jealous they were in assuming virtue; how readily they girded up their loins to follow Christ, and to overcome perils of every sort which they so frequently encountered. But when our Saviour Christ had not yet subdued the power of death, the fear thereof was still stubborn, and altogether invincible; and they who had not yet received the Spirit, nor had their hearts steeled by grace from above, showed that their minds were not yet wholly free from human frailty, and they were not altogether unshaken by the terrors of death. For just as iron, though naturally strong, cannot encounter without injury the harder kinds of stone, if it be not strengthened in the forge; so the soul of man may be buoyed up with unslacking enthusiasm for every thing that is good, but can never be triumphant in the conflicts that so arise, except it be first perfected by the grace of the Spirit of God. Even the disciples, therefore, themselves were frail at first; but, when they had received the Spirit of Almighty God, cast aside their native weakness, and, by communion with Him, attained to exceeding boldness.

It was expedient, then, that the frailty of the Saints should be recorded to the praise and glory of God, Who changed their weakness into power, and raised up, like a strong tower, their spirits, which were easily daunted even by slight dangers, and at times broken down by the mere apprehension of suffering. And that which befell a single one, or some few of the Saints, may afford us at the same time a lesson and a consolation. For we are taught thereby, not, through dwelling on our own infirmities inconsiderately, to slacken in God's service, but rather to trust in Him Who is able to make us all strong, and to boast ourselves in His miraculous works and favour shown to us beyond hope.

"And Simon Peter stood and warmed himself." Wonderful, by what a lethargy that hot and furious one was possessed, when Jesus was being led away! After such things as had taken place, he doth not move, but still warms himself, that thou mayest learn how great is the weakness of our nature if God abandoneth. And, being questioned, he denies again.

2324 Now the second and third denials of Peter are presented: first, the circumstances of the denials; secondly, the two denials; and thirdly, the fulfillment of Christ's prediction (v 27).

2325 The circumstance of Peter's second denial was his staying with the officers of the high priest who were standing near the fire. Chrysostom says that although Christ was on his way to Caiaphas, Peter still remained with the officers [by the fire]. Peter had become so preoccupied with his sin after his denial that he, who before was so ardent, now seemed not to care what happened to Christ: "No man repents of his wickedness, saying, 'What have I done?'" (Jer 8:6). For Chrysostom, Simon Peter was still standing and warming himself, although Christ had already left, unmindful of the saying: "Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked" (Ps 1:1).

But this interpretation is not acceptable because it would follow that Peter's second and third denials were made in the absence of Christ. This is contrary to Luke (22:61), who says that after the third denial of Peter, our Lord turned and looked at him. For this reason Augustine explains it another way and says that the Evangelist is giving a general view in his own way to show the connection and order of the denials. The Evangelist had said above that "the servants and officers had made a charcoal fire, because it was cold, and they were standing and warming themselves; Peter also was with them, standing and warming himself" (v 18). The Evangelist then interposes the examination of Christ by the high priest (v 19‑23), and immediately returns to continue the series of Peter's denials, using practically the same words as before, "Now Simon Peter was standing and warming himself" (v 25), that is, referring to the time before Christ was sent to Caiaphas.

2326 Then the Evangelist mentions the next two denials of Peter (v 25). Two things are stated about each: the circumstance of the denial, that is, the question, and the denial itself. There are two questions about the literal meaning. When Matthew speaks of the second denial, he says, "And when he went out to the porch, another maid saw him, and she said to the bystanders, 'This man was with Jesus of Nazareth.' And again he denied it with an oath" (Mt 26:71‑2). There seems to be two disagreements here. John says that Peter denied Christ by the fire (v 25), and Matthew says this happened as Peter was going out to the porch. Again, in Matthew, Peter is questioned by another maid, but John has him questioned by others, that is, a number of others, for he says, They said to him, Are not you also one of his disciples? (v 25). Luke also says that Christ was questioned by one person, "And after an interval of about an hour still another insisted, saying, 'Certainly this man also was with him'" (Lk 22:59).

We should say to these points that after Peter first denied Christ, he then got up and as he was going out to the porch another maid questioned him. Or, this maid told others that Peter was one of them, as Matthew says (Mt 26:71). Thus Peter denied Christ a second time.

"One of the servants of the high priest said to him." Here is set forth the completion of the denial; and there is set forth the inquiry of the servant, then the denial of Peter and the sign, which is the crowing of the cock. "One of the servants of the high priest, a kinsman of him whose ear Peter cut off, said to him." The reason is given why he accused him more insistently, in vengeance for his kinsman: "Did I not see you in the garden with Him?" As if to say: you cannot hide yourself from me.

For just as iron, though naturally strong, cannot encounter without injury the harder kinds of stone if it is not strengthened in the forge, so a person's soul may be buoyed up with unwavering enthusiasm for everything that is good. However, it can never be triumphant in the conflicts that come up unless it is first perfected by the grace of the Spirit of God. Even the disciples, therefore, themselves were frail at first. But when they had received the Spirit of Almighty God, they cast aside their native weakness and by communion with him attained to great boldness. It was expedient that the frailty of the saints should be recorded to the praise and glory of God, who changed their weakness into power, and like a strong tower, raised up their spirits, which were easily daunted even by slight dangers and at times were broken down by the mere apprehension of suffering. And that which happened to a single one, or a few of the saints, may afford us at the same time a lesson and a consolation. For we are taught through this example not to slacken in God's service by inconsiderately dwelling on our own infirmities. We are, rather, to trust in him who is able to make all of us strong, and we are to boast in God's miraculous works and favor shown to us who were beyond hope.

Then saith "the kinsman of him whose ear Peter cut off, (grieving at what had taken place,) Did I not see thee in the garden?" But neither did the garden bring him to remember what had taken place, nor the great affection which Jesus there had shown by those words, but all these from pressure of anxiety he banished from his mind.

But why have the Evangelists with one accord written concerning him? Not as accusing the disciple, but as desiring to teach us, how great an evil it is not to commit all to God, but to trust to one's self. But do thou admire the tender care of his Master, who, though a prisoner and bound, took great forethought for His disciple, raising Peter up, when he was down, by His look, and launching him into a sea of tears.

Consider that when Peter sat outside, separated from Jesus while he was in the court of the high priest, he denied Jesus before everyone. And again a second time he denied him in the same way, not having gone outside the door but wanting to go out, yet still not having gone out. But also the third time, when those who stood by said, "Truly you are one of them" and he began to call a curse on himself and swore, "I do not know the man," he was still not outside. And notice that all of his denials were made in the night and in the darkness before the coming of the day and the sign of day, that is, the rooster crowing, which wakes up those who are willing from their sleep. And I may say that if Peter had denied after the rooster crowed—when it might be said "the night is far spent, the day is at hand, let us walk honorably as in the day"—Peter would have deserved no excuse. But perhaps when anyone denies Jesus in such a way that the sin of denial may admit of healing, that person too appears to deny him before the rooster crows, since the Sun of righteousness has not yet been born to them, nor have they drawn near to his rising.

After this Peter returned so as to avoid seeming to be a follower of Christ and sat with the others. As he was sitting there, bystanders, who had heard it from the maid, questioned him again, as Matthew says (Mt 26:73). Or, one of the servants asked first, as John has here (v 26) and then other bystanders joined in. This was Peter's third denial.

About this third denial, John says, One of the servants of the high priest, a kinsman of the man whose ear Peter had cut off. This person testified to what he had seen, Did I not see you in the garden with him? And so after an interval of an hour Peter again denied it, the third time.

It is not important if other Evangelists say that the third question was asked by several persons, while John has it asked by one. For it is possible that this man, being more certain, asked first, and that incited the others to ask also. Those who were standing about said many things about this matter, and one Evangelist speaks of one of these, and another of something else. This happened because their main intention was not to note these details, but to show the statement Peter made and to show that what our Lord had said to Peter came true. Accordingly, all agree on what Peter said: "What the Lord speaks, that will I speak" (Num 24:13).

(Tr. cxiii) Lo, the prophecy of the Physician is fulfilled, the presumption of the sick man demonstrated. That which Peter had said he would do, he had not done. I will lay down my life for Thy sake; but what our Lord had foretold had come to pass, Thou shall deny Me thrice. (Luke 22:34)

"Then Peter denied again." Here the denial of Peter is completed, because it was threefold: and as a sign of its completion it is added: "And immediately the cock crowed." Augustine: "Behold, the Physician's prediction is fulfilled, the sick man's presumption is convicted. For what he had said did not come to pass: I will lay down my life for you; but what He had foretold: You will deny me three times."

Question IV. Likewise, a question is raised about the time of the denial. For here John says that after the third denial the cock crowed; but in Mark fourteen it is said that it crowed after the first denial. I respond: According to the letter, it was as Mark says, that the cock crowed before the threefold denial and immediately after the threefold denial; but Peter did not notice the first crowing of the cock; the second he noticed and returned to his heart, and therefore the others pass over the first crowing in silence, but all mention the last.

And Peter, the ardent lover, is overcome by such insensibility that they have already led the Teacher away, yet he still does not move from his place and warms himself, so that he is questioned again, and he denies Him — and not only a second time, but even a third. Why did all the evangelists write about Peter in agreement? Not in order to condemn their fellow disciple, but to teach us how bad it is not to turn to God in all things and to rely on oneself. One must marvel at the compassion of the Master as well. He is bound; He is led from place to place; yet He did not abandon His care for His disciple, but, turning, looked at Peter, as another evangelist notes (Luke 22:61), and with this look reproached him for his weakness and stirred in him repentance and tears. What happened then to Peter, the same many of us now experience in ourselves, as can be seen. The Word of God that is within us is bound and, as it were, taken captive, enslaved now by sorrow, now by pleasure. For we are bound by both and led into captivity, either by worldly pleasures or by sorrows, forgetting God. Then the Word is condemned, and irrationality prevails, and the servant strikes the Master, for such is the uprising of the passions. Our mind, like another Peter, often trusts in itself that it will not deny the Word, and therefore stands and warms itself. It "stands" because it does not bow down, does not humble itself, but equally and stubbornly remains in self-confidence. It "warms itself" because it is inflamed with self-confidence, from fervor and pride. But a "servant girl" exposes it — some small and enfeebling pleasure — and it immediately denies the Word and submits to irrationality. Or some sorrowful temptation exposes it, just as then a "servant" exposed Peter, and then its powerlessness is revealed. But let us pray that Jesus, the Word of God, would look upon us and rouse us to repentance and tears, when we go out from the court of the prince of this world, that high priest who crucifies the Lord. For when we go out from this world, which is the court of the prince of the world, only then shall we awaken to sincere repentance, as the Apostle Paul also says: "Let us go forth to Him outside the camp, that is, this world, bearing His reproach" (Heb. 13:13).

2327 Now he mentions the sign given by Christ which Peter recalled. And at once the cock crowed, moved by God's power, so that the prediction of the physician would be fulfilled and to demonstrate the presumption of the one who was sick.

The passover was strictly the fourteenth day of the month, the day on which the lamb was killed in the evening: the seven days following were called the days of unleavened bread, in which nothing leavened ought to be found in their houses. Yet we find the day of the passover reckoned among the days of unleavened bread: Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto Him, Where wilt Thou that we prepare for Thee to eat the passover? (Mat. 26:17) And here also in like manner: That they might eat the passover; the passover here signifying not the sacrifice of the lamb, which took place the fourteenth day at evening, but the great festival which was celebrated on the fifteenth day, after the sacrifice of the lamb. Our Lord, like the rest of the Jews, kept the passover on the fourteenth day: on the fifteenth day, when the great festival was held, He was crucified. His immolation however began on the fourteenth day, from the time that He was taken in the garden.

Here we might suppose either that there had been something imperative requiring Caiaphas's presence in the hall of judgment and that he was absent on the occasion when the other chief priests held an inquiry on the Lord, or else that the hall of judgment was in his house. So then, from the beginning of this scene they had only been leading Jesus away to the personage in whose presence he was at last actually conducted. But since they brought the accused person in the character of one already convicted, and since it had previously approved itself to Caiaphas's judgment that Jesus should die, there was no further delay in delivering him over to Pilate with a view to his being put to death. And so it is that Matthew here relates what took place between Pilate and the Lord.

Let us now consider, so far as indicated by the evangelist John, what was done with, or in regard to, our Lord Jesus Christ, when brought before Pontius Pilate the governor. For he returns to the place of his narrative where he had left it, to explain the denial of Peter. He had already, you know, said, "And Annas sent Him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest:" and having returned from where he had dismissed Peter as he was warming himself at the fire in the hall, after completing the whole of his denial, which was thrice repeated, he says, "Then they bring Jesus unto Caiaphas into the hall of judgment (pretorium);" for he had said that He was sent to Caiaphas by his colleague and father-in-law Annas. But if to Caiaphas, why into the hall of judgment? Nothing else is thereby meant to be understood than the place where Pilate the governor dwelt. And therefore, either for some urgent reason Caiaphas had proceeded from the house of Annas, where both had met to give Jesus a hearing, to the governor's pretorium, and had left the hearing of Jesus to his father-in-law; or Pilate had made his pretorium in the house of Caiaphas, which was so large as to contain separate apartments for its own master, and the like for the judge.

"And it was morning; and they themselves," that is, those who brought Jesus, "went not into the judgment hall," to wit, into that part of the house which Pilate occupied, supposing it to be Caiaphas' house. And then in explanation of the reason why they went not into the judgment hall, he says, "lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover." For it was the commencement of the days of unleavened bread: on which they accounted it defilement to enter the abode of one of another nation. Impious blindness! Would they, forsooth, be defiled by a stranger's abode, and not be defiled by their own wickedness? They were afraid of being defiled by the pretorium of a foreign judge, and had no fear of defilement from the blood of an innocent brother: not to say more than this meanwhile, which was enough to fix guilt on the conscience of the wicked. For the additional fact, that it was the Lord who was led to death by their impiety, and the giver of life that was on the way to be slain, may be charged, not to their conscience, but to their ignorance.

(Tr. cxiv) The Evangelist returns to the part where he had left off, in order to relate Peter's denial: Then led they Jesus to Caiaphas (a Caiapha Vulg.) unto the hall of judgment: to Caiaphas from his colleague and father in law Annas, as has been said. But if to Caiaphas, how to the prætorium, which was the place where the governor Pilate resided?

(Tr. cxiv) Either then for some urgent reason Caiaphas proceeded from the house of Annas, where both had been sitting, to the prætorium of the governor, and left Jesus to the hearing of his father in law: or Pilate had established the prætorium in the house of Caiaphas, which was large enough to afford a separate lodging to its owner, and the governor at the same time.

(de Con. Evang. l. iii. c. vii) According to Matthew, When the morning came, they led Him away, and delivered Him to Pontius Pilate. (Mat. 27:1, 2) But He was to have been led to Caiaphas at first. How is it then that He was brought to him so late? The truth is, now He was going as it were a committed criminal, Caiaphas having already determined on His death. And He was to be given up to Pilate immediately. And it was early.

(Tr. xiv) And they themselves entered not into the judgment hall: i. e. into that part of the house which Pilate occupied, supposing it to be the house of Caiaphas. Why they did not enter is next explained: Lest they should be defiled, but that they might eat the Passover.

(Tr. cxiv) The days of unleavened bread were beginning; during which time it was defilement to enter the house of a stranger.

(Tr. cxiv) O impious blindness! They feared to be defiled by the judgment hall of a foreign prefect, to shed the blood of an innocent brother they feared not. For that He Whom they killed was the Lord and Giver of life, their blindness saved them from knowing.

The praetorium is the place where the praetor sat. Praetors were called prefects and preceptors, because they issue decrees.

It was the custom of the Jews when they condemned any one to death, to notify it to the governor, by delivering the man bound.

"They lead Jesus therefore," etc. Here is treated the third examination of Christ, which took place under Pilate. And in this the malice of the Jews is shown: first, because they lead the unwilling Pilate to judge; second in this, that they lead him who wished to free Christ as innocent to condemn him, at the passage: "And when he had said this, he went out again," etc. The first part is divided into two: for first is set forth the offering up of Christ; second, the examination of the one offered up, at: "Then he entered again," etc. In this offering up there is noted first the perversity of the Jews; second, their falsity; third, their wickedness; fourth, how from this the divine will is fulfilled.

Their perversity, because they lead an innocent man on a feast day to the place of condemnation: therefore he says: "They therefore lead Jesus," namely the officers, "to Caiaphas the high priest into the praetorium," because he had come there so that he might hand Christ over to Pilate. "Now it was morning:" the time increases their malice, because it was early morning; so greatly did they thirst for the death of Christ that they could not wait long. It was also a festive time: whence he adds: "And they themselves did not enter the praetorium, so that they might not be defiled, but might eat the Passover," because they could not if defiled: Numbers 9: "Those who were unclean by reason of a dead man could not keep the Passover." Augustine: "O impious blindness! They feared to be defiled by the praetorium of a foreign judge, yet did not fear to be defiled by the blood of an innocent brother."

Question I. But the question is raised here concerning the statement that they lead him to Caiaphas into the praetorium, because it immediately says that they did not enter the praetorium. And Augustine responds that praetorium is said first of the place "where the governor dwelt"; but second it is said of the place where he judged, into which if they entered, they considered themselves unclean.

Question II. Likewise the question is raised concerning the statement: "It was morning," since it was said above that before the cock crowed, Annas sent him bound to Caiaphas. I respond: On this point Chrysostom and Augustine disagree. For Augustine says that they led him from Annas to Caiaphas into the praetorium, and he says that this can be understood either because Pilate held court in the house of Caiaphas, or because Caiaphas had gone to the house of Pilate. Chrysostom says that they do not now first lead him from Annas, but at the cock's crow they led him to the house of Caiaphas, and afterward in the morning from his house to Pilate, who had gone to the place of the praetorium.

Question III. Likewise the question is raised concerning the statement: "Lest they be defiled, but that they might eat the Passover." Therefore they had not yet eaten the Passover; therefore, since Christ ate it on the preceding day, he did not eat at the proper time. To this the Greeks respond that it is true that Christ anticipated the Passover on account of his death; whence they say that he ate leavened bread and from it consecrated, and therefore they themselves consecrate with leavened bread; and from this word they take the cause of their error. We, however, explain that the Passover is the same as the paschal food, and these are the unleavened breads which they ate for seven days.

Accordingly therefore, on the fourteenth day, when also Jesus suffered, the chief priests and scribes, bringing him early in the morning to Pilate, did not enter the Praetorium so that they might not be defiled but instead might without hindrance eat the Passover in the evening. By this precise reckoning of the days all the Scriptures agree, and the Gospels are harmonious. The resurrection also bears further witness. He rose on the third day, which is the first day of the weeks of harvest on which it was ordained that the priest should offer the sheaf.

They lead Jesus therefore from Caiaphas into the palace: and it was early; and they themselves entered not into the palace, that they might not be defiled, but that they might eat the passover.

Judge righteous judgment, and Thou shalt not slay the innocent and just man, were the express injunctions of the Law and the Word of God. These miserable men could not help being ashamed of their lack of charges against Him; but, finding their fury against Christ to be without excuse, and being prevented from killing Him with their own hands by the approach of the atoning sacrifice (for they were about to sacrifice the Paschal lamb, according to the Law, which yet with them had lost its power), they bring Him to Pilate; trusting, in their gross folly, that they would not be quite implicated in the charge of shedding blood unjustly if they did not slay Him themselves, but only brought Him to suffer death at the hands of another; though what was in their hearts was altogether at variance with the Mosaic Law. And we must convict them, besides, of the greatest folly in acting as follows. For, while sentencing the sinless One to the doom of death, and bringing down upon their own heads the guilt of so frightful an impiety, they yet shun the threshold of the judgment hall, as though it would cause them to be defiled, and anxiously shrink from having intercourse with men who were still unclean. For they believed, I suppose, that stones, and the bodies of men who were their brethren, could defile the soul of man; but deemed that the worst of all crimes, the most unjust shedding of blood, stained them not a whit. And, marvel of marvels, the most absurd and irrational idea of all, they think themselves purified by the slaughter of a lamb, which typified for us nothing but the shadow of the mystery that is in Christ; and, while honouring the type of what is coming to pass, they scorn the reality itself. For while they were performing that which was but the semblance of His Atonement, they were defiled by the shedding of the Blood of Christ. Christ, then, said well when He called them whited sepulchres, outwardly adorned with the superficial embellishments of art, but inwardly full of evil odours and detestable impurity; and when, in another place, He said that they strained out the gnat and swallowed the camel. For while they were often exact about matters that were, so to say, wholly unimportant and insignificant, or, rather, about a mere nothing (for what is the gnat?), they made of no account the most weighty of all the charges against themselves, and made clean the outside of the cup and platter, while they regarded not at all the uncleanness within. For see how, though the prophet Jeremiah said plainly: Wash thy heart from wickedness, O Jerusalem, that thou mayest be saved, they were thoroughly convinced that the inward impiety of the soul mattered not a whit; and, when they brought Christ to Pilate, they shrank from places as accursed, and from the bodies of uncircumcised men; and if they did not commit the lawless act with their own hands, they yet made Pilate, as it were, minister to their cruelty, and in their stupidity imagined that they remained free from all blame. It may well excite our wonder to find that the holy prophets were well aware even of this impiety of theirs; for the blessed Isaiah said concerning them: Woe unto the wicked! for the reward of his hands shall be given him. And Ezekiel also: As thou hast done, it shall be done unto thee: thy reward shall return upon thine own head. Moreover, the inspired Psalmist exclaims: Render to them their desert; give them according to the work of their hands. For as they led Christ, the Saviour of all, captive to the Roman officers, so they received in their turn their reward, and were abandoned to the dominion of Rome, and were spoiled by the hand of their conquerors. For so fearful was the war that was kindled against them, and so frightful the extremities in which they were involved, that, if it had been possible, some, nay many, among them would rather have chosen to go into the mountains and rocks, and die there, before they saw the war----a choice which Christ foretold that they would make, when He said: When ye see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then shall ye say to the mountains, Cover us; and to the hills, Fall on us.

"They lead Him therefore from Caiaphas to Pilate." This was done, in order that the number of His judges might show, even against their will, how fully tested was His truth. "And it was early." Before cock crow He was brought to Caiaphas, early in the morning to Pilate; whence the Evangelist shows, that being questioned by Caiaphas during an entire half of the night, He was in nothing proved guilty; wherefore Caiaphas sent Him on to Pilate. But leaving these things for the others to relate, John speaks of what follows next.

And observe the ridiculous conduct of the Jews. They who had seized the innocent, and taken up arms, do not enter into the hall of judgment, "lest they should be polluted." And tell me, what kind of pollution was it to set foot in a judgment-hall, where wrong-doers suffer justice? They who paid tithes of mint and anise, did not think they were polluted when bent on killing unjustly, but thought that they polluted themselves by even treading in a court of justice.

"But what is, 'That they might eat the Passover?' For He had done this on the first day of unleavened bread." Either he calls the whole feast "the Passover," or means, that they were then keeping the Passover, while He delivered it to His followers one day sooner, reserving His own Sacrifice for the Preparation-day, when also of old the Passover was celebrated. But they, though they had taken up arms, which was unlawful, and were shedding blood, are scrupulous about the place, and bring forth Pilate to them.

We will prove that it may suffice that the death of the Christ had been prophesied, in order that, from the fact that the nature of the death had not been specified, it may be understood to have been affected by means of the cross and that the passion of the cross is not to be ascribed to any but him whose death was constantly being predicted.… For that you would do such a thing at the beginning of the first month of your new [years] even Moses prophesied when he was foretelling that all the community of the children of Israel were to sacrifice a lamb when evening came and were to eat this solemn sacrifice of this day [that is, of the Passover of unleavened bread] with bitterness." And then he added that "it was the Passover of the Lord," that is, the passion of Christ. This prediction was in this way also fulfilled that "on the first day of unleavened bread" you killed the Christ.

For that you would do thus at the beginning of the first month of your new (years) even Moses prophesied, when he was foretelling that all the community of the sons of lsrµl was to immolate at eventide a lamb, and were to eat this solemn sacrifice of this day (that is, of the passover of unleavened bread) with bitterness; "and added that "it was the passover of the Lord," that is, the passion of Christ. Which prediction was thus also fulfilled, that "on the first day of unleavened bread" you slew Christ; and (that the prophecies might be fulfilled) the day hasted to make an "eventide,"-that is, to cause darkness, which was made at mid-day; and thus "your festive days God converted into grief, and your canticles into lamentation.

The Lord is led through many tribunals, with the thought that they would disgrace Him; but the truth, on the contrary, was revealed all the more, through the examination of the case by many tribunals. For the Lord came out of all of them uncondemned, having received irrefutable vindication. They lead Him to the Praetorium, because they themselves did not have the authority to put anyone to death, since they were under the dominion of the Romans. At the same time, they were afraid that they might afterwards be subjected to trial and punishment for having put Him to death without a trial. "It was morning," he says, so that you might know that Caiaphas interrogated the Lord at midnight, for He had been led to Caiaphas before the rooster crowed. What he asked the Lord, this evangelist passed over in silence, but the others have told. When the night had passed in these interrogations, in the morning they lead Him to Pilate. What madness! When they kill unjustly, they do not think that they are defiled. But to enter the judgment hall they consider a defilement for themselves. The Lord performed it on the first day of unleavened bread (Mark 14:12). Therefore, by Pascha we must understand either the entire seven-day feast, or understand it in this way: that on this occasion they were supposed to eat the Pascha on Friday evening, but He performed it one day earlier, so as to reserve the slaying of Himself for Friday, when the Old Testament Pascha was also celebrated.

2328 Now the Evangelist tells about Christ's being handed over to the Gentiles: first, we see him delivered to the governor; secondly, Christ is examined by him (v 29); thirdly, the governor declares that Christ is innocent (v 38b). He does three things about the first: the place where Christ was delivered is stated; secondly, the time; thirdly, the way he was handed over.

2329 The place was the praetorium, for he says, They led Jesus to Caiaphas, to the praetorium. This is the place where judgment is given. In the army the commander's tent was known as the praetorium; and so this residence of the governor was also called a praetorium.

But how can Christ be led to Caiaphas, to the praetorium? One could say that Caiaphas had come ahead to the residence of Pilate to tell him that Jesus would be handed over to him. And so Jesus was led to Caiaphas when he was in the praetorium with Pilate. Or, one could say that since Caiaphas was the high priest, he had a large dwelling, so large that the governor lived there and made it his residence. Then the meaning is: they led Jesus to Caiaphas, to his residence, and so to the praetorium.

Or, one could say that the Greek text is better, which says, Then they led Jesus from Caiaphas to the praetorium. This takes away the problem.

2330 The time is mentioned, It was early, for their villainy was so great that they could hardly wait to turn him over to Pilate to be killed: "Woe to those who devise wickedness and work evil upon their beds! When the morning dawns, they perform it" (Mic 2:1); "The murderer rises at the light" (Job 24:14).

Here we find a difficult problem. The other three Evangelists say that early in the evening Christ was struck at the residence of Caiaphas, and questioned by him: "If you are the Christ, tell us" (Luke 22:67), and in the morning Christ was led to Pilate. But John says that he was led to Caiaphas. If we want to keep to the letter of the text, we could say that Caiaphas first saw Jesus when he was at the house of Annas, during the night, and at that time Christ could be examined by him.

But there still remains the difficulty that they say that Christ was struck at the residence of Caiaphas. This is solved by the Greek text which says that "they led Jesus from Caiaphas to the praetorium," because then during the night he was led from the residence of Annas to the residence of Caiaphas, where he was struck and examined by him, and in the morning he was led from Caiaphas to the praetorium.

2331 They themselves did not enter the praetorium, so that they might not be defiled, but might eat the passover. Here we see, first, their useless superstition, because they would not go into the praetorium. Secondly, we see the deference Pilate paid them, since he went out to meet them. A problem arises about the first point: that they would not enter the praetorium so as not to be defiled. The other Evangelists say that Christ was seized in the evening, on the day of the supper; and this would be the passover meal: "I have earnestly desired to eat this passover with you" (Lk 22:15). And then in the morning of the next day he was brought to the praetorium. Why then do we read so that they might eat the passover, since it was the day after the passover? Some of the modern Greeks say that we are now on the fourteenth lunar day of the month, and that Christ was crucified on the day the Jews celebrated the passover, but that Christ anticipated the passover by one day, since he knew he would be killed on the day of the Jewish passover. Thus, he celebrated the passover on the thirteenth lunar day, in the evening. And since the law commanded that the Jews should not have leavened bread from the fourteenth day of the first month to the twenty‑first day, they say that Christ consecrated leavened bread.

2332 This is not acceptable for two reasons. First, the Old Testament has no instance where anyone was permitted to anticipate the celebration of the passover. But if one was prevented, he could postpone it to the next month: "If any man of you or of your descendants is unclean... he shall still keep the passover to the Lord. In the second month on the fourteenth day in the evening they shall keep it" (Num 9:10). And since Christ never omitted any observance of the law, it is not true to say that he anticipated the passover. Secondly, Mark (14:12) states explicitly that Christ came on the first day of Unleavened Bread, when they sacrificed the passover lamb; and Matthew says that "on the first day of Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus saying, 'Where will you have us prepare for you to eat the passover?'" (Mt 26:17). So, we should not say that Christ anticipated the passover.

2333 Accordingly, Chrysostom explains this another way. He said that Christ fulfilled the law in all matters and did observe the passover on the proper day, that is, the fourteenth day, in the evening. But the Jews were so intent on killing Christ that they did not observe it on the proper day, but on the day following, the fifteenth. Thus the sense is: so that they might not be defiled, but might eat the passover which they had neglected the day before.

This is not acceptable either, for in Numbers (9:10) it is said that if anyone is prevented from eating the passover on the fourteenth day of the first month, he is to eat it, not on the following day, but on the fourteenth day of the second month.

2334 Therefore we should say with Jerome, Augustine and other Latin Fathers, that the fourteenth day is the beginning of the feast; but the passover refers not just to that evening, but to the entire time of the seven days during which they ate unleavened bread, which was to be eaten by those who were clean. And because the Jews would have contracted uncleanness by entering the residence of a foreign judge, they did not enter so that they might not be defiled, but might eat the passover, that is, the unleavened bread.

See their wicked blindness, for they feared becoming defiled from a gentile man, but did not fear to shed the blood of a God and a man, "Those who laid you waste go forth from you" (Is 49:17).