Above, the Evangelist set forth the celebration of the old Passover; here is set forth the institution of the sacrament of the altar. And first, the sacrament is instituted; second, the future scandal of the disciples is foretold, at then Jesus said to them: all you shall be scandalized in me . First he does two things. First, the paschal sacrament is instituted; second, the hymn of thanksgiving, at and a hymn being said, they went out unto Mount Olivet . And concerning the first he does two things. First, the institution of the sacrament is set forth under the species of bread; second, under the species of wine, at and taking the chalice, he gave thanks etc. Concerning the first, he first treats of the actions of Christ; second, the words, at take and eat; this is my body . In the actions, five things are to be noted. First, the time is set forth; second, the matter is designated; third, the blessing; fourth, the breaking; fifth, the communication, or distribution. The time is indicated when he says and whilst they were at supper etc., i.e., while they were at the meal, i.e., while they were dining. And why did he institute this at the supper itself, and not before? There is a twofold reason. Because the Lord willed that this should succeed the old sacrament, as truth succeeds figure; therefore after the institution of the old sacrament he instituted the new; Lev. 26:10: you shall cast aside the old things when the new shall come upon you . Likewise for another reason, because he willed that it should be fixed in memory: for those things which are heard last are fixed more deeply in the memory. Lam. 3:19: remember my poverty, and my transgression, the wormwood and the gall . Why then did the Church institute that men should receive this sacrament fasting? It must be said that this is out of reverence for the sacrament: for it is fitting that it be taken before other food. And this is to be understood of the same day. For since the day begins at midnight, one ought not to receive anything from midnight until the reception of this sacrament. But some have asked whether anything that enters the mouth breaks the fast for the reception of the sacrament, as for instance if someone drinks water. It is to be understood that there is a twofold fast, namely the fast of the Church and the fast of nature. The fast of the Church is not broken by drinking water, but the fast of nature is broken; because even though water does not of itself nourish, together with other things it does nourish. And you should understand that one who receives water and drink, if someone washes his mouth and accidentally swallows a single drop, he should not on that account refrain from receiving; rather, it is reckoned together with the saliva. Similarly I say regarding food, that if someone ate anise in the evening, and something remained between his teeth, if he accidentally swallows it, he should not on that account refrain from receiving. Likewise, some make it a matter of conscience that if they do not sleep, they should not receive. This has no basis, because it was not part of the institution of the Church. Hence it makes no difference whether one sleeps or does not sleep. Jesus took bread etc. Here the matter is indicated. It should be noted that this sacrament in a certain respect pertains to the old sacrament, as truth to figure. That sacrament was taken as food, because the command was that they should eat the lamb: and this one, which is taken in place of it, ought to be taken as food. And just as that was truly food, so also is this lamb; John 6:56: my flesh is meat indeed . Hence that opinion is false which held that Christ was present there only under a sign, because if it were so, what more would this sign have than that one? But that one was a sign only; this, however, is both figure and reality. But is it not irreverent that someone should eat the body of the Lord? It must be said that this food differs from other foods, because other foods are converted into our body: hence if Christ were so converted, it would be irreverent. But it is not so; rather, the converse, as Augustine says: you will not change me into yourself, but you will be changed into me. Hence this sacrament is the end and perfection of all the sacraments. And the reason is that being which exists by its essence is the end and perfection of those things which exist by participation: for the other sacraments contain Christ by participation, but in this one Christ is present according to his substance. Therefore Dionysius says that there is no sacrament that is not perfected in the Eucharist. Hence if an adult is baptized, the Eucharist ought to be given to him. Therefore it ought to be taken as food, so that the truth may correspond to the figure. And why not under its proper species? One reason is on account of the merit of faith, because faith does not have merit where human reason furnishes proof. Likewise, so as to spare those who receive, because it is not customary for human flesh to be eaten. Likewise, so as to protect it from the derision of unbelievers. And why under such a species? Because he willed that it be celebrated by all everywhere in the world: therefore he willed to give them a matter that is common to all. Now the common food is bread, and the common drink of men is wine: hence bread and wine are the principal food, while other things are rather accompaniments. Likewise, in the other sacraments, in anointing, not just any oil is used, but common oil, which is called oil from many olives; thus the unity of the Church comes from the multitude of the faithful. And so it is clear that our sacraments are more ancient than the sacraments of the old law; because the sacraments of the old law had their beginning from Moses and Aaron, but the sacraments of the new law from Melchizedek, who offered Abraham bread and wine. Therefore Christ is said to have been made a priest according to the order of Melchizedek , Ps. 109:4. Consequently, the blessing is treated; and this blessing is referred to three things. To the matter, because he blessed the fruit of the earth, in which is signified that the curse of Adam was revoked through Christ, when he said to him, Gen. 3:17: cursed is the earth in thy work, (...) thorns and thistles shall it bring forth to thee . Likewise, it is referred to that which was contained therein, namely Christ; above at 21:9: blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord . Likewise, to the fruit of the sacrament, because through it the faithful are blessed, and it passes from the head to the members; Prov. 10:6: the blessing of the Lord is upon the head of the just . Then the breaking is indicated: and he broke it : and it signifies three things. First, it signifies the mystery of the future passion, because in the passion his members were pierced, according to Ps. 21:17: they have dug my hands and feet, they have numbered all my bones . And this was done because he himself willed it; Isa. 53:7: he was offered because it was his own will . Likewise, it signifies that it is broken from unity into multiplicity, and hence it signifies the incarnation: because, although the Word of God itself was simple, it came into this multiplicity without abandoning its simplicity. Likewise, it signifies the effect which he brought upon diverse persons; because, according to the Apostle, 1 Cor. 12:4, there are diversities of graces, but the same Spirit . Likewise, the distribution is set forth: he gave to his disciples ; Ecclus. 29:33: from those things which are in thy hand, feed each one . And he says his disciples , because to no one who is not baptized should such a sacrament be given. Just as a priest would not confect unless he were consecrated, so it should not be administered to anyone who is not baptized. Likewise, it is not to be given except to the faithful; indeed, unbelievers ought not to be admitted to seeing this sacrament: hence in the early Church, when there were many catechumens, they were received into the Church up until the Gospel, and then they were expelled. Likewise, since he says his disciples , it is asked whether Judas was there. All say that he gave to all together, and also to Judas, and this so that by his kindness he might recall him from sin. Likewise, so that he might give the Church a precedent that as long as a sinner was hidden, he should not be prohibited from receiving this sacrament: for men do not have the authority to judge hidden things. Hilary says here that Judas was not present, because he had already gone out. And he wants to prove this from what is said in John 13:25, when the disciples asked: who is it that shall betray thee? To whom he said: he it is to whom I shall reach bread dipped. Therefore he shows that he had already gone out. But the view of the others is to be held more firmly. And he said: take, and eat; this is my body . Here the words are set forth: and in these words he does three things. First, he exhorts them to receive; second, to eat; third, he declares the truth. He says take and eat . And what he says, take , ought to be referred to spiritual reception, because it ought not to be received except in faith and charity; John 6:55: he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him . Likewise, he induces them to eat, eat , not only spiritually, but also sacramentally; Song 5:1: eat, O friends, and drink . Likewise, he designates the truth: this is my body . The form of the sacrament is contained in these words, which are the words of the Lord, because the sacrament is confected by the words of the Lord. Hence if the word of Elijah had such power that it made fire descend from heaven, much more can the word of God transmute one body into another. Then it is asked whether there is power in the words. And there is no doubt that there is. Hence it is said in Ps. 67:34: he gave to his voice the voice of power ; Eccles. 8:4: because his word is full of power . Hence the priest acts in the person of Christ, and does not use words in his own person, but in the person of Christ. But what is this power? How is it so great a power? Therefore some say that there is no power there, but the power of Christ alone, which is present there. And this does not seem correct, because the sacraments of the new law bring about what they signify. But what power do they have? It must be said that there is a principal efficient cause, and this has a power remaining in itself; likewise, an instrumental cause, and this does not operate through a power remaining in itself, but one passing from another: hence the sacraments are causes, not as principal causes, but as instrumental causes with power passing from another. But then it is asked what is the actual case: whether take and eat etc. belongs to the form of the sacrament. And it must be said that only this is my body belongs to the form of the sacrament. Hence it is to be understood that the case is different with this sacrament than with the other sacraments, because the consecration of the matter is sometimes necessary for the sacrament, and sometimes not; as in Baptism the consecration of the matter is not necessary for Baptism, but in the anointings, no anointing takes place unless the oil is blessed. In the other sacraments also, the sacrament is not received in the blessing, but in the pouring; because oil and water, since they are inanimate, do not contain grace: hence since grace is the end of the sacrament, it cannot be conferred except through the reception of the sacrament. But in this sacrament is contained he who is the fullness of grace; therefore it is not perfected in us, but in the consecration of the matter. Hence even if no one were to receive, it would be no less a sacrament: hence the use is consequent and is not of necessity. Hence in the other sacraments, that belongs to the form which pertains to the use: but this does not pertain to the use, but to the holiness of the matter. Hence what is said, take and eat , which pertains to the use, does not belong to the form. Likewise, there is usually a question whether the Lord confected under these words. And it seems that he did not: because it says there, he took bread and blessed . Therefore it seems that he consecrated in the blessing. Therefore some said that he did not consecrate first by words, but by a spiritual power. And this he could do on account of his power of excellence, because he could impart the reality of the sacrament without the sacrament, since he had not bound his power to the sacraments: hence he could do this through the power of excellence. Others say that he first said the words in secret, and afterwards in public. It is better said that he said them once, and not twice, and in these words he consecrated. Hence it should be read thus: what is said, he said: take and eat , is to be referred to the preceding, so that, by saying this, he said this is my body . Here it is asked what this pronoun this demonstrates. Some said that it demonstrates not to the sense, but to the intellect, because it refers only to the substance of bread, and only for the purpose of signifying. Hence the meaning is: this is my body , i.e., what is signified by this is my body. And this cannot stand, because the sacraments of the new law bring about what they signify, and therefore it does nothing other than what it signifies: and it signifies the body of Christ, and so it would only be the body of Christ under a sign. Others say that this demonstrates the very substance of the body. But how is this? Is it immediately the body of Christ when he says this ? It is clear that it is not, because if the priest were to die, it would not be consecrated unless he completed the words. Therefore others say that this delays its signification, and demonstrates what will be after the utterance of this word my . This also is not fitting, because then it would seem to say the same thing as if he were saying: my body is my body; and this is not fitting for God. Others say that the words are uttered materially, not significatively. And this cannot stand, because Augustine says: the word is joined to the element, and the sacrament is made. What then? It must be said that they are said recitatively, and at the same time recitatively and significatively. Why? Because the priest speaks in the person of Christ, and acts as if Christ were present: otherwise the words would not apply to the proper matter. What then? It must be said that it is otherwise with sacramental words than with other human words: because a human word is only significative, but the divine word is significative and effective. Hence sacramental words have their power from the divine power. Hence he simultaneously says and by divine power makes. Therefore this word is not only significative, but also effective. And first it makes, then it signifies. For in material making it is the case that something common pre-exists in every transmutation, and that common thing is under one term of the transmutation, and at the end under another. For example, suppose that from black, white is made; in this transmutation there was a body, but at the beginning it was under blackness, and afterwards under whiteness. Hence in a certain respect there is a likeness, namely insofar as there is something common; but a difference, because not in the same way; because in other material transmutations the common element is the subject, and the differing element is the form; but here it is the contrary, because the common element is the accident, and the differing element is the substance. Hence the substance is transmuted, while the common accident remains. What then does this demonstrate? It must be said that the meaning is: this is my body , i.e., what is contained under the accident is my body. Or, this comes to be: that what is contained under the accidents is my body. Hence at the end he placed a noun, but at the beginning a pronoun, which signifies an indeterminate substance; but through the noun, a determinate form. Hence at the beginning there is no form, but at the end. But how is the body of Christ there? There was one opinion that together with the body of Christ the substance of the bread remained. Hence what he says, this is my body , is referred to the body alone. Others say that the substance of the bread passes into pre-existing matter, and the body of Christ comes to be there, without the substance of the bread passing into the body of Christ. But this is disproved as follows. Because thus it seems that something begins to be where it was not before, which cannot happen unless either it is changed according to place, or something is converted into it. Just as if it be said: here there is no fire; that fire should then be there afterwards, this cannot happen unless either fire is brought there from elsewhere, or something that is there is changed into fire. But according to this opinion, the mode of conversion is removed; therefore there would be nothing but local change. But it is impossible for the same body to be in diverse places; and so on. Therefore it must be said otherwise: that the body begins to be there, not through local motion, but through the conversion of another into it; and in this the form remains, and the subject passes. Hence the subject is changed into a subject, which is the principle of individuation, not because the body of Christ exists together with the substance of the bread, or the substance of the bread is annihilated, but because it is transmuted through conversion into it. But how can it be in so small a place? It must be said that something is there by the power of the sacrament, and this is principally there; but something is there by concomitance. That is there by the power of the sacrament into which the conversion terminates. And because the bread is converted into the body of Christ, what is signified is the body of Christ, and it is not without the soul, nor without the divinity: yet the bread is not converted into the soul, or the divinity, but these are there by concomitance. Hence if someone had celebrated during the three days when the soul was separated from the body, the soul would not have been there. For in bread there are two things: substance and accidents; the accidents remain, the substance passes. Therefore that is principally there into which the transmutation terminates; but it terminates in the substance; therefore the substance is there principally, but the accidents by concomitance: and dimensions are accidents. Nor is the body of Christ in the sacrament related to place through its own dimensions, but through the pre-existing dimensions of the bread. Likewise, he broke it . But is the whole body in each part? I say that it is. And you should understand that it is said to be in a place otherwise than a located thing is in a place; because a located thing is related to a place under its own dimensions, but it is not so here. Therefore it should be noted that wherever there is some difference of quantity, it does not make a difference in the substance; but if there is something consequent upon quantity, it is divided according to quantity. But the soul does not have its totality from quantity, but has its totality in each part: hence the body of Christ is not related to that body according to quantity, but only according to substance. Therefore, just as the soul is in each part of the body, so Christ is in each part of the host. What then will happen with these accidents? It must be said that they remain without a subject by divine power. And how can this be, since accidents depend on substance? It must be said that God is the principle of being; hence he can produce an effect separated from a subject and without its principles; therefore, since the function of substance is to preserve accidents in being, God can preserve them without their principles. If you ask whether this is true of all accidents, it must be said that all accidents are referred to substance through the mediation of dimensions, and hence are in a certain way individuated; therefore the dimensions are without a subject, but quality is in the dimensions as in a subject. Hence the meaning is: this , i.e., what is contained under these accidents, which accidents remain in the dimensions, because the substance which first underlay these accidents is changed into the body of Christ.
26—4
Mt 26:27-29
27. And taking the chalice, he gave thanks and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. 28. For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins. 29. And I say to you, I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine until that day when I shall drink it with you new in the kingdom of my Father.
Above, the institution of the new sacrament was treated with regard to the sacrament of the body of the Lord; here the institution of the same is treated with regard to the sacrament of the blood: and concerning this he does two things. First, the actions of Christ are set forth; second, his words, at drink ye all of this . Concerning the first, three actions are set forth. First, that he took the chalice; second, that he gave thanks; third, that he gave it to the disciples. Hence he says and taking the chalice etc.; by which it was signified that it was not instituted to be celebrated under one species, but under two. And what is the reason for this? One reason is that there are three things in this sacrament: one which is the sacrament only, another which is the reality only, and another which is both sacrament and reality. The sacrament only is the species of bread and wine; the reality only is the spiritual effect; the reality and sacrament is the body contained. If then we consider the sacrament only, it is fitting that the body be signified under the species of bread, and the blood under the species of wine, because it is signified as indicating spiritual refreshment; but refreshment is properly in food and drink, and so on. Likewise, if it is taken as reality and sacrament, it is fitting for this reason: that sacrament is a memorial of the Lord's passion. And it could not better signify this than in this way, so that the blood is signified as shed and separated from the body. Likewise, with regard to what is taken as reality only, because the blood pertains to the soul, not because the blood is the soul, but because life is preserved in the blood: hence it is signified that since this sacrament is for the salvation of the faithful, the bread is offered for the salvation of the body, but the blood for the salvation of the soul. Prov. 9:5: come, eat my bread, and drink the wine which I have mingled for you , because this refreshment is in bread and wine. Likewise, another reason is that the whole Christ is contained in the body. What then is the necessity that the blood be consecrated separately? Therefore it is to be understood as was said above, that one thing is there directly by the power of the sacrament, and another by natural concomitance. Under the species of bread the body of Christ is contained by the power of the sacrament, but the blood by concomitance. In the blood, conversely, because the blood is there by the power of the sacrament, but the body by concomitance. Hence if the blood of Christ had been shed upon the ground, and if the sacrament had been celebrated, the blood would not have been there except separately. Therefore, because some did not understand this, they said that these forms are continuous. Hence they say that when the body is consecrated, the blood is not there until the wine has been consecrated. But this is not so, because if the priest were to die before consecrating the wine, in the host there would be both the body and the blood. Likewise, he says taking the chalice , and does not say taking wine; therefore some said that it ought to be done with water. And this is excluded, because it follows: I will not drink of the fruit of the vine etc. Second, it is clear that it was wine mixed with water. And the reason for this is on the part of the sacrament, because it must be celebrated as the Lord instituted it. But in a warm land the custom is that wine is not drunk without water; therefore it is not to be believed that he confected in pure wine. It is also fitting with respect to the content, because this sacrament is a memorial of the Lord's passion; but from the side of Christ there came forth blood and water, as is found in John 19:34. Likewise, to signify the effects, and this in two ways: because this sacrament signifies the memorial of Christ's passion; therefore it brings about in us the effects of Christ's passion. And the effect is twofold: to cleanse and to redeem. He redeemed us through his blood; Apoc. 5:9: thou hast redeemed us to God in thy blood . Likewise, he cleansed us from our stains; Apoc. 1:5: he hath loved us, and washed us from our sins in his blood . And these were necessary, that he should cleanse and redeem. And the cleansing is signified by the water, the redemption by the wine. Likewise, through water, the people; Apoc. 17:1: many waters, a great people . And through this sacrament the people is united to Christ; therefore through this admixture is signified the people being united to Christ. But what happens to that water? Some say that it remains. Others say that it is converted into wine, because since only a little is added, the species is changed, and so the whole is converted; and thus it pertains to the mystery, because in this the unity of the Church is contained. Likewise, in that he says taking , it is signified that he voluntarily endured the passion; hence in Ps. 115:13: I will take the chalice of salvation, and I will call upon the name of the Lord . Likewise, he gave thanks . And for what? For two things: for the sign and for the thing signified. For the sign, because for its effect; for the thing signified, because for the passion. In this it is signified that we ought to give thanks not only for good things, but also for evils and adversities; 1 Thess. 5:18: in all things giving thanks ; Rom. 8:28: to them that love God, all things work together unto good . Likewise, he gave thanks for the institution of this sacrament, because he was doing this by divine power; hence in John 5:30: I do nothing of myself . Therefore he gives thanks to God the Father; John 11:41: I give thee thanks, because thou hast heard me . In this an example is given to us, that if Christ gave thanks, who was equal to the Father, we too ought to give thanks. Likewise, he gives thanks for the effect, because the effect is the salvation of the whole world. And this he could not do except by his divinity; John 6:64: it is the spirit that giveth life; the flesh profiteth nothing . There follows and he gave , that they might receive it sacramentally. And by this he signified that the fruit of his passion was to be ministered to others through others. Hence the apostles can be compared to the young of an eagle, of which it is said in Deut. 32:11: as the eagle enticing her young to fly, and hovering over them . Then he enjoins the use. And first he sets forth the use; second, the words of consecration of the blood; third, he foretells the resurrection. He says therefore drink ye all of this ; Song 5:1: drink and be inebriated, my dearest ones . Hence it is signified that Christians can communicate in every place and time. For this is my blood etc. These are the words of consecration. And note that in these words there is a difference from those which the Church uses. The Church adds: this is the chalice . Likewise, where he says of the new testament , the Church adds of the new and eternal testament . Likewise, where he says which shall be shed for many , the Church adds which shall be shed for you etc. Whence then does the Church have this form? It must be said that, as Dionysius says, it was not the intention of the Evangelists to hand down the forms of the sacraments, but to keep them as secrets; hence they intended nothing but to narrate the history. Whence then does the Church have them? From the institution of the apostles. Hence Paul said, 1 Cor. 11:34: the rest I will set in order when I come . But there is a question: why does he say this is my body , or is my blood ? Why does he not say: this is converted into the body, or into the blood? etc. But there is a twofold reason. The first is that the forms of the sacraments ought to signify what they bring about. What they bring about is that the bread is converted into the body of Christ; but the ultimate effect is that it becomes the body, and therefore the ultimate effect ought to be signified; and therefore it ought to be signified that this is the body, and not that it is converted into the body. In this form there is something similar to the old, and something dissimilar. Similar in this respect, as is found in Exod. 24:8, that when Moses had read the law, he sacrificed calves, and offered the blood, and said: this is the blood of the covenant of the Lord . So this blood was offered for the salvation of the people. Heb. 9:7 says that once a year the high priest alone entered, not without blood, which he offers for his own and the people's ignorance . But the difference is shown with regard to four things. First, in this: that blood was the blood of calves, but this is the blood of Christ; therefore this one is efficacious for remitting sins; Heb. 9:13: for if the blood of goats and of oxen, and the ashes of a heifer, being sprinkled, sanctify such as are defiled, to the cleansing of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ cleanse our conscience from dead works, to serve the living God? Likewise, that one was called the blood of the testament, but this is called the testament. Likewise, testament is taken commonly and properly. Commonly, for any agreement, because it was customary that in every agreement witnesses were brought. Properly, a testament is when something is bequeathed at death, according to what the Apostle says, that a testament is confirmed by the death of the testator. In both ways it is fitting here, because there was a pact; and it was made with blood, because in the ratification of peace in ancient times they would show blood, and therefore it was called the blood of the covenant. Likewise, according as it is said with reference to the dead, so there was a certain pact between God and men in the old and in the new law, but differently; because first regarding temporal things, namely of the old law, as is clear from the fact that he promised them the land of the Amorites, and therefore it was old, because men were not renewed, but rather grew old; but this testament is about heavenly and supernatural things. Therefore, above at 4:17: do penance, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand . Therefore he says of the new testament ; but there it was said: this is the blood of the covenant which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words etc. Jer. 31:31: I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah . Hence for this is my blood of the new testament , i.e., dedicated to the new testament, in which we ought to have confidence; Heb. 10:19: we have confidence through the blood of Christ . Likewise, it is fitting with respect to death; because through the death of Christ the promise was confirmed. Likewise, another difference is that it adds of the new and eternal testament , which can be referred either to the eternal inheritance, or to Christ, who is eternal. Another difference is that in the old form it says: which he made with you ; hence that testament was restricted to those alone; but this one extends also to the Gentiles; Isa. 52:15: he shall sprinkle , namely with his blood, many nations. For many , and for all, because if we consider sufficiency, he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world . But if we consider the effect, it does not have effect except in those who are saved, and this through the fault of men. But the Church adds for you , i.e., for the apostles, because they are the ministers of this blood, and through them it is passed on to the nations. Likewise there is added unto the remission of sins , because the old blood could not remit sins. And I say to you . Here a consolation is set forth, according to Chrysostom. Because he had made mention of the shedding of blood, by which the passion is signified, therefore he consoles them, and foretells his glory. And it can be expounded in four ways. Chrysostom expounds it thus: the Lord had foretold the passion, and therefore he wishes to gladden them. I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine , i.e., of wine, until that day etc. He calls this kingdom the kingdom of the resurrection. Then he received a new kingdom, i.e., in a new way. That he drank with them afterwards is clear from Acts 10. But why is it said to be in a new way? Because he ate differently before and after; because before he ate out of necessity, but after the resurrection not out of necessity, but to demonstrate the truth of the resurrection. Jerome says thus: through the vine the Jewish people is signified; Isa. 5:7: the vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel ; Jer. 2:21: I planted thee a chosen vineyard, all true seed. And I say to you, that I will not drink henceforth , i.e., my soul will not rejoice in this people, until that day, when I shall drink it with you new in the kingdom of my Father. Kingdom signifies the present Church; new , i.e., renewed through faith, because then they will be converted, and then I will rejoice with them. For many have been converted, and many will be converted. Remigius expounds it thus, and says that this is to be referred to the paschal ceremonies, i.e., I will no longer celebrate such ceremonies until the state of the Church, when I shall rejoice over the renewal of the Church. Augustine says thus: in that he says new , it is opposed to old. But there is a twofold oldness: of punishment and of fault, and this was derived from Adam, as is found in Rom. 5:12ff. But Christ had the oldness of punishment, not of fault. Hence his single payment discharged our double debt. He says therefore I will not drink , of the oldness of punishment, until etc., because he was about to lay aside this body, and in the resurrection he assumed a glorified body, and he promises the apostles that they also will assume one. And it signifies that the natures are not diverse, because the body which he will assume will be of the same nature, but of a different glory.
26—5
Mt 26:30-46
30. And a hymn being said, they went out unto mount Olivet. 31. Then Jesus saith to them: All you shall be scandalized in me this night. For it is written: I will strike the shepherd: and the sheep of the flock shall be dispersed. 32. But after I shall be risen again, I will go before you into Galilee. 33. And Peter answering, said to him: Although all shall be scandalized in thee, I will never be scandalized. 34. Jesus said to him: Amen I say to thee that in this night before the cock crow, thou wilt deny me thrice. 35. Peter saith to him: Yea, though I should die with thee, I will not deny thee. And in like manner said all the disciples. 36. Then Jesus came with them into a country place which is called Gethsemani. And he said to his disciples: Sit you here, till I go yonder and pray. 37. And taking with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, he began to grow sorrowful and to be sad. 38. Then he saith to them: My soul is sorrowful even unto death. Stay you here and watch with me. 39. And going a little further, he fell upon his face, praying and saying: My Father, if it be possible, let this chalice pass from me. Nevertheless, not as I will but as thou wilt. 40. And he cometh to his disciples and findeth them asleep. And he saith to Peter: What? Could you not watch one hour with me? 41. Watch ye: and pray that ye enter not into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak. 42. Again the second time, he went and prayed, saying: My Father, if this chalice may not pass away, but I must drink it, thy will be done. 43. And he cometh again and findeth them sleeping: for their eyes were heavy. 44. And leaving them, he went again: and he prayed the third time, saying the selfsame word. 45. Then he cometh to his disciples and said to them: Sleep ye now and take your rest. Behold the hour is at hand: and the Son of man shall be betrayed into the hands of sinners. 46. Rise: let us go. Behold he is at hand that will betray me.
After setting forth the institution of the new sacrament, here the future scandal of the disciples is foretold. And first, the place is set forth; second, the foretelling, at and he said to them . And this is fitting both to what precedes and to what follows. Hence it can be connected with both. He says therefore and a hymn being said . By this he gives us an example of two things; because first there was the supper and the material meal, after which we ought to give thanks and praise God; Ps. 21:27: the poor shall eat and shall be filled, and they shall praise the Lord that seek him . Likewise, after this there was the sacramental supper, after which also we ought to give thanks. Hence after that, he said a hymn. Hence what is said after communion in the Mass represents this hymn; therefore the faithful ought to wait until the end of the Mass so that they may hear this hymn. And this is what is said in John 17:1: Father, glorify thy Son, that thy Son may glorify thee . And having said this, they went out unto Mount Olivet . For Mount Olivet signifies richness, because olives are rich; hence it signifies spiritual richness. In Gen. 49:20: his bread shall be fat . Hence it signifies the richness of grace and of heavenly glory into which one is raised; Ps. 67:16: the mountain of the Lord is a fat mountain . Oil soothes weary limbs, eases pain, and provides fuel and brightness to fire. So it will be in that glory, because all labor will be removed, all pain; all brightness will be present. Likewise, what he says, unto Mount Olivet , is fitting for the foretelling that follows. By oil, mercy is signified: for just as oil floats above other liquids, so does mercy; Ps. 144:9: his tender mercies are over all his works . Likewise, he shows the scandal on the mountain, so that mercy may be signified as going before. When the just man shall fall, he shall not be bruised, for the Lord putteth his hand under him , Ps. 36:24. Then he saith (...) all you shall be scandalized in me . Here the scandal is set forth. And first in general; second in particular, at and Peter answering . Concerning the first he does two things. First, he foretells; second, lest it seem accidental, he brings in an authority, at for it is written: I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep shall be dispersed . And in this saying the sin of the disciples is aggravated from many things. First, from its universality, all you ; Isa. 1:6: from the sole of the foot unto the top of the head, there is no soundness therein etc. Likewise, the matter is indicated: you shall be scandalized in me ; 1 Cor. 1:23: we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews indeed a stumbling block . The Jews, because they sought only the weakness of the flesh, suffered scandal. Likewise, the sin is aggravated by the nearness of the time, because after so many warnings, after the reception of the sacrament. Hence they had already forgotten what he had done for them; hence they are well compared to a man beholding the countenance of his birth in a mirror: for he beheld himself, and went his way, and presently forgot what manner of man he was , James 1:24. Likewise, because it was at night, because they who are drunk, and they who sleep, sleep in the night , 1 Thess. 5:7: so also those who are scandalized. Then he adds the authority: for it is written: I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be dispersed . And it is written in Zech. 13:7, and it says there: strike the shepherd , namely Christ, and the sheep shall be scattered ; but here it says I will strike , and fittingly so, because the prophet desired that this should happen, and therefore said strike the shepherd ; but Christ speaks in his own person; and on this day he first foretells the passion of Christ; second, the scandal, when he says I will strike the shepherd . This shepherd is Christ; John 10:11: I am the good shepherd . And 1 Pet. 2:25: you are now converted to the shepherd and bishop of your souls . And he was struck, because God delivered him up, because he spared not his own Son , Rom. 8:32: and this on account of our sins; Isa. 53:8: for the wickedness of my people have I struck him . Likewise, he foretells the scandal: and the sheep of the flock shall be dispersed . The sheep are the faithful; John 10:27: my sheep hear my voice . And so God permitted that they be dispersed, so that afterwards he might gather them together; Ps. 146:2: he will gather together the dispersed of Israel . John 10:16: other sheep I have that are not of this fold, and them also I must bring . Then he foretells the joys of the resurrection: but after I shall be risen again, I will go before you into Galilee ; because although the Father raised him, as is said elsewhere, Acts 2:24: whom God hath raised up, having loosed the sorrows of hell , nevertheless he rose by his own power, because the power of the Father is the power of the Son; 2 Cor. 13:4: for although he was crucified through our weakness, yet he liveth by the power of God . Likewise, against what he had said, that the sheep shall be dispersed , he says I will go before you into Galilee . For the sheep follow the shepherd: hence the shepherd gathers them by calling them by name; therefore he says I will go before you . Or it can be referred to what he says, after I shall be risen again . Because some might believe that much time would pass before his resurrection, he therefore said that it would not be long, because I will go before you into Galilee . His custom was that he would stay only a short time in Judea, but would quickly pass into Galilee. He means to say, then: I will rise before you can come to Galilee, so as to show himself to be the one who would appear to them. Therefore they could be sufficiently assured. Likewise, that he says he will go before them gives them assurance. Because in Judea they were suffering persecution, he therefore says that he will go before them into Galilee, so as to free them from fear. And Chrysostom says that it is not to be understood that he first appeared in Galilee: but he appeared here, yet not first; rather, in Jerusalem. Why then does he say into Galilee rather than elsewhere? Galilee is interpreted as "transmigration": hence it is signified that through the resurrection we will pass from mortal life to immortal life: and in this he went before us, because Christ is the first fruits of those who sleep. Likewise, the transmigration of the disciples to the Gentiles is signified: and in this Christ went before, by moving their hearts. And Peter answering . Here the foretelling of Peter's scandal is set forth. And first, the occasion is set forth; second, the foretelling; third, the excuse. The second is at Jesus said to him etc.; the third at Peter saith to him etc. Here there is a literal question; because it seems that Peter said this after they had left the upper room; but Luke 22:34-39 seems to say that it was before they left, and John 13:36-38 agrees with this. Augustine resolves this by saying that Peter said this three times, and so all the accounts agree, etc., because if we consider the narrative, he says this for several reasons. Here he was moved by the fact that the scandal was foretold. Luke 22:32, the Lord had said: I have prayed for thee, Peter, that thy faith fail not , and then Peter said: Lord, I am ready to go with thee, both into prison and to death . But in John it was said for another reason; because in John 13:33 the Lord said: where I go, you cannot come now . Then Peter said: I will lay down my life for thee . Therefore he said it three times; and therefore it can be that he said it twice in the upper room, but once outside, as is said here. And it may be that he spoke out of fervor, and did not consider his own powers. Nevertheless, he erred in three things. First, because he did not believe the Lord more than himself, even though it is written in Rom. 3:4: God alone is true, and every man a liar . Likewise, because he preferred himself to the others; hence he said: although all shall be scandalized in thee, I will never be scandalized . Hence he reckoned himself firmer than the others; and he fell into what is said in Luke 18:11: I am not as the rest of men etc. Likewise, because he attributed to himself what he should not have, since it is written in John 15:5: without me you can do nothing . Because therefore he spoke arrogantly, the Lord permitted him all the more to fall. And God does this, because God greatly hates pride; Job 40:6: and he beholding every proud one, humbleth him. Jesus said to him: amen I say to thee, that in this night before the cock crow, thou wilt deny me thrice . Because you might think that I speak by way of threat, therefore I say to you, amen , i.e., from the heart I say to you, that before the cock crow in this night, thou wilt deny me thrice . And his fault is aggravated by the nearness of time, because in this night . Likewise, by the number, because thrice : just as he had presumed three times, so he denied three times after his presumption; Job 31:27: if my heart hath been secretly rejoiced . But there is a question about this: before the cock crow, thou wilt deny me thrice ; because in Mark 14:30 it says: before the cock crow twice . According to Augustine, this can be resolved by saying that what Mark says is historically true. And what Matthew says can be resolved thus: that a man is said to do something when he does it in intention, just as above at 5:28: whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart . So Peter in his intention denied three times, or even more; from the moment he conceived the fear, that was sufficient for denying three or more times; therefore he says that he denied three times because he had already conceived that he would deny three or more times. Hence Matthew spoke of what he intended interiorly; but Mark of what he did exteriorly. Or it can be said otherwise: that when I say, "I will do this within such a time," it is not necessary that it be completed within that time, but it suffices that it be begun. Hence what he said, that he would deny three times, it was not necessary that it be completed before the cock crowed, but only begun. There follows the excuse of Peter: Peter saith to him etc. Peter excuses himself: yea, though I should die with thee, I will not deny thee . And yet he was afraid, because at the voice of a maid he denied. Jerome says that he did not know what he was saying, because Christ alone was to die, so that he alone would be the redeemer; Isa. 63:3: I have trodden the winepress alone . Then the affirmation of the others is set forth, namely: in like manner also all the disciples said . Hence they spoke as Peter did; yet the others had a better reason for excusing themselves than Peter, because the others spoke without assertion. Then Jesus came with them into a country place which is called Gethsemani . In this part, the preparation by prayer is set forth; and he does three things. First, the intention to pray is set forth; second, the necessity of praying; third, the manner. The second is at and taking with him Peter etc.; the third at and going a little further, he fell upon his face . Concerning the first he does two things. First, the place is set forth; second, he announces his intention: and he said to his disciples . He says therefore then Jesus came with them into a country place which is called Gethsemani . What is said in John 18:1 seems contrary, that Jesus went out and came across the brook Cedron. Hence it should be noted that this country place was at the foot of Mount Olivet, and so it was the same place; and he used to come there after supper as if for a walk. Then he announces his intention to pray: and he said to his disciples: sit you here, till I go yonder and pray . Something similar is found in Gen. 22:5: Abraham said to his servants: stay you here with the ass; I and the boy will go with speed as far as yonder, and after we have worshipped, will return to you . But here Damascene raises a question. Prayer is the ascent of the mind to God, but the intellect of Christ was united to God; how then did God need what he was doing? Hence it should be said that he prayed not for himself, but for our benefit. And this benefit is twofold, because he prayed to give us an example, that in tribulation we should have recourse to the Lord; Ps. 119:1: in my trouble I cried to the Lord . Likewise, to show that he was from another, and that he had from another; hence he says: the Son cannot do anything of himself . And John 8:28: I do nothing of myself . Likewise, to exclude an error, because some said that the power of the Father and the Son was not the same; John 8:49: I honour my Father . He gives therefore an example of praying, and of how one should pray. For the first condition of prayer is that it ought to be humble: which is signified because he went into the valley; Judith 9:16: the prayer of the humble and the meek hath always pleased thee . Likewise, it ought to be devout; hence in Gethsemani, namely in the place of richness; Ps. 62:6: let my soul be filled as with marrow and fatness . Likewise, that it be solitary, as above at 6:6: enter into thy chamber, and having shut the door, pray to thy Father . And taking with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee etc. Here he announces the necessity of prayer: and this was sadness. And first, he sets forth the witnesses of the sadness; second, he shows the sadness; third, he repels it. The second is at he began to grow sorrowful and to be sad ; the third at stay you here and watch with me . He says therefore and taking with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee etc. He took three with him. And why these rather than the others? One reason is that these were the firmest, and because his weakness scandalized all of them, he wished to show his weakness more to these than to the others. Likewise, he had shown them his glory; therefore he wished that just as they had seen his glory, so they might see his weakness, so that they might know that neither did the weakness absorb the glory, nor did the glory absorb the weakness. There follows the display of weakness. And first by action; second by word. And accordingly he does three things: because first he says according to what Christ was saddened; second, why he was saddened; third, how he was saddened. As to the first: he began to grow sorrowful and to be sad . Here two errors must be guarded against; because some said that he was saddened according to his divinity: and this cannot be, because he was saddened because he was passible, but the divinity was not passible. Likewise, the opinion of the Arians, otherwise of Eunomius, was that in Christ there was no soul, but the Word in place of the soul. And why did he say this? So that all things pertaining to deficiency might be referred to the Word, in order to show it to be less than the Father. And this is false. Therefore he suffered according to that by which he could suffer, i.e., according to his soul. Then he saith to them: my soul is sorrowful even unto death etc. He does not say: I am sorrowful, because "I" is indicative of the person, but he was not saddened insofar as he was the Word, but according to his soul; therefore the error of both Arius and Apollinaris is excluded; likewise that of the Manicheans, who held that he did not truly suffer. Hence it is clear according to what he was saddened. But why was he saddened? The words of the saints are diverse. Because Hilary and many others said that he was not saddened for himself, nor on account of his own death, but on account of the scandal of the disciples: and he wants to prove this from the fact that he took them with him. Damascene says that he was saddened for himself. And why? Because sadness arises from the fact that we lack what we naturally love. The soul naturally wills to be united to the body, and this was so in the soul of Christ, because he ate, and drank, and hungered. Therefore the separation was against the natural desire: therefore to be separated was sorrowful to him. Yet we can understand that something belongs to the soul according to itself, and something belongs to the soul by comparison to something else: just as a bitter potion, considered according to itself, is painful, but when referred to the end of our health, it is a cause of joy. Just as something belongs to reason as nature, and something to reason as reason: so this death of Christ was a matter of sadness insofar as it was considered according to itself; but insofar as it was referred to reason, by referring it to the end, so he rejoiced. Therefore the words of Hilary and Jerome are understood with reference to the end. Likewise, it is asked how sadness falls upon Christ. Therefore it should be noted that sometimes sadness occurs as a passion, and sometimes as a pre-passion. As a passion, when something suffers and is changed: but when it suffers and is not changed, then it has a pre-passion. But sometimes such things are in us in such a way that reason is changed, and then the passions are complete: but when reason is not changed, then it is a pre-passion. But in Christ reason was never changed; therefore it was a pre-passion, and not a passion. Hence the Evangelist says pointedly: he began to be sorrowful . Likewise, Augustine says that we have sadness as contracted, but Christ as assumed: for that is contracted which is had by birth through origin, but Christ assumed our nature as he willed; therefore there was no necessity that he should receive passibility, such as sadness, but it was from the will. Likewise, it should be noted what Damascene says, that in us the movement of the passions anticipates reason, because sometimes there is in us passion, and sometimes pre-passion; but in Christ there was only pre-passion, and never was it the case in Christ that a movement arose in the lower powers of the soul; rather, the lower powers were entirely subject to reason, and when he willed, he permitted the lower powers to act according to what was natural to them. Therefore another Evangelist said that he troubled himself, because these movements could not have occurred except insofar as he willed. Then he saith to them: my soul is sorrowful even unto death . Note that he says even unto death , through which I will make satisfaction for this scandal and for others. Or according to another exposition: do not believe that this should endure in perpetuity, because as long as the body will be passible, and this is until death, my soul is sorrowful , and then it will be glorified. Then he excludes the others: stay you here and watch with me. And going a little further, he fell upon his face, praying and saying . Above he touched upon the cause of the sadness; but here he treats of the order of Christ's prayer. And because he prayed three times, this part is divided into three parts according to the three prayers. And concerning the first he does two things. First, he sets forth the prayer of the one praying; second, he rebukes the failing of the disciples, at and he cometh to the disciples etc. And in the first, he first sets forth the condition of the one praying; second, the content of the prayer. Now a threefold condition is commended, because first he notes solicitude, second humility, third devotion. Solicitude, because going a little further , because even from those he had chosen he separated himself; above at 6:6: when thou shalt pray, enter into thy chamber, and having shut the door, pray to thy Father in secret . But note that he went not far, but a little, to indicate that he is not far from those who call upon him; Ps. 144:18: the Lord is nigh unto all them that call upon him . Likewise, so that they might see him praying and receive a pattern. Therefore humility follows: and he fell upon his face , whence he shows an example of humility. And first, on account of the common humility, because humility is necessary for prayer; Ecclus. 35:21: the prayer of him that humbleth himself shall pierce the clouds . Likewise, on account of a special humility, namely Peter's, because he had said: yea, though I should die with thee, I will not deny thee . Therefore the Lord fell on his face, to signify that one should not trust in one's own strength; above at 11:29: learn of me, because I am meek and humble of heart . Likewise, the condition of piety, or devotion, is signified when he says my Father ; for it is necessary for one who prays that he pray from devotion, and hence he says my Father , because he is singularly the Son, but we are sons by adoption; John 20:17: I ascend to my Father and to your Father ; as if to say, mine in one way and yours in another. Consequently, he adds the content of the prayer: if it be possible, let this chalice pass from me . This prayer can be expounded in three ways, and however it is expounded, two things must be considered. First, you should consider in general with respect to all the expositions that, according to Damascene, prayer is the ascent of the mind to God: hence prayer is according to the mind, or according to the higher reason; yet it is constituted below God, though above human nature, or under the divine will. What then is to be understood? According to this, it is when the higher reason descends to these things, insofar as is fitting, yet so that it is always subject to the divine reason; and this is noted when it says: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt ; because the higher reason follows the will of nature, yet not simply, i.e., if, when referred to the higher, it does not conflict. Hence he means to say: I will that what I will be fulfilled if it does not conflict with thy justice, but I will that thy justice be fulfilled. And in this he teaches an example of how we ought to order our affections, because we ought so to order them that they do not disagree with the divine rule. Hence it is no great matter if someone flees from what is burdensome to nature, provided that he orders it to the divine will. Likewise, it can be expounded, according to Chrysostom and Origen, so that by the chalice is signified the passion of Christ, concerning which Ps. 115:13 says: I will take the chalice of salvation etc. It is certain that Christ had the natural will of man; but it belongs to this will to flee from death: therefore, to show himself to be man, he asks that the chalice pass from him; and this is so natural that it did not remove the petition from him. Likewise, he said if it be possible, let this chalice pass , i.e., the passion: but I do not say this absolutely, but if it be possible. And because someone might believe that he doubted whether it was possible for God, he therefore shows that it is possible, because all things are possible to thee , Mark 14:36. Nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt , i.e., if it accords with thy justice, I will it; therefore he says not as I will . Hence he touches upon two wills: one which he had from the Father insofar as he is God; one which he had with the Father. And in this the error of many is confounded. Likewise, another will insofar as he is man: and this will he submitted in all things to the Father; giving us in this an example that we should submit our will to the will of God; John 6:38: I came down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him that sent me, the Father . According to Jerome, he was not asking simply, but that this chalice might pass. He foresaw that he would suffer at the hands of the Jews; he wished therefore that it might pass, i.e., that he might redeem the world in such a way that there would be no fault on the part of the Jews; Rom. 11:11: by the offense of the Jews, salvation is come to the Gentiles . But Hilary says thus: the Lord does not ask not to die, but asks that the chalice pass to others; as if to say: I will take the chalice with confidence. I ask that my disciples receive it without distrust. But why does he say if it be possible ? Because this seems against nature, that they should accept death without sorrow. Hence he means to say: I would wish that others not suffer, if it were possible; but let it be done as thou wilt, i.e., according to thy ordering. And he cometh to his disciples . Here he rebukes the failing of the disciples. And first, the failing is set forth; second, the rebuke; third, the admonition; fourth, the reason for the admonition. When he had prayed, he cometh to his disciples and findeth them asleep . And this has a reason according to the letter, because part of the night had already passed, and therefore they were heavy with sleep. Likewise, the cause was that they were sad, and sleep easily steals upon such persons; Prov. 17:22: a sorrowful spirit drieth up the bones . Likewise, it is signified that while Christ was ascending for us to the passion, many slept, as they all slumbered and slept , above at 25:5. And he saith to Peter: what, could you not watch one hour with me? But why did he say this to Peter rather than the others? The reason is that Peter had boasted more that he would stand by him in his needs: therefore this was already a presage of his future fall. Could you not watch one hour with me? And why is it that he afterwards spoke to all? Because all had made the same promise along with Peter; hence it was said above: in like manner also all the disciples said . Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation . In this part the admonition is added. You trust in yourselves; but you ought to have recourse to the helps of prayer; hence pray that ye enter not into temptation . Hence above at 6:13 in the common prayer he teaches us to ask: and lead us not into temptation . And he puts watchfulness before it as preparation; Ecclus. 18:23: before prayer prepare thy soul , i.e., prudence is necessary; above at 10:16: be ye wise as serpents. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak ; as if to say: what you promise comes from the willingness of the spirit; but prayer is not necessary on account of the spirit, but on account of the flesh, which is weak; and therefore watchfulness is necessary. Something similar is what the Apostle says, Rom. 8:10: the body indeed is dead because of sin, but the spirit liveth because of justification . But it should be noted that the flesh of all is weak, but the spirit of all is not willing. In the wicked indeed, just as the flesh is weak, so also is the spirit: conversely, in the good, because they have a willing spirit, and therefore in the resurrection the spirit renders the body willing. Or there can be a twofold weakness. One that is evil, which inclines to sin, according to what the Apostle says in Rom. 7:18: there dwelleth not in my flesh that which is good . Another weakness is good, insofar as the carnal falls short of willingness, according to what is said in Song 5:8: tell the beloved that I languish with love . And for this reason a man ought to watch, as Origen says, just as one who has a great treasure watches diligently to guard it. Again the second time, he went and prayed . Here he prays a second time. According to Chrysostom, he prays a second time for this reason: to show more firmly the truth of human nature; hence in Gen. 41:32: what thou didst see the second time is a token of confirmation . Now what he says, if this chalice may not pass away, but I must drink it, thy will be done , can be expounded in three ways. First, thus. Above he had asked conditionally; but here, because he was assured that it could not be but that he should drink it, he therefore asks that the will of God be done; as if to say: if it cannot be but that I pass to the glory of immortality, because mortality was not contracted but assumed: therefore whether he suffered or not, he was to pass to the glory of immortality. But it could not pass from him and from his members; hence if he did not drink it, it would not pass from his members. He means to say, then: if it cannot pass from me and from my members, thy will be done ; Ps. 39:9: that I should do thy will, O my God, I have desired it . Second, Jerome expounds it thus: if it cannot be that the truth pass to the Gentiles unless the Jews transgress, thy will be done : for by their offense salvation came to the Gentiles. Hilary expounds it thus: if it cannot be that other saints drink the chalice of suffering except by my example, thy will be done ; because other saints took their example from the passion of Christ. He means to say, then: if it cannot pass from me to my disciples unless I drink it, so that they may be made stronger for drinking, thy will be done . Consequently, the second falling asleep of the disciples is set forth: and he cometh again and findeth them sleeping: for their eyes were heavy , with sleep, i.e., on account of sleep, and on account of sadness; Ps. 30:10: my eye is troubled through indignation. And leaving them, he went again and prayed the third time . Here he treats of the third prayer: and he does two things. First, he sets forth the order; second, the granting of sleep, at then he cometh to his disciples etc. He says: and leaving them, he went again and prayed the third time, saying the selfsame word . But what does it signify that he prayed three times? He prayed three times so as to free us from present, past, and future evils. Likewise, to teach that our prayer ought to be directed to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit; hence in the prayers of the Church it is always said: glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit . Likewise, so that by his threefold prayer he might free Peter from his threefold denial; Luke 22:32: I have prayed for thee, Peter, that thy faith fail not . Likewise, he prayed three times against three fears. For there is a fear against concupiscence; for there is a threefold concupiscence: of curiosity, of pride, and of the flesh, and this threefold concupiscence is touched upon in 1 John 2:16: all that is in the world is the concupiscence of the flesh, and the concupiscence of the eyes, and the pride of life . To this threefold concupiscence a threefold fear corresponds, namely: to the concupiscence of the flesh, the fear of pain; to the concupiscence of the eyes, the fear of poverty; to the concupiscence of pride, the fear of reproach and ignominy. And Christ suffered these, not because he needed to, but for us. Then he cometh to his disciples and saith to them . And first, he grants them sleep; second, he rouses them, at rise, let us go . First, he gives permission; second, he assigns the cause, at behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of man shall be betrayed . Christ the first time found them sleeping and rebuked them; the second time he found them sleeping and was silent; the third time he found them sleeping and granted them sleep. What is the reason? The literal reason is that prelates are given a pattern of correction; because when one comes to someone and finds him sleeping, he does not know whether it happened from negligence or from infirmity. And he can be indulgent. Likewise, because after the resurrection he found them sleeping, and he reproached them; Luke 24:25: O foolish and slow of heart to believe . Likewise, he visited them after they received the Holy Spirit, and then he said nothing, because they were still weak; because they still observed the legal prescriptions, as is said of Peter in Gal. 2:11. But at the last, at his coming, he will visit them and leave them in holy and peaceful rest; Ps. 4:9: in peace in the selfsame I will sleep and I will rest . According to Augustine, he grants them here what he had denied above: but the sleep here is different from that above. Because there is the sleep of heaviness, and of this he speaks above, where it says at v. 43: their eyes were heavy , with sleep, and this is to be rebuked. But this sleep here is the sleep of rest; and this is permitted. Likewise, there is sleep on account of disturbance; and this is forbidden. Of this it is said in Eph. 5:14: rise, thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead . For sometimes there is sleep for the rest of the body, but the soul watches: I sleep, and my heart watcheth , Song 5:2. Likewise, because they were about to labor, it was fitting that they should rest. Then he assigns the cause: behold, the hour is at hand . He did not have to do this from any necessity, but from the divine ordering; John 7:30: they sought to apprehend him, and no man could lay hands on him, because his hour was not yet come . But this hour had come; John 13:1: Jesus knowing that his hour was come, that he should pass out of this world to the Father . But they could say: if the hour is from the divine ordering, then those who kill him do not sin. Therefore together with this he sets forth the sin: and the Son of man shall be betrayed into the hands of sinners , i.e., they do not do this from the divine ordering, but from the fulfillment of their own will. Jer. 12:7: I have given my dear soul into the hands of her enemies . Then he sets forth the rousing. And first, he sets it forth; second, the necessity, at behold . Now in that he says rise , he shows his own readiness; hence in John 18:3 it is said that he went out to meet them. And why? Behold, he is at hand that will betray me . He was near, not because he saw with the bodily eye, but by his own spirit, namely by the eye of his divinity. But how did he say to them rise , since he had given them leave to sleep? Augustine resolves this by saying that he had spoken reproachfully; as if to say: sleep as much as you wish, behold, the hour is at hand etc. And Augustine says that this would suffice, unless a better answer presented itself; therefore he says otherwise: that they slept for a little while, and when they had slept he said rise, let us go .
26—6
Mt 26:47-56
47. As he yet spoke, behold Judas, one of the twelve, came, and with him a great multitude with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests and the ancients of the people. 48. And he that betrayed him gave them a sign, saying: Whomsoever I shall kiss, that is he. Hold him fast. 49. And forthwith coming to Jesus, he said: Hail, Rabbi. And he kissed him. 50. And Jesus said to him: Friend, whereto art thou come? Then they came up and laid hands on Jesus and held him. 51. And behold one of them that were with Jesus, stretching forth his hand, drew out his sword: and striking the servant of the high priest, cut off his ear. 52. Then Jesus saith to him: Put up again thy sword into its place: for all that take the sword shall perish with the sword. 53. Thinkest thou that I cannot ask my Father, and he will give me presently more than twelve legions of angels? 54. How then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that so it must be done? 55. In that same hour, Jesus said to the multitudes: You are come out, as it were to a robber, with swords and clubs to apprehend me. I sat daily with you, teaching in the temple: and you laid not hands on me. 56. Now all this was done that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then the disciples, all leaving him, fled.
Above were set forth the things preparatory to the passion, namely, the institution of the sacrament and the prayer of Christ; but here he sets forth the passion as regards the things inflicted by the Jews. And first, he shows how he is captured; secondly, how he is examined; thirdly, how he is condemned. The second is at the chief priests etc.; the third at then the chief priests etc. Concerning the first he does three things. First, he treats of the betrayal; secondly, of the capture; thirdly, how he was led away after the capture. The second is at then they came up ; the third at but they holding him , etc. Concerning the first he does three things. First, he describes the person of the betrayer; secondly, the sign of betrayal; thirdly, its completion. The second is at and he that betrayed him etc.; the third at and forthwith etc. He describes the betrayer from three things. First, from his name; secondly, from his dignity; thirdly, from his company. From his name: as he yet spoke, behold Judas etc. While he was speaking, namely, these words by which he was giving them confidence, behold Judas , whose name means "confessing." There were two named Judas, of whom one is wicked and the other good, to signify that some who confess in the Church would be good, Romans 10:10: for with the mouth, confession is made unto salvation , and some would be wicked; Titus 1:16: they profess that they know God, but in their works they deny him . Next, he is described from his dignity: one of the twelve , because although he was established in so great a dignity, yet he fell into so great a crime. In this an example is given that no one should be confident of his state. The Apostle, 1 Corinthians 10:12: he that thinks himself to stand, let him take heed lest he fall ; John 6:71: have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? And why did he choose him, since he knew he would be wicked? One reason is so that he might give an example to prelates, that they should not become desolate. Likewise, he is described from his company: and with him a great multitude etc. Just as he had a cruel spirit, so he had cruel company, because every animal seeks its like. And this is described, because it was great . In this it is noted that they were foolish, for the foolish are in great number; Ecclesiastes 1:15: the number of fools is infinite . And they were indeed foolish, because they contradicted wisdom. Likewise, they were armed, because they came with swords and clubs . And what is the reason? Origen says that many believed in him, and therefore they feared that the crowd might snatch him from them. Likewise, because they said, above in chapter 12, that he cast out devils by Beelzebub; and so, lest any power should protect him, they came armed. Likewise, he is described from authority, because they were sent from the chief priests and the ancients of the people ; hence they were equipped with their authority, so that no one would contradict them, that what is said in Psalm 2:2 might be fulfilled: the kings of the earth stood up, and the princes met together against the Lord, and against his Christ . Next he treats of the sign of betrayal: and he that betrayed him gave them a sign, saying etc. But here there is a question. Since he was well known in Judea, why did they seek a sign? A twofold reason can be given. One is that Judas had heard that Christ was transfigured on the mountain, and he believed this had been done by magical art; therefore, he wanted to anticipate with the sign of a kiss, before he could transfigure himself. Jerome sets forth this explanation. But Origen says that just as the manna in the desert tasted to each person like whatever he imagined, so Christ appeared to each person according to the opinion he held of him; therefore, it was necessary that he give a sign. He gave an extraordinary sign, because whomsoever I shall kiss, that is he, hold him fast . He made the sign of friendship into the sign of betrayal; Proverbs 27:6: better are the wounds of a friend than the deceitful kisses of an enemy. And forthwith coming up to Jesus he said: Hail, Rabbi, and he kissed him . Here the completion of the betrayal is set forth. And first, he displayed the signs; secondly, he began to act. And he shows it first by word, when he says Hail, Rabbi ; secondly, by deed, and he kissed him . Something similar is found in 2 Samuel 10:1, where Joab held the chin of Amasa and killed him. But why did he not come straight to him, but first greeted him? One reason is out of reverence for the master. Likewise, he first greeted him because he feared that before he could point him out, he might first transfigure himself. And Jesus said to him: Friend, whereto art thou come? And this can be read either interrogatively or permissively. If interrogatively, then it can be read as said by way of reproach, as if to say: you show friendship by a kiss, and yet you have come to destroy me? According to Psalm 28:3: they speak peace with their neighbor, but evil is in their hearts . And he said friend . Whenever he calls someone friend, he speaks by way of reproach. Hence it was said above at 22:12: friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And elsewhere at chapter 20, verse 13: friend, I do thee no wrong etc. 1 John 4:19: for we have not first loved him, but he first loved us . Or it can be read permissively, and it is not a word of rebuke but of permission: friend, whereto art thou come , according to John 13:27: that which thou dost, do quickly . And he calls him friend as far as it pertains to himself, because with them that hated peace I was peaceable , Psalm 119:7. And although he knew he was about to kiss him, yet he went to meet him. But they holding him laid hands on Jesus . Now the capture is treated. And first, the severity of the capture is set forth; secondly, the testimony; thirdly, the rebuke of the disciple. Concerning the first he does three things. Because first he says how the servants seized him; secondly, how a certain disciple wanted to prevent it; thirdly, that Christ rebuked him. He says therefore but they holding him laid hands on Jesus . Isaiah 1:15: your hands are full of blood . For he himself gave himself up; Jeremiah 12:7: I have given my dear beloved soul into the hands of her enemies . Then it is set forth how one disciple attacked the attackers: and behold one of them that were with Jesus, stretching forth his hand, drew out his sword . Who was this? It must be said that it was Peter. Hence, just as above at 16:22 he wanted to prevent the passion of Christ, so also here. And how did he have occasion? From what is found at Luke 22:36, where the Lord commanded them to buy swords, and understanding this, they believed that swords would be necessary; hence they had a knife for cutting the lamb. Therefore Peter had one. And striking the servant of the high priest, cut off his ear . Do not think that he had time to deliberate about cutting off the ear; rather, he threw the blow, and when he would have struck him dead, it happened that he cut off the ear. The name of this man was Malchus, which is interpreted "king." And it signifies the cutting off of the kingdom from the Jewish people, and yet he was made a servant of the chief priests, i.e., of the Romans: Peter cut off his ear. By the ear, hearing is signified; and this is twofold, namely, the right, by which is signified eternal life, and the left, by which is signified temporal life. He cut off his ear , because from the Jewish people he cut off the teaching of spiritual things; and this was done by occasion, that the Gentiles received the right, because Peter first preached to the Gentiles; and so he cut off the right, drawing the Gentiles to the faith. Then Jesus said to him: Put up again thy sword into its place . Here the rebuke is set forth. And first, he rebukes Peter; secondly, the servants: in that same hour Jesus said to the multitudes etc. And first, he sets forth the admonition; secondly, he assigns the reason for the admonition: for all that take the sword shall perish with the sword . It says: then Jesus said to him: Put up again thy sword into its place . He had come to suffer willingly; therefore he did not wish to be defended. And in this he gave an example that martyrs suffering for Christ should not defend themselves. Then he assigns the reason: and first, from the punishment; secondly, from the will of Christ; thirdly, from authority. The second is at thinkest thou that I cannot ask my Father etc.; the third at how then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled? First, he restrains him by the fear of punishment, saying all that take the sword shall perish with the sword . But Augustine raises a question, because not all who strike with the sword perish by the sword, but sometimes by fever; therefore it can be explained in a threefold way, according to the threefold sword: the material sword, concerning which Psalm 37:14 says: the wicked have drawn out the sword . Likewise, the sword of divine sentence, concerning which Jeremiah 19:7 says: I will overthrow them with the sword . Likewise, the sword of the divine word; Ephesians 6:17: and take the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God . It can therefore be understood of all these. Of the material sword, because whoever kills by the sword will perish by the sword, i.e., by his own, not by another's. Hence Psalm 37:15: let their sword enter into their own hearts . Likewise, it can be explained of the sword of condemnation, concerning which it is found at Genesis 3:24 that the Lord placed a flaming sword before Paradise. Hence those who condemn others will be condemned by the divine sentence. Or some take by their own authority what they do not have from another, and such perish by the sword. Thinkest thou that I cannot ask my Father etc. Here he assigns the reason for calming Peter's spirit, giving him to understand that he was suffering willingly and that he could escape. And because he saw him being presumptuous, therefore he says I cannot ask my Father? And he does not say, I cannot call or bring, but ask: for he speaks the words of a man, because to pray belongs to man. And he will give me presently more than twelve legions of angels? And this was said according to the weakness of Peter's spirit. For Peter was so disposed that he thought he ought to defend him and that he needed the help of men; therefore he means to say that if he could be defended by the help of men, much more by that of angels. But it was not necessary, because the angels are rather sustained by him. But what does it mean when he says twelve legions of angels? It must be said that a company among the Greeks is called a phalanx, among the Romans a legion, and it contained six thousand men; hence twelve legions are seventy-two thousand, and there are that many tongues of men, as is found from Genesis 11. Hence he means to say: if all men rose up against me, the Lord could send against each tongue a thousand angels; and if one angel destroyed so many thousands, as is clear from Isaiah 37, much more could a thousand destroy one tongue; Job 25:3: is there any numbering of his soldiers? And Daniel 7:10: thousands of thousands ministered to him, and ten thousand times a hundred thousand stood before him . Remigius says: whoever does the will of God can be called angels, i.e., messengers; Isaiah 18:2: go, ye swift angels, to a nation rent and torn . For whoever serves God is called an angel; Psalm 104:4: who makes his angels spirits, and his ministers a burning fire . Therefore, by a legion can be understood a Roman legion. Hence the Lord could bring and provoke Roman legions to destroy the Jews, as was afterwards done under Titus and Vespasian. And in this passage, some have destroyed the opinion of those who said that the Lord could not do except what he does; because if he could summon legions which he did not summon, it is clear that he can do many things which he does not do. How then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled? Here the third reason is set forth, why he should not hinder: because the Scriptures have so declared; and therefore it must so be. And he does not say which Scriptures, because all the prophets said this either obscurely or manifestly. Hence Luke, last chapter, verse 26: ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and so to enter into his glory? In that same hour Jesus said to the multitudes . In this part he rebukes the servants: and he does two things. First, he recalls the deed; secondly, the unreasonableness of the deed, when he says you are come out as it were to a robber with swords and clubs to apprehend me . Job 16:10: he has gnashed upon me with his teeth , because they came out as if he were a robber; but they themselves were coming rather as robbers. A robber hides so as not to be captured; but Christ offered himself openly. And robbers, if they wish to harm, do not harm in public; but Christ offered himself. Hence he says I sat daily with you teaching in the temple, and you laid not hands on me ; therefore you have come as robbers. For in order to give them the opportunity, he went out of the city. I sat daily with you teaching in the temple . Something similar is found at John 18:20: in secret I have spoken nothing . And he says teaching in the temple . This was his custom, always to teach in the temple. And you laid not hands on me . Hence it is clear that you came as robbers. Next the testimony is set forth: now all this was done that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled . And he does not say which ones, because it is found in nearly all of them; Psalm 22:17: they have dug my hands and feet, and they have numbered all my bones . And Isaiah 53:3: we have esteemed him the last of men, a man of sorrows . And he says that they might be fulfilled . The word "that" can be taken causatively, and in this sense it is not taken here; or consecutively, and in this sense it is taken here. For it did not happen because the prophets said it; rather, they foretold it because it was going to happen. Hence the meaning is that it might be fulfilled , i.e., by this deed was fulfilled what had been foretold through the prophets. Then the disciples all leaving him, fled ; so that what is said in Psalm 38:12 was fulfilled: my friends and my neighbors have forsaken me . But why did they not forsake him from the beginning? Jerome answers: because it is written at John 7:30 that they sought him, and no man laid hands on him, because his hour was not yet come . Hence from the beginning they believed that he could free himself and would defend himself; but when they saw that he was captured and that he did not wish to defend himself, they fled and abandoned him.
26—7
Mt 26:57-75
57. But they holding Jesus led him to Caiphas the high priest, where the scribes and the ancients were assembled. 58. And Peter followed him afar off, even to the court of the high priest, And going in, he sat with the servants, that he might see the end. 59. And the chief priests and the whole council sought false witness against Jesus, that they might put him to death. 60. And they found not, whereas many false witnesses had come in. And last of all there came two false witnesses: 61. And they said: This man said, I am able to destroy the temple of God and after three days to rebuild it. 62. And the high priest rising up, said to him: Answerest thou nothing to the things which these witness against thee? 63. But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest said to him: I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us if thou be the Christ the Son of God. 64. Jesus saith to him: Thou hast said it. Nevertheless I say to you, hereafter you shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of the power of God and coming in the clouds of heaven. 65. Then the high priest rent his garments, saying: He hath blasphemed: What further need have we of witnesses? Behold, now you have heard the blasphemy. 66. What think you? But they answering, said: He is guilty of death. 67. Then did they spit in his face and buffeted him. And others struck his face with the palms of their hands, 68. Saying: Prophesy unto us, O Christ. Who is he that struck thee? 69. But Peter sat without in the court. And there came to him a servant maid, saying: Thou also wast with Jesus the Galilean. 70. But he denied before them all, saying: I know not what thou sayest. 71. And as he went out of the gate, another maid saw him; and she saith to them that were there: This man also was with Jesus of Nazareth. 72. And again he denied with an oath: I know not the man. 73. And after a little while, they came that stood by and said to Peter: Surely thou also art one of them. For even thy speech doth discover thee. 74. Then he began to curse and to swear that he knew not the man. And immediately the cock crew. 75. And Peter remembered the word of Jesus which he had said: Before the cock crow, thou wilt deny me thrice. And going forth, he wept bitterly.
Above the capture of Christ was treated; now he treats of where he was led; and he describes the place and the company of those gathering at the place. He says therefore but they , namely, those who held him, led him to Caiphas . This Caiphas was the high priest of that year according to Jerome, according to what is found at John 11:49: being the high priest of that year . For the priesthood was no longer being administered according to the precept of the law. The Lord had commanded that Aaron and his sons should be priests by hereditary right, so that when one died the other would remain as priest. But afterwards, as ambition grew, they could not endure this, but when Judea was subject to the Romans, this Caiphas had bought the priesthood from the Jews, and had bought it from Pilate; therefore he was a wicked ruler. And it is no wonder if a wicked judge, or ruler, renders a wicked judgment. And this befits the mystery; because just as the passion of Christ was the offering of the true sacrifice, so also the place ought to correspond, so that Christ, who is a priest forever, should be offered in the house of the high priest. Caiphas is interpreted "investigator," and this can be referred to the malice by which he condemned Christ. But here there is a question, because John 18:13 says that he was first led to Annas. And this must be understood as true: for they had gathered at the house of Annas, and there they were assembled; and in this their malice appears, because when they should have been devoted to the solemnity, they were intent on wickedness, so that what is said at Isaiah 1:14 well suited them: my soul hates your solemnities . Hence what was said in Psalm 2:2 was fulfilled: they gathered together against God, and against his Christ. But Peter followed him afar off . The place has been treated; here he treats of Peter arriving. First, he is led; then Peter arrives. And he does three things: because first, he touches on the manner; secondly, how he arrived while following. That he arrived, this was of fervor; that from afar, this was of fear; hence it was signified that the Church, founded on Peter's faith, would follow Christ, yet from afar; because Christ suffered for the Church, not for himself; but Peter and the Church suffered for themselves. Likewise, the place is touched upon, because even to the court of the high priest : for he did not dare to enter the house, lest he should be seen as one of the disciples of Jesus. But how he entered, Matthew passes over in silence, while John 18:15 narrates that a certain disciple was known to the high priest, and he brought in Peter . Next follows the company: and going in, he sat with the servants, that he might see the end ; and he did this either out of curiosity or out of devotion. And these three things were already certain dispositions toward the fall of Peter: that he followed from afar was disposing him, because it signified that he was not firm; for he who is firm ought to draw near. Hence it is said at James 4:8: draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you . For in the house is the seat of God and of the Lamb, as is found at Apocalypse, last chapter, verse 3. For in the house was perfect charity. Hence Peter did not draw near to the charity of Christ. Likewise, he had not attained to the malice of the Jews; therefore he was lukewarm; and so there befell him what is said in Apocalypse 3:16: because thou art lukewarm, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth . Likewise, because the servants were wicked. Sirach 10:2: as the judge of the people is himself, so also are his ministers . And therefore it was no wonder if he fell, because he remained in wicked company. Wherefore Psalm 18:16: with the holy thou wilt be holy . Then follows the examination of Christ. And first, through witnesses; secondly, through his own confession, at and the high priest rising up said to him etc. Concerning the first he does three things. First, the perverse zeal of the chief priests is described; secondly, their failure; thirdly, the false testimony. He says therefore: the chief priests sought false witness against Jesus, that they might put him to death . But there is a question: why did they not put him to death without testimony? One reason is that hypocrites seek what appears to be good, but they do not seek the truth: so these men sought to make it appear that they were not acting on their own, and hence they acted against the law; Exodus 20:16: thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor . If it is not lawful to speak it, neither is it lawful to seek it. Another reason was that they did not have the authority to kill, and therefore they sought testimony so that they might hand him over to the governor. And they found none, whereas many false witnesses had come in . Behold the failure, in which the innocence of Christ is designated, so that he could say: I have walked in my innocence . For they had always laid snares for Christ, but they found nothing evil. Hence he fulfilled what is found at 1 Peter 2:15: by doing well you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men . Then follows the false testimony: and last of all there came two false witnesses, and they said . But here there is a question: why they are called false witnesses, because it is evident that Christ said this, John 2:19. According to Jerome, not only is he called false who says what he does not know, but he who refers what was said to a false meaning. This man said: I am able to destroy the temple of God, and after three days to rebuild it . But he did not mean the material temple, but the temple of his body. Likewise, the testimony is false not only as to its meaning, but as to its words, because he had said: destroy this temple ; and he did not say: I am able to destroy the temple of God; as if to say: you Jews, destroy the temple, i.e., Christ, and after three days I will raise it up. He did not say: and after three days I will rebuild; because to rebuild pertains more to a material temple, but to raise up pertains more to a body. Hence they were false witnesses both by reason of the words and by reason of the meaning. Likewise there is a question. Why do they not accuse him of violating the Sabbath? Chrysostom answers that because they had often accused him of this, and he had always excused himself and had confirmed his excuse with miracles; therefore they thought it would be of no avail to them. Likewise, the judge was not a Jew, and so they knew he would not accept this accusation. Then follows the examination through his own confession. And first, the questioning is set forth regarding the testimony; secondly, regarding the principal matter. The second is at and the high priest said to him etc. He says therefore: the high priest rising up said to him: Answerest thou nothing to the things which these witness against thee? That he rose was from impatience and fury, hearing that Christ was not being convicted: and when he says answerest thou nothing etc., he does not say this to excuse him, but to catch him in his words; Isaiah 32:6: the fool will speak foolish things, and his heart will work iniquity. But Jesus held his peace . But why was he silent? For three reasons. To teach us caution: for he knew that whatever he said, they would turn everything to calumny; and in such a case one should be silent before those lying in wait; Psalm 39:2: I set a guard on my mouth when the sinner stood against me . Another reason was that it was then not a time for teaching, but for having patience: and so what is said at Isaiah 53:7 was fulfilled: as a lamb before his shearer he shall be dumb, and shall not open his mouth . The third reason is to teach us constancy when someone is accused unjustly of something; Isaiah 51:7: fear not the reproach of men . Then follows the question concerning the principal matter: the high priest said to him: I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell me if thou be the Christ the Son of God . And first, the inquiry is set forth; secondly, the Lord's response. Seeing that he could not catch him, the chief priest adjured him: and this in order to catch him in his words. And this is found at John 10:24: how long dost thou hold our souls in suspense? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly . For among the Jews it was held as something great to adjure: for to adjure is to compel one to an oath. For just as Christians ought not to swear except out of necessity, so neither ought they to use adjuration, but in place of adjuration they ought to use prayer. Then follows the response: Jesus saith to him: Thou hast said it . Note that when something was against him, he was silent; but as soon as the power of the Father was adjured, he responds. Hence he always sought the glory of the Father; John 8:50: I seek not my own glory . And concerning this, first the response is set forth; secondly, the manifestation. He says therefore: Jesus saith to him: Thou hast said it , which can be explained as Christ not asserting but leaving it in doubt; above at 7:6: give not that which is holy to dogs . Or it can be read assertively: thou hast said it , i.e., it is true; and this is clear because it says in Mark 14:62: I am . Then he shows the evidence: nevertheless I say to you, hereafter you shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of the power of God . And he clearly wishes to show that he is the Son of God, according to two authorities. One is in Psalm 110:1: the Lord said to my Lord: Sit at my right hand . And through this he had shown above at 22:42-46 that Christ was the Son of God. The other is Daniel 7:7: I beheld in the vision of the night; and lo, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven etc. So, I say, he says, namely, thou hast said it ; but you do not know the truth. Attend, because the truth will be made manifest, because you shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of the power of God . Because he said sitting on the right hand , Chrysostom explains that sitting at the right hand signifies royal dignity; Isaiah 9:7: upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom he shall sit . Or to sit at the right hand is to be in the full beatitude of power, or in the better goods: for the right is the nobler part; therefore it signifies greater dignity, not because he has greater power, but equal; below at the last chapter, verse 18: all power is given to me in heaven and in earth . Likewise, concerning his power he says: coming in the clouds of heaven . But what does it mean when he says hereafter you shall see? etc. It should be noted that what he says in the clouds can be referred to the last coming, or to the daily coming. The last coming will be in a cloud; Acts 1:11: as you have seen him going into heaven ; and above at chapter 24 it is said that he will come in the clouds . In another way it can be explained of the daily coming, concerning which Job 9:11 says: if he come to me, I shall not see him . And this coming is in the clouds, i.e., in the apostles and sacred doctors. Of these it is said at Isaiah 60:8: who are these, that fly as clouds? These are called clouds because they ascend on high. Likewise, clouds are fruitful. The first pertains to the loftiness of life, the second to the fruitfulness of doctrine. And they are clouds of heaven, i.e., heavenly, because they bore the image of the heavenly. But what does hereafter you shall see mean? I.e., immediately after the passion he converted some to the faith, others by the evidence of his works. Hence some were converted on account of their faith, and some on account of good works. Likewise, if it is referred to the last coming, Origen says: all the time of the world compared to eternity is nothing, like one moment. Psalm 90:4: a thousand years in thy sight are as yesterday, which is past . Therefore he says hereafter , because the time until the judgment is nothing compared to eternity. Nevertheless, after you shall have departed from me, nothing remains except that you will know me openly, because I will come in the clouds of heaven. And then you will know me to be the Son of man. A similar manner of speaking is found above at chapter 23, verse 39: you shall not see me henceforth till you say: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord. Then the high priest rent his garments . Here the condemnation is set forth. And first, he sets forth how he is condemned; secondly, how he is denied by a disciple. And first, he treats of the condemnation; secondly, of the mockery. Concerning the first he does two things. Because first, the chief priest condemns him; secondly, he seeks the sentence. The one condemning shows the guilt both by deed and by word: by deed, because he rent his garments. With the same fury he rent his garments as he had shortly before risen from his seat: for it was customary that those who heard blasphemy would rend their garments as a sign that they could not bear to hear it. But the fact that he did these two things signified something: that he rose from his seat showed that he would lose the priesthood; and that he rent his garments signified that it was to be transferred; Hebrews 7:12: the priesthood being translated, it is necessary that a translation also be made of the law . The garment of Christ was not torn; John 19:24: let us not divide it, but let us cast lots for it, whose it shall be . Hence it signified abolition. And this is signified at 1 Samuel 15:28: the Lord hath rent the kingdom of Israel from thee this day . So it was torn from the Jews and given to the members of Christ. Then he imposes the charge: he hath blasphemed , because since he had said this, he considered him a blasphemer; hence John 10:33: for a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy, because thou being a man, makest thyself the Son of God ; and for such a one death was due. Then he makes the charge known: what further need have we of witnesses? Then he seeks the sentence: what think you? But they answering, said: He is guilty of death , according to the judgment of the law. And this would be true if he were a blasphemer; but he was not, and therefore they judge wrongly, because they condemn the author of life to death; 1 Corinthians 15:22: for as by Adam death came to all men, so also by Jesus life. Then did they spit in his face etc. After the condemnation of Christ, the mockery is treated. And quite fittingly, because Christ bore our sins, as Isaiah 62. But man through sin was handed over to death, when it was said to him, Genesis 2:17: in what day soever you shall eat of it, you shall die the death . Likewise, he lost his proper honor, because man when he was in honor did not understand; he is compared to senseless beasts , Psalm 49:13. And therefore Christ the Redeemer endured death and reproaches, first by deed; secondly by word, at Prophesy unto us, O Christ . In the first he is spat upon and struck with fists; in the second he is struck in the face. As to the first it says: then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him ; according to what is found from the words, this was done as a sign of contempt for God's command, for it is found at Deuteronomy 25:5 ff. that if anyone refused to take his brother's wife, they would spit in his face. Likewise, on account of contempt for a father's command: so with Miriam, the sister of Moses. Hence they spat in his face because they considered him a blasphemer; Isaiah 50:6: I have not turned away my face from them that rebuked me and spat upon me . Likewise, they buffeted him , after the manner of a drunkard or a fool; Isaiah 53:3: we saw him the last of men , i.e., he appeared so despised as if he were the last of all men. And others struck his face with the palms of their hands , in irreverence; Lamentations 3:30: he shall give his cheek to him that striketh him . Mystically, according to Augustine, some still do this: because to spit in the face is nothing other than to despise the presence of the grace of Christ; Hebrews 10:29: how much more, do you think, he deserveth worse punishments, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath esteemed the blood of the testament unclean, by which he was sanctified, and hath offered an affront to the Spirit of grace? But properly he buffets who places the head under the hand: and such are those who seek their own dignity rather than the honor of Christ. Of such it is said that men loved darkness rather than the light . But those who strike the face are those who in a certain way strive to demolish his presence, as do the Jews. Of these, Isaiah 30:11: let the Holy One of Israel cease from before us . Then they heap insults upon him by word: Prophesy unto us, O Christ: who is he that struck thee? And they said this in mockery, because none of them held him for a prophet; and it was not necessary: for their infamy was manifest. Hence he did not wish to say; Job 16:11: and they that revile me have struck my cheek. But Peter sat without . Here the denial of Peter is treated. Luke 22:55 reports in a different order, because he first sets forth the denial of Peter and then the mockery of Christ; but Matthew does the opposite. And there is no contradiction, because while he was being mocked, it happened simultaneously; therefore it matters not whether it is placed before or after. And it should be noted that while he was being led, he does not deny; but when he is mocked, he denies, to signify that some fear reproaches more than blows, contrary to that saying at Isaiah 51:7: fear not the reproach of men, and be not afraid of their blasphemies . And concerning this, first the denial is set forth; secondly, the repentance of Peter: and immediately the cock crew; and Peter remembered the word of Jesus . The first is divided into three, according to the three denials. The second is at and as he went out of the gate etc.; the third at and after a little while they came that stood by etc. And first the place is set forth, secondly the occasion, thirdly the denial. He says therefore: but Peter sat without , namely, outside the place where Christ was suffering: for those who distance themselves from Christ are quickly confounded; Jeremiah 17:13: O Lord, all that forsake thee shall be confounded . On the contrary, Psalm 34:6: come ye to him, and be enlightened, and your faces shall not be confounded . For he who is outside the passion of Christ easily falls. Then what excited him to deny is set forth: and there came to him a certain servant maid saying: Thou also wast with Jesus the Galilean . And the fall of Peter corresponds to the fall of the first man; Sirach 25:33: from the woman came the beginning of sin . So Peter denied Christ at the voice of a woman; in which the Lord wished to humble his presumption, because he denied not at the voice of a man, but of a woman. Thou also wast with Jesus of Nazareth . This used to be glorious for him, but now it is terrible to him, and therefore he denied: but he denied before them all, saying: I know not what thou sayest . If we wish to aggravate the guilt of Peter, we can aggravate it on three counts. It is aggravated because at once, at a slight alarm, he denied; Leviticus 26:36: the sound of a flying leaf shall terrify them . Likewise, because he was not ashamed before all. Likewise, because of the lie, since he said I know not what thou sayest , and I know not the man ; contrary to that saying at Sirach 4:24: be not ashamed to say the truth. And as he went out of the gate, another maid saw him and she saith to them that were there: This man also was with Jesus of Nazareth . And again he denied. Here the second denial is set forth. And first, the place is touched upon; secondly, what provoked it; thirdly, the denial. As to the history, according to Mark 14:66, after the first denial the cock crew, and then he went out to the gate, and the maid saw him, and he denied. But he seems contrary to the others, because others seem to say that those sitting said it; and Luke 22:55 says that one of those sitting did. What then is said here, that a maid said it? It should be noted, according to Augustine, that when he had denied, he went out: and while he was in the act of going out, the maid said to him, etc.; and then he denied; which Peter hearing, he returned inside. Then those who had heard from the maid asked the same thing. And it can be that one person, who recognized him, pressed him more urgently. And again he denied with an oath: I know not the man ; contrary to Sirach 23:9: let not thy mouth be accustomed to swearing . Then follows the third denial. And first, the time is described; secondly, what provoked it; thirdly, the denial. He says therefore: and after a little while they came that stood by . Luke says that after the space of about one hour . And the devil was arranging this, so that he would have no respite. Hence they say to him: surely thou also art one of them ; and they prove this: for even thy speech doth discover thee . But it is certain that all were Jews; how then does he say: for even thy speech doth discover thee? Jerome explains that in the same language different speech patterns often occur, as is clear in France, and Picardy, and Burgundy, and yet it is one language. So the Galileans had some difference from the Jerusalemites. So also it can be said to anyone: for even thy speech doth discover thee; because, as it says at Luke 6:45, out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh ; because when a man is carnal, he quickly breaks forth in carnal words; when spiritual, in spiritual words. Then he began to curse and to swear etc. There are some who wish to excuse Peter, saying that he did not sin; hence when he said I know not the man , it is true, a man, but a man and God. And this is not good, because it imputes a lie to Christ: for Christ had said thou shalt deny me . Therefore it is better to say that Peter lied rather than Christ. Likewise, it should be noted that he not only denied Christ but denied being a Christian. Hence in one denial he said I know him not , namely, I am not a Christian. Likewise, it should be noted that he who does not quickly withdraw goes from bad to worse; Sirach 19:1: he that contemneth small things shall fall by little and little . Hence to denial he added perjury, and to perjury blasphemy. Hence Gregory says: a sin which is not washed away by repentance soon by its own weight drags one to another. Likewise, it should be noted that the threefold temptation by which a man is tempted is signified. He is tempted by the concupiscence of the flesh; James 1:14: every man is tempted by his own concupiscence . Likewise, he is tempted by the desire of earthly things; Wisdom 14:2: for desire of gain devised that . Likewise, by demons, and this is signified by that denial in which it says after a little while they came that stood by . Ephesians 6:12: our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against principalities and powers, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places . Of these three it is found at 1 John 2:6: all that is in the world is the concupiscence of the flesh, or the concupiscence of the eyes, or the pride of life . Or otherwise, according to Augustine, it must be said that by these three denials the error of all heretics is signified. For some denied the divinity of Christ, as Photinus; others denied his humanity, as Eunomius; some denied both, as Arius, who said the Son was unequal to the Father. Likewise, according to Origen, the persecution which the Church was to endure is signified. The first was from the Jews, in which many died; the second from the Gentiles, in which many were made martyrs; the third from heretics, which led many astray, and some also died. Likewise, it should be noted that certain writings are found which seem to excuse Peter, saying that he did not sin mortally, because Bernard says: charity was put to sleep in him, not extinguished. It must be said that he sinned mortally, yet not from malice but from fear of death. And this is what Bernard meant when he said that charity was put to sleep, etc. And immediately the cock crew . Here the repentance of Peter is treated. And first, what moved him or excited him to repentance is set forth; secondly, his repentance, at and going forth he wept bitterly . Two things are touched upon by which he was stirred. First, the crowing of the cock; hence and immediately the cock crew . By the cock is signified the preacher, who rouses sinful men to repentance; hence the Apostle, 1 Corinthians 15:34: awake, you just, and sin not ; and Ephesians 5:14: rise, thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall enlighten thee . The second is the memory of Peter: and Peter remembered the word of Jesus, that he had said etc. Psalm 22:28: all the ends of the earth shall remember and shall be converted to the Lord . And these two things frequently happen at the voice of a preacher, because he who has forgotten God through sins, at the voice of the preacher returns. Of that cock it is said in Job 38:36: who gave the cock understanding? Likewise, Luke adds a third thing, because the Lord turned and looked upon Peter . The Apostle, Romans 3:24: being justified freely by his grace . Lamentations 5:21: convert us, O Lord, to thee, and we shall be converted . Afterwards the repentance of Peter is treated: and going forth he wept bitterly . And his repentance is commendable on three counts. And first, because it was prompt, because he immediately went out; Sirach 5:8: delay not to be converted to the Lord . Likewise, it was prudent, because he withdrew from the company of those who had led him to deny; and so penitents ought to avoid the occasion of sinning; 2 Corinthians 6:17: go out from among them, and be separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing, and I will receive you . Likewise, because it was efficacious and true; Jeremiah 6:26: make thee mourning as for an only son, a bitter lamentation ; Isaiah 38:15: I will recount to thee all my years in the bitterness of my soul .
27—1
Mt 27:1-26
1. And when morning was come, all the chief priests and ancients of the people took counsel against Jesus, that they might put him to death. 2. And they brought him bound and delivered him to Pontius Pilate the governor. 3. Then Judas, who betrayed him, seeing that he was condemned, repenting himself, brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and ancients, 4. Saying: I have sinned in betraying innocent blood. But they said: What is that to us? Look thou to it. 5. And casting down the pieces of silver in the temple, he departed and went and hanged himself with an halter. 6. But the chief priests having taken the pieces of silver, said: It is not lawful to put them into the corbona, because it is the price of blood. 7. And after they had consulted together, they bought with them the potter's field, to be a burying place for strangers. 8. For this cause that field was called Haceldama, that is, the field of blood, even to this day. 9. Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremias the prophet, saying: And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was prized, whom they prized of the children of Israel. 10. And they gave them unto the potter's field, as the Lord appointed to me. 11. And Jesus stood before the governor, and the governor asked him, saying: Art thou the king of the Jews? Jesus saith to him: Thou sayest it. 12. And when he was accused by the chief priests and ancients, he answered nothing. 13. Then Pilate saith to him: Dost not thou hear how great testimonies they allege against thee? 14. And he answered him to never a word, so that the governor wondered exceedingly. 15. Now upon the solemn day the governor was accustomed to release to the people one prisoner, whom they would. 16. And he had then a notorious prisoner that was called Barabbas. 17. They therefore being gathered together, Pilate said: Whom will you that I release to You: Barabbas, or Jesus that is called Christ? 18. For he knew that for envy they had delivered him. 19. And as he was sitting in the place of judgment, his wife sent to him, saying: Have thou nothing to do with that just man; for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him. 20. But the chief priests and ancients persuaded the people that they should ask Barabbas and make Jesus away. 21. And the governor answering, said to them: Whether will you of the two to be released unto you? But they said: Barabbas. 22. Pilate saith to them: What shall I do then with Jesus that is called Christ? They say all: Let him be crucified. 23. The governor said to them: Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out the more, saying: Let him be crucified. 24. And Pilate seeing that he prevailed nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, taking water washed his hands before the people, saying: I am innocent of the blood of this just man. Look you to it. 25. And the whole people answering, said: His blood be upon us and upon our children. 26. Then he released to them Barabbas: and having scourged Jesus, delivered him unto them to be crucified.
Above the evangelist narrated what Christ suffered from the Jews; here he narrates what he suffered from the Gentiles: and he does four things. First, he touches on how he was handed over to the Gentiles; secondly, how he is examined; thirdly, how he is condemned; fourthly, how he suffers. The second is at and Jesus stood before the governor etc.; the third at on the solemn day the governor was accustomed etc.; the fourth at then the soldiers of the governor taking Jesus into the hall etc. Concerning the first, two things. First, he narrates the handing over by which he was delivered into the hands of the Gentiles; secondly, the death and sin of the betrayer, at then Judas, who betrayed him, seeing that he was condemned . Concerning the first, three things. First, he assigns the motive; secondly, the manner; thirdly, the deed. The cause was the counsel taken concerning his death: and according to this he touches on three things from which their sin is aggravated. First, from their eagerness, and this he touches on when he says and when morning was come, all the chief priests held a council , because although they had been occupied all night in mockery, yet in the morning they assembled. Hence they were indeed eager; Job 24:14: the murderer riseth at the very break of day . Likewise, it is aggravated by its universality, because all the chief priests . For if it had been one, or two, it would be excusable; but all assembled; Isaiah 1:6: from the sole of the foot unto the top of the head, there is no soundness therein ; therefore he says all the chief priests ; Ezekiel 11:2: son of man, these are the men that study iniquity, and frame a most wicked counsel . Likewise, from their cruelty, because they could have considered many other things, but they considered how they might put him to death ; Proverbs 1:16: their feet run to evil, and make haste to shed blood . But how? They brought him bound . It was the custom that such men were brought bound and marked as condemned to death. And it signified that just as he destroyed our death by his death, so he destroyed the bonds of our sins by his bonds. And they delivered him to Pontius Pilate . And why? There is a threefold reason. One, the literal, was that he was the vicar of the emperor, and the Jews did not have the power of capital punishment. On account of which they say in John 18:31: it is not lawful for us to put any man to death . Likewise, from their intention: for they did not wish to kill him secretly, but publicly, so that the report would be spread abroad, according to what is found at Wisdom 2:20: let us condemn him to a most shameful death . The third reason is that because he wished to die for all, he willed that all should be gathered together, both Jews and Gentiles, so that what is said at Psalm 2:2 was fulfilled: the kings of the earth stood up, and the princes met together. Then Judas, who betrayed him, seeing that he was condemned etc. Here the repentance and death of Judas are treated. And concerning this he does two things. First, he narrates the betrayal; secondly, what was done with the price, at but the chief priests having taken the pieces of silver, said . Concerning the first, first the repentance is treated; secondly, the despair, at and casting down the pieces of silver in the temple, he departed . Concerning the first he does three things. First, the motive is set forth; secondly, the repentance; thirdly, the effect. The motive: then Judas, seeing that he was condemned, repenting himself, brought back the thirty pieces of silver . It may be that Judas believed, when he sold him, that he would not be killed but that he would be scourged; therefore seeing that he was condemned, he repented. But there is a question: when he was handed over to the governor, how could he see that he was condemned? Jerome says that he saw this with the eye of his mind, because since he saw that he was condemned by the Jews and handed over to Pilate, he thought that Pilate would judge according to their will, namely, of the Jews. Origen said that some have said: Judas seeing that he was condemned, namely, Judas himself, was moved to repentance from this. Hence repenting himself, he brought back the thirty pieces of silver . And this repentance was not true repentance; yet it had something of repentance, because repentance ought to be a middle way between hope and fear; but Judas indeed had fear and sorrow, because he grieved over his past sin, but he did not have hope. And such is the repentance of the wicked; Wisdom 5:3: repenting and groaning for anguish of spirit . And why was he led to repentance? It should be noted that Origen says that sometimes it happens that the devil impels a man to sin, and sometimes man himself does so; but in different ways, because man does so to fulfill his desire, the devil to destroy him. And if the devil put it in him, he did not have it from creation, and therefore he was able to repent. And this is against the Manichaeans, who say that there is a twofold creation, good and evil, and those who are of the evil creation cannot act well, and conversely. And according to them Judas was of the evil creation. How then could he repent? He says therefore that the fact that he despaired was only because he was negligent. Next follows the effect. The effect of repentance is that the sinner strive to make amends. He had sinned because he had sold Christ, for he had done what was in his power: therefore he brought back the thirty denarii . And first, the retraction is set forth; secondly, the repentance, at I have sinned in betraying just blood. He brought back , therefore, the thirty pieces of silver ; and in this he retracted, saying I have sinned , i.e., I have truly done wrong. But in saying in betraying just blood , although he speaks well, it is not complete, because it can be referred to a just man. Hence Jeremiah 26:15: if you put me to death, you will deliver innocent blood against yourselves . Hence Jerome says that if he had had right faith, he would not have despaired. For he ought to have said: in betraying God. In this therefore, that he said in betraying just blood , he diminished his power and showed himself not to have right faith. Then the obstinacy of the Jews is set forth: but they said: What is that to us? He was confessing that the man was just, and yet they say what is that to us? Jeremiah 8:7: my people have not known the judgment of the Lord. Look thou to it , i.e., we do not follow your conscience. Remigius: what is that to us? You first sold him, and now you confess him just. What standing have you with us, who thus change your opinion? For to change from evil to good is good: but from evil to evil is evil; Sirach 27:12: the just man stands forever, but the fool is changeable as the moon . Then the despair is set forth. For one in despair cares nothing for temporal goods; and so this man acts, because casting down the pieces of silver in the temple he departed (he had no care for the money) and went and hanged himself with a halter . Hence it is found at Acts 1:18 that he hanged himself and burst asunder in the midst . And why? Origen says that it happens that the devil hurls someone into sin, and although he gives a space of time, yet he wishes to hurl him into another. And the Apostle wished to guard against this, saying, 2 Corinthians 2:7: lest perhaps such a one be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow . So Judas came to such a depth of absorption that he went and hanged himself with a halter . Psalm 69:16: let not the deep swallow me up . Origen narrates the opinion of certain people who say that because Judas had heard talk about the resurrection, he therefore believed he would meet Christ, and so he hanged himself. Augustine asks when this happened. Because if we wish to consider, we will scarcely find a time before the passion when this could have occurred, because the chief priests were occupied the whole day with the death of Christ. Likewise, on the following day it was the Sabbath, and they would not have received money on that day. Therefore Augustine seems to hold that this happened after the resurrection. Yet it can be said that although some had gone to Pilate and were occupied with the death of Christ, yet some remained in the temple, and to these Judas handed over the thirty denarii. But the chief priests having taken the pieces of silver, said etc. He shows what was done with the money of Judas. And first, it is said how it is excluded from the treasury; secondly, on what it was spent. He says therefore: but the chief priests having taken the pieces of silver, said: It is not lawful to put them into the treasury etc. It should be noted that into the treasury was placed the offering of gratitude, or the gift of grace. Hence some offerings were voluntary, others from obligation: the voluntary ones were put into the treasury, the others elsewhere; Sirach 34:23: the Most High approveth not the gifts of the wicked. It is not lawful therefore to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood . And in this the word of the Lord is verified, above at 23:24: straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel . They did not wish to put this money into the treasury, but they readily dealt with the death of the Son of God. Then he narrates what was done with it. And first he states the deed; secondly, what came of it. He says: and after they had consulted together etc. Why did they do this? It must be said that God so arranged it, that this deed should be kept in memory. Hence they bought with them the potter's field, to be a burying place for strangers , not for those who were of the country, but for foreigners. According to the mystery, this is fitting, because through the blood of Christ not only justification was hastened, but the repose of death; Apocalypse 14:13: from henceforth now, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labors . Or it may be that the strangers are those who do not have their own dwelling there; Psalm 120:5: woe is me, that my sojourning is prolonged . But these are buried together with Christ. The Apostle, Romans 6:4: you are buried together with Christ . That field is the holy Church. Hence above at 13:44: the kingdom of heaven is like unto a treasure hidden in a field . That potter is Christ. Hence it is said at Jeremiah 18:6: as clay is in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel . Then the confirmation of the deed is set forth. And first, from the name: for this cause that field was called Haceldama, that is, the field of blood, even to this day ; namely, up to that time in which this Gospel was written. Then he confirms it from authority: then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremias the prophet . But there is a question: why does he say by Jeremias the prophet saying , because the words, as they stand there, are not written in all of Sacred Scripture. Yet something similar is found at Zechariah 11:12: they weighed my wages, thirty pieces of silver . There is therefore a question why it is attributed to Jeremias, when it was said by Zechariah. Augustine says that in some places it is found written "by the prophet" and not "by Jeremias," yet it seems that this one is Jeremias, as is found in the text. Jerome touches on the solution that the prophets wrote some books which were canonized among the Jews. Hence there are some books of the prophets which are not in the canon of the Bible, just as Jude mentions certain things in his canonical epistle, and the apostles also received all these. Hence he says that a certain person brought him a book of Jeremias where these words were written word for word, and the evangelist wrote according to what he found in the apocryphal work. Augustine resolves it thus: it sometimes happens that when one wishes to express the name of one author, the name of another comes to mind; therefore it may be that when he wished to write Zechariah, he wrote Jeremias. But there were many Jews at that time who knew the law; why did they not correct it? Because they thought it was said by divine inspiration, because all the prophets spoke by the Holy Spirit, and the words of a prophet have no efficacy except from the Holy Spirit; therefore, to insinuate this mystery, they did not correct it. Another solution which he suggests is that although they are not the words of Jeremias, yet there is a similar deed there, as is found at Jeremiah 32:6 ff., that he received the command to buy a field. Or the Holy Spirit moved Matthew to the same deed, as he had moved Jeremias. But if we wish, we can accept the words of Jerome in his book on the best kind of translation, who says that a follower of Christ does not incur any mark of falsehood: for the office of a good translator is not to consider the words but the sense. Therefore he set forth the sense of certain writings in Jeremias and certain others in Zechariah, just as it is found in Mark that he sets forth the authority of Isaiah, one part of which is from Malachi and the other from Isaiah. So also Matthew joins two passages, one of which is from Zechariah and the other from Jeremiah 32:6. For what is in Zechariah, namely, that they weighed (i.e., took) thirty pieces of silver , is not found in Jeremias; but that he bought a field, which signified a deed for the whole people. As the Lord appointed unto me : this is expressly found from the fact that he commands Jeremias, in the passage above, to buy a field. Therefore according to the first part it is found in Zechariah, and according to the second in Jeremias. And Jesus stood before the governor, and the governor asked him . Above the evangelist narrated how the Lord was delivered into the hands of the Gentiles; here he treats of the examination: and concerning this he does three things. First, he narrates how he is placed before the earthly judge; secondly, how he is examined; thirdly, how he is accused. He says therefore: so it was said concerning Judas, who had delivered Jesus to the governor. Jesus therefore stood before the governor , i.e., as one accused and about to be charged; Job 36:17: thy cause hath been judged as that of the wicked; cause and judgment thou shalt recover . For by this he merited that he should become the judge of the living and the dead. Then follows the examination; and first, the question is set forth; secondly, the response, at Jesus saith to him . The chief priests accused him of many things, namely, of subverting the law, and because he called himself king. Hence Pilate did not care to inquire about transgression of the law, but rather about what seemed to touch upon injury to majesty, namely, Art thou the king of the Jews? Because John 19:12 has: every one that maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar . Then follows the response: Jesus saith to him: Thou sayest it . Jerome says that Christ so moderates his speech that he neither affirms nor denies, but says: thou sayest it . Proverbs 17:27: he that is prudent is sparing of his words . Likewise, note according to Hilary that above at chapter 26, verse 63, when questioned by the chief priest of the Jews, if thou be the Christ the Son of God , he said thou hast said it : and he answered in the past tense; but when he answered the Gentile, he answered in the present tense. And in this it is signified that the confession of Christ from Judea is of the past, because it was made through the prophets; Jeremiah 23:5: a king shall reign, and shall be wise . But speaking to the Gentile he says thou sayest it , because the Gentile world was confessing. Next the accusation is treated. And first, the accusation is set forth; secondly, the inducement to respond, at Pilate said to him . He says therefore: and when he was accused by the chief priests, he answered nothing . On what charges he was accused, Matthew passes over in silence, but Luke says this at 23:1 ff. This is the custom of the evangelists, because what one omits, another narrates. Hence there it is said that he was seducing the crowds, etc., and that he forbade the giving of tribute to Caesar, and likewise that he called himself king. And this is false according to their intention, because they meant a temporal kingdom; but he says, John 18:36, my kingdom is not of this world . But Christ answered nothing . Then was fulfilled what was said through Isaiah 53:7: as a lamb before his shearer he shall be dumb, and shall not open his mouth . And at 42:2: his voice shall not be heard abroad. Then Pilate saith to him . From then on Pilate strove to release him, therefore he strove to make him answer; hence he said: dost not thou hear how great testimonies they allege against thee? And first, the urging is set forth: dost not thou hear etc. But he said this because he wished to release him: for they who were the accusers were the witnesses, and therefore he did not wish to respond. But why he did not respond, the reason may be on the part of Christ, because he did not wish to excuse his passion: for he could have avoided it by speaking; therefore he did not wish to speak. He was offered because it was his own will , Isaiah 53:7. Likewise, to give us an example, because when he was reviled, he did not revile in return. Likewise, because the Jews had seen so many signs that they could have been converted, and therefore he considered them unworthy; Sirach 32:6: where there is no hearing, pour not out words . And it should be noted that in many things he speaks, and in many he is silent, because if he always spoke, he would be excusing himself; likewise, if he always kept silent, he would seem obstinate. To Pilate he sometimes answers and sometimes does not; but to the Jews he never answers, because Pilate was ignorant, and therefore he sometimes told him the truth, but the Jews were obstinate. Then the astonishment of Pilate is set forth: so that the governor wondered exceedingly . And why does he wonder? Because he had heard him to be most eloquent: and this is what David says, Psalm 38:14: but I, as a deaf man, heard not; and as a dumb man not opening his mouth , i.e., as if he were ignorant. And note that he says exceedingly : for that some wise man should answer nothing is remarkable; but that in such a case, where he is being sentenced to death, he should not answer, this is exceedingly astonishing. Likewise, because he did not see him terrified: for in such a case men are usually terrified too. Then the condemnation is treated. And first, the diverse efforts of those wishing to excuse him are set forth; secondly, the efforts of those wishing to condemn him, at but the chief priests and ancients persuaded the people that they should ask for Barabbas ; thirdly, the condemnation, at then he released to them Barabbas . Concerning the first, first the effort of Pilate to free him is set forth; secondly, the effort of the chief priests to condemn him. Concerning the first, first he sets forth certain opportunities; secondly, he deals with his release; thirdly, he gives the reason. The second is at therefore, they being gathered together, Pilate said ; the third at for he knew that for envy they had delivered him . In the first he sets forth two opportunities. He says therefore: now upon the solemn day the governor was accustomed to release to the people one prisoner . This custom was not from the law of the emperor, but from his own will, so as to make the people more devoted to him: because on the solemnity they ought to be more joyful, he did not wish there to be a cause of sadness on that day. So also at Rome, on the day when the emperor made his entrance, no one was sentenced to death. Likewise, he had newly acquired the prefecture, and therefore he wished them to be devoted to him. Yet something similar is read in the Old Testament, namely, that Saul freed Jonathan, who had been sentenced to death, 1 Samuel 14:44 ff. Then he sets forth the opportunity from a certain robber who was called Barabbas, which is interpreted "son of the father," namely, of the devil; John 8:44: you are of your father the devil. Therefore they being gathered together, Pilate said: Whom will you that I release to you? Here Pilate acts contrary to the custom of the Jews, because he was not accustomed to ask them, but they used to ask him. But he did this because he sought to release him, and he seems to suggest it, because it seemed to him that they ought to prefer Christ to Barabbas; because this man was guilty of injury to majesty and had harmed many. Likewise, from the fact that he names Christ, saying or Jesus who is called Christ? For Christ means anointed. Hence he was calling him king, and therefore he believed they ought to accept Christ; Sirach 15:18: before man is life and death . So Pilate set before them good and evil; and they chose evil, and therefore evil always follows them. Then he sets forth the reason: for he knew that for envy they had delivered him . From what did he know? For he had heard many good things about him, and he saw him constant; hence he knew that for envy they had delivered him . For just as the envy of the devil was hostile to the first man, so the envy of these men was bound to be hostile to Christ. So indeed Joseph was delivered up by his brothers out of envy, Genesis 37:28. And as he was sitting in the place of judgment, his wife sent to him . Above the evangelist set forth one reason why Pilate strove to release him; here he sets forth another reason, namely, the warning of his wife. And first, the warning is set forth; secondly, the cause of the warning, at for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him. And as he was sitting in the place of judgment . As a certain Gloss says, the tribunal is the seat of judges. Proverbs 20:8: the king that sitteth on the throne of judgment scattereth away all evil with his look . Properly, the chair belongs to teachers; above at 23:2: the scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses . And it is called "tribunal" from the tribunes, because tribunes were first elected by the Romans to render judgments. And he says in the place of judgment : and this is a Greek manner of speaking. For sometimes "pro" is taken for "before"; just as, "the army is before the camp," i.e., in front of the camp. Sometimes for "in"; hence in the place of judgment , i.e., at the tribunal. His wife sent to him saying . This woman was a Gentile, and she signifies the Church of the Gentiles, which received Christ, as in 1 Corinthians 1. Have thou nothing to do with that just man , i.e., it does not pertain to you to judge him; rather, he himself ought to be your judge; Acts 10:42: who was appointed judge of the living and of the dead. For I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him . Here the cause is set forth. And the manner of speaking is this: for when someone is withdrawn from the senses, certain things appear according to the imagination, and it is customary for a vision to be referred to what appears, since there is an alienation from the senses: but this happens sometimes in waking and sometimes in sleep. When in waking, it is called a vision; hence Numbers 12:6 says: if there be among you a prophet of the Lord, I will appear to him in a vision, or I will speak to him by a dream . But here "prophet" is used for both. It should be noted that the cause of this is sometimes an intrinsic bodily one, as when blood is superabundant, there is an appearance of red things, and so with other things. Sometimes from an external cause, as from cold someone dreams he is in snow. But sometimes it happens from a spiritual cause, and this either from God through a good angel; and concerning this Job 33:15 says: by a dream in a vision by night he openeth the ears of men . And these are true and have truth; yet one should not trust in them too much; Sirach 34:7: give not thy heart to them, for dreams have led many astray . Sometimes they are caused by demons, who can impress upon the imagination, because it is a bodily power: hence divinations and things of this sort are forbidden in the law; Deuteronomy 18:10: neither let there be found among you any one that observeth dreams, or auguries etc. Concerning this vision we can say that it was made by God through good angels; or by the devil, because it was aimed at impeding the passion: because in the passion there was the sin of killing. And in this way it was done through good angels; but from the passion follows its fruit, and therefore the devil, now perceiving him to be God and fearing to lose his power through the passion, just as he had put it in the mind of Judas to betray him, so now also wished to impede it, not because he wished to impede the sin, but rather the fruit of the passion. Then the effort of the Jews wishing to kill Christ is set forth: but the chief priests and ancients persuaded the people that they should ask Barabbas . In both respects they show themselves abominable, because as chief priests they ought to have corrected others; Proverbs 17:15: he that justifieth the wicked is abominable . Similarly, because they were ancients; Daniel 13:5: iniquity came out from the ancients of the people. And the governor answering said to them . Here he sets forth the effort by which Pilate strove to release him. And first, he shows by what words he acted for his release; secondly, by what deeds, at and Pilate seeing that he prevailed nothing . In three ways he strove to free him. First, by comparison; secondly, by his dignity; thirdly, by his innocence. By comparison, because he compared him with a criminal, answering, namely, the petition of the people or of those chief priests who were instigating him: whether will you of the two to be released unto you? But they said: Barabbas . Which Peter also reproaches the people with, Acts 3:13, saying of Christ: whom you indeed delivered up and denied before the face of Pilate, when he judged he should be released. But you denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you etc. Pilate therefore saith to them: What shall I do then with Jesus who is called Christ? Here he appeals to his dignity: what shall I do with Jesus? , as if to say: it will be injurious to you if you kill him who is called Christ . But they could not be deterred: rather, they all say let him be crucified : for this was the most shameful death. Therefore what is said at Wisdom 2:20 is fulfilled: let us condemn him to a most shameful death ; Isaiah 3:8: their tongue and their devices are against the Lord. The governor said to them: Why, what evil hath he done? Here he appeals to his innocence, intending to free him, as if employing what is said at Jeremiah 2:5: what iniquity have your fathers found in me? And John 8:46: which of you shall convince me of sin? But they cried out the more, saying: Let him be crucified . Hence they could not be swayed, according to Jeremiah 8:5: they have laid hold on lying, and have refused to return . Hence they were obstinate in malice. And Pilate seeing that he prevailed nothing . Here he intends his release through a deed; and first, the deed is set forth; secondly, the obligation of the people to punishment. He says: and Pilate seeing that he prevailed nothing . By this he gives us to understand that he had said many other things, and that nothing availed. Taking water, he washed his hands . It was the custom that when someone wished to show himself innocent, he washed his hands; and so this man did; hence he said: I am innocent of the blood of this just man etc. According to this manner it is found in Psalm 26:6: I will wash my hands among the innocent . And truly he would have been innocent if he had persisted in his resolve; hence he calls him just. Look you to it , i.e., consider what ought to befall you. Hence John 18:31 says: take him you, and judge him according to your law . Then follows the offering of themselves to punishment: his blood be upon us and upon our children . And so it happened that the blood of Christ has been required of them to this day; and what was said at Genesis 4:10 well applies to them: the blood of thy brother Abel crieth to me from the earth . But the blood of Christ is more efficacious than the blood of Abel. The Apostle, Hebrews 12:24: we have the blood speaking better than that of Abel ; Jeremiah 26:15: but know ye, and understand, that if you put me to death, you shall shed innocent blood against yourselves. Then he released to them Barabbas. He released , i.e., he absolved him from the sentence of death. And having scourged Jesus, he delivered him unto them to be crucified . And why scourged? Jerome says that it was the Roman custom that one sentenced to death was first scourged. And as it is said at John 19:1, he himself scourged him; hence what is found in Psalm 38:18 is fulfilled in him: I am ready for scourges . Some say that he scourged him so that they might be moved to pity, and thus release him after the scourging.
27—2
Mt 27:27-56
27. Then the soldiers of the governor, taking Jesus into the hall, gathered together unto him the whole band. 28. And stripping him, they put a scarlet cloak about him. 29. And platting a crown of thorns, they put it upon his head, and a reed in his right hand. And bowing the knee before him, they mocked him, saying: Hail, King of the Jews. 30. And spitting upon him, they took the reed and struck his head. 31. And after they had mocked him, they took off the cloak from him and put on him his own garments and led him away to crucify him. 32. And going out, they found a man of Cyrene, named Simon: him they forced to take up his cross. 33. And they came to the place that is called Golgotha, which is the place of Calvary. 34. And they gave him wine to drink mingled with gall. And when he had tasted, he would not drink. 35. And after they had crucified him, they divided his garments, casting lots; that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying: They divided my garments among them; and upon my vesture they cast lots. 36. And they sat and watched him. 37. And they put over his head his cause written: THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS. 38. Then were crucified with him two thieves: one on the right hand and one on the left. 39. And they that passed by blasphemed him, wagging their heads, 40. And saying: Vah, thou that destroyest the temple of God and in three days dost rebuild it: save thy own self. If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross. 41. In like manner also the chief priests, with the scribes and ancients, mocking said: 42. He saved others: himself he cannot save. If he be the king of Israel, let him now come down from the cross: and we will believe him. 43. He trusted in God: let him now deliver him if he will have him. For he said: I am the Son of God. 44. And the selfsame thing the thieves also that were crucified with him reproached him with. 45. Now from the sixth hour, there was darkness over the whole earth, until the ninth hour. 46. And about the ninth hour, Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying: Eli, Eli, lamma sabacthani? That is, My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me? 47. And some that stood there and heard said: This man calleth Elias. 48. And immediately one of them running took a sponge and filled it with vinegar and put it on a reed and gave him to drink. 49. And the others said: Let be. Let us see whether Elias will come to deliver him. 50. And Jesus again crying with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. 51. And behold the veil of the temple was rent in two from the top even to the bottom: and the earth quaked and the rocks were rent. 52. And the graves were opened: and many bodies of the saints that had slept arose, 53. And coming out of the tombs after his resurrection, came into the holy city and appeared to many. 54. Now the centurion and they that were with him watching Jesus, having seen the earthquake and the things that were done, were sore afraid, saying: Indeed this was the Son of God. 55. And there were there many women afar off, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering unto him: 56. Among whom was Mary Magdalen and Mary the mother of James and Joseph and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.
After the condemnation has been treated, here the Passion and death are treated; second, the burial, at when it was evening etc. Concerning the first, he does two things. For first, he narrates what Christ suffered unworthily; second, what he did magnificently, at now from the sixth hour there was darkness . The first part is in three. In the first, he treats the mockery by the soldiers; second, the crucifixion; third, the derision of the crucified by the Jews. The second is at and after they had mocked him ; the third is at and they that passed by blasphemed him . Concerning the first, first the mockers are described; second, the mockery. He says therefore the soldiers gathered together the whole cohort . A cohort is a company of soldiers, and anyone who had judicial power had a cohort of soldiers for carrying out judgment. The praetorium is said to be the place where judgments were carried out. Hence both Gentiles and Jews were gathered together to him, so that none might be exempt, because he had to redeem all. Therefore what is found in Rom. 11:32 is fitting: God hath concluded all in unbelief, that he may have mercy on all . And in Ps. 117:10: they surrounded me like bees. And stripping him, they put a scarlet cloak about him . Here the mockery is described. And first, as to the garment; second, as to the honor; third, as to the reproach. The second is at and bowing the knee before him, they mocked him ; the third is at and going out, they found a man of Cyrene, named Simon etc. It should be noted that although they had accused him of many things, yet he was not suffering for any other reason than because he called himself king, as is found in John 19:12: if thou release this man, thou art not Caesar's friend . Hence from this cause Pilate feared more. Therefore, wishing to mock him, they impose upon him the insignia of a king. For it is the custom that kings are clothed in purple; and these, in place of this, clothed him in a scarlet garment. Likewise, kings are accustomed to have a crown; and in place of this, they made a crown of thorns. Likewise, they are accustomed to have a scepter; and in place of this, they gave him a reed. He says therefore and they put a scarlet cloak about him , i.e., a red one. But what is it that Mark says (15:17), that they clothed him in purple? Augustine resolves this by saying that he said this because of the similarity of the color. Or it can be said that although it was scarlet, yet it had something of purple. By the fact that he is stripped of his own garments and clothed in another's, heretics are reproved who said that he was not a true man. This cloak can signify the flesh of Christ stained with his own blood: he was wounded for our iniquities, he was bruised for our sins , Isa. 53:5. Or it signifies the blood of the martyrs, who washed their robes in the blood of the Lamb. Or the sin of the Gentiles. And platting a crown of thorns, they put it upon his head . Hence in place of a crown of glory, they imposed upon him a crown of reproach; Isa. 22:18: crown him with a crown of tribulation . By these thorns are signified the stings of sins, by which the conscience is wounded: and Christ accepted these for us, because he died for our sins. Or it can be referred to the curse of Adam, where it was said: thorns and thistles shall it bring forth to thee . Hence it was signified that this curse was being dissolved. And in place of a scepter, a reed in his right hand . And according to Origen, the power of the demons is signified, which Christ snatched from their hands; 4 Kings 18:21: thou trustest in this broken staff of a reed . For the vanity of the Gentiles can be signified, which Christ nevertheless assumed to himself; Ps. 2:8: ask of me, and I will give thee the Gentiles for thy inheritance . And the Gentiles are well compared to a reed, because just as a reed is carried by every wind, so the Gentiles are carried into every error. Likewise, the reed was used for writing. Likewise, for killing venomous things. So Christ draws the faithful to himself and enrolls them, but persecutors to death. Then the mock honor is treated, and they showed this in deed; hence it says and bowing the knee before him, they mocked him . And although they did this in mockery, yet it signified that every knee ought to bow before him; Phil. 2:10: in the name of Jesus every knee should bow . Hence they mocked him in word, saying to him: hail, king of the Jews . And by these are signified those who profess that they know God, but in their works they deny him , Titus 1:16. Likewise, they inflicted various insults, because they spat in his face; Isa. 50:6: I have not turned away my face from them that rebuked me and spat upon me. Likewise, they struck his head , as though he were a fool. And who are those who strike the head of Christ? The head of Christ is God, as is found in 1 Cor. 11:3. Therefore those strike the head of Christ who blaspheme the divinity of Christ. By the reed, sacred Scripture is signified. Such men confirm their error through sacred Scripture. And going out, they found a man of Cyrene, named Simon . After the mockery, the crucifixion is treated, and concerning this he does two things. First, he determines concerning the place of crucifixion; second, concerning the manner, and concerning those things which were done in that place. And first, he narrates how Christ was led to the place; second, how the cross was carried; third, how they arrived at the passion. And after they had mocked him, they stripped him , namely of the cloak with which they had clothed him. Note that he is mocked in another's garment but led in his own; by which it is signified that it was not proper to him to be mocked, but to be slain: because, as is found in Phil. 2:8, he humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death . For there his power appeared, Ps. 117:16: the right hand of the Lord hath wrought strength ; Isa. 53:7: he shall be led as a sheep to the slaughter. And going out, they found a man of Cyrene . Here the carrying of the cross is treated. And by this it is signified that he did not wish to suffer in the city, but outside. And the reason is assigned in Heb. 13:12, where it says: wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people by his own blood, suffered without the gate . It is also fitting to the figure, because, as is found in Lev. 16:19 ff., the goat which was to be immolated for sin was sent outside the camp; so also Christ, because he was the victim of the people. Likewise, for our edification, to give us to understand that we ought to go out to him beyond our own way of life; Heb. 13: bearing his reproach . Likewise, he suffered outside the gate, so that the power of the Passion would not be confined to one nation; John 11:52, he died so that he might gather together all nations into one.