Commentary on Matthew — Commentariorum Series, Matthew 26:1–75 (§§74–114)
Latin source: the anonymous late-antique Commentariorum Series in Matthaeum (Origen's now-lost Greek commentary in an old-Latin translation), from the public-domain critical text of E. Klostermann & E. Benz, GCS 38 = Origenes Werke XI (Leipzig, 1933). Sections follow Klostermann; Scripture is given in Origen's Old-Latin/Septuagint wording. This English translation is released into the public domain.[§74] And it came to pass, after Jesus had finished all these words, that he said to his disciples (26, 1).
Wishing to show that God has appointed all things in weight and number and measure, he says in a certain place to his mother: "my hour has not yet come", and again: "now my soul is troubled, and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour. But for this cause I came unto this hour", and again: "Father, the hour is come; glorify your Son, that your Son also may glorify you" — so too he appointed the hour of the passion of his Son. Therefore, even though he frequently suffered plots from the Jews, he could suffer nothing while the devil departed from him "until a time", and he could suffer nothing until he had completed all his words which he had purposed to speak to his disciples. For this reason after he had completed all these words, then he said to his disciples. And observe that he did not say simply after he had completed all the words, but he added all these, that is, the ones he had already spoken, not those he was still going to speak. For it was still fitting that he should speak yet other words before he was handed over, and, "in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper", concerning the woman coming to him; likewise also to keep the Passover with his disciples, and to convict the betrayer lurking in hiding, and to give thanks, and to hand them the bread and the cup. It was fitting too that he foretell to his disciples that they were about to be scandalized, and to Peter that before the cock crowed he would deny three times. And still it was fitting, as the hour drew near, that he pray the more, not once nor twice but three times, until the hour should come more fully.
[§75] You know that after two days the Passover will take place, and the Son of Man will be handed over to be crucified (26, 2).
If, therefore, even the hour had been determined—according to what we have said—so that he should not be handed over before all his teaching was complete, how much more had the day also been determined, on which "Christ our Passover" should be sacrificed, dissolving the Jewish Passover and handing on the new one to his disciples according to the new covenant? The month of the Passover too had to be determined; and I think the year as well, of which the prophet also spoke: "to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord and the day of salvation." He therefore foretells it to his disciples, fortifying them beforehand, so that they might not—before they had heard what was going to come about—suddenly, seeing their master handed over to the cross, be stunned with terror at the suffering befalling the Lord. For this reason he said to them: You know that after two days the Passover will take place, and the Son of Man will be handed over to be crucified. Now he does not, as some suppose, wish to say by this that after two days the day of the Passover will arrive, but that after two days the new Passover will take place. For he did not say: after two days the Passover will be or will come, so as not to point to that Passover as future which used to be kept according to the law, but the Passover will take place—that is, such as had never been made before—so that through this new Passover that ancient one might be cut away. And then he adds thus: and the Son of Man will be handed over to be crucified. And after two days the Passover took place, according to what had been prophesied by him: when he was handed over in the night and said to Judas as he kissed him: "Friend, for what purpose have you come?" But if after two days the Passover took place, that is on the fourteenth day of the moon, it is manifest that when he was saying these things it was, according to the Jews, the eleventh day of the moon, when he also expounded the parables mentioned above.
But by whom he was handed over is not written here. You may gather it, however, from the Scriptures, since the Father too handed him over, according to what is written: "who did not spare his only Son, but handed him over for us all"; but according to other Scriptures "Judas" handed him over; yet also "Satan," who "entered into Judas," handed him over; yet also "the chief priests and the elders" "handed" him over. For this reason he here put he will be handed over impersonally, not saying by whom—which word can look to all who handed him over. But they did not all hand him over with the same purpose. For God handed him over out of mercy toward the human race, he "who did not spare his only Son, but handed him over for us all." The rest, however, handed him over with a wicked purpose, each according to his own malice: Judas out of avarice, the priests out of envy, the devil out of fear, lest the human race be torn from his hand through his teaching—not noticing that the human race was more to be rescued through his death than it had been rescued through his teaching and his miracles. For he was handed over "to be crucified," so that "stripping off the principalities and powers, boldly" he might triumph over them on the wood.
[§76] Then the chief priests and the scribes and the elders of the people were gathered together into the court of the chief priest who was called Caiaphas, and they took counsel, that they might take Jesus by guile and kill him; but they said: Not on the feast day, lest perchance there be a tumult among the people (26, 3—5).
What the prophet said—"and the princes came together into one against the Lord and against his Christ"—seems then to have been fulfilled when the chief priests and the elders of the people were gathered together into the house of the chief priest "against the Lord and against his Christ"—not true priests but priests of the people, and elders not of others but of that people which was thought to be the people of God, but was in truth the people of Gomorrah, since they said: "Crucify, crucify him", and: "Take such a one away from the earth". And what Isaiah had said: "Hear the word of the Lord, you princes of Sodom; give heed to the law of God, you people of Gomorrah", fits those Jews who lay in wait, who lived in the generation of the time of Christ. And what Ezekiel says to Jerusalem: "Sodom is justified more than you", is more fittingly said to the Jerusalem over which the Lord wept than to the time of the prophet. For the princes of the people sinned worse than the men of Sodom, because, not understanding the high priest of God, they lay in wait for him; and the elders of the people, not recognizing "the firstborn of all creation" and the one older than all creatures, took counsel against him. And on account of that court (I think), in which they took counsel that they might take Jesus by guile, Jerusalem was made desolate. For it was fitting that there should no longer be a city that had acted against the founder of the whole world—a city which earlier indeed had killed "the prophets", but afterward the Lord of the prophets.
That they might take him by guile. Therefore fittingly the prophet said concerning them: "May the Lord destroy all deceitful lips". And they wished to take him by guile and to kill him, lest there be a tumult among that people which had seen Jesus doing many signs and wonders. And on this account many indeed of these were for him, who perhaps had said that "a great prophet has risen up in Israel"; but others were against him, who had said: "This man does not cast out demons except by Beelzebul the prince of demons". It was necessary, therefore, that a tumult arise when the Lord was seized, on account of the differing dispositions of the people—some loving Christ and some hating him, some believing and some not believing. For their counsel stood as though firm (although those very men who took counsel were not to stand), that he should be killed not on the feast day but on another day; namely, so that "Christ our passover" might be sacrificed, that, leaving behind the unleavened bread of the Jews, we might keep festival in the spiritual and true unleavened bread. But consider, if you can, that every word which in any way professes the doctrine of God is said to be a prince of the priests of God. But since there are many words of false teachings, as though priests of God, yet not of God but of the people that has been led astray by them, they take counsel against the one and true word of God. Yet the word of God offers itself indeed to those who lie in wait, and nonetheless rises again, unchanged and uncorrupted by them, and ascends into heaven, that it may receive those who take up their cross and follow him.
[§77] When Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper, there came to him a woman having an alabaster jar of precious ointment and poured it upon his head as he reclined. But when his disciples saw it, they were indignant, and so forth (26:6—13).
Many indeed suppose that the four evangelists have given an account of one and the same woman,
because they wrote something of this kind about a woman and all alike named an alabaster jar of ointment; but John, instead of the alabaster jar, put "a pound of ointment." But also what is said, this could have been sold and given to the poor, was said by Matthew and Mark and John; and that Christ declared that ointment to have been poured out for his burial, these too expounded; and that it happened in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, these three wrote; but John indeed said Bethany, where "they made him a supper and Martha was serving and Lazarus was one of those reclining, and Mary took a pound of ointment of pure precious nard" and so forth, from which it appears that they made a supper for him. But Luke, although he did not put Simon as a leper, nevertheless said that he was a Pharisee, who had asked Jesus "to eat with him," just as the Lord himself testifies concerning his name, saying to him there: "Simon, Simon, I have something to say to you." There seems, therefore, to be much similarity and a certain kinship concerning the woman among the four evangelists.
Yet I will say to those who think that it was one woman about whom all the evangelists wrote: Do you suppose that this woman who poured upon the head of Jesus the precious ointment, as Matthew and Mark expounded, is the same one who also "anointed his feet with myrrh," as Luke and John expounded? But it is not possible that the evangelists, in expounding about the same woman — since they were "perfected in the same understanding and in the same spirit and in the same judgment," they who were to minister the salvation of the churches — should have said things contrary to one another. But if anyone thinks that she was the one who anointed the Lord's feet with ointment in Luke and John, let him tell us whether Mary here was the very one who in Luke is written to have been "a sinner in the city," who "learning that he had reclined in the house of the Pharisee brought an alabaster jar of ointment and standing behind at his feet weeping began to wash his feet with her tears." For it is not credible that Mary whom "Jesus loved," the sister of Martha "who had chosen the better part," should be said to have been "a sinner in the city." And do you suppose that the woman who according to Matthew and Mark poured upon the head of Jesus the precious ointment is not written to have been a sinner, whereas the one who according to Luke is reported as "a sinner" did not dare to come to the head of Christ but "washed his feet with her tears" as though scarcely even worthy of his very feet, from sadness working "repentance unto stable salvation"? And the one who is in Luke weeps and sheds many tears, so as to wash the "feet" of Jesus "with her tears," whereas the one who in John is Mary is introduced neither as a sinner nor as weeping. Perhaps then someone will say that there were four women about whom the evangelists wrote; but I rather agree that there were three: one indeed about whom Matthew and Mark wrote, making no difference in their exposition in that chapter; another about whom Luke wrote; and yet another about whom John wrote, since she differs from the other women not only in the things which are written about the ointment, but because "Jesus loved" Mary and Martha — although she too is reported to have been in Bethany, just as also the woman about whom Matthew and Mark expound. There is a third difference. For Matthew indeed and Mark expound that this happened in the house of Simon the leper; but John says that "Jesus six days before the Passover came into Bethany, where Lazarus was whom Jesus had raised, and they made him a supper" — not Simon, but Mary and Martha, perhaps also Lazarus, "and Martha was serving, but Lazarus was one of those reclining." Furthermore, according to John, "six days before the Passover he came into Bethany," when also Mary and Martha "made him a supper"; but here, when also, as he reclined in the house of Simon the leper, there came to him a woman, "after two days it was to be the Passover," as was said above. It remains that someone may say: If Matthew and Mark wrote about one woman, but John about another, and Luke indeed about a third, how is it that the disciples, once rebuked by Christ in the case of one woman (as being wrongly indignant about the woman's deed), did not correct themselves, so as not to be indignant over another woman doing likewise? Therefore let him know that in Matthew and Mark the disciples are indignant out of a good intention, but in John Judas alone out of a desire to steal, whereas in Luke no one murmurs. From these things, then, and others which you yourself will be able to observe, it is certain that either the evangelists say things contrary to one another, so that some of them even lie, or (if it is impious to believe this) it is necessary to say that the evangelists did not all write about the same woman, but either about three or about four. But someone a little bolder will say: Perhaps according to the history there was some one woman who did something of this kind — suppose too a second (if you wish) and a third — yet the evangelists' chief purpose was directed toward the mysteries, and they were not much concerned to narrate according to the truth of the history, but to expound the mysteries of things which arose out of the history. For which reason they also wove in certain discourses fitting and consonant with the understandings of the mysteries.
But concerning these things, which are expounded among the four evangelists on account of the women or of the one woman (as many suppose), we have treated more carefully in expounding the Gospel according to John — those things which seemed to us, since they were similar and kindred yet as it were contrary and divergent. But now let us touch on them briefly. Reasonably, then, Luke, when he spoke of the sinful woman, introduced her weeping more abundantly, so as even to wash the feet of Jesus, and indeed not pouring on the ointment but only anointing, and not the head but the feet. But that woman, who was not accused as a sinner, did not anoint but poured out, and not upon the feet, but upon the head. But if anyone should also treat of the things written about Mary the sister of Lazarus, who likewise "anointed" the Lord's "feet," let him note for himself what is written there, that the whole "house was filled with the odor of the ointment"; which is not written of her who was said to be "a sinner," but neither about the woman of whom Matthew and Mark wrote, who was not said to have been "a sinner," is anything of this kind written, that the whole "house was filled with the odor of the ointment."
Perhaps then through the differences of these women the differences of the faithful are demonstrated, of whom some indeed pour upon the head of Jesus the precious ointment, but others anoint not the head, but the feet, while others do not pour on abundantly, but only anoint; and of those anointing, some indeed anoint with such ointment that the whole house is filled with the odor of his very divinity, while others anoint not with such indeed, yet with one likewise acceptable to Christ, since they too anoint his feet with ointment — feet which the Pharisee did not anoint even with "oil." And it was fitting that these things be done in Bethany, which is interpreted HOUSE OF OBEDIENCE, and by this woman who poured out the ointment upon the head of the Lord, not accused as "a sinner in the city," and by Mary, at whose house, when a banquet was made for Jesus, she came to him and anointed. But that the house of obedience should be understood as the Church, no one doubts. But she who in Luke was called "a sinner" was not yet worthy to be in Bethany, although she was doing penance for her sins. For she still had the less, so that afterward she might be found made in the house of obedience (as now perfected) and be called neither "a sinner" nor "weeping" and washing the Lord's "feet," but herself too pouring the ointment upon his head. But Simon too is a mystery of OBEDIENCE, since so it is interpreted, but the obedience of the letter, not of the spirit: for which reason Simon, lifted up from the letter of the law through Jesus to the spiritual law, was no longer Simon only, but was made also Peter, and in place of the Jewish edifice was held worthy of the edifice of the Church to be founded upon the rock. Jesus therefore came to be in the house of Simon indeed, of one OBEDIENT, yet a leper and still having need of cleansing from Jesus. But it was not mentioned in Luke concerning Simon that he was also a leper; I judge that he himself was a debtor of fifty denarii and had already received remission of them, because he had loved little; yet loving somewhat, "he asked him to eat with him." But there came a woman (not a sinner) according to Matthew and Mark, having an alabaster jar of precious ointment. And consider how carefully among these, who did not report a sinner, her ointment is praised as precious. But in Luke, who expounded the sinful woman, the ointment is simply named, neither precious nor "of pure nard," such that "the house" might be filled "from the odor" of it; for she could not yet have ointments of this kind, but this was a great thing, that she could anoint the Lord's feet even with "ointment." But of this woman the ointment is reported as precious, for it was not fitting that what was poured out upon the head of the Savior should be not precious.
And over the ointment indeed of the sinful woman, anointing the Lord's feet and not pouring out, neither were the disciples indignant nor did they grieve, nor did Judas say: "Why was this ointment not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor?" But over the woman in Matthew and Mark the disciples were indignant and grieved at the loss of the ointment which was running down from his head to the rest of his body. For even if that ointment could have been sold for a great price and given to the poor, nevertheless this ought not to have been done, because it was fitting that it be poured upon the head of Christ with a holy and seemly pouring. But those who strive to understand these things according to the simple text, let them say what beauty the ointment poured upon the head of Jesus praiseworthily had according to the text, that it should be poured upon the head of such and so great a master. That ointment therefore was not worthy of the poor nor fitting (as regards its own honor) that it be divided among many, but that, remaining whole, it should be poured upon the head of Jesus only. For which reason Jesus also receives the woman who had done this, and says to the indignant disciples: "Let her be, and do not be troublesome to her, for she has worked a good work in me." And to such a degree is the praise of a good work of this kind effective, that it exhorts all of us to fill the Lord's head with fragrant and rich works, so that of us too it may be said that we have done a good work upon his head; for we always indeed have (as long as we remain in this life) the poor with us and having need of care from those who have advanced in the word and have been made rich in the wisdom of God, but they cannot suffice to have always, by days and nights, with them the Son of God, the Word of God and the Wisdom and all things, whatever our Lord the Savior is.
See also what he says: she has worked a good work in me, since he did not say concerning the sinful woman anointing his feet that "she did a good work in me." But if it is also necessary to discuss what he says, she has done it to prepare me for burial, you will compare with it what is said: "we were buried together with Christ through baptism, and we rose again together with him." Consider furthermore that concerning the woman according to Luke it is not said, amen I say to you: wherever this Gospel shall be preached in the whole world, that also which she did shall be told in memory of her, but concerning the woman according to Matthew and Mark this is written. For it was just, not concerning her who had anointed the feet, but concerning this one who had poured the ointment upon the head of Jesus, that it should be said, wherever this Gospel shall be preached in the whole world, that also which she did shall be told in memory of her. If, then, we wish that of us too it may be said what we do to Jesus, pouring the precious ointment upon his head, let us advance from the anointing of his feet to pouring the precious ointment upon his head.
But what oil is and what ointment, and what ointment is that which serves for anointing the body of Christ and what for the head, is difficult indeed to explain. Nevertheless we shall attempt to show that which seems to us, knowing most certainly that oil everywhere in the scriptures is understood either as a work of mercy (by which the lamp of the word, being nourished, shines brightly) or as doctrine (by whose constant hearing the word of faith which is kindled in us is nourished and shines more brightly). Just as, then, generally everything with which one is anointed is called oil, but of oil one kind is ointment another kind is not ointment, likewise of ointment one kind is a middling ointment, another precious: so every just act is called a good work, but of a good work one kind is what we do for the sake of men or according to men, and another what is for the sake of God and according to God. Likewise this very thing, which we do for the sake of God, one kind is what serves the use of men, and another what does not serve the use of men but only the glory of God. For instance, someone does good to a man, moved by natural justice, not for the sake of God (as sometimes the Gentiles too did and as many men do), that work is common oil of no great odor, and yet it too is acceptable to God; as Daniel signifies, saying to Nebuchadnezzar, who did not know God: hear my counsel, O king, and redeem your sins with almsgivings. Something of this kind Peter too says in Clement, that the good works which are done by unbelievers in this world profit them, but not also in that world for the attaining of eternal life; and fittingly, because they too do not do them for the sake of God, but for the sake of human nature itself. But those who do them for the sake of God, that is, the faithful, it profits them not only in this world, but also in that, and rather in that.
But what the faithful do for the sake of God, this is the ointment of good odor. But this very work of the faithful for the sake of God, which is ointment, one kind is done for the benefit of men — for instance almsgivings, visitations of the sick, receptions of strangers, humility, meekness, forbearance, and other things of this kind which profit men. He who does these things toward Christians anoints the Lord's feet with ointment, because they are the Lord's feet, with which he always walks. This the penitent are especially wont to do for the remission of their sins, and that is the work which is called ointment, fragrant indeed, but not the highest. But he who is zealous for chastity, perseveres in fastings and prayers, has patience in adversities like Job, in temptations does not fear to confess the truth of God (all which things profit other men nothing, but serve only the glory of God), this is the ointment which anoints both the head of the Lord, Christ, and from there runs through the whole body of Christ, that is, through the whole Church; and this is the ointment exceedingly precious from whose odor the whole house is filled, that is, the Church of Christ; and this is the work proper not to the penitent, but to the perfect saints. Or certainly: the doctrine which is necessary to men, through which are nourished souls poor in spiritual goods or perhaps also weak in sins, this is the middling ointment with which the Lord's feet are anointed; but the knowledge of the true faith which pertains to God alone is the precious ointment with which is anointed the head of Christ, God.
[§78] Then one of the twelve, who is called Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests and said to them: What are you willing to give me, and I will hand him over to you? But they set for him thirty pieces of silver, and from then on he was seeking an opportunity to hand him over to them (26, 14—16).
Judas is interpreted CONFESSOR. Since, therefore, there are two disciples of Christ named by this name, inasmuch as Luke the evangelist counts among the twelve apostles that there were "Judas of James and Judas Iscariot," and since nothing with Christ is empty of a mystery, I judge that these two Judases were, in a mystery, figures of the Christians who confess the faith of Christ. Of these, one part indeed remains faithfully with Christ, whose mystery was Judas of James. But the other part, after it has believed and confessed the faith of Christ, on account of avarice forsakes Christ and, having become a betrayer of the very truth, passes over to heresies and to the false priests of the false Jews—that is, of pretended Christians—and hands over to them Christ (so far as it is in its power), that is, "the word of truth," so that the word of truth may be crucified and killed by them; whose mystery was Judas Iscariot, who went to the priests and bargained for a price for the betrayal of Christ. I have heard someone expounding that the homeland of the traitor Judas is called, according to the Hebrew interpretation, THE STRANGLED. And if this is so, a great fittingness is found between the name of his homeland and the manner of his own death, since he too, hanging himself with a noose, being strangled, fulfilled the prophecy of the name of his homeland. This Judas, then, to whom it was said through the prophet: "But you, a man of one mind with me, my guide and my acquaintance," fell, though he had been one of those whom Christ took up for the leadership of the Christian people. And see how that which is written, "But you shall die like men, and you shall fall like one of the princes," is referred now to that prince who fell "like lightning from heaven," now to Judas, who, chosen to the princedom of the apostolate and, as it were, established in heaven, and himself, as it were, set beforehand like lightning, fell, going into the ruin of betrayal (against the one chief of the priests, who had been made "forever" a "priest according to the order of Melchizedek") to many chief priests and adversaries of the one high priest, that he might sell for a price him who willed to redeem the whole world from the curse of the law and of all sin, and to redeem us "not with corruptible" money, "but with his own precious blood."
But let us hear what Judas said to the priests: What are you willing to give me, and I will hand him over to you? For he wished to receive money and to hand over the word of God, which all do who receive some bodily or worldly thing, that they may hand over and cast out from their soul the Savior and the word of truth which was in them. And you may fittingly use this example against all who, committing any sin whatsoever, on account of avarice and for the sake of money or of some gain, despise the word of God and, as it were, hand it over. For men of this kind seem, as it were, openly to cry out and to say to the adversary powers that furnish some gain for the sin of transgressing the word of God: What are you willing to give me, and I will hand him over to you? And even though he be handed over, it happens indeed outside of the one who hands him over: but overcoming those who seem to have received him, he works things befitting himself, so that those desiring to make him void accomplish nothing against him. But they appointed to give him thirty pieces of silver, appointing for him a giving as great as the number of years the Savior had sojourned in this world. For at thirty years of age, having been baptized, he began to preach the Gospel, having become as it were like Joseph at thirty years of age, that he might distribute grain to his brothers. For just as then that grain had been prepared by God for the sons of Israel, yet was distributed also to the Egyptians, so the Gospel had indeed been prepared for the saints, yet was preached also to the unbelieving and the unrighteous.
From then on he was seeking an opportunity to hand him over. But what sort of opportunity Judas was seeking, Luke has explained more plainly, saying: "And he was seeking an opportunity to hand him over to them without the crowd," that is, when the people was not about him, but he was apart with his disciples. And this he did, handing him over after the supper, when he was apart in the estate of Gethsemane; for Judas reckoned that the opportunity was his after the bargain which he made, when Jesus was not with the multitude. And see whether even until now this opportunity does not seem the same to the betrayers of the word of truth, who wish to betray Christ, God the Word, in the time of the persecution of Christians, when the multitude of believers is not about the word of truth and cannot hinder or restrain the persecutors, especially where few of the faithful are to be found. And since there is a time for all things, Solomon saying: "a time to give birth, and a time to die," and the rest, this is the time proper to the betrayers of the word of truth, when there are not many faithful about Christ.
[§79] Now on the first day of Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying to him: Where do you wish that we prepare for you to eat the Passover? And Jesus said: Go into the city to a certain man, and say to him, and so forth (26, 17—19).
But in Mark he speaks thus: "And on the first day of Unleavened Bread, when the Passover was being sacrificed, his disciples say to him: Where do you wish that we go and prepare for you to eat the Passover? And he sent two of his disciples, saying: Go into the city, and as you enter a man will meet you carrying a jar of water; and wherever he enters, say to the householder: The Master says: Where is my guest-chamber, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples? And he will show you a large upper room, furnished and prepared; there prepare for us".
As therefore it appears, it was one and the same day of the Passover, when it was fitting to sacrifice the Passover, and of Unleavened Bread,
when it was fitting to remove the "old leaven" and to eat unleavened bread with the flesh of the lamb. And the day of the Passover indeed was one, but of Unleavened Bread seven, the day of the Passover being of course counted together with the other six. In accordance with these things perhaps some one of the untaught, falling into Ebionism, will inquire (from the fact that Jesus celebrated the Passover after the Jewish manner corporally, as also the first day of Unleavened Bread and the Passover), saying that it is fitting that we too, as imitators of Christ, do likewise; not considering that Jesus, "when the fullness of time had come" and he had been sent, was made "of a woman", was "made" "under the law", not that he might leave those who were under the law under the law, but that he might lead them out from the law. If therefore he came for this reason, that he might lead out those who were under the law, how much more is it not fitting that those enter into the law who before had been outside the law?
Therefore we indeed go out from the letter of the law, but being established beneath the spiritual power of the law, celebrating spiritually we fulfill all things that there are commanded to be celebrated corporally. For we cast out the "old leaven" of "malice and wickedness", and "in the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth" we celebrate the Passover, with Christ feasting together with us according to the will of the lamb who says: "Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you will not have life abiding in you"; "who takes away the sin of the world" and forbids the true destroyer (the destroyer not of Egypt alone, but of the whole human race) to touch us who celebrate the festival of the Passover with him. And we ascend, with the Lord himself established with us, from the lower places to the upper place, in which is the guest-chamber, which is shown by the understanding, which is in each man the householder, to the disciples of Christ. And let this upper house be great for us, that it may hold Jesus the Word of God and wisdom and truth and peace and everything that the Son of God is, who is not held except by those great in mind. And let this house be prepared by the householder, the understanding, for the Son of God, not only in an upper place nor only great but also cleansed, in no way having the filth of malice, as if gathered together and cast out by the brooms of the law. Let this house be also in the city of God, that is, in the Church. And let the ruler of that house not be one having his name known to just any people whatever: therefore also mystically Jesus says Go to a certain man, so that those who prepare the Passover for Christ may say to him: The Master says: At your house I will keep the Passover with my disciples, and let them also announce to that householder what he says: "The Master says: Where is the guest-chamber, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples", so that that householder who prepares the guest-chamber for Jesus and his disciples may show the upper place, both furnished and prepared and great, so that Jesus, coming thither, may keep the festival with his disciples.
But I think that the man who, as the disciples entered the city, met them "carrying a jar of water", whom Jesus willed that his disciples should follow as he went into the house, who was bringing that subtle water to the house, so that it might not only be cleansed, but also more fully washed with waters, was a certain one ministering to the householder (that is, to the understanding), carrying cleansing water in an earthen vessel, "that the sublimity of power may be of God", or certainly he was supplying drinkable water in that earthen vessel, so that the Son of God indeed might furnish the produce of the vine, but that understanding, the minister, might furnish out of the law and the prophets the water that is mingled with the wine of the Gospel word. We therefore who desire to be of the Church, wishing to celebrate the Passover with Jesus, let us follow that man who carries a vessel of water of this kind, whom I think to be Moses the giver of the law, carrying spiritual doctrine in corporal histories. But those who approach the law and the prophets as to the utterances of God himself, yet do not follow spiritually him who carries the vessel of living water, do not celebrate the Passover with Jesus nor drink the cup of the new testament. But let the disciples prepare the Passover for Jesus, and after the discourses of the disciples by which they have catechized the householder (that is, the understanding), let also the divinity of the Only-begotten come, feasting together with his disciples in the aforesaid house. Yet we ought to know that those who are in worldly feastings and cares do not ascend into that upper house, nor do they see its greatness nor consider the adornment of its furnishing; therefore neither do they celebrate the Passover with Jesus nor receive the bread of blessing from him nor the cup of the new testament.
[§80] But when evening had come, he reclined at table with his disciples, and while they were eating he said: amen I say to you, that one of you will betray me (26, 20. 21).
While the disciples were eating the passover according to the commandment of the law, Jesus spoke — he who knew what was in man, and therefore had no need that anyone should give him testimony concerning man — and he spoke of Judas with the oath customary to him: amen I say to you, that one of you will betray me. For although he could from the outset have specifically pointed out the betrayer, this indeed he did not do, but said it generally, that one of you will betray me, so that by the testimony of the stricken heart the character of each one might be tested,
so that he might both show the goodness of the disciples, in that they believed the words of Christ more than their own conscience, and the malice of Judas, in that he did not believe even him who knew his own counsels, so as to be troubled or made sad — granted that at first he supposed that he lay hidden, as though from a man —
who, after he saw his own conscience … set within the very words of him, of which the first belonged to unbelief, but the second to shamelessness.
[§81] And being exceedingly saddened they began each one to say: Is it I, Lord? (26, 22).
But someone will ask: if the eleven apostles were of good conscience (since they were clean of any betrayal of their master), why were they saddened at the hearing of it, as though it could come to pass that one of them was he of whom it was spoken? But I judge that each of the disciples knew, from those things which Jesus had taught, that human nature is changeable and turnable to evil, and that in the struggle "against the principalities and powers and rulers of this world of darkness" it can come to pass that a man falls, either circumvented or having suffered force from the adversary powers to the accomplishing of evil. Considering this, therefore, each of the disciples, lest perhaps he himself were the one who had been foreknown as the betrayer, were saddened greatly, because it had been said to them: one of you will betray me, and they began to say, as though each one not knowing what was to be concerning himself: Is it I, Lord? And if it has reason that for this cause each of them, fearing, said: Is it I, Lord, then concerning all future things it must be feared by us who are weak, who have not yet received the wisdom of perfection, according to which the apostle says: "for I am confident that neither death nor life" and the rest "can separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus". But he who is not yet perfect doubts concerning himself, as though he too could fall; according to which human weakness Paul, writing to the Corinthians, said: "but I chastise my body and bring it into servitude, lest perhaps, having preached to others, I myself be made reprobate". And see: what he says, "lest perhaps, having preached to others, I myself be made reprobate", he so pronounces as one fearing, lest perhaps he too could both fall and become reprobate; but what he said, "I am confident" and the rest, is of a confident and firm man on account of his perfection, since a thousand contrary things have not the strength to separate him "from the love of Christ". But that the apostles were still weak and rightly feared is manifest from that which he says who knew the purpose of each one, that "you shall all suffer scandal in me in this night".
And that one who purposes better things is sometimes turned aside to malice, conquered in the struggle of the contrary powers, is manifest from that which is written concerning Peter: that he indeed, considering his own purpose, what disposition he had toward Christ, answered not with pretense but out of the truth of his heart (as far as concerned himself), that "if all shall be scandalized, I alone shall not be scandalized"; but the Savior, knowing that he would be weak in his promises, and that a man's brief fear was going to make him withdraw from the better purpose, said to him: "Amen I say to you that in this night, before the cock crows, you will deny me thrice". And to such as these it is not unfitting to say always: "do not glory in the Lord, for you do not know what the coming day may bring forth". And Paul likewise: "brothers", he says, "if a man be overtaken in any fault, you who are spiritual, strengthen such a one in the spirit of meekness, considering lest you too be tempted", teaching that our own outcome concerning ourselves is uncertain, although perhaps we hold the purpose of better things. But recalling all these things, that we do not know "what the coming day may bring forth" for us, we shall not be puffed up, nor be proud, nor ever glory, although we know that we have many good things; just as Paul also, when he had said concerning himself: "I am conscious of nothing in myself", adds besides: "but in this I am not justified", as one knowing that God sanctifies those whom he foreknows and calls "those whom he predestined". [§82] He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me (26, 23).
Seeing them fearful about themselves, He pointed out the betrayer by the evidence of the prophetic voice that says: "he that eateth my bread with me hath magnified his supplanting against me"; for that saying does not differ from this which He says: he that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me. And this too is to be considered: what exactly the Savior meant to teach us when He gave His disciples a sign concerning Judas the betrayer from this, that he had put his own hand into the dish together with Jesus — into which (as I suppose) they dipped the flesh as they ate the Passover. But I suppose that He said this because He wished to make manifest the greatness of his malice, since the one whom He had received at the common table and who had eaten together with Him (perhaps because in the beginning he was acting well), this very man betrayed Jesus, who was embracing him with such great honors, and became mindful neither of the same salt nor of the table nor of the bread shared in common, but transgressing all those things for the promise of thirty coins he betrayed the bestower of such great goods. And this is truly the peculiar habit of exceedingly evil men, that after salt and bread they lie in wait for people — most of all when they have been harmed in nothing by those with whom they shared bread and salt. Finally, Daniel, prophesying thus concerning certain men of this deadly and utterly evil kind, said: "at one table they shall speak lies".
But if you can understand the spiritual table and the spiritual food and the Lord's supper, with all of which he had been made worthy by Christ, you will see more abundantly the multitude of his malice, in that he betrayed the Savior, his master and fellow-partaker of the divine table and cup (and this on the day of the Passover), remembering neither in bodily goods his master's love, nor in spiritual goods his teaching always shared without grudging. Such are all those in the Church who lie in wait for their brethren, with whom they have frequently been together at the same table of the body of Christ and at the same cup of His blood. But if we must also receive the interpretation of the dish itself, let us for our part abstain from things of this kind, lest we seem to say something frigid to certain people. Nevertheless, let him who wishes to find in this too something moral consider in the law, where gifts are offered by the princes of the several tribes at the dedication of the altar, and perhaps he will understand that there too the dish is to be understood as something: "on the first day", it says, "Nahshon the son of Amminadab, prince of the tribe of Judah, offered his gift. And he offered for his gift one silver dish, its weight a hundred and thirty, and one silver bowl of seventy shekels according to the holy shekel".
[§83] And the Son of Man indeed goes, as it is written of him; but woe to that man through whom the Son of Man shall be betrayed (26, 24).
And Jesus indeed, according to what was seen, was going to suffer by the cross; but according to what he truly was, he was both going and remaining in the world with his disciples, guarding them in the faith. For they could not have remained in his faith, especially when they had seen him dead, unless their hearts had been invisibly guarded by him. And he did not say: woe to that man by whom he is betrayed but through whom he is betrayed, showing that there was another by whom he was being betrayed (that is, by the devil), while Judas himself was the minister of the betrayal. And woe not only to Judas, but to all betrayers of Christ; for whoever betrays the disciples of Christ, betrays Christ himself. Therefore they are indeed betrayed by the devil, yet through those men, and for this reason woe to them. For if the devil works all malice in men through men, then whoever is killed by someone, even if not by him yet through him has been killed. And if a judge shall have killed someone, unjustly bearing a sentence of death against someone, it must be known that he himself, by giving "place to the devil" in himself, offered himself as a minister to the devil for the killing of an innocent man. It were good for him, if that man had not been born, that is: for him it were good if he had not been born, because he had not been worthy even of this good, that he should be born. But since he had been fit, out of his own choice, that this ministry of betrayal should be accomplished through him, therefore he was born to his own harm, so that he might fall into the evil which according to his own purpose he deserved.
[§84] But Judas answered and said: Is it I, Rabbi? (26, 25)
And observe that Judas, waiting through so long a discourse of Christ about himself, did not cut off His narrative with his own response, but after all the others he answered, saying Is it I, Rabbi? — not out of any desire to learn, but according to the custom of naming his teacher he called Him teacher, as if mocking Him, because He was called teacher when He was not worthy of that title. And Jesus said to him: You have said it, so that "out of his own mouth" He might judge him, since he had spoken as if in doubt: Is it I, Rabbi. Yet he was not in doubt according to his conscience, but pretended that he doubted about this. For he did not have that very fear which the rest of the apostles had; but he, without fear, spoke as though fearing. And therefore perhaps, after the individual questionings of all the apostles and after Christ's narrative concerning him, he too at last barely asked the question, as if from a certain calculation and cunning design, so that by questioning in a manner similar to the rest of the apostles he might for the time conceal the plan of his betrayal; for true and pressing sorrow does not endure delay, just as neither did that of the apostles endure it.
[§85] But as they were eating, Jesus, taking bread and giving thanks, broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying: Take and eat, for this is my body. And taking the cup and giving thanks, he gave it to them, saying: Drink of this, all of you, for this is my blood of the new testament, which is poured out for many for the remission of sins (26, 26—28).
This bread, which the God Word confesses to be his body, is the word that nourishes souls, the word proceeding from God the Word and the bread from the heavenly bread, which is set upon the table of which it is written: "You have prepared a table in my sight against those who trouble me". And this drink, which the God Word confesses to be his blood, is the word that gives drink and gloriously inebriates the hearts of those who drink, which is in the cup of which it is written: "And how glorious is your inebriating cup!" And this drink is the offspring of the true vine, which says: "I am the true vine", and it is the blood of that grape which, cast into the winepress of the passion, brought forth this drink; just as also the bread is the word of Christ made from that wheat which, "falling into the ground", "yielded much fruit". For the God Word was not calling that visible bread which he held in his hands his body, but the word in whose mystery that bread was to be broken. Nor was he calling that visible drink his blood, but the word in whose mystery that drink was to be poured out. For what else can the body of the God Word, or his blood, be, but the word that nourishes, and the word that "gladdens the heart"? But why did he not say: This is the bread of the new testament, as he said: This is the blood of the new testament? Because the bread is the word of righteousness by eating which souls are nourished, but the drink is the word of the knowledge of Christ according to the mystery of his birth and passion. Since, therefore, the testament of God has been established toward us in the blood of the passion of Christ, so that we, believing the Son of God to have been born and to have suffered according to the flesh, may be made saved — not in righteousness, in which alone, without faith in the passion of Christ, there could be no salvation — for this reason it was said only concerning the cup: This is the cup of the testament;
[§86] Amen I say to you, that from now on I will not drink of this generation of the vine, until I drink it new with you in the kingdom of my Father.
But concerning the bread as well a similar thing is said in Luke: "With desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you. I say to you that from now on I will not eat it, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God." Therefore the Savior will eat and drink that bread and paschal drink renewed "in the kingdom of God," and he will eat and drink with his disciples. For just as "he did not deem it robbery to be equal to God, but humbled himself even unto death," so he will eat the bread and drink of the generation of the vine, and he will drink it new, and by reason of his great goodness and his love of men he will eat and drink with his disciples, "when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God and the Father." For attend to what he says: when I shall drink it new with you, at no other time, except in the kingdom of my Father. And elsewhere, moreover, "the kingdom of God is not food and drink." For in a bodily sense, and according to the likeness of present food and drink, "the kingdom of God is not food and drink" … to those who have shown themselves worthy of the heavenly bread and the bread of angels and of that food of which the Savior says: "My food is to do the will of him who sent me and to accomplish his work." But that "in the kingdom of God" we shall eat and drink, it is possible to demonstrate from many places of the Scriptures, especially from that which is written: "Blessed is he who shall eat bread in the kingdom of God." Therefore this Passover will be fulfilled "in the kingdom of God," and Jesus will eat it with his disciples and will drink; and what the Apostle says, "Let no one judge you in food and in drink and the other things which are a shadow of things to come," has a revelation directed to the future mysteries concerning spiritual foods and drinks, of which the things that had been written in the Law concerning foods and drinks were a shadow. And it is manifest that we shall eat true food and drink true drink "in the kingdom of God," building up and strengthening through them that most true life.
And as for what he says, Jesus taking bread, and similarly taking the cup, let him who is indeed a little one "in Christ" and still carnal in Christ understand it in the common way; but let the more prudent one inquire, from whom Jesus, taking it. For it is God who gives, and he receives and gives to those who are worthy to receive from God the bread and the cup. But in what way God gives bread, Jacob too signifies when he says: "If the Lord my God shall be with me, and shall give me bread to eat and clothing to wear, of all things whatsoever thou, Lord, shalt give me, I will tithe a tenth to thee." Likewise it is written in the Gospel according to John: "Not Moses gave you bread, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven." And always Jesus, when these who together with him keep the feast are eating, taking bread from the Father gives thanks, and breaks it, and gives it to his disciples according to what each one of them is able to receive, and gives it saying: Take and eat, and shows, when he nourishes them with this bread, that it is his own body, since he himself is the Word, which we have need of both now and when it shall have been fulfilled "in the kingdom of God." But now indeed it is not yet fulfilled, but then it will be fulfilled, when we too shall have been prepared to receive the full Passover, which he came to fulfill, who came not "to loose the Law but to fulfill it," and now indeed to fulfill it "as through a glass in an enigma" of the fulfillment: "but then face to face" to fulfill it, "when that which is perfect shall have come."
If therefore we too wish to receive the bread of blessing from Jesus who is accustomed to give it, let us go "into the city" into the house of a certain man where Jesus makes "the Passover with" his "disciples," those known to him preparing it for him, and let us go up to the upper part of the house, "large and spread and prepared," where, taking the cup from the Father and giving thanks, he gives it to those who have gone up with him, saying: Drink, for this is my blood of the new testament. And it is both drunk and poured out: it is drunk indeed by the disciples. But it is poured out unto the remission of the sins committed by those by whom it is drunk and poured out. But if you ask, in what way it is also poured out, consider together with this word also that which is written: "Because the love of God has been poured out in our hearts." But if the blood of the testament has been poured into our hearts unto the remission of our sins, when that drinkable blood has been poured out into our hearts, all the sins which we committed before are remitted and blotted out. But he himself who, having taken the cup, says: Drink of this, all of you, does not, when we drink, depart from us, but drinks it with us (since he himself is in each one), because we cannot, alone and without him, either eat of that bread or drink of the generation of the vine of that true vine. And do not wonder that he himself is both the bread and eats the bread with us, and he himself is also the drink of the generation of the vine and drinks with us. For the Word of God is almighty and is named by diverse appellations, and he himself is innumerable according to the multitude of his powers, since all power is one and himself.
Then he taught the disciples who had celebrated the feast with the Master and had received the bread of blessing and had eaten the body of the Word and had drunk the cup of thanksgiving, that for all these things they should say a hymn to the Father and pass from the height to the height, because the faithful man cannot at any time do anything in a low valley. For which reason they went up into the Mount of Olives, on which each olive tree, as a tree bearing fruit, can say: "But I, like a fruitful olive tree in the house of God." And those who have not yet been made like a "fruitful olive tree in the house of God," but are still "like young olive shoots round about the table" of their spiritual Father, can be on the Mount of Olives, concerning which Zechariah also prophesies. And how fittingly the mount of mercy was chosen, where he was about to foretell the scandal of the weakness of his disciples: for he did not wish it to come to pass, but foretold what was to be, being even then prepared not to drive away the disciples as they departed, but to receive them as they turned back.
[§87] Then Jesus says to them: all of you will suffer scandal because of me this night; for it is written: I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered. But after I have risen, I will go before you into Galilee (26, 31. 32).
Those who are made to stumble are not made to stumble in the day but in the night, and in that night in which Jesus is betrayed. For so too Peter, in denying, does not deny in the day but in the night, and in the night to which the light does not yet draw near; for he denies before the cock's crow. But if anyone should ask how, after so many and such great signs and wonders, and after words spoken from no lesser power (than that by which the signs and wonders had been done), the disciples are made to stumble, let him know that the discourse wishes to show through these things that, just as "no one can say the Lord Jesus except in the Holy Spirit", so no one can be without scandal apart from the Holy Spirit. But at the time when that was being fulfilled which Jesus had said: all of you will suffer scandal this night, "the Holy Spirit was not yet, because Jesus had not yet been glorified". But we, after we have confessed the Lord Jesus in the Holy Spirit, since "those who are led by the Spirit of God, these are the sons of God", if after the Holy Spirit we suffer scandal or deny, we will have no place of excuse, as though made to stumble without the Holy Spirit or denying without the Holy Spirit. And they indeed were made to stumble as still remaining in the night, but for us now "the night is far advanced, and the day has drawn near", on account of which "let us walk honorably as in the day". But he who walks honorably is in the light, and he who is in the light does not deny Christ, because he is not in the night. And furthermore, for this reason those men were made to stumble in the night (as the Lord himself testifies), because according to the Scripture, for us all, the Father "did not spare his only Son, but handed him over for us" to the passion, so that for a little while the sheep of the flock, having suffered scandal, might be scattered, but after this be gathered together by Christ rising and going before them into Galilee — those who have wished to follow him into Galilee of the Gentiles, that "the people who were sitting in darkness may see a great light, and upon those who were sitting in the region and shadow of death may a light arise".
[§88] But Peter answered and said to him: Even if all shall be made to stumble, I will never be made to stumble. And Jesus said to him: Amen I say to you, that on this night, before the cock crows, you will deny me three times. Peter says to him: Even if it should be for me to die with you, I will not deny you. And likewise all the disciples said the same (26, 33—35).
The Apostle says in the epistle to the Romans: "But let God be true, and every man a liar, as it is written" — not commanding that every man become a liar, but declaring that he is a liar, from the Psalm which says: "I said in the excess of my mind: every man is a liar". But here Peter, hearing the Savior say "you shall all suffer stumbling in me this night", was professing to make our Lord a liar through those words which, confident in himself, he spoke: if all shall be made to stumble, I will not be made to stumble, not considering that he who said: "I am the truth" could not lie. On this account (as I judge) all the disciples indeed were made to stumble only in Jesus, but Peter, who supposed that the truth could be made a liar, was not only made to stumble, but was even abandoned on account of his bold promise, and, alongside his stumbling, he also denied.
And because he spoke not only inconsiderately but almost impiously: even if all shall be made to stumble in you, I will not be made to stumble, and, not reflecting on the slippery nature of humanity, uttered a great word, therefore he was not abandoned only for a little, so that even if he denied, he would deny but once. But he is abandoned more abundantly, so that he denied three times, that the boldness of his promise might be exposed — through a single maidservant both asking him this very thing and saying: "you too were with Jesus the Galilean" …, and he denied "before all, saying: I do not know what you are saying", and again he denied not simply but "with an oath", and a third time not only with an oath but with a curse: "for I do not know the man". And through this we are instructed never to promise anything without reflection concerning our human condition, as though we were able to fulfill the confession of Christ from ourselves, or anything of God's precepts, since the Apostle admonishes us and says: "do not be high-minded, but fear". For he ought, after he heard "you shall all suffer stumbling this night", to have entreated the Lord and said: even if all shall be made to stumble in you, be in me, that I be not made to stumble; and: grant me especially this grace, that at the time when all your disciples shall have suffered stumbling, I may not fall into denial nor be made to stumble from the beginning. For if he had entreated, perhaps, once the maidservants and the other servants had been removed from him, he would not have denied; for it could not come to pass that, when the questioning had been made, he could have said "the Lord Jesus" "in the Holy Spirit" or have confessed, since "the Holy Spirit had not yet been given".
But you will ask whether it was possible that he should not even once be made to stumble, since the Savior says: "you shall all suffer stumbling in me". To which question someone will answer that it was necessary, since a most truthful mouth foretold that "all of you" will be made to stumble, that what had been foretold by Jesus should come to pass. But another will say that he who, entreated by the Ninevites, did not do what he had foretold through Jonah (on account of the repentance of the Ninevites), to him it was possible to repel the stumbling even from Peter, had he entreated him. But as it is, his bold promise, made indeed from a ready but not prudent disposition, became for him the cause not only that he was made to stumble but that he even denied three times. You will ask further, whether, after he heard Jesus saying: amen I say to you, before the cock crows on this night, you will deny me three times, if he had not added: even if it should be for me to die with you, I will not deny you, but had instead entreated that the denial foreknown of him be repelled from him, whether perhaps he would not have denied. And someone indeed says that Peter's entreaty had room, when he had said: "you shall all suffer stumbling in me", to receive help so that he might not be made to stumble; for it had not been said with an "amen": "you shall all suffer stumbling". But after he pronounced it with the affirmation of an oath, it was not possible that he should not deny. For if Christ's amen was an oath, he would have lied in saying: amen I say to you, if Peter had spoken the truth that I will not deny you.
But the rest of the disciples of Jesus seem to me, with foresight and reflection (in that it had first been said "you shall all suffer stumbling in me this night"), to have said nothing and made no profession as though they were not to be made to stumble; for they saw that Jesus was truthful in foretelling these things. But to this which was said to Peter alone, amen I say to you, before the cock crows, you will deny me three times, they promised likewise with Peter: even if it should be for us to die with you, we will not deny you. This Peter indeed did unfittingly, after Christ's prophecy concerning him that he would deny three times before the cock's crowing; but the rest, as those who were not included in that prophecy nor held bound in the things which had been said to Peter, answered with a promise, not desiring by their promises to make the Lord a liar, as Peter wished to do. For just as, when he had been transfigured on the high mountain, when Moses and Elijah appeared in glory together with Jesus, he said: "do you wish that we make here three tabernacles, one for you and one for Moses and one for Elijah? not knowing what he was saying", (as the Scripture testifies concerning him), so also here, "not knowing what he was saying", he said: even if it should be for me to die with you, I will not deny you. For to die with Jesus, who was dying for us all, that we might live, did not belong to men, since all had been in sins and all had need that another should die for them, not they themselves for others.
[§89] Then Jesus came with them to an estate called Gethsemane (26, 36).
To one who knows the interpretation of Hebrew names, even the name of this estate which is called Gethsemane is of use for making this place clear, since it is not without reason that the name of the estate too is set down in Matthew and in Mark. But we, passing that over, suggest only this: how Jesus came with his disciples to this estate which is called Gethsemane, taking them out of that place in which he had eaten the Passover with them. For it was not fitting that, when he was being betrayed, he should be seized from that place where he had eaten the Passover with the disciples. But it was fitting also that, before he was betrayed, he should pray and, for praying, should choose a clean place for the prayer; for he knew that, just as air differs from purer air, so does the earth of a holy place differ from that of a holier one, as it is written: "the place in which you stand is holy ground". And you will ask whether, besides the disposition of the one praying, the prayer also becomes cleaner and more acceptable from the place of prayer in which one prays, according to what is written: "my house shall be called a house of prayer", concerning which it is also said elsewhere: "and he heard my voice from his holy temple". And a man of the Jews indeed does not even doubt about such a thing; but he who, because of the teaching of Christ, has withdrawn from "Jewish fables" and from all things that are understood by them in a bodily way, will say that a prayer does not become different from another prayer on account of the place, but rather because it is better to pray with no one than to pray with wicked men. And for the demonstration of this tradition he will use the example that Jesus, in the house of Jairus the priest, being about to pray for his dead daughter, "cast them all outside" and chose only three with him, who had also on the mountain been made witnesses of his transfiguration. For on account of this, in the churches of Christ too, such a custom has held, that those who are manifest in great offenses are cast out from the common prayer, lest a "little leaven" that is not "from a clean heart" of those praying corrupt the whole lump of unity and of concord.
But this meaning also has something that may justly be objected to those who do not understand as they ought, taking occasion to say to their neighbor: "do not draw near to me, for I am clean". Which the Pharisee also did toward the publican who stood far off and beat his breast and said: "Lord, be merciful to me a sinner". Therefore we ought to do this with measure, so that we neither pray with the unworthy for the honor of prayer (according to him who said: "if two of you agree together upon one thing, concerning whatever they ask, it shall be done for them"), nor despise our inferiors, setting ourselves before them through the lapse of boasting (according to him who said: "he who exalts himself shall be humbled"). And these things we have treated on account of what was said: sit here, while I go over there to pray.
[§90] And taking with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, he began to be sorrowful and heavy, or as Mark explains it, "he began to be afraid and heavy". Now these same disciples he had also taken up onto the mountain when he was to be transfigured, and to the daughter of Jairus the priest. And I ask whether perhaps he saw something more secret, in the time before he suffered, when Jesus, going to that place, wished to pray. For perhaps he saw standing near him "the kings of the earth and the princes" gathered "together against the Lord and against" him, "his Christ". And on this account, as though those many were set against him and mighty in wickedness, he began to be sorrowful and heavy, or even "to be afraid". And consider that he did not say: he was sorrowful and heavy, but: he began to be sorrowful and heavy. For there is a great difference between being sorrowful and beginning to be sorrowful. If therefore someone, in defense of human passions, brings forward to us that Jesus himself also was made sorrowful, let him hear that he who "was tempted in all things after our likeness, apart from sin", this one was not made sorrowful with the sorrow of that passion itself, but according to his human nature was brought only to the very beginning of sorrow and fear, that he might show to his disciples who were present (especially to Peter, who thought great things of himself) by these very facts what he also afterward said to them, that "the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak", and that one must never at any time trust in it but always be fearful concerning it; since incautious confidence leads to boastfulness, whereas fear of one's weakness exhorts us to flee to the help of God, just as it also urged the Lord himself to go forward a little and to fall on his face and to pray. Therefore he began indeed to be sorrowful and heavy according to his human nature, which is subject to such passions, but not according to his divine power, which is far removed from a passion of this kind.
And these things we say concerning Jesus, that you may not suppose, as certain heresies do, that he was a man, but that God took upon himself the true nature of a human body,
he who "was able to suffer together with our weaknesses", since he too was encompassed with the weak nature of a human body, "in like manner himself also partaking" of body and blood, since the children too (of whom he says: "behold, I and the children whom God has given me") "partake of flesh and blood". Seeing therefore the contest pressing upon him, which was for him not "against flesh and blood" but against so many "kings of the earth" standing near "and princes" gathered "together against" him as never before, he began "to be afraid" or to be sorrowful, suffering nothing more of sorrow or fear than only the beginning. For it is not written that he was afraid or was made sorrowful, but "he began to be afraid" and he began to be sorrowful, when he also said: my soul is sorrowful even unto death. This very thing seems to signify something of this sort, as if he were to say: sorrow has been begun in me, so that I am not altogether without a taste of sorrow; it is not always but only unto the time of death that it is in me, so that when I have died to sin, I may die also to all sorrow, of which there was in me only the beginning.
[§91] Wait here, and watch with me; as if to say: although I told the other disciples, sit here, while I go over there to pray, and brought you three this far, I do not want you to advance further, for you are not yet able to. For this reason remain here watching, just as I too watch, knowing that I have indeed commanded the rest to sit there as those who are lesser, keeping them safe from this struggle, while I have brought you as those who are stronger, that "you may labor together with me in watchings and prayers". Yet you too remain here, so that each one may stand in the degree of his own calling, since even every grace (however great it may be) has also one above it. And that this is what he means when he says: remain here, is evident from what is said in what follows: but going forward a little he fell upon his face. Therefore let us remain where Jesus commands, according to what the Apostle also enjoins: "let each one, in whatever calling he was called, in this remain with God", so that we may do everything in order to watch together with him who "neither sleeps nor slumbers, keeping Israel". And he brought them to this, especially Peter who trusted greatly in himself, that they might see and hear where man's ability lies and how it is obtained. Let them indeed see him falling upon his face, and let them hear him saying: Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me, and let them learn not to be highminded about themselves but to esteem lowly things, and not to be swift to promise but careful to pray. Therefore he also led those who seemed more faithful and strong like Peter, in whom likewise boasting could easily find a place because of their confidence in their faith; but the ordinary ones (as far as the danger of boasting is concerned, I mean) are protected by that very smallness of their faith.
[§92] And going forward a little he fell upon his face praying and saying: Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me. He who said: "learn from me, for I am meek and lowly in heart", humbling himself in a praiseworthy manner, now also falls upon his face praying, and still more afterward humbles himself, "having become obedient unto death"; for the price of exaltation is humility, since indeed no one is exalted by God except him who shall have humbled himself for God's sake. And he falls upon his face praying having gone forward not much but a little from his three disciples who remained with him; for he did not wish to become far from them, but, stationed near them, to pray. And he who says, praying: if it be possible, let this cup pass from me, manifesting in his prayer his devotion, as a "beloved son" and one conforming to the dispositions of the Father, added: but not as I will, but as thou wilt, teaching that we should not pray that our own will be done but God's, whenever it happens that we will something other than God does. Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; but not as I will, but as thou wilt. Just as he began to be afraid and to be sorrowful, so according to that he also prays that the cup of the passion pass from him; but not as he himself wills, but as the Father wills. For taking upon himself the nature of human flesh, he fulfilled all its properties, so that he might not be thought to have had flesh in appearance, but in truth; according to which in this place he prays that the cup of the passion pass from him, but not as he himself wills, but as the Father wills: since it is proper to every faithful man, first indeed not to wish to suffer any pain, especially that which leads even unto death, because he is a man of flesh, but if God should so will, to acquiesce even against his own will, because he is faithful, lest he seem to despair in himself more than to hope in God. For just as we ought not to be over-confident, lest we seem to profess our own strength, so we ought not to act too faint-heartedly and to be distrustful, lest we seem to pronounce the powerlessness of God our helper. This will, therefore, which he speaks: if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; but not as I will, but as thou wilt, is not according to his divine and impassible substance, but according to his human and weak nature. But another interpretation of this place is such: that, as the "son of the love" of God, according to his foreknowledge indeed he loved those who from among the Gentiles were going to believe; but the Jews, as the seed of the holy fathers, "whose is the adoption and the glory and the covenants and the promises", he loved as branches of the good olive tree. And loving them he saw what things they were going to suffer, seeking him unto death and choosing Barabbas unto life; therefore, grieving over them, he said: Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; and again recalling his desire and seeing how great a benefit of the whole world was going to come about through his passion, he said: but not as I will, but as thou wilt. He saw still that on account of that cup of the passion even Judas, who was one of the twelve, would be a son of perdition; and again he understood that through that cup of the passion the principalities and powers were to be triumphed over in his body. On account of these, therefore, whom in his passion he did not wish to perish, he said: Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; but on account of the salvation of the whole human race, which through his death was to be gained for God, he said, as if reconsidering: but not as I will, but as thou wilt, that is: if it be possible, that without my passion all those good things may come forth which are to come forth through my passion, let this passion pass from me, so that both the world may be saved and the Jews may not perish in my passion. But if without the perdition of certain many the salvation cannot be brought in, as pertains to thy justice, let it not pass as I will, but as thou wilt. As if he should say: this indeed is my will, but since thy will is far more eminent (as of the unbegotten God, as of the Father of all), for this reason I rather will thy will to be done than mine.
But this cup of the passion which is drunk Scripture names in many places, especially that which is properly drunk by the martyrs, as it is there: "what shall I render to the Lord for all the things which he has rendered to me? I will receive the cup of salvation, and I will call upon the name of the Lord". If therefore the cup of salvation is the cup of martyrdom, it is necessary that we preserve that cup, drinking the whole of it, because it is the cup of salvation, so that we pour out nothing of it. He therefore drinks the whole cup who suffers for the testimony whatever shall have been brought upon him; but he pours it out as he receives it who, called to martyrdom, denies lest he suffer anything. There is also another kind of "inebriating cup", which one drinks after he shall have eaten the "table" prepared for him by God "against those who trouble" the just man.
But it is to be noted that Mark indeed and Luke wrote this very thing, who also set forth Jesus as tempted by the devil; but John indeed sets forth the passion in the same manner as the others, yet does not bring in Jesus praying that the cup might pass from him, just as neither does he set forth Jesus as tempted by the devil. And I judge this to be the reason: that these indeed set forth concerning him more according to his human nature than according to the divine, but John more according to the divine than according to the human (for this reason, because according to the human nature he was tempted, but the divinity was untemptable). Therefore three evangelists indeed set forth him as tempted, but John, according to what he had begun: "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word", knows not that God the Word can be tempted. So also here these three indeed reported that Jesus asked of the Father that the cup might pass from him, since it was also proper to man (so far as pertains to the weakness of the flesh) to wish to escape the passion, but John, having as his purpose to set forth Jesus as God the Word, knowing that he himself is "the life and the resurrection", knows not that the impassible God flees from the passion.
[§93] And he came to his disciples and found them sleeping, and he says to Peter: so you were not able to keep watch with me for one hour? Watch and pray, that you may not enter into temptation (26, 40. 41).
As long indeed as Jesus was present with his disciples they did not sleep, but when he had gone forward a little from them they could not keep watch for even one hour in his absence. For which reason let us pray that Jesus may never at any time go forward even a little from us, but may fulfill in us what he promised, saying: "behold, I will be with you all the days even to the consummation of the age". For thus we shall keep watch, as he shakes off sleep from our soul, without which it is not possible to fulfill the commandment that says: "give not sleep to your eyes, nor slumber to your eyelids, that you may escape like a roe from the nets and like a bird from the snare". Yet, coming to the disciples and finding them sleeping, he rouses them by his word to hear, so that now, as though to those hearing, he may say what he says: so you were not able to keep watch with me for one hour. And he commands them to watch, so that watching we may pray. And he watches who does good works, he watches who acts carefully concerning the truth of the faith, lest he fall into some dark doctrine. For he who thus watches and prays, his prayer is heard; for this is what he signifies when he says: watch and pray, namely that first we should watch and thus, watching, pray. that you may not enter into temptation: this (according to what many understand) is such as if he were to say: that you may not be tempted; but if it so please God, submit to God, just as you heard me praying. But consider whether it is possible to understand it rather in this way, since our very life "is a temptation" according to Job; and to enter into temptation or to come into temptation is to fall into temptation and to be overcome by it. And I think that no one comes to Jesus and into temptation at the same time; but if indeed he comes to Jesus, he does not come into temptation, but if he comes into temptation, he does not come to Jesus. For no one comes to Jesus except him whom the Father draws to Jesus, that he may be raised up by him. Therefore we come to Jesus, so that even if the tempter has pursued us and evils have come from him, we may not be seized by them, as it is written: "evils shall pursue you and shall not overtake you". But to the sinner it is said, correspondingly: "evils shall pursue you and shall overtake you".
[§94] The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak, just as your spirit too, O Peter, was willing to make a promise, but your flesh will be weak when it comes to confessing. But this must be considered: whether just as the flesh of all human beings is weak, so the spirit of all is willing, or whether, though the flesh of all human beings is indeed weak, yet the spirit of all human beings is not willing, but only that of the saints. Therefore it is to the apostles alone, or to those who are found to be like them, that he says, the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak; but of unbelievers both the spirit is sluggish and the flesh is weak. If, then, it holds that Christ says this only to the saints, he prompts us to inquire, since there is a weak flesh also in another sense — yet only of those whose spirit is willing. For I say that the flesh is weak of that man who has no sin nor a strong wisdom of the flesh but a defective one, who with a willing spirit has mortified the "works of the flesh" and reduced the wisdom of the flesh to nothing, so that he may "always carry about the death of Christ in his body", the spirit evidently prevailing in its desires against the desires of the flesh, since "the flesh lusts against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh". And "these" things in the imperfect indeed "are opposed to one another", but in the perfect the flesh no longer opposes, but has been mortified, and the wisdom of the flesh has been weakened in the flesh, and its desire has been extinguished; but in it the wisdom of the spirit lives, lives and works. Of which weakness the Lord too says to the apostle, that "strength is made perfect in weakness", that is, in the weakness of the flesh and of its wisdom. On account of which the Apostle says: "for when I am weak, then am I strong"; for then each one of us becomes strong, when his own flesh has been weakened, so that it does not accomplish the "works of the flesh", but the strength of Christ dwells in it. Whence he said: "so I fight, indeed", and "I chastise my body and bring it into servitude", since by many chastisements a man makes his flesh weak, advancing in spirit and mortifying the "works of the flesh". This, then, is what he wishes to say to his disciples according to that tradition: "watch and pray, that you enter not into temptation" — you whose spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak; for he who is more spiritual and more perfect ought to be the more anxious, lest his great good have a grievous fall.
[§95] Again going away, Jesus prayed, saying: My Father, if this cannot pass from me unless I drink it, let your will be done (26, 42).
Now, however, he asks that the cup pass from him, and if not in that way—as he himself had willed—that it pass in the way the Father wills. Here now we shall expound according to what we are able to understand, so that together with this we may seem to have expounded also what precedes. For I judge that that cup of the passion was indeed altogether going to pass from Jesus, but with a difference: namely, that if he should drink it, it would afterward pass both from himself and from the whole race of men; but if he should not drink it, it would perhaps pass from himself, yet would not pass from men, but would remain with them until it should bring them to completion. This cup of the passion, therefore, he wished principally to pass from him in such a way that he should not taste its bitterness at all, if indeed this were possible as regards the justice of God. For when he said "if it is possible" he was not referring to the power of God alone but also to his justice: since as regards the power of God all things are possible, whether just or unjust, but as regards his justice—for he is not only powerful but also just—not all things are possible, but those alone which are just. But if it could not come to pass, he preferred that he should drink it and so it should pass from him and from the whole race of men, rather than that he should act against the Father's will by shunning the drinking of it. Therefore, for the sake of the good outcome that was to follow after the bitterness of the cup was drunk, he prays a second time, saying: My Father, if it is not possible for it to pass unless I drink it, let your will be done.
It is clear, then, that he wished to drink it. For by comparison it was better that it should pass because of his drinking of it than that it should not pass because he had not drunk it. For suppose the Lord had not drunk that cup and for this reason it had not passed from him: without doubt neither would the spirits working sins have passed from the human race, and fittingly neither would the penalties have passed which were owed for the sins. Therefore it was expedient for all that the cup should pass from him, because the Savior drank it, so that all of us who believe in him who drank it may not drink that cup "of unmixed wine", which gives to drink and is going to give to drink to "all the nations", so that those drinking it "may become drunk and vomit, and cease to rage". For just as "he died for us all", so that the death hostile to Christ might pass us by, so for us all (who were "debtors", bound to drink forever) he drank that cup, so that by this very thing—that the cup passes from him—it might pass also from us who do not drink it. Concerning this cup Jeremiah says: "The Lord God of Israel said to me: Take this cup of unmixed wine from my hand, and you shall give it to drink to all the nations to which I send you, and they shall drink and vomit and cease to rage before the sword which I send into the midst of them". Those, therefore, who hear the Lord and live according to his word and are cleansed through faith in him, no longer have need of that cleansing which comes about through that cup of wrath. For just as those who have been washed have no need to be washed, because they are clean (because they are Christ's disciples), so those who are not clean have need of that cup, the Lord exhorting them: "Drink and be drunk and vomit". For hear how Jeremiah speaks (or rather God in Jeremiah), exhorting those who have need of such a cup, since they ought willingly to drink it who have need of such a cleansing. And since God says these things exhorting them to drink, consider what he says further below: "And it shall be", he says, "when they are unwilling to receive the cup from your hand to drink, you shall say to them: Thus says the Lord of hosts: Drinking you shall drink, for in the city upon which my name has been invoked, upon it I will begin to bring evils, and you shall be cleansed with cleansing".
But observe that after the first prayer "he came to the disciples and found them sleeping", and likewise after the second coming he found them sleeping, for their eyes were heavy—but I think not so much the eyes of their bodies as of their souls. For as yet he had not removed from the eyes of his disciples the burden laid upon them, "for he had not yet been glorified". And just as "the Holy Spirit was not yet, because Jesus had not yet been glorified", so their eyes had not yet been unveiled from the burden "because Jesus had not yet been glorified". Whence he does not rebuke them, but going away again a third time he prayed the same thing, teaching us also through this very thing, that we should not fail in prayer but should persevere in that very word of prayer, until we obtain those things which we have already begun to ask.
[§96] And then, coming, he said to his disciples: sleep now and rest; behold, the hour has drawn near, and the Son of Man will be handed over into the hands of sinners. Rise, let us go; behold, he who will betray me has drawn near (26, 45. 46). Then — without doubt after the third prayer. But that sleep, which he now orders his disciples to sleep, is not the same as the one that is written above to have twice befallen the disciples. For there he "found them sleeping" but not also resting, and "again he found them sleeping" with their eyes weighed down; but now he commands them not simply to sleep, but with rest. For to sleep and rest according to the command of Christ differs greatly from a sleeping against the will of him who says: "remain here and keep watch with me" and who reproaches them on account of their sleep and says: "so, could you not watch one hour with me?" Therefore he did not say things contrary to himself when he said there: "watch with me", and here: sleep and rest, but so that the order might be preserved: that first indeed we should watch, praying that we may not enter into temptation, and afterward that we should sleep and rest according to Christ's command.
Which sleep Solomon too sets down in a promise to those who live well, saying in his Proverbs: "for if you sit down, you will be without fear; but if you sleep, you will sleep sweetly, and you will not fear a terror that comes upon you nor the assaults of the impious rushing in". And David, knowing the diverse watchings and sleepings, "swore to the Lord and vowed a vow to the God of Jacob": not to go up onto the couch of his bed nor to give sleep to his eyes nor slumber to his eyelids, and to do this for so long, until he should find "a place for the Lord, a tabernacle for the God of Jacob", so that when he has found a place for the Lord, he may go up onto the couch of his bed and give sleep to his eyes as they renew themselves and, after rest, prepare themselves for a new and more divine rising up, according to what is wont to happen to bodily men after natural and healthy sleep. But perhaps also the soul, not being able always to bear labors inasmuch as it is created and incarnate and not sufficient to preserve the good without interruption, will obtain relaxations without any blame, which morally are called sleeps and slumbers, so that, having relaxation up to some little space of time, it may rise renewed and be raised again. But whether this will be forever or not, let him who is able inquire more abundantly concerning such things — both to inquire and to understand from the divine Scriptures and to declare it without danger.
[§97] Behold, the hour has drawn near, and the Son of Man will be betrayed into the hands of sinners. On account of this hour, I think, he also said to his mother: "My hour has not yet come". For here too he teaches that the approaching hour was bringing this about, that the Son of Man should be betrayed into the hands of sinners. Would that Jesus had then been betrayed into the hands of those sinners only! But as it is, I think that Jesus is always betrayed into the hands of sinners, whenever those who seem to believe in Jesus have Jesus in their hands while being sinners. But also, as often as a righteous man who has Jesus within himself is brought into the power of sinners who do to him what they can, Jesus is betrayed into the hands of sinners.
[§98] Rise, let us go; behold, he who will betray me has drawn near. After he had roused them from that sleep of which we have spoken, he consequently says to his disciples: Rise, let us go. And seeing in the spirit Judas approaching for the betrayal, who was not yet visible to his disciples, he says: Behold, he who will betray me has drawn near. But I think that behold, he has drawn near to me and behold, he who will betray me has drawn near are not one and the same thing; for his betrayer was not drawing near to Jesus himself (he who had removed himself far from Jesus by his sins and by the giving-up by which he had resolved to betray him), but he had drawn near to betraying the Son of God, whom he had already given up. But indeed all transgressors first give up Jesus, and afterwards betray him.
[§99] And while he was still speaking, behold, Judas, one of the twelve, came, and with him a great crowd with swords and clubs, sent from the chief priests and the elders of the people (26, 47). But someone will also ask the reason why a great crowd was gathered with swords and clubs against him; and this great crowd was, according to John, a cohort of soldiers and attendants dispatched by the chief priests. And someone may say that, because of the multitude of those from among the people who had already believed in him, they came against him in such numbers, fearing lest the great multitude of believers should snatch him out of their hands. But I think there was also another reason for the multitude gathered against him: that those who supposed he was accustomed to cast out demons by Beelzebul imagined that by certain sorcerous and magical arts he could escape from the midst of those wishing to hold him. And perhaps some of them had heard how once, when he was already about to be hurled down from the brow of the mountain, he escaped the hands of those already holding him, not by a simple and human flight but by some other means beyond human nature. For this very reason also, in Mark, Judas said to the crowd that was coming with him with swords and clubs: "whomever I shall have kissed, that is he; hold him and lead him away carefully"; for in saying "lead him away carefully" he seems to have spoken maliciously and with a hidden meaning, as if to say: unless you hold him carefully and lead him away, he will escape you when he wishes. And they, hearing this according to Judas's estimation—as though it were not by his Father's divinity that he was helped to do this or many other things—did everything so as to hold and guard him carefully. There are many now also who wage war against Jesus with spiritual swords of malignant spirits and likewise with clubs, just as those men did; over whose snares Jesus becomes altogether superior, although for a time he takes their assaults upon himself, that the sins of those plotting against him may be filled up and the malice of their will against the truth of the only-begotten Word of God may be made manifest. And those who thus wage war against Jesus with swords and clubs, coming with various and diverse doctrines about God, lie in wait for Jesus deliberately. But there are also those who, dispatched by the elders of their own impious people, wage war against the word of truth, which is in Jesus. [§100] But the one who betrayed him gave them a sign, saying: whomever I shall kiss, that is he, hold him fast. And immediately approaching Jesus he said: hail Rabbi, and he kissed him. But Jesus said to him: friend, to what have you come? (26, 48—50ᵃ).
It is worth inquiring for what cause, when Jesus had taught openly through every city and village and synagogue, preaching the word of the Gospel (so that his fame went out into the whole region), and had been made manifest in his face to all who dwelt in Judaea, Judas gave to those sent by the chief priests a sign, as though they did not recognize his likeness, saying: whomever I shall kiss, that is he. But that even those who had come with Judas to seize him had frequently seen him is made manifest from this, that Jesus himself says to the crowds: you have come out to seize me as though against a robber, with swords and clubs: daily I was sitting with you in the temple teaching, and you did not hold me. Similarly John also reports that he said: I have spoken openly to this world; I always taught in the synagogue and in the temple, where all the Jews come together.
Now such a tradition has come to us concerning him: that there were not only two forms in him (one indeed according to which all saw him, but the other according to which he was transfigured before his disciples on the mountain, when also his face shone as the sun), but that he also appeared to each one according as that one had been worthy. And though he was himself, he seemed to all as though not himself, according to what is written concerning the manna, when God "sent bread from heaven to the sons of Israel, having every delight and suited to every taste", when "complying with the desire of the one who offered it, it was turned into whatever anyone had wished". And this tradition does not seem to me to be incredible, whether bodily on account of Jesus himself, that he might be seen by men in one manner and another, or on account of the very nature of the Word, which does not appear alike to all. But if this is so, it is possible to find the solution of that which is inquired. For although the crowds coming with Judas frequently saw him, nonetheless they had need (on account of his transformations) of one who would point him out to them, one having a more intimate knowledge of him through much dwelling with him, so that he might understand his transformations according to which he was accustomed to appear to his own. This same thing is signified also through John the Evangelist, where "Jesus, knowing the things that were to come upon him, going forth outside said: whom do you seek? And they said: Jesus the Nazarene. And he said to them: I am he" and "they went back and fell backward". You see that they did not recognize him, though they had frequently seen him, on account of his transfigurations.
But if anyone should also inquire into that cause, why Judas betrayed Jesus "with a kiss", we will give this reason: that, according to some indeed, he wished to preserve a certain reverence toward his master,
not daring to rush upon him openly and shamelessly to profess himself the betrayer of his master. But according to others Judas did this for this reason, fearing lest perhaps, if he had shown himself openly an adversary and betrayer of his master, he himself might become for him a cause of escape, since he could (as far as pertained to Judas's own opinion) by certain more secret disciplines flee away and make himself small. Therefore, that Jesus, suspecting nothing of the kind (according to what Judas supposed) but thinking him a friend (he knows not how), might thus be seized unexpectedly, for this reason he gave this sign, not now knowing that if he had been unwilling to be seized, he never would have been seized, but that willingly he offered himself to the hands of sinners. But I think that all betrayers of the truth also, feigning to love the truth and using the sign of a kiss as though by a certain token of charity, betray the word of God to its adversaries who wish to hold him, adversaries clothed with nothing peaceful, but having warlike swords and injuries and clubs. And the betrayer says to Jesus: Rabbi; for all heretics, just as Judas, so say to Jesus: Rabbi, who also kiss him just as Judas did. To all of whom Jesus speaks placable words, though they are all Judas the betrayer: "Judas, do you betray the Son of Man with a kiss?" And he says to him, reproaching him for the pretense of his friendship: friend, to what have you come?
For by this name we know no one of the good called in the Scriptures. For to the wicked man, and one not clothed with the wedding garments, he says: "friend, why have you come in here not having a wedding garment?" And he is wicked who also hears in the parable of the denarius: "friend, I do you no wrong;
did you not agree with me for a denarius? Take what is yours, and go; but I wish to give also to this last one just as to you also".
[§101] Then they came and laid hands on Jesus and held him fast (26, 50ᵇ).
After the kiss, those crowds at once, delaying nothing, perhaps fearing lest Jesus escape from their hands, laid hands on him. And behold, one of those who were with Jesus, stretching out his hand, drew his sword, and striking the servant of the high priest, cut off his ear. Now one of those who were with Jesus, not yet clearly grasping within himself that evangelical patience handed down to him by Christ, nor the peace which he gave to his disciples, but acting according to the power granted to the Jews through the law concerning enemies, stretching out his hand took up the sword and struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his ear. And as John says: "… and cut off his right ear", in whom the servant's name is also given, for he was called "Malchus". And perhaps what Peter was doing was a mystery. For the right hearing of the Jewish people was to be cut off on account of their malice displayed against Jesus. For even though they seem to hear the law, they now hear with a left hearing the shadow of the tradition about the law, not the truth, since they are servants of the word that professes the service of God, yet does not serve in truth. The mystery of this word was against Christ … the adversary of Christ, the high priest Caiaphas. And it seems to me that, since all those who have believed from among the Gentiles, being established as one people in Christ, by this very fact that they believed in Christ became the cause that the right hearing of the Jews should be cut off, according to what had been prophesied concerning them: "Make heavy the ears of this people, and press down their eyes, lest seeing they see and hearing they understand and be converted, and I heal them".
[§102] Then Jesus said to him: turn your sword back into its place (26, 52ᵃ).
At once Jesus says to the man who had used the sword and had cut off the right ear of that servant, not: draw out the sword, but: turn the sword back into its place. There is therefore some place belonging to the sword, from which it is not permitted to take it up by one who does not wish to perish, above all by the sword. For Jesus wishes his disciples to be peaceable, so that, laying down this warlike sword, they may take up another, peaceable sword, which Scripture calls "the sword of the spirit". And it seems to me like what he says: all who take up the sword, shall also perish by the sword, that is, all who are not peaceable but stirrers-up of war shall perish in that war which they stir up, so that in them the sword is the mystery of war and strife. And I think that all the turbulent and the instigators of wars and those who disturb the souls of men, above all the souls of the churches, take up the sword by which they too shall perish; since "he who digs a pit shall himself fall into it", since their "pain shall be turned back upon" their own "head", and their "iniquity shall come down upon" their "brain". But also, hearing simply what he says, those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword, it befits us to beware, lest on the occasion of military service or of avenging our own injuries we draw out the sword, or on any occasion whatever — all of which this evangelical teaching of Christ abominates, commanding us to fulfill what is written: "with those who hated peace I was peaceable". If therefore with those who hate peace we ought to be peaceable, against no one ought we to use the sword.
Thus, wishing (speaking to one who had not learned) to teach us all that willingly "he handed himself over for us all", he adds and says: or do you think that I cannot now ask my Father, and he will furnish me more than twelve legions of angels? as though he were saying: you indeed have thus drawn the sword and struck the ruler's servant, as if rendering help to me, but I, if I had wished, could by asking the Father obtain help not human but of better beings, that is, of angels, and not of one but of more than twelve legions. From this it is shown that, according to the likeness of the legions of worldly warfare, there are also legions of angels of the heavenly warfare, warring against the legions of the demons dwelling in the tombs. For in Luke too "a multitude of the heavenly host" was heard "praising God" on account of Christ's nativity. But if "there was a multitude of the heavenly host praising God", and all warfare is understood to be established on account of adversaries, consequently that host too wars for God on account of adversaries. But Jacob also called a certain place the "camp" of the Lord, since he beheld there the warfare of angels; and wherever there are those who fear God, around them are the camps of angels; for "the angel of the Lord shall send [a host] round about those who fear him and shall deliver them", as the book of Kingdoms relates was the case also around Elisha.
And note: do you think it was as though inferior to the angels, or needing the help of angels, that the Savior said: or do you think that I cannot ask my Father, and he will furnish me more than twelve legions of angels? — or was it perhaps according to the estimation of Peter, who wished to bring him help and brought forth the sword and cut off the servant's ear, that he spoke such things? For rather do the angels have need of the help of the only-begotten Son of God than he of theirs. For this reason, that which is written, "for he shall give his angels charge concerning you, to keep you in all your ways", is understood to be said not of the only-begotten Son of God, but either in the person of Christ concerning every just man, whom Christ was bearing in his body, or concerning Christ according to his human nature. And finally, that which he says, he will deliver you "from ruin and the noonday demon", in no way befits the Son of God; but also what he says, "you shall not fear the terror of the night, the arrow that flies by day, the trouble that walks about in the darkness", befits a just man rather than the Son of God. Since therefore he could receive the legions, he was unwilling to receive them, so that through his patience the Scriptures prophesying about him might be fulfilled, since it befitted him thus to suffer.
[§103] In that hour Jesus said to the crowds: Have you come out to seize me as against a robber, with swords and clubs? Daily I sat among you in the temple teaching, and you did not lay hold of me (26, 55).
The sense of what is said in this passage seems to me to be as follows, that the Savior says to the crowds: If anyone wishes to seize a robber, it is not incongruous to come to him with swords and clubs, because such is the robber, that he dares all things provided he suffer nothing bad, and if he can he is rather ready both to use the sword and the club against those who wish to seize him, than of his own accord to hand himself over into their hands. But I, since I am not such, all who are in Judea know it—some indeed seeing my teaching and my works, but others having heard about me or following my manner of life; for daily sitting in the holy place of the temple (as though a fitting place for divine teachings) I made plain the things that pertained to piety and to a sound life according to the law of God, and through this I commended myself as one who is peaceable. But that neither your plotting against me nor your soldiery mounted with swords and clubs has any suitable reason, is manifest to all who know me. But how is it that you were not even satisfied, seeing daily my continuance in the temple of God and myself offering myself to all who wished to hear me, that I might join them to myself for their profit through word and life unto the blessedness of God—or that then indeed you did not lay hold of me when you saw me teaching and doing nothing worthy of blame, but now you reckon me as though changed, so that you suppose I ought to be seized as though a robber? But neither in this do you find any occasion, as though I had changed with respect to the word from those things which I had first set forth, wishing to profit by words and deeds. And observe: after he had said to Peter: "Put back your sword into its sheath" (which is the mark of patience), after he had restored the severed ear, as another evangelist relates (which had been at once a token of the highest kindness and likewise of divine power), then he spoke these words, so that they might appear trustworthy from the preceding words and deeds, so that even if they do not remember past good deeds, they might at least recognize the present ones.
[§104] Now all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Concerning matters of this kind … but it is a great task now to select from the prophets what sort of sayings of the prophets those are which were then fulfilled, when Christ said that he would suffer these things; and it belongs to a diligent man, and to one who knows much, to gather together the words of the prophets which have been fulfilled. And in the hundred and eighth Psalm [109] perhaps you will find very many things agreeing with these, concerning those who came with Judas to arrest Jesus, just as other things concerning Judas were said in the same Psalm. then they all forsook him and fled together. Fearing, therefore, the crowds and their leader Judas, they fled. For they did not yet have the Spirit, "because Jesus had not yet been glorified," and the "spirit" "of power and of love"; and if they had had it, they would not have been weakened, nor would they have done anything else apart from divine love.
[§105] But they, having seized Jesus, led him away to Caiaphas the chief priest, where the scribes and the elders had gathered together (26, 57).
For I think that the word of the Jewish servitude, in which those now abandoned profess to serve, is Caiaphas, who wars against the truth of Jesus, who is called the chief priest; but Jesus according to the truth is the priest, the Word of God, under whom are set all those who serve God the Father acceptably. But where Caiaphas is chief priest, there the scribes are gathered together, that is, the lettered men who preside over the letter that kills. And according to the quality of the scribes are also the elders, who recline not upon the truth but upon the oldness of the bare letter, and who wish to transact nothing further.
[§106] Now Peter was following him at a distance, as far as the courtyard of the chief priest, and having gone inside he was sitting with the servants to see the outcome of the matter (26, 58).
Now while the master was being led away, Peter indeed was following, yet he could not follow him from close at hand, but from afar off, neither departing from him altogether nor walking along with him, nor beside him but following at a distance he came to the courtyard of the chief priest. And having gone inside, Peter was sitting within, neither ministering according to what those servants did nor doing the things which Jesus had taught, but he was awaiting the outcome of all these things, wishing to see it, since as yet he did not understand nor see the outcome of Christ's dispensations, toward what they were tending. For their outcome is not in the courtyard of Caiaphas, nor where "the scribes and elders" of that people are gathered together. If, however, one should look properly at the outcome, he will see the very Word of God and the Wisdom saying: "I am A and Ω, the beginning and the end".
[§107] Now the chief priest and the elders and the whole council sought false testimony against Jesus, that they might deliver him to death, and they found none; and many false witnesses came forward, and they found none (26, 59. 60ᵃ).
And through these things it is made manifest that Jesus "did no sin, nor was there guile in his mouth". But that his life was most pure and altogether beyond reproach, taking away the occasions of those who seek occasions, is demonstrated from this: that his adversaries found not what they might say against him or give a semblance of truth (yet all the priests and the whole council sought it, and could find nothing plausible); for false testimonies then have their place when they are brought forward with some semblance of truth, but against Jesus not even a semblance was found that could lend aid to lies against Jesus — and this, though there were many willing to grant a favor to Caiaphas and the chief priests and the scribes and the elders and the whole council, which desired to hear this very thing. And those who consider these things render the greatest praise to Jesus on account of his life and his teaching, who so blamelessly both said and did all things, that they found in him no plausible ground for reproach — neither the wicked, nor the many, nor those so cunning and clever.
[§108] But at last there came forward two false witnesses and said: This man said: I am able to destroy the temple of God and after three days to rebuild it (26, 60ᵇ. 61).
Do not suppose that Matthew called these two witnesses false without cause, since their testimonies seemed to be true from the fact that John sets forth that Christ said: "Destroy this temple, and I in three days will raise it up", when there is also added: "But this he said concerning the temple of his body".
But observe the cunning of the two false witnesses, by what persuasion they, taking their start from a certain true saying which Jesus had spoken, fabricated a false testimony. For Jesus did not say: I destroy this temple, and in three days I raise it up, but: "Destroy … this temple, and in three days I will raise it up".
But the false witnesses reported that he had said what had not been said by him, nor did he say: I am able to destroy the temple of God and in three days to rebuild it. Therefore he did not himself promise to do the impiety of destroying the temple, but he committed it to those who were fit for such a work, saying: "Destroy this temple". But what did he reserve for himself, namely: "And I in three days will raise it up".
And the fact that "he said this concerning the temple of his body" the Jews, hindered by their malice, misheard and understood concerning that temple of stone,
which is manifest from the fact that, answering, they said: "In forty and six years was this temple built, and dost thou raise it up in three days?" And consider that not one false witness came forward for this testimony (for one was not sufficient for those wishing to kill Jesus, since the law commanded: "One witness shall not stand to give testimony against a man"), but neither were there three; for though many false witnesses came forward, scarcely two were found who seemed to say anything. But neither were their testimonies in agreement, as Mark sets forth; for he says in this manner, that "the chief priests and the whole council sought testimony against Jesus, that they might deliver him to death, and found none; for many spoke false testimony against him, and their testimonies were not in agreement. And others rising up spoke false testimony against him: that we heard him saying: that I destroy this temple made with hands, and in three days I will make another not made with hands. But neither so were their testimonies in agreement". For a testimony is in agreement when they say the same things, but they are not in agreement when they are dissonant with one another, such as were the testimonies of these who were bringing forward testimonies against Jesus. And if Matthew and Mark speak the truth (which we ought to believe), let us attempt to show how not even the testimonies of these two themselves were in agreement, since they did not bring forward the same things. For according to Matthew they said: This man said: I am able to destroy the temple of God and in three days to rebuild it, but according to Mark: "That we heard him saying: that I destroy this temple made with hands, and in three days I will rebuild another not made with hands". Whether therefore, saying these things twice, since they did not say the same things, their testimonies were not found in agreement with one another; or whether the one said what Matthew sets forth, and the other what Mark wrote, and thereby "their testimonies were not in agreement" with one another.
[§109] And the chief priest, rising up, said to him: Do you answer nothing to the things which these men testify against you? But Jesus was silent (26, 62. 63a).
In these events one may understand as fulfilled the prophecy which says: "while the sinner stood against me, I was made dumb and was humbled and kept silent from good things", so that that sinner foretold in these words may be understood to be Caiaphas, who stood against Jesus. At the same time we learn also from this passage to despise the voices of slanderers and false witnesses, so that we neither hold them worthy of our reply, nor defend our own selves where the things said against us are not consistent. For what need is there to resist those who resist themselves by saying things contrary to themselves? Especially where it is a greater thing freely and bravely to be silent than to defend oneself without any profit, so that we may not be humbled by false witnesses and wicked slanderers.
[§110] And the chief priest said to him: I adjure you by the living God, that you tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God. And Jesus said to him: You have said it (26, 63ᵇ. 64ᵃ).
And indeed in the Law we find the practice of adjuring used on several occasions. For in Numbers the Law says that "the priest shall adjure her" (that is, that woman in whose husband there has arisen "a spirit of jealousy"), "and shall say to the woman" (this is, the priest): "if no one has lain with you, and unless you have transgressed so as to be defiled by a man not your own, you shall be innocent of this cursed water of accusation". And after a few words: "and the priest", he says, "shall adjure the woman with the adjurations of this curse". Likewise in the third book of Kingdoms king Ahab says to Micaiah: "Yet twice more do I adjure you, that you speak to me the truth in the name of the Lord". Now the king adjured the prophet, and he adjured not as the priest in Numbers; for the latter did so from the precept of the Law, but the former of his own choice. And now in the present passage the priest adjures Jesus by the living God. But I judge that it is not fitting for a man who wishes to live according to the Gospel to adjure another. For it is similar to what the Lord himself says in the Gospel: "But I say, not to swear at all" and not to adjure at all;
for if it is not permitted to swear, so far as concerns the evangelical commandment of Christ, it is true that neither is it permitted to adjure another.
Therefore it is manifest that the chief priest unlawfully adjured Jesus, although he may seem to have adjured him by the living God.
Someone will ask whether it is fitting even to adjure demons. And he who looks to the many who have dared to do such things will say that this is not done without reason; but he who looks to Jesus … commanding the demons, but also giving power to his disciples over all demons
and to heal infirmities, will say that to adjure demons is not according to the power given by the Savior: for it is a Jewish practice. This (even if sometimes something of the kind is done by our own people) is similar to that whereby demons are wont to be adjured by the adjurations written by Solomon. But those very people who use those adjurations sometimes do not even use properly established books, and with certain adjurations received even from the Hebrew they adjure the demons.
Nevertheless it was not fitting for our Lord to answer the adjuration of the chief priest, as though he had suffered compulsion from the one adjuring against his own will. For which reason he neither denied that he was the Christ, the Son of God, nor openly confessed it, but as though taking the very one adjuring him as witness (since it is he himself who in the priest's questioning was pronounced the Christ, the Son of God), saying: You have said it.
And since "everyone who commits sin is born of the devil", and the chief priest was committing sin by plotting against Jesus, therefore he was born of the devil, and as one born of the devil he was imitating his own father, who twice, in doubt, questions the Savior: "if you are the Son of God", as is written in his temptations; for "if you are the Son of God" and if you are the Christ, the Son of God are alike. For in this passage one may rightly say that to doubt concerning the Son of God whether he himself be the Christ is the work of the devil and of the chief priest plotting against our Lord. But Peter was not found to be such; for without any doubt he pronounced: "you are the Christ, the Son of the living God", nor did he there place if. For which reason he was called "blessed", because "not flesh and blood" had revealed it to him, "but God the Father who is in heaven". But those who say with doubt: "if you are the Son of God", are strangers to all blessedness. For because that chief priest was not worthy of the teaching of Christ, therefore he does not teach him, nor say, "I am", but taking the word of his own mouth he turns it into a refutation of him, saying: You have said it, so that in this way he might seem to be refuted, not taught.
[§111] Yet I say to you: from now on you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming upon the clouds of heaven (26, 64ᵇ).
Since it is not written at the right hand of God, but in all the evangelists at the right hand of the Power (and "of God" is not added), it is worthwhile to discern what it is for the Son of Man to sit at the right hand of the Power. Likewise the three evangelists write similarly: you shall see him sitting; and to the simple, indeed, who can hear nothing lofty in that which he says sitting, it is granted to understand it as if he said "established above the Power." But to those to whom it is possible to search out all things by the Spirit, "even the depths of God," they will understand both what is written: "you who sit upon the cherubim, appear" and: "I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne high and lifted up" and: "the Lord said to my Lord: sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies the footstool of your feet" and other things of the like. These things that are said of God sitting are likewise also said of Christ. And these ought to be compared with the present saying, so that from a lowly and fabulous estimation we may see what the sitting of Christ signifies after the manner of men. But it seems to me that the sitting of the Son of Man signifies a certain foundation and royal steadfastness. According to the Power, therefore — he who alone is the Power and is properly so named — he is also established at the right hand, he who has received all power from the Father, as "in heaven and on earth"; and this foundation even the adversaries will one day see, after the blessed have with joy seen him.
But according to Mark it does not have from now on, but purely, that is: "you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power"; and according to him there will be nothing contrary to the things we have handed down. But according to Matthew, who says from now on you shall see, and according to Luke, who says "from this time the Son of Man will be" and the rest, it must be inquired whether, from the time the Savior said these things, they were fulfilled also in those who heard what he said: from now on you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power. And we say that it can be seen as fulfilled, since from that time, that is, from the time of the dispensation, the Son of Man sat at the right hand of the Power, and his disciples saw him rising from the dead, and through this they saw him established at the right hand of the Power, according to what we have handed down above. Or thus: see whether you can measure the hour and the day not according to the brevity of hours and days that is among men, but according to the length that is with the eternal Lord, to whom from the foundation of the world until its consummation there is one day — which is demonstrated by the parable, where he speaks of those hired into the vineyard in the morning and at the third hour and the sixth and up to the eleventh. It is therefore no wonder that here the Savior says that from now on until then there is a very short span, in which span he was saying: you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power to those who were then hearing him — perhaps then when "the Lord said to my Lord: sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies the footstool of your feet", among whom were also those to whom he was saying from now on you shall see; for Caiaphas too was an enemy, who was plotting against Christ.
And he was prophesying that these would see him not only sitting at the right hand of the Power, but also would see him coming (as Matthew indeed says) upon the clouds of heaven. But what are the clouds upon which he will come who is established at the right hand of the Power, or with which he will come, or to which the truth of God will reach, according to what is written: "and your truth reaches even to the clouds"? These are the living clouds, the prophets of God and the apostles of Christ, whom he commands to rain when it is fitting, or not to rain upon the vineyard without fruit. But if anyone does not wish to be a cloud of this kind, upon which and with which the Son of Man will come when he appears, let him himself take heed. For he always comes upon those and with those, showing his coming to those worthy of him — God the Word and Wisdom and Truth and Righteousness. And these clouds which we have handed down, as though bearing "the image of the heavenly", are clouds of the heaven that does not pass away, made worthy of the seat of God and the kingdom of God, as "heirs of God and coheirs of Christ", and they reign together with him.
[§112] Then the chief priest tore his garments, saying: he has blasphemed (26, 65ᵃ).
While the Lord was prophesying these things, that priest, the Lord's enemy — as one who was not near enough to see the Son of Man and the Power at whose right hand he was seated, as one bent down and unable to look upward, not hearing the things he was saying — tore his garments, displaying his own foulness and the nakedness of his soul, and making manifest a mystery: that the old priesthood was to be torn asunder, along with the robe of his priesthood and of the worship which had been according to the letter.
But he judged the greatness of Christ's words to be blasphemy, and he esteemed as glory the Jewish and fabulous history of the letter that kills. And he supposed (as though he understood) that Christ's discourses were sufficient as testimony against him — those very discourses which were witnesses of his divinity (as far as concerns those who are able to understand). And he says to those who were of the same mind: behold, now you have heard his blasphemy; what does it seem to you. Until, answering, they too pronounce against their own soul concerning Jesus, that he is guilty of death. How great, do you think, was the error, to pronounce Life itself, the principal Life of all, guilty of death, and by the testimony of so many rising again not to behold the fountain of life, from which life flowed forth into all the living, seeing that "as the Father has life in himself, so also he has granted to the Son to have life in himself"?
[§113] Then they spat in his face and struck him with their fists. But others slapped his face with the palms of their hands, saying: Prophesy to us, O Christ, who is it that struck you? (26, 67. 68)
Most wickedly, as I judge, did those who had heard Jesus saying: "yet I say to you, that from now on you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven" dare to spit in his face. For they supposed that by this they would confound him as a liar, and that one who sat "at the right hand of power" and was to come "in the clouds" would not endure the reproach of being spat upon; for they were ignorant of the words of the prophet Isaiah, who prophesied these very same things concerning him, and said in the person of the Lord and Savior himself: "what, that I came, and there was no man? I called, and there was none who would obey? Is my hand not able to rescue? Or can I not deliver? Behold, at my rebuke I will make the sea a desert, and I will set the rivers a desert. And their fish shall be dried up because they have no water, and shall die of thirst. And I will clothe the heaven with darkness, and make its covering like sackcloth. The Lord gives me the tongue of instruction, that I may know how it behooves me to speak the word; he set me in the morning, he applied to me an ear to hear, and the instruction of the Lord shall open my ears; but I am not unbelieving, nor do I contradict. I offered my back to the scourges, and my cheeks to the palms of hands, but I did not turn away my face from the confusion of spittings, and the Lord God became my helper". For all who are of the Church confess him to be Christ who says: "the Lord, the Lord gave me the tongue of instruction" and the rest which I have expounded.
But I have fittingly expounded also those things which above were joined to these, wishing to show that this was prophesied concerning that glorious one, that he should be spat upon and buffeted. For to what other does it fit to say: "I came", except to Christ who came into the world? Or whom did it befit to say: "I called, and there was none who would obey", except him who came to call the people of the Jews and was not heard, and therefore did not rescue the people nor deliver it, but forsook it? And it is Christ who says: "behold, at my rebuke I will make the sea a desert, and I will set the rivers a desert", who is to bring about the consummation of the world. For it is he who will clothe the heaven with "darkness" and clothe it "as with sackcloth", and, receiving from the Father the "tongue of instruction", knew how "it behooved him to speak the word" which God had entrusted to him; and "he applied to him an ear", that he might hear more than all who hear, and the "instruction" of the Father opened his ear, because he was not unbelieving to the Father who sent him nor contradicting, and by the very deed he taught those desiring to learn meekness and praiseworthy humility. And there was a work in this, that he taught these things by deeds, offering his "back to the scourges and his cheeks to the palms of hands" and not turning away his face "from the confusion of spittings", so that us (as I judge), who had all been worthy to suffer these disgraces, he himself might rescue by suffering them for us. For he did "not die for us", that we might not die, but that we might not die for ourselves; and he was struck with blows for us and was spat upon, so that we, who had been worthy of all these things on account of our sins, might not suffer them, but that, suffering them for righteousness, we might receive them gladly. And Paul indeed says of the Savior, that "he humbled himself, being made obedient unto death, even the death of the cross". For it is not unseemly for one who wishes to number in how many things Christ humbled himself, to count out (beyond those things which Paul expounded, saying: "he humbled himself, being made obedient unto death"): unto the "palms of hands", unto the "confusion of spittings" and of "scourges" and of death, on account of all which "God exalted him". For it was not on account of death alone which he bore for us that he exalted him, but also on account of the palms and the spittings and the rest.
But that the injury of spittings is taken as the extreme injury, is manifest also in the law, in which it is written that the wife of a deceased man, if the brother of her husband will not take her, going to him who refused to take her to himself as wife, in the presence of the elders shall unshoe "one of his sandals from his feet and shall spit in his face and shall say: so shall it be done to the man who has not built up the house of his brother". Therefore Christ did not turn away his face "from the confusion of spittings", that his countenance might be more glorified than the countenance of Moses was glorified, with so great and such glory that (by comparison with this glorification) the glorification of that countenance is done away, just as in the sight of the sun the light of a lamp is done away, and just as the knowledge which is in part is done away "when that which is perfect has come". But they also struck with their fists the holy head of the Church, on account of which they themselves are buffeted by Satan, not that they may not be exalted nor that their strength may be made perfect, but that, handed over to the enemy and avenger, they may receive back the sin which they committed in buffeting Jesus. And not content only to spit in his face and to strike him with their fists, they still further struck him with the palms of their hands and, mocking him, said: prophesy to us, who struck you. On account of which they received an eternal blow, and were deprived of all prophecy, struck and chastised, and even so not willing to receive instruction, according to what Jeremiah had prophesied of this very thing concerning them: "you scourged them and they did not grieve, and they refused to receive instruction". And now those who do injury to some one person of the Church and do these things to him, spit in the face of Christ and, striking Christ with their fists, chastise him also with the palms of their hands.
[§114] But Peter was sitting outside in the courtyard; and one of the maidservants came to him, saying: You too were with Jesus the Galilean. But he denied it before them all, saying: I do not know what you are saying. And as he was going out to the gate, another maidservant saw him and said to him there: This man too was with Jesus the Nazarene. And again he denied it with an oath, saying, I do not know the man. And after a little while those who were standing there came and said to Peter: Truly you are one of them, for even your speech makes you plain. Then he began to curse and to swear, saying, I do not know the man. And immediately a cock crowed. And Peter remembered the word of Jesus who had said to him: Before the cock crows, you will deny me three times; and going out he wept most bitterly (26, 69—75).
Considering Peter's denial more fully, we say that "no one can call Jesus Lord except in the Holy Spirit" (as Paul teaches us), and "the Holy Spirit was not yet then" in men "because Jesus had not yet been glorified" (as John says), and therefore it was not possible that even such a Peter should then confess Jesus. Nor yet was he to be blamed for not confessing Jesus, since to those who confess it is said: "It is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you".
But we, since that Spirit of our Father is able to speak in us, and since it is in our power to give "place" in us to the Holy Spirit and not to "the devil", if we deny him, we shall have no excuse.
Perhaps, moreover, whoever is in the courtyard of Caiaphas "the chief priest" cannot confess the Lord Jesus unless he has gone out of his courtyard and been made to be outside of every doctrine that is contrary to Jesus and that hands down Jewish traditions—and this not according to the will of the Scriptures, but according to "the commandments and teachings of men". For consider that Peter, sitting outside, separated from Jesus and set in the courtyard of the chief priest, denied Jesus before them all; and again a second time, likewise, being not yet made to be outside beyond the gate, but wishing to go out and not yet having gone out, denied him at the gate; but also a third time, when those who were standing said: Truly you are one of them, and when he began to curse himself and to swear, saying, I do not know the man, he was still not outside. And all these denials were made by him in the night and in darkness, before day comes and the sign of day, that is, the cock's crow which rouses from sleep those who are willing. And, to speak by way of example, if Peter had denied him after the cock's crow—so that it might be said: "the night has advanced, and the day has drawn near, let us walk becomingly as in the day"—Peter would have been worthy of no excuse.
But perhaps also all men, when they deny Jesus in such a way that the sin of their denial may receive healing, are seen to deny him before the cock's crow, when the sun of righteousness has not yet risen upon them nor its rising drawn near to them. But if, after the rising of such a sun upon the soul, "we sin willingly after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains for us a sacrifice for sin, but a fearful judgment and a zeal of fire, which is to consume the enemies".
And indeed in the case of Peter, then denying, it was not fitting to say: "how do you not think that they deserve worse punishments who have trodden underfoot the Son of God and have esteemed the blood of the covenant common, by which they were sanctified, and have done injury to the Spirit of grace?"; for Peter had not yet been sanctified by the blood of Christ (which was the blood of the new covenant), nor did he do injury to the Spirit of grace which from the beginning he had not even received, since "Jesus had not yet been glorified", "nor was" the "Holy Spirit" in men.
But if in us this impious sin of denial has been committed, it is fitting to say all these things, since we have both been sanctified by the blood of the covenant and have received the "Spirit of grace". Therefore to esteem the most precious "blood of the covenant" as "common" and to do injury to the Spirit of grace is worse than all sins, so that we can receive remission "neither in this age nor in the age to come", if we deny the Son of God. Since therefore for us "the night has advanced, and the day has drawn near" and the sign of day, the cock's crow, has sounded to us, therefore let us stand "even unto blood, contending against sin", and for the sake of the charity that never falls away let us endure all things, that with those perfected in it we may obtain the inheritance. And mark this, that before the cock's crow, and before the Holy Spirit, and in the time of deep night, even if someone should deny frequently, he can live; which is plain from the fact that Peter denied three times. But if after the cock's crow someone, even once, being set in whatever peril, should deny, "it is impossible for him to be renewed unto repentance, so as to crucify again to himself the Son of God". But whoever has been caught in such a sin of denial, let him look upon that which is written: "woe to those who draw their sins to themselves as with a long rope, and their iniquities as with the strap of a yoke of a calf", and let him not say: "our sins are upon us, and how shall we live? As I live, says the Lord, since I do not will the death of the sinner, but rather his repentance". But God himself knows—of whom it is written: "and he, being wise, will bring evils upon them"—what kind of evils he will bring upon those who deny and do not repent, and what kind upon those who deny and do repent, and what kind of good things upon those who have never denied him either in word "before men" or in works. And let us become far removed from the first maidservant and from the other, and from all who stand in his courtyard or at his gate, that we may not be near to those who cause the one who is beside them to deny him. But we shall know who the maidservant of the chief priest is, if we understand who the maidservant of God is, of whom it is written: "I am your servant and the son of your maidservant".
And you will be able to know what the courtyards of the chief priest are, if you understand what the courtyards of the house of God are, of which it is written: "behold now, bless the Lord, all you servants of the Lord", "you who stand in the house of the Lord, in the courtyards of the house of our God". But if we must also say something about the other maidservant, so that we may withdraw from her as well, let us understand what is written: "as the eyes of a maidservant are upon the hands of her mistress, so are our eyes toward the Lord our God,
until he have mercy upon us". I think the first maidservant of the chief priest, who causes the disciples of Christ to deny him, is to be understood as the synagogue of the Jews "according to the flesh", who have frequently compelled the faithful to deny; and the second maidservant as the assembly of the Gentiles, who, themselves also persecuting Christians, compelled them to deny; and the third, those standing in the courtyards, are the ministers of the various heresies, who themselves also compel men to deny the truth of Christ. But in the night Peter not only denies three times, but even curses himself and swears that I do not know the man. And indeed then he still knew Christ "according to the flesh", nor could he yet say: "even if we have known Christ at some time according to the flesh, yet now we no longer know him thus"; for as long as the sign of day did not yet exist, Peter in denying was not mindful of the words of Jesus, but after the angel of day cried out to him, then he remembered the word of Jesus who said to him: before the cock crows, you will deny me three times. And when he remembered the word of Christ, he was no longer in the courtyard of the chief priest nor beside his gate, but outside; otherwise he would by no means have wept, for thus it is written: going out he wept most bitterly. Therefore, as according to Luke the "sinful woman" beside the feet of the Lord "wept" in repentance, so here Peter, having gone out of the courtyard of the chief priest to his gate, weeps from the bitterness of sin, making his weeping bitter in repentance.