Thomas Aquinas · 69 of 74

Gospel of Matthew · Chapter 26 · Part 5

56. But all this was done, that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled.” Then all the disciples forsook him, and fled.

57. And they that had laid hold on Jesus led him away to Caiaphas the High Priest, where the Scribes and the elders were assembled.

58. But Peter followed him afar off unto the High Priest’s palace, and went in, and sat with the servants, to see the end.

Origen: Having commanded Peter to put up his sword, which was an instance of patience, and having (as another Evangelist writes [marg. note: Luke 22:51]) healed the ear that was cut off, which waS an instance of the greatest mercy, and of Divine power, it now follows, “In that hour said Jesus to the multitudes, (to the end that if they could not remember His past goodness, they might at least confess His present,) Are ye come out as against a thief with swords and staves for to take me?”

Remig.: As much as to say, Robbers assault and study concealment; I have injured no one, but have healed many, and have ever taught in your synagogues.

Jerome: It is folly then to seek with swords and staves Him who offers Himself to your hands, and with a traitor to hunt out, as though lurking under cover of night, one who is daily teaching in the temple.

Chrys.: They did not lay hands on Him in the temple because they feared the multitude, therefore also the Lord went forth that He might give them place and opportunity to take Him. This then teaches them, that if He had not suffered them of His own free choice, they would never have had strength to take Him. Then the Evangelist assigns the reason why the Lord was willing to be taken, adding, “All this was done that the Scriptures of the Prophets might be fulfilled.”

Jerome: “They pierced my hands and my feet;” [Ps 22:16] and in another place, “He is led as a sheep to the slaughter;” and, “By the iniquities of my people was He led to death.” [Isa 53:7-8]

Remig.: For because all the Prophets had foretold Christ’s Passion, he does not cite any particular place, but says generally that the prophecies of all the Prophets were being fulfilled.

Chrys.: The disciples who had remained when the Lord was apprehended, fled when He spoke these things to the multitudes, “Then all the disciples forsook him and fled;” for they then understood that He could not escape but rather gave Himself up voluntarily.

Remig.: In this act is shewn the Apostles’ frailty; in the first ardour of their faith they had promised to die with Him, but in their fear they forgot their promise and fled. The same we may see in those who undertake to do great things for the love of God, but fail to fulfil what they undertake; they ought not to despair, but to rise again with the Apostles, and recover themselves by penitence.

Raban.: Mystically, As Peter, who by tears washed away the sin of his denial, figures the recovery of those who lapse in time of martyrdom; so the flight of the other disciples suggests the precaution of flight to such as feel themselves unfit to endure torments.

Aug., de Cons. Ev., iii, 6: “They that had laid hold on Jesus led Him away to Caiaphas the High Priest.” But He was first taken to Annas, father-in-law to Caiaphas, as John relates. And He was taken bound, there being with that multitude a tribune and cohort, as John also records. [John 18:12]

Jerome: But Josephus writes [ed. note: “Josephus (Ant. xviii. 3 and 4,) twice mentions this Caiaphas as the successor of Simon the son of Camithes, but we do not find that he purchased the High Priesthood of Herod.” Vallarsi.], that this Caiaphas had purchased the priesthood of a single year, notwithstanding that Moses, at God’s command, had directed that High Priests should succeed hereditarily, and that in the Priests likewise succession by birth should be followed up. No wonder then that an unrighteous High Priest should judge unrighteously.

Raban.: And the action suits his name; Caiaphas, i.e. ‘contriving,’ or, ‘politic,’ to execute his villainy; or ‘vomiting from his mouth,’ because of his audacity in uttering a lie, and bringing about the murder. They took Jesus thither, that they might do all advisedly; as it follows, “Where the Scribes and the Elders were assembled.”

Origen: Where Caiaphas the High Priest is, there are assembled the Scribes, that is, the men of the letter [marg. note: literati], who preside over the letter that killeth; and Elders, not in truth, but in the obsolete ancientness of the letter.

It follows, “Peter followed Him afar off,” He would neither keep close to Him, nor altogether leave Him, but “followed afar off.”

Chrys.: Great was the zeal of Peter, who fled not when He saw the others fly, but remained, and entered in. For though John also went in, yet he was known to the Chief Priest. He “followed afar off,” because he was about to deny his Lord.

Remig.: For had he kept close to his Lord’s side, he could never have denied Him. This also shews that Peter should follow his Lord’s Passion, that is, imitate it.

Aug., Quaest. Ev., i, 46: And also that the Church should follow, i.e. imitate, the Lord’s Passion, but with great difference. For the Church suffers for itself, but Christ for the Church.

Jerome: He went in, either out of the attachment of a disciple, or natural curiosity, seeking to know what sentence the High Priest would pass, whether death, or scourging.

59. Now the Chief Priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death;

60. But found none: yea, though many false witnesses came, yet found they none. At the last came two false witnesses,

61. And said, “This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days.”

62. And the High Priest arose, and said unto him, “Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee?”

63. But Jesus held his peace. And the High Priest answered and said unto him, “I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.”

64. Jesus saith unto him, “Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.”

65. Then the High Priest rent his clothes, saying, “He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.

66. What think ye?” They answered and said, He is guilty of death.

67. Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands,

68. Saying, “Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, Who is he that smote thee?”

Chrys.: When the Chief Priests were thus assembled, this conventicle of ruffians sought to give their conspiracy the character of a legal trial. But it was entirely a scene of confusion and uproar, as what follows shews, “Though many false witnesses came, yet found they none.”

Origen: False witnesses have place when there is any good colour for their testimony. But no pretext was found which could further their falsehoods against Jesus; notwithstanding there were many desirous to do a favour to the Chief Priests. This then is a great testimony in favour of Jesus, that He had lived and taught so irreproachably, that though they were many, and crafty, and wicked, they could find no semblance of fault in Him.

Jerome: “At last came two false witnesses.” How are they false witnesses, when they repeat only what we read that the Lord spoke? A false witness is one who takes what is said in a different sense from that in which it was said. Now this the Lord had spoken of the temple of His Body, and they cavil at His expressions, and by a slight change and addition produce a plausible charge. The Lord’s words were, “Destroy this temple;” [John 2:19] this they make into, I can destroy the Temple of God. He said, “Destroy,” not, I will destroy, because it is unlawful to lay hands on ourselves.

Also they phrased it, “And build it again,” making it apply to the temple of the Jews; but the Lord had said, “And I will raise it up again,” thus clearly pointing out a living and breathing temple. For to build again, and to raise again, are two different things.

Chrys.: Why did they not bring forward now His breaking the Sabbath? Because He had so often confuted them on this point.

Jerome: Headlong and uncontrolled rage, unable to find even a false accusation, moves the High Priest from his throne, the motion of his body shewing the emotion of his mind.

“And the High Priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing to the things which these witness against Thee?”

Chrys.: He said this with a design to draw from Him some indefensible answer which might be made a snare for Him. But “Jesus held his peace,” for defence had availed nothing when none would listen to it. For here was only a mockery of justice, it was in truth nothing more than the anarchy of a den of robbers.

Origen: This place teaches us to contemn the clamours of slanderers and false witnesses, and not to consider those who speak unbeseeming things of us worthy of an answer; but then, above all, when it is greater to be manfully and resolutely silent, than to plead our cause in vain.

Jerome: For as God, He knew that whatever He said would be twisted into an accusation against Him. But at this His silence before false witnesses and ungodly Priests, the High Priest was exasperated, and summons Him to answer, that from any thing He says he may raise a charge against Him.

Origen: Under the Law, we do indeed find many instances of this adjuration; but I judge that a man who would live according to the Gospel should not adjure another; for if we are not permitted to swear, surely not to adjure. [marg. note: Numb 5:19, 1 Ki 22:16]

But he that regards Jesus commanding the daemons, and giving His disciples power over them, will say, that to address the daemons by the power given by the Saviour, is not to adjure them. But the High Priest did sin in laying a snare for Jesus; imitating his father, who twice asked the Saviour, “If thou be Christ the Son of God.” Hence one might rightly say, that to doubt concerning the Son of God, whether Christ be He, is the work of the Devil. It was not fit that the Lord should answer the High Priest’s adjuration as though under compulsion, wherefore He neither denied nor confessed Himself to be the Son of God. For he was not worthy to be the object of Christ’s teaching, therefore He does not instruct him, but taking up his own words retorts them upon him. This sitting of the Son of Man seems to me to denote a certain regal security; by the power of God, Who is the only power, is He securely seated to Whom is given by His Father all power in heaven as in earth.

And there will come a time when the enemies shall see this establishment. Indeed this has begun to be fulfilled from the earliest time of the dispensation; for the disciples saw Him rising from the dead, and thereby saw Him seated on the right band of power.

Or, In respect of that eternity of duration which is with God, from the beginning of the world to the end of it is but one day; it is therefore no wonder that the Saviour here says, “Shortly,” signifying that there is but short time before the end come. He prophesies moreover, that they should not only see Him “sitting at the right hand of power,” but also “coming in the clouds of heaven.” These clouds are the Prophets and Apostles, whom He commands to rain when it is required, they are the clouds that pass not away, but “bearing the image of the heavenly,” [1 Cor 15:49] are worthy to be the throne of God, as “heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ.” [Rom 8:17]

Jerome: The same fury which drew the High Priest from his seat, impels him now to rend his clothes; for so it was customary with the Jews to do whenever they heard any blasphemy, or any thing against God.

Chrys.: This He did to give weight to the accusation, and to confirm by deeds what He taught in words.

Jerome: And by this rending his garments, he shews that the Jews have lost the priestly glory, and that their High Priest’s throne was vacant. For by rending his garment he rent the veil of the Law which covered him.

Chrys.: Then, after rending his garment, he did not give sentence of himself, but asked of others, saying, “What think ye?” As was always done in undeniable cases of sin, and manifest blasphemy, and as by force driving them to a certain opinion, he anticipates the answer, “What need we any further witnesses? Behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.”

What was this blasphemy? For before He had interpreted to them as they were gathered together that text, “The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,” [Matt 22:44] and they had held their peace, and had not contradicted Him. How then do they call what He now says blasphemy? “They answered and said, He is guilty of death,” the same persons at once accusers, examiners, and sentencers.

Origen: How great their error! to pronounce the principle of all men’s life to be guilty of death, and not to acknowledge by the testimony of the resurrection of so many, the Fount of life, from Whom life flows to all that rise again.

Chrys., Hom. lxxxv: As hunters who have started their game, so they exhibit a wild and drunken exultation.

Jerome: “They spit in his face, and buffeted him,” to fulfil the prophecy of Esaias, “I gave my cheek to the smiters, and turned not away my face from shame and spitting.” [Isa 50:6]

Gloss., ord.: “Prophesy unto us” is said in ridicule of His claim to be held as a Prophet by the people.

Jerome: But it would have been foolish to have answered them that smote Him, and to have declared the smiter, seeing that in their madness they seem to have struck Him openly.

Chrys.: Observe how circumstantially the Evangelist recounts all those particulars even which seem most disgraceful, hiding or extenuating nothing, but thinking it the highest glory that the Lord of the earth should endure such things for us. This let us read continually, let us imprint in our minds, and in these things let us boast.

Aug., Quaest. Ev., i, 44: That, “they did spit in his face,” signifies those who reject His proffered grace. They likewise buffet Him who prefer their own honour to Him; and they smite Him on the face, who, blinded with unbelief, affirm that He is not yet come, disowning and rejecting His person.

69. Now Peter sat without in the palace: and a damsel came unto him, saying, “Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee.”

70. But he denied before them all, saying, “I know not what thou sayest.”

71. And when he was gone out into the porch, another maid saw him, and said unto them that were there, “This fellow was also with Jesus of Nazareth.”

72. And again he denied with an oath, “I do not know the man.”

73. And after a while came unto him they that stood by, and said to Peter, “Surely thou also art one of them; for thy speech bewrayeth thee.”

74. Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, “I know not the Man.” And immediately the cock crew.

75. And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, “Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.” And he went out, and wept bitterly.

Aug., de Cons. Ev., iii, 6: Among the other insults offered to our Lord was the threefold denial of Peter, which the several Evangelists relate in different order. Luke puts Peter’s trial first, and the ill-usage of the Lord after that; Matthew and Mark reverse the order.

Jerome: “Peter sat without,” that he might see the event, and not excite suspicion by any approach to Jesus.

Chrys.: And he, who, when he saw his Master laid hands on, drew his sword and cut off the ear, now when he sees Him enduring such insults becomes a denier, and cannot withstand the taunts of a mean servant girl.

“A damsel came unto him, saying, Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee.”

Raban.: What means this, that a handmaid is the first to tax him, when men would be more likely to recognise him, except that this sex might seem to sin somewhat in the Lord’s death, that they might be redeemed by His passion? “He denied before them all,” because he was afraid to reveal himself; that he said, “I know not,” shews that he was not yet willing to die for the Saviour.

Leo, Serm. 60, 4: For this reason it should seem he was permitted to waver, that the remedy of penitence might be exhibited in the head of the Church, and that none should dare to trust in his own strength, when even the blessed Peter could not escape the danger of frailty.

Chrys.: But not once, but twice and thrice did he deny within a short time.

Aug.: We understand that having gone out after his first denial, the cock crowed the first time as Mark relates.

Chrys.: To shew that the sound did not keep him from denial, nor bring his promise to mind.

Aug.: The second denial was not outside the door, but after he had returned to the fire; for the second maid did not see him after he had gone out, but as he was going out; his getting up to go out drew her attention, and she said to them that were there, that is, to those that were standing round the fire in the hall, “The fellow also was with Jesus of Nazareth.” He who had gone out, having heard this returned, that he might by denial vindicate himself. Or, as is more likely, he did not hear what was said of him as he went out, but it was after he came back that the maid, and the other man whom Luke mentions, said to him, “And thou also art one of them.”

Jerome: “And again he denied with an oath, I do not know the man.” I know that some out of a feeling of piety towards the Apostle Peter have interpreted this place to signify that Peter denied the Man and not the God, as though he meant, ‘I do not know the Man, because I know the God.’ But the intelligent reader will see that this is trifling, for if he denied not, the Lord spoke falsely when He said, “Thou shalt deny me thrice.”

[ed. note: e.g. S. Ambrose (in Luc.) says, He well denied him as man, for he knew him as God.” And S. Hilary, (in loc.) “Almost without sin did he now deny the man, who had been the first to acknowledge him as Son of God; yet seeing through infirmity of the flesh, he had at least doubted, he therefore wept bitterly when he remembered that he had not been able, even after warning, to avoid the sin of that fearfulness.”]

Ambrose, in Luc., 22, 57: I had rather that Peter deny, than that the Lord be made out false.

Raban.: In this denial of Peter we affirm that Christ is denied not only by him who denies that He is Christ, but who denies himself to be a Christian.

Aug.: Let us now come to the third denial; “And after a while came they that stood by, and said to Peter, Surely thou also art one of them,” (Luke’s words are, “About the space of one hour after, [Luke 22:59]) for thy speech bewrayeth thee.”

Jerome: Not that Peter was of a different speech or nation, but a Hebrew as his accusers were; but every province and every district has its peculiarities, and he could not disguise his native pronunciation.

Remig.: Observe how baneful are communications with evil men; they even drove Peter to deny the Lord whom be had before confessed to be the Son of God.

Raban.: Observe, that he said the first time, “I know not what thou sayest;” the second time, “He denied with an oath;” the third time, “He began to curse and to swear that he knew not the man.” For to persevere in sinning increases sinfulness, and he who disregards light sins, falls into greater.

Remig.: Spiritually; By Peter’s denial before the cock-crow, are denoted those who before Christ’s resurrection did not believe Him to be God, being perplexed by His death. In his denial after the first cock-crow, are denoted those who are in error concerning both Christ’s natures, His human and divine. By the first handmaid is signified desire; by the second, carnal delight; by them that stood by, the daemons; for by them men are led to a denial of Christ.

Origen: Or, By the first handmaid is understood the Synagogue of the Jews, which oft compelled the faithful to deny; by the second, the congregations of the Gentiles, who even persecuted the Christians; they that stood in the hall signify the ministers of divers heresies, who also compel men to deny the truth of Christ.

Aug., Quaest. Ev., i, 45: Also Peter thrice denied, because heretical error concerning Christ is limited to three kinds; they are in error respecting His divinity, His humanity, or both.

Raban.: After the third denial comes the cock-crow; by which we may understand a Doctor of the Church who with chiding rouses the slumbering, saying, “Awake, ye righteous, and sin not.” [1 Cor 15:14] Thus Holy Scripture uses to denote the merit of divers cases [marg. note: meritum causarum] by fixed periods, as Peter sinned at midnight and repented at cock-crow.

Jerome: In another Gospel we read, that after Peter’s denial and thee cock-crow, the Saviour “looked upon Peter,” [Luke 22,61] and by His look called forth those bitter tears; for it might not be that he on whom the Light of the world had looked should continue in the darkness of denial, wherefore, “he went out, and wept bitterly.” For he could not do penitence sitting in Caiaphas’ hall, but went forth from the assembly of the wicked, that he might wash away in bitter tears the pollution of his timid denial.

Leo, Serm. 60, 4: Blessed tears, O holy Apostle, which had the virtue of holy Baptism in washing off the sin of thy denial. The right hand of the Lord Jesus Christ was with thee to hold thee up before thou wast quite thrown down, and in the midst of thy perilous fall, thou receivedst strength to stand. The Rock quickly returned to its stability, recovering so great fortitude, that he who in Christ’s passion had quailed, should endure his own subsequent suffering with fearlessness and constancy.