Mark § 65

(ubi sup.) After that our Lord had prayed three times, and had obtained by His prayers that the fear of the Apostles should be amended by future repentance, He, being tranquil as to His Passion, goes to His persecutors, concerning the coming of whom the Evangelist says, And immediately, while he yet spake, cometh Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve.

Consider what befell him, how he simultaneously lost the money, committed the sin, and destroyed his own soul. Such is the tyranny of covetousness. He did not even enjoy the money in this life nor did he have any benefits in the life to come. He lost everything at once and, branded as a bad character even by his co-conspirators, hanged himself.

For he who despairs of help from God, has recourse to the power of the world.

Not without reason was it added: "one of the twelve," but in condemnation of the betrayer, because he, being in the first rank of the apostles, plotted against his own Master.

This is not put without reason, but to the greater conviction of the traitor, since though he was of the chief company amongst the disciples, he turned himself to furious enmity against our Lord. And with him a great multitude with swords and staves from the Chief Priests and the Scribes and the elders.

Now the betrayer had given them a sign, saying: Whomsoever I shall kiss, etc. Indeed, an impudent and wicked confidence, to call Him Master and to give a kiss to Him whom he was betraying. However, he still had something of the disciple's shame, since he did not openly hand Him over to the persecutors, but by the sign of a kiss. The Lord received the kiss of the betrayer, not to teach us to deceive, but so that He would not appear to evade the traitor, and also fulfilling that which was written in David: I was peaceful with those who hate peace (Psalm 119).

(ubi sup.) But Judas had still something of the shame of a disciple, for he did not openly betray Him to his persecutors, but by the token of a kiss. Wherefore it goes on: And he that betrayed him had given them a token, saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, that same is he; take him, and lead him away safely.

How magnificent is the endurance of evil by the Lord who even kissed his own traitor, and then spoke words even softer than a kiss! For he did not say, O you abominable one, or traitor, is this what you do in return for great kindnesses? He simply says "Judas," using his first name. This is in the voice of one commiserating with another or who wished another to come back to him, not the voice of anger.

Judas gives the kiss as a token, with poisonous guile, just as Cain offered a crafty, reprobate sacrifice.

But look at his madness, how he thought to hide from the Lord by a kiss, hoping to be received as a friend. If you are indeed a friend, why did you come with enemies? Truly, senseless cunning!

See how in his blindness he thought to deceive Christ by the kiss, so as to be looked upon by Him as His friend. But if thou wert a friend, Judas, how didst thou come with His enemies? But wickedness is ever without foresight. And as soon as he was come, he goeth straightway to him, and saith, Master, master; and kissed him.

(ubi sup.) With envy and with a wicked confidence, he calls Him master, and gives Him a kiss, in betraying Him. But the Lord receives the kiss of the traitor, not to teach us to deceive, but lest he should seem to avoid betrayal, and at the same time to fulfil that Psalm, Among them that are enemies unto peace, I labour for peace. (Ps. 120:5) It goes on: And they laid hands on him, and took him.

At last, after five days, having observed up to that point the sacraments of the old Passover, he brought them to perfection, and handed over the new sacraments to his disciples to be observed from that time forward. Then, having gone out to the Mount of Olives, he was seized by the Jews and crucified the next morning. He redeemed us from the sway of the devil on that very day when the ancient people of the Hebrews remembered casting aside the yoke of slavery under the Egyptians by the immolation of a lamb.

Why did he choose [Judas], and … make him steward? To show his perfect love and his mercy. [It was] also that our Lord might teach his church that, even if there are false teachers in it, it is nevertheless the true seat [of authority]. For the seat of Judas did not come to naught with the traitor himself. It was also [to teach] that, even if there are evil stewards, the stewardship itself is true. He therefore washed his feet, [those very feet] by means of which he had arisen and gone to [Jesus'] slayers. Jesus kissed the mouth of him who, by means of it, gave the signal for death to those who apprehended him. He reached out and gave bread into that hand that reached out and took his price, and sold him unto slaughter.

PSEUDO-JEROME.w This is the Joseph who was sold by his brethren, (Ps. 105:18) and into whose soul the iron entered. There follows: And one of them that stood by drew a sword, and smote a servant of the High Priest, and cut off his ear.

One of those standing near drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear. Peter did this, as the evangelist John declares, indeed with the same ardor of mind with which he had done other things. For he knew how Phinehas, by punishing the sacrilegious, had received the reward of the eternal priesthood. But Luke adds that the Lord, touching the servant's ear, healed him. Therefore, the Lord never forgets his mercy, who even does not allow his enemies to be wounded. They inflict death on the just, He heals the wounds of his persecutors. Mystically teaching that even those who had contracted the wound of the soul by consenting to his death, if they made the fruit of repentance worthy, they could merit salvation.

(ubi sup.) Peter did this, as John declares, with the same ardent mind with which he did all things; for he knew how Phineas had by punishing sacrilegious persons received the reward of righteousness and of perpetual priesthood.

"And one of those who stood by" — this was Peter. Mark concealed his name so that no one would think he was praising Peter, his teacher, for his zeal for Christ. But Peter, fittingly, cut off the ear of the high priest's servant: this indicates that the Jews were a disobedient, rebellious, and inattentive people with regard to the Scriptures. Otherwise, if they had ears attentive to the Scriptures, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. And Peter struck not some other servant, but the high priest's, for the high priests were the first to disobey the Scriptures, having become slaves of envy and self-love.

Mark conceals his name, lest he should seem to be praising his master for his zeal for Christ. Again, the action of Peter points out that they were disobedient and unbelieving, despising the Scriptures; for if they had had ears to hear the Scriptures, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. But he cut off the ear of a servant of the High Priest, for the Chief Priests especially passed over the Scriptures, like disobedient servants.

Then his disciples, leaving him, all fled. The word of the Lord which he had spoken was fulfilled, that all his disciples would be scandalized in him that very night. For even if, by the crowd permitting to the Lord's request, they fled, as John writes, they nonetheless showed the fear and timidity of their mind, that they were more ready to take refuge in flight than to endure suffering with Christ in confidence.

(ubi sup.) In this is fulfilled the word, which the Lord had spoken, that all His disciples should be offended in Him that same night.

The disciples fled, for it was impossible for the Self-existent Truth and the prophets to lie.

And they all forsook him and fled.

A certain young man followed him, clothed in a linen cloth over his naked body, and they seized him. But he, leaving the linen cloth behind, fled from them naked. When it says 'clothed in a linen cloth over his naked body,' it is implied on the body, that is, on the naked body, because he had no other clothing than only the linen cloth. But who this young man was, the evangelist does not say. Whoever he was, he proves that a greater love for the Lord remained in him than in the others, who, while they were already fleeing, he, bound by the bond of love, did not cease to follow him until he was apprehended by the enemies. Although he had not yet perfected love, who could even while being held flee from the companionship of the Savior. Because just as perfect love casts out fear (1 John IV), so fear, besieging the mind, proves imperfect love.

But it is to be noted narrowly that the evangelist writing about this young man does not say that he fled from the company or fled from following the Lord, but, he says, rejecting the linen cloth, he fled naked from them. For he fled from the enemies, whose presence and deeds he detested; he did not flee from the Lord and his Master, whose love fixed in his heart he preserved even absent in the body. Nor is there anything to prevent us from understanding that this young man was John, the disciple beloved above others by the Master. For that he was a young man at that time is indicated by his long life afterward in the flesh. For it could have happened that, having slipped from the hands of his captors for a moment, he soon, having resumed his garment, returned and mingled among the crowd leading Jesus, as if he were one of them, until he reached the high priest's courtyard where he was known, as he himself recounts in his Gospel. But just as Peter, who washed away the sin of his denial with the tears of repentance and completely eradicated it by confessing his love for the Lord, showing the recovery of those who fall in martyrdom, so the other disciples, who avoided the moment of capture by fleeing, teach the caution of fleeing to those who feel themselves less capable of enduring torments. For it is much safer for them to seek the protection of hiding places than to expose themselves to the danger of contests. Thus also this young man, who, rejecting the linen cloth, fled naked from the impious ones, designates their work and mind who, in order to be more secure from the attacks of the enemies, throw away whatever they seem to possess in this world and learn to serve the Lord naked rather than by adhering to the things of the world, giving the adversaries matter for tempting and recalling them from God: following the example of the blessed Joseph who, leaving his garment in the hands of the adulteress, leapt out, preferring to serve God naked rather than, clothed in the desires of the world, to serve the prostitute.

(ubi sup.) There follows: And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body, that is, he had no other clothing but this linen cloth. It goes on: And they laid hold on him, and he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked. That is, he fled from them, whose presence and whose deeds he abhorred, not from the Lord, for whom his love remained fixed in his mind, when absent from Him in body.

(ubi sup.) For that he was a young man at that time, is evident from his long sojourn in the flesh. Perhaps he escaped from the hands of those who held him for the time, and afterwards got back his garment and returned, mingling under cover of the darkness with those who were leading Jesus, as though he was one of them, until he arrived at the door of the High Priest, to whom he was known, as he himself testifies in the Gospel. But as Peter, who washed away the sin of his denial with the tears of penitence, shows the recovery of those who fall away in time of martyrdom, so the other disciples who prevented their actual seizure, teach the prudence of flight to those who feel themselves unequal to undergo tortures.

(Mor. 14. 49) Or, he says this of John, who, although he afterwards returned to the cross to hear the words of the Redeemer, at first was frightened and fled.

Just as Joseph left his mantle behind him, and fled naked from the wanton woman; so also let him, who would escape the hands of the evil ones, quit in mind all that is of the world, and fly after Jesus.

Only a certain young man followed Him. This young man was probably from the house in which they ate the Passover. Some, however, think that this was James, the brother of God, called the righteous, for throughout his whole life he wore a single cloak, and after the Ascension of the Lord he received from the apostles the episcopal throne in Jerusalem. It was he, they say, who left behind his outer garment and fled. And there is nothing surprising that, when the chief apostles fled, he too forsook the Lord.

It appears probable that this young man was of that house, where they had eaten the Passover. But some say that this young man was James, the brother of our Lord, who was called Just; who after the ascension of Christ received from the Apostles the throne of the bishopric of Jerusalem.

And they led Jesus to the high priest. The high priest means Caiphas, who (as the evangelist John writes) was the high priest of that year. Josephus also testifies in agreement about this, saying that he obtained the high priesthood without merit from the Roman ruler. Therefore, it is not surprising if an unjust high priest judges unjustly.

(ubi sup.) He means by the High Priest Caiaphas, who (as John writes) was High Priest that year, of whom Josephus relates that he bought his priesthood of the Roman Emperor. There follows: And with him were assembled all the Chief Priests and the elders and the scribes.

(non occ.) The Evangelist had related above how our Lord had been taken by the servants of the Priests, now he begins to relate how He was condemned to death in the house of the High Priest: wherefore it is said, And they led Jesus away to the High Priest.

Then took place the gathering together of the bulls among the heifers of the people. (Ps. 67:31, Vulg.)

The law commanded that the Jews should have one high priest for his entire life; yet at that time they had many high priests, who one after another each year purchased their authority from the Romans. Thus the evangelist calls "high priests" those who, having served for some time in the high priesthood, had left it.

Though the law commanded that there should be but one High Priest, there were then many put into the office, and stripped of it, year by year, by the Roman emperor. He therefore calls chief priests those who had finished the time allotted to them, and had been stripped of their priesthood.

But Peter followed from a distance, etc. Deservedly he followed from a distance, who was soon to deny him. For he could not have denied if he had clung closely to Christ. Yet in this, he is most greatly venerable to us with admiration because he did not leave the Lord even when he was afraid. For what he fears is due to nature; what he follows is due to devotion; what he denies is due to deception; what he repents of is due to faith. Another interpretation: Peter following the same Lord from a distance to the passion signified that the Church would indeed follow, that is, imitate the passion of the Lord, but from a far distance. For the Church suffers for itself, but He for the Church.

And he was sitting with the attendants and warming himself at the fire. There is the fire of love, and there is also the fire of desire. Of this it is said: I came to cast fire upon the earth, and what will I if it be already kindled (Luke 12)? But of that: They are all adulterers, like an oven heated by the baker (Hosea 7). This fire, descending upon the believers in the upper room of Zion, taught them to praise God in various languages. That fire kindled by the evil spirit in the courtyard of Caiaphas armed the harmful tongues of the faithless to deny and blaspheme the Lord. For what the malignant council was plotting inside the house of the high priest, this fire materially lit outside in the courtyard amidst the cold of the night, symbolically prefigured. Therefore, whoever extinguishes the evil and harmful fire in themselves can say with the prophet to the Lord: For I am become like a bottle in the frost; yet do I not forget thy statutes (Psalm 119). But those in whom the flame of love has been overwhelmed by the turbulent waters of vices hear from the Lord: Because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold (Matthew 24). At that cold moment, the Apostle Peter, numb from the cold, wished to warm himself by the coals of Caiaphas' attendants, because he sought the comfort of temporal ease by the company of the faithless. But soon, remembered by the Lord, he left behind both the physical fire of the wicked and the infidelity within his heart. And after the resurrection of the Lord, revived by the holy fire, he completely purged the sin of his threefold denial by the threefold confession of love. Then, upon that memorable catch of fish, when he came to the Lord with his fellow disciples, soon seeing the coals laid, and the fish laid on it and the bread, he was inflamed with the fire of love in the hidden chambers of his heart.

(ubi sup.) But rightly does he follow afar off, who is just about to betray Him; for he could not have denied Christ, if he had remained close to Him. There follows, And he sat with the servants, and warmed himself at the fire.

(ubi sup.) For charity is the fire of which it is said, I am come to send fire on the earth, (Luke 12:49) which flame coming down on the believers, taught them to speak with various tongues the praise of the Lord. There is also a fire of covetousness, of which it is said, They are all adulterers as an oven; (Hosea 7:4) this fire, raised up in the hall of Caiaphas by the suggestion of an evil spirit, was arming the tongues of the traitors to deny and blaspheme the Lord. For the fire lit up in the hall amidst the cold of the night was a figure of what the wicked assembly was doing within; for because of the abounding of iniquity the love of many waxes cold. Peter, who for a time was benumbed by this cold, wished as it were to be warmed by the coals of the servants of Caiaphas, because He sought in the society of traitors the consolation of worldly comfort. It goes on, And the Chief Priests and all the council sought for witness against Jesus to put him to death. (Matt. 24:12)

It goes on: And Peter followed him afar off, even into the palace of the High Priest. For though fear holds him back, love draws him on.

He warms himself at the fire in the hall, with the servants. The hall of the High-Priest is the enclosure of the world, the servants are the devils, with whom whosoever remains cannot weep for his sins; the fire is the desire of the flesh.

Peter, however, showing the most fervent love for the Teacher, followed after Christ.

But iniquity lied as the queen did against Joseph, and the priests against Susannah, but a flame goes out, if it has no fuel; wherefore it goes on, And found none. For many bare false witness against him, but their witness agreed not together. For whatever is not consistent is held to be doubtful.

People who are themselves worthy of condemnation set up the appearance of a tribunal, in order to show that they put Him (Christ) to death by judgment. But where is the justice of a trial when witnesses are brought forward who cannot say anything just, but only violence and absurdities? And even those very ones who thought they were saying something substantial spoke a lie.

But their actions are a sign of their judgment, which they earned on as they had prejudged, for they sought for a witness, that they might seem to condemn and destroy Jesus with justice.

There follows, And there arose certain, and bare false witness against him, saying, We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands. It is usual with heretics out of the truth to extract the shadow; He did not say what they said, but something like it, of the temple of His body, which He raised again after two days.

People who are themselves worthy of condemnation set up the appearance of a tribunal, in order to show that they put Him (Christ) to death by judgment. But where is the justice of a trial when witnesses are brought forward who cannot say anything just, but only violence and absurdities? And even those very ones who thought they were saying something substantial spoke a lie. For the Lord did not say, "I will destroy the temple," but "destroy," nor did He say "a temple made with hands," but simply "the temple."

For the Lord had not said, I will destroy, but, Destroy, nor did He say, made with hands, but, this temple.

And some standing up bore false witness against him, saying: We heard him say: I will destroy this temple made with hands, and after three days I will build another not made with hands. How are they false witnesses if they say things which we read that the Lord said? But a false witness is he who does not understand statements in the same sense as they are spoken. For the Lord had spoken about the temple of his body. Yet they slander even the very words, and by adding or changing a few, they seem to create a just accusation. The Savior had said: Destroy this temple. They change it and say: I will destroy this temple made with hands. He says, you destroy, not I. Because it is unlawful for us to bring death upon ourselves. Then they twist it: and after three days I will build another not made with hands, so that it appears he spoke specifically about the Jewish temple. But the Lord, to show that the living and breathing body is the temple, had said: And I will raise it up in three days. Building is one thing, raising is another.

(ubi sup.) He had said also, I will raise up, meaning a thing with life and soul, and a breathing temple. He is a false witness, who understands words in a sense, in which they are not spoken.

That Christ should be the house and temple of God, and that the old temple should cease, and the new one should begin. In the second book of Kings: "And the word of the Lord came to Nathan, saying, Go and tell my servant David, Thus saith the Lord, Thou shall not build me an house to dwell in; but it shall be, when thy days shall be fulfilled, and thou shall sleep with thy fathers, I will raise up thy seed after thee, which shall come from thy bowels, and I will make ready his kingdom. He shall build me an house in my name, and I will raise up his throne for ever; and I will be to him for a father, and he shall be to me for a son: and his house shall obtain confidence, and his kingdom for evermore in my sight." Also in the Gospel the Lord says: "There shall not be left in the temple one stone upon another that shall not be thrown down." And "After three days another shall be raised up without hands."

The accusations they brought against our Lord Jesus Christ appear to have reference to this utterance of his, "Destroy this temple, and I will build it up in three days." Though he was speaking of the temple of his body, they supposed his words to refer to the temple of stone.

Lo, the house of the wicked blasphemer, Caiaphas, has fallen, Where the sacred face of the Christ was cruelly smitten. This destruction will be the lot of all reprobate sinners, For their life will lie buried in crumbling ruins forever. In this house the Lord stood upright, bound and tied to a pillar, And submitted his back as a slave bound and tied to a pillar, Worthy of reverence, this pillar still stands, supporting a temple, And instructing us how to lead our lives. free from all scourges

Do not the quarried stones of Solomon Now lie in ruins, that temple built by hand? Why so? The mortal hand of mason wrought That short-lived work. It rightly lies in ruins, Since every work of art returns to nought. All that is made is doomed one day to fall. Learn what our temple is, if you would know; It is one that no artisan has built, A structure not of riven fir or pine, Nor reared with blocks of quarried marble fair. Its massive weight no columns high support Beneath the arches of a gilded vault. By God's Word it was formed, not by his voice, But by the everlasting Word, the Word made flesh. This temple is eternal, without end, This you attacked with scourge and cross and gall. This temple was destroyed by bitter pains. Its form was fragile from the mother's womb, But when brief death the mother's part dissolved, The Father's might restored it in three days.

And the high priest, rising up in the midst, asked Jesus, saying: Do you answer nothing to what is objected against you by these men? But he was silent and answered nothing. Impetuous and impatient anger, finding no place for slander, shakes the high priest from his seat to show the madness of his mind with the movement of his body. The more Jesus was silent towards the false witnesses and impious priests unworthy of his response, the more the high priest, overcome with fury, provokes him to respond, so that at any chance of speaking he finds a place for accusing. Nonetheless, Jesus remains silent. For he knew, as if God, whatever he had answered, it would be twisted for slander.

(ubi sup.) The more Jesus remained silent before the false witnesses who were unworthy of His answer, and the impious priests, the more the High Priest, overcome with anger, endeavoured to provoke Him to answer, that he might find room for accusing Him, from any thing whatever which He might say. Wherefore it is said, And the High Priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, saying, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee? The High Priest, angry and impatient at finding no room for accusation against Him, rises from his seat, thus showing by the motion of his body the madness of his mind.

The high priest, rising up, questioned Jesus with the intention of provoking Him to answer, and then turning that answer into an accusation.

It was not in vain that the prophecy had preceded him: "As a lamb before its shearer is dumb, so he opened not his mouth." When he did not open his mouth, it was reminiscent of the figure of a lamb. It was not as one of bad conscience convicted of sins, but as one who in his meekness was being sacrificed for the sins of others.

Again the high priest asked him, and said to him: Are you the Christ, the son of the Blessed? Jesus said to him: I am. In Matthew it is written that to the high priest asking and adjuring him if he was the Christ, he answered: You have said it (Matt. 26). For which Mark placed: I am, to show that what Jesus says to him: You have said it, is as much as if he had said: I am.

The other phenomenon is the quite appalling nature of this Man's theological remarks. You all know what I mean, and I want rather to stress the point that the appalling claim which this Man seems to be making is not merely made at one moment of His career. There is, of course, the one moment which led to His execution. The moment at which the high priest said to Him, "Who are you?" "I am the Anointed, the Son of the uncreated God, and you shall see Me appearing at the end of all history as the judge of the Universe." But that claim, in fact, does not rest on this one dramatic moment. When you look into His conversation you will find this sort of claim running through the whole thing.

And of course all three Synoptics tell the story of One who, at his trial, sealed His fate by saying He was the Son of God.

If you will not learn who Christ is from those who received him, at least learn from those who rejected him. The ironic confession his adversaries were inadvertently forced to make stands as reproof of their very mockery. His accusers did not recognize Christ when he came bodily. Yet they had grasped firmly that the true Christ must be the Son of God. Thus, when the false witnesses whom they had hired against him did not score any blows, the priest interrogated him: "Are you the Christ, the Son of the most high God." They did not realize that the mystery was already being fulfilled in him. But they did, ironically, recognize that the divine nature was the condition of its fulfillment. They did not question the assumption that Christ would be the Son of God. They only asked whether he indeed was the Christ, the Son of God. They were mistaken about the person, but not about the Son of God. They had no doubt that Christ would be the Son of God. So while they asked whether he indeed was the Christ, they did so without denying that the Christ is the Son of God.

But our God and Saviour Himself, Who brought salvation to the world, and assisted mankind by His love, is led as a sheep to the slaughter, without crying, and remained mute and kept silence yea even from good words. (Ps. 39:3) Wherefore it goes on, But he field his peace, and answered nothing. The silence of Christ is the pardon for the defence or excuse of Adam. (Gen. 3:10.)

But Christ was silent, knowing that they would not heed His words, as Luke indeed observes that when they questioned the Lord, He said: "If I tell you, you will not believe; and if I also ask you, you will not answer Me" (Luke 22:67–68). The high priest again questions Jesus, not in order to learn the truth and believe, but to have some pretext for condemnation. To the words "Are You the Christ" (the Anointed One), he adds "the Son of the Blessed." For many were anointed, since both kings and high priests were called by this name, but none of them was the Son of God, eternally blessed and glorified.

But He remained silent because He knew that they would not attend to his words; wherefore He answered according to Luke, If I tell you, ye will not believe. Wherefore there follows, Again the High Priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? The High Priest indeed puts this question, not that he might learn of Him and believe, but in order to seek occasion against Him. But he asks, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed, because there were many Christs, that is, anointed persons, as Kings and High Priests, but none of these was called the Son of the Blessed God, that is, the Ever-praised.

But the high priest, rending his garments, said: Why do we still need witnesses? You have heard the blasphemy. The same fury that had shaken him from the priestly throne provokes him to rend his garments. He rends his garments to show that the Jews had lost priestly glory and had an empty seat of the high priest. It is also a custom among the Jews, when they hear something blasphemous and seemingly against God, to rend their garments. We read that Paul and Barnabas did this too when they were honored with divine worship in Lycaonia. However, because Herod did not give honor to God but acquiesced to the excessive favor of the people, he was immediately struck by an angel. But in a higher mystery, it happened that during the Lord's passion, the high priest of the Jews himself rent his garments, while the tunic of the Lord could not be rent by even the soldiers who crucified him. It was prefigured that the priesthood of the Jews would be rent for the crimes of their priests and completely dissolved from its state of integrity; however, the solidity of the holy universal Church, which is often called the garment of its Redeemer, could never be rent. Rather, even if the Jews, the Gentiles, the heretics, or the wicked Catholics despise the humility of the Lord Savior, its inviolate chastity will remain until the end of the age in those whom He finds chosen.

(ubi sup.) But it was also with a higher mystery, that in the Passion of our Lord the Jewish priest rent his own clothes, that is, his ephod, whilst the garment of the Lord could not be rent, even by the soldiers, who crucified Him. For it was a figure that the Jewish priesthood was to be rent on account of the wickedness of the priests themselves. But the solid strength of the Church, which is often called the garment of her Redeemer, can never be torn asunder.

Then He faces the Church; the very Church that He brought into existence. It condemns Him. This is also characteristic. In every Church, in every institution, there is something which sooner or later works against the very purpose for which it came into existence.

(Serm. 5. de Pass.) But Caiaphas, to increase the odiousness of what they had heard rent his clothes, and without knowing what his frantic action meant, by his madness, deprived himself of the honour of the priesthood, forgetting that command, by which it is said of the High Priest, He shall not uncover his head or rend his clothes. For there follows: Then the High Priest rent his clothes, and saith, What need we any further witnesses? Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye?

At this the high priest fulfilled the custom (he tore his garment). For whenever some calamity or sorrow befell the Jews, they would tear their garments. In the present case the high priest tore his garment as a sign that Jesus had supposedly uttered blasphemy against God, and that thus a great evil had occurred. But it is fitting to say here with David: "They were divided, and were not moved to compunction" (Ps. 34:15). But this tearing was at the same time also a figure of the tearing apart and abolition of the Jewish high priesthood, although the high priest himself was unaware of this.

The High Priest does after the manner of the Jews; for whenever any thing intolerable or sad occurred to them, they used to rend their clothes. In order then to show that Christ had spoken great and intolerable blasphemy, he rent his clothes.

They condemned Him to be guilty of death, that by His guiltiness He might absolve our guilt. It goes on: And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to buffet him, and to say unto him, Prophesy: and the servants did strike him with the palms of their hands; that is, that by being spit upon He might wash the face of our soul, and by the covering of His face, might take away the veil from our hearts, and by the buffets, which were dealt upon His head, might heal the head of mankind, that is, Adam, and by the blows, by which He was smitten with the hands, His great praise might be testified by the clapping of our hands and by our lips, as it is said, O clap your hands together, all ye people. (Ps. 47:1)

When in this manner the chief priests unanimously condemned Him (Christ), then the servants, having covered Him, began to beat Him and say, "Prophesy!" — who struck You? If our Lord endured so much for us, then how much must we endure for His sake, in order to repay the Master in equal measure? Oh, this is fearful!

The Jewish priesthood was to be rent from the time that they condemned Christ as guilty of death; wherefore there follows, And they all condemned him to be guilty of death.

(ubi sup.) We must understand by this, that the Lord suffered these things till morning, in the house of the High Priest, whither He had first been brought.

And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to buffet him, and to say to him: Prophesy. And the officers struck him with the palms of their hands. The prophecy was fulfilled here which says: I gave my cheeks to the smiters, and I did not hide my face from confusion and spitting (Isaiah 50:6). But he who was struck then with buffetings from the Jews is now also struck by the blasphemies of false Christians. He who was then spat upon with the saliva of the unbelievers is now even to this day dishonored and provoked with insults by the frenzied only in name faithful. They covered his face, not so that he would not see their crimes, but so that they themselves, as they once did to Moses, might hide from themselves the grace of his knowledge. For if they believed Moses, they might perhaps also believe in the Lord. That veil remains until this day upon their hearts not revealed. But it has been taken away for us who believe in Christ. For it was not in vain that the veil of the temple was torn in two at the moment he died, and the things that had been hidden throughout the whole time of the law, and had been concealed from the carnal Israel, were made manifest to the worshippers of the New Testament in the sanctum sanctorum secrets. But what they say to him: Prophesy, and according to other evangelists: Prophesy who is the one who struck you; they do this as if in scorn of him who wished to be considered a prophet by the people. But he himself arranging what he suffers, everything is done for us, as Peter exhorts: Since Christ suffered in the flesh, let us arm ourselves with the same thought, and be prepared to endure the mocking insults for his name.

(ubi sup.) By saying, Prophesy, who is he that smote thee, they mean to insult Him, because He wished to be looked upon as a prophet by the people.

Who is this strange one who says that he had been silent before, but would not always be silent? Who is he who was led as a sheep to the slaughter and who, like a lamb without making a sound before its shearer, did not open his mouth? Who is he who did not cry out and whose voice was not heard in the streets? Surely it was he who was not stubborn and who did not murmur when he offered his back to the scourges and his cheeks to blows. He did not turn his face away from their filthy spittle. When accused by the priests and elders, he answered nothing and, to the amazement of Pilate, kept a most patient silence.

(ubi sup.) Concerning the temptation of Peter, which happened during the injuries before mentioned, all the Evangelists do not speak in the same order. For Luke first relates the temptation of Peter, then these injuries of the Lord; but John begins to speak of the temptation of Peter, and then puts in some things concerning our Lord's ill-treatment, and adds, that He was sent from there to Caiaphas the High Priest, and then he goes back to unfold the temptation of Peter, which he had begun. Matthew and Mark on the other hand first notice the injuries done to Christ, then the temptation of Peter. Concerning which it is said, And as Peter was beneath in the palace, there cometh one of the maids of the High Priest.

And while Peter was in the courtyard below, one of the maidservants of the high priest came. And when she saw Peter warming himself, looking at him she said: You also were with Jesus of Nazareth, etc. What does it mean that the maidservant first betrayed him, when surely men could have recognized him more? unless it is that this sex might also appear to have sinned in the death of the Lord and that this sex might also be redeemed through the passion of the Lord. And therefore the woman first receives the mystery of the resurrection, and keeps the commandments to abolish the ancient error of transgression.

(upi. sup.) But what can be meant by his being first recognised by a woman, when men were more able to know him, if it be not that that sex might be seen to sin in the death of our Lord, and that sex be redeemed by His Passion? It goes on: But he denied, saying, I know not, neither understand I what thou sayest.

O what strange and remarkable turns occur in these ironic events! When Peter merely saw his master seized, he was so ardent as both to draw his sword and to whack off the servant's ear! But—alas, then when it might have been even more plausible for him to be even more indignant, and to be inflamed and to burn, upon hearing such revilings against his Lord, then he became a cringing denier … and that in the presence of a lowly and diminutive maidservant, and not only once but a second and third time.

Peter when he had not the Spirit yielded and lost courage at the voice of a girl, though with the Spirit he was not afraid before princes and kings.

But in a mystical sense, the first maid means the wavering, the second, the assent, the third man is the act. This is the threefold denial which the remebrance of the word of the Lord washes away through tears. The cock then crows for us when some preacher up our hearts by repentance to compunction. We then begin to weep, when we are set on fire within by the spark of knowledge, and we go forth, when we cast out what we were within.

Although Peter was the most fervent of all, nevertheless he proved weak and denied the Lord, having been troubled by fear. And such fear was brought upon him by a mere servant girl! God permitted him to suffer this by a special providence, so that he would not become proud, so that he would be compassionate toward others who fall, having learned from his own experience the depth of human weakness.

The Lord allowed this to happen to him by His providence, that is, lest he should be too much elated, and at the same time, that he might prove himself merciful to sinners, as knowing from himself the result of human weakness. There follows: And he went out into the porch; and the cock crew.

And he went out before the courtyard, and the cock crowed. Of this crowing of the cock, the other evangelists are silent, though they do not deny that it happened, just as many others pass over in silence many things which others recount.

(ubi sup.) The other Evangelists do not mention this crowing of the cock; they do not however deny the fact, as also some pass over many other things in silence, which others relate. There follows: And a maid saw him again, and began to say to them that stood by, This is one of them

(ubi sup.)y This maid is not the same, but another, as Matthew says. Indeed we must also understand, that in this second denial he was addressed by two persons, that is, by the maid whom Matthew and Mark mention, and by another person, of whom Luke takes notice. It goes on: And he denied it again. Peter had now returned, for John says that he denied Him again standing at the fire; wherefore the maid said what has been mentioned above, not to him, that is, Peter, but to those who, when he went out, had remained, in such a way however that he heard it; wherefore coming back and standing again at the fire, he contradicted them, and denied their words. For it is evident, if we compare the accounts of all the Evangelists on this matter, that Peter did not the second time deny him before the porch, but within the palace at the fire, whilst Matthew and Mark who mention his having gone out are silent, for the sake of brevity, as to his return.

Again, when the maid saw him, she began to say to those standing around: This man is one of them. But he denied it again. The one accusing him now should not be believed to be the same as before. For Matthew says very clearly: When he went out to the gate, another saw him and said to those who were there (Matthew 26), etc. From this denial of Peter, we learn not only that Christ is denied by someone who says He is not Christ, but also by someone who, when He is, denies that he himself is a Christian. However, the Lord did not say to Peter: You will deny my disciple, but: You will deny me. So he denied Him when he denied being His disciple.

(ubi sup.) By this denial of Peter we learn, that not only he denies Christ, who says that He is not the Christ, but he also, who although he is a Christian, denies himself to be such. For the Lord did not say to Peter, Thou shalt deny thyself to be my disciple, but, Thou shalt deny me; he therefore denied Christ, when he said that he was not His disciple.

As for whether there was one servant girl who accused Peter, or yet another — Matthew says there was another, while Mark says that the same servant girl accused Peter both times. But this causes us no difficulty whatsoever regarding the truth of the Gospel. For here the disagreement of the Evangelists does not concern anything important or pertaining to our salvation. One did not say that the Lord was crucified while another said He was not crucified.

And after a little while, those standing by said to Peter again: Truly you are one of them, for you are a Galilean. Not that Galileans spoke a different language than the Jerusalemites, for both were Hebrews, but that every province and region has its peculiarities, and it cannot avoid the native accent. Hence, in the Acts of the Apostles, when those upon whom the Holy Spirit had descended spoke in the languages of all nations, among others who had come from different parts of the world, even those living in Judea are reported to have said: Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? And how is it that we hear each in our own language in which we were born (Acts 2)? And Peter, speaking to the brothers in Jerusalem, said: And it became known to all those inhabiting Jerusalem, so that that field was called in their own language Haceldama (Acts 1). Why in their language, unless it was because they pronounced the same name differently, that is, the Galileans differently from those in Jerusalem?

(ubi sup.) There follows: And a little after, they that stood by said again to Peter, Surely thou art one of them, for thou art a Galilæan, and thy speech agreeth thereto. Not that the Galilæans spoke a different tongue from the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for they were both Hebrews, but that each province and region has its own peculiarities, and cannot avoid a vernacular pronunciation.

"You have taken my friends away from me." In the passion of the cross, even my apostles fled from me; so completely did they shun me that Peter himself said: "I do not know this man."

So Peter, troubled by fear and forgetting the Lord's word — "whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven" (Mt. 10:33) — denied Christ.

Therefore Peter was seized with fear, and for-getting the word of the Lord, which said, Whosoever shall confess me before men, him will I confess before my Father, (Matt. 30, 32) he denied our Lord; wherefore there follows: But he began to curse and to swear, saying, I know not this man of whom ye speak.

But he began to curse and to swear: "I do not know this man you are talking about." And immediately the rooster crowed again. Scripture is wont to designate the mystery of events by the state of times. Hence Peter, who denied in the middle of the night, repented at the crowing of the rooster. He who even after the resurrection of the Lord professed by daylight equally thrice to love Him whom he had thrice denied. For surely, what he erred in the darkness of oblivion, he corrected by the remembrance of the hoped-for light, and by the acquisition of the presence of the true light, fully raised all that had faltered. I think this rooster is to be understood as some teacher, who, awakening us supine and rebuking the sleepy, says: "Awake to righteousness, and do not sin."

(ubi sup.) How hurtful is it to speak with the wicked. He denies before infidels that he knows the man, whom amongst the disciples, he had confessed to be God.

The second time he denied not simply but with an oath, the third time also with cursing. By this we are instructed never to promise without consideration anything above our human ability.

And immediately, forming a plan, in the morning the chief priests with the elders and scribes and the whole council, binding Jesus, led Him away and delivered Him to Pilate. He was led not only to Pilate but also to Herod, so that both might mock the Lord. And observe the priests' diligence in evil. All night they stayed awake to commit murder, and they handed over the bound one to Pilate. For they had this custom, that whoever they sentenced to death, they handed over bound to the judge. Nevertheless, it should be noted that they did not bind Him for the first time then, but as soon as He was apprehended in the night in the garden, as John declares, they bound Him and thus brought Him first to Annas.

(in Marc. 4, 44) The Jews had a custom of delivering him whom they had condemned to death, bound to the judge. Wherefore after the condemnation of Christ, the Evangelist adds: And straightway in the morning the Chief Priests held a consultation with the elders and Scribes and the whole council, and bound Jesus, and carried him away, and delivered him to Pilate. But it must be observed, that they did not then first bind Him, but they bound Him on first taking Him in the garden by night, as John declares.

For Him it behoved to be made a sacrifice on behalf of all Gentiles, who "was led as a sheep for a victim, and, like a lamb voiceless before his shearer, so opened not His mouth" (for He, when Pilate interrogated Him, spake nothing ); for "in humility His judgment was taken away: His nativity, moreover, who shall declare? "Because no one at all of human beings was conscious of the nativity of Christ at His conception, when as the Virgin Mary was found pregnant by the word of God; and because "His life was to be taken from the land.

The Jews delivered the Lord to the Romans; therefore they themselves were delivered by the Lord into the hands of the Romans. And the words of Scripture were fulfilled: "Woe to the lawless one, for he shall be repaid according to the works of his hands" (Isa. 3:11); and again: "Repay them according to their deeds" (Ps. 28:4); and again: "As you have done, so shall it be done to you" (Obad. 1:15).

They then gave Jesus up to the Romans, but were themselves given up by God into the hands of the Romans, that the Scriptures might be fulfilled, which say, Recompense them after the work of their hands. (Ps. 28:5) It goes on: And Pilate asked him, Art thou the King of the Jews?