Thomas Aquinas Commentary John 18

1. Before His passion, as we saw above, our Lord prepared His disciples in many ways: teaching them by His example, comforting them with His words, and helping them with His prayers. Now the Evangelist begins the history of the passion.

• First, he sets forth the mystery of the passion.
• Second, the glory of the resurrection: and on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalen came early (John 20:1).

Christ’s passion was brought about partly by the Jews and partly by the Gentiles.

• First, he describes what Christ suffered from the Jews.
• Second, what He suffered from the Gentiles: then therefore, Pilate took Jesus, and scourged him (John 19:1).

Regarding the first part, he does three things:

• He shows how our Lord was betrayed by a disciple.
• He shows how He was brought before the high priests: then the band and the tribune, and the servants of the Jews, took Jesus, and bound him (John 18:12).
• He shows how He was accused before Pilate: then they led Jesus from Caiphas to the governor’s hall (John 18:28).

In regard to Christ’s betrayal, the Evangelist mentions three things:

• The place.
• The procedure: Judas therefore having received a band of soldiers and servants . . . went there with lanterns and torches and weapons.
• The willingness of Christ to submit to the betrayal: Jesus therefore, knowing all things that would befall him, went forth, and said to them: whom do you seek?

The place of the betrayal was shown to be appropriate in three ways: it was outside the city, it was private and enclosed, and it was known to the traitor.

2. The place of the betrayal was some distance from the city, so Judas could more easily do what he intended. The Evangelist says, when Jesus had said these things, referring to the words we have read above.

However, since Christ’s words were a prayer, it might seem more appropriate for the Evangelist to have said, “when Jesus had prayed.” The Evangelist phrased it this way to show that Christ did not pray because of any need of His own, since He was the one who, as man, prayed, and who, as God, heard the prayer. Rather, Christ prayed in order to teach us. Thus this prayer is described as spoken words.

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

4. It is said, he went out . . . over the brook Cedron.

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

It is fitting for this mystery that He crosses a brook, because the brook indicates His passion: he will drink from the brook by the way; therefore he will lift up his head (Psalms 110:7). It is also fitting that He cross the Cedron brook, for Cedron is interpreted to mean “an overshadowing.” By His passion, Christ removed the shadow of sin and of the law. By stretching out His arms on the cross, He protected us under the shadow of His arms: hide me in the shadow of your wings (Psalms 17:8).

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

6. It was also an appropriate place because it was known to the traitor: and Judas, who betrayed him, also knew the place; for Jesus had often gone there, together with his disciples. This included Judas, who was like a wolf among sheep: have I not chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? (John 6:71). This wolf in sheep’s clothing, who had been tolerated among the sheep according to the profound plan of the Master, learned where he could scatter the small flock when the time came.

7. Since Judas had left the supper a while before the others, how did he know that Christ would later be in the garden?

Chrysostom says that it was Christ’s custom, especially at the major feasts, to bring His disciples there after supper and teach them the deeper meaning of the feasts—things that others were not ready to hear. And so, because this was an important feast, Judas surmised that Christ would be going there after supper. It was Christ’s custom to teach His disciples these sublime matters in the mountains or in private gardens, seeking places free from disturbance so they would not be distracted: I will allure her, and bring her into the wilderness, and speak tenderly to her (Hosea 2:14).

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

9. Now the Evangelist shows the readiness of Christ to willingly undergo betrayal:

• First, by voluntarily offering Himself.
• Second, by stopping one of the disciples who was resisting: then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it (John 18:10).

Regarding the first point, the Evangelist does two things:

• First, he tells how Christ identified Himself to show His power.
• Second, to show His patience: again therefore he asked them: whom do you seek?

Regarding the first of these, he does three things:

• First, he states the question Christ asked.
• Second, he shows Christ identifying Himself: Jesus said to them: I am he.
• Third, we see the effect this has: as soon therefore as he had said to them: I am he; they went backward, and fell to the ground.

10. He does three things regarding the first point. First, he recalls Christ’s knowledge: Jesus therefore, knowing all that would happen to him, came forward. Jesus knew that his hour had come (John 13:1). The Evangelist mentions this for two reasons: first, so that it does not appear that the question He is asking comes from His ignorance; and second, so that it does not seem that He is offering Himself unintentionally and without knowing that they have come to kill Him. He knew all that would happen to him.

Second, he states Christ’s question, for although He knew all these things, He came forward and said to them: whom do you seek? But this was not because of His ignorance, as we said.

Third, he gives their answer: Jesus of Nazareth. They were seeking Him not to imitate Him, but to slander and kill Him: you will seek me, and you will die in your sin (John 8:21).

11. Now we see Jesus identifying Himself and offering Himself so that they can seize Him. I am he, He says, that is, “I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are looking for.” The Evangelist adds that Judas was also there because he had mentioned before that Judas had left them: when he therefore had gone out (John 13:31). It could be expected that they might not recognize the face of Christ because of the darkness. But this darkness would not explain why they did not know Christ from His voice, especially those who were quite familiar with Him. By saying, I am he, Christ shows that He was not recognized even by Judas, who was with them and on close terms with Christ. This in particular shows the power of Christ’s divinity. Judas . . . also stood with them, that is, he continued in his evil to the point of identifying Him with a kiss.

12. Now we see the effect of His revealing Himself: they went backward, and fell to the ground. As Gregory says, we sometimes read that the saints fall to the ground: then King Nebuchadnezzar fell upon his face and did homage to Daniel (Daniel 2:46); when I saw it, I fell upon my face (Ezekiel 1:28). We also read that the evil fall: your men will fall by the sword (Isaiah 3:25). Yet there is a difference. It is said that the evil fall backward: Eli fell over backward from his seat (1 Samuel 4:18); while the saints fall on their face. The reason for this is: the path of the righteous is like the light of dawn . . . the path of the wicked is like deep darkness; they do not know over what they stumble (Proverbs 4:18). Now those who fall backward do not see where they fall. And so those who are evil are said to fall backward because they fall over things that are invisible. Those who fall forward see where they are falling. Thus the saints, who willingly cast themselves down with respect to visible things so they can be raised up to invisible things, are said to fall on their face because they humble themselves.

Mystically understood, we can say that by this falling backward we can understand that the Jewish people, who were a special people, fell backward and were excluded from the kingdom because they did not listen to the voice of Christ in His preaching.

13. Now we see Christ questioning them a second time. First, we see His question; second, He identifies Himself; third, He offers Himself to them.

According to Chrysostom, there are two reasons why Christ asks them a second time whom they were seeking. First, to teach the faithful that He was captured because He willed it: he was offered because it was his own will (Isaiah 53:7). He had already shown His power because when His enemies came against Him, they fell backward to the ground before Him.

Second, He wanted, as far as He could, to give the Jews a reason to be converted, having seen this miracle of His power: what more was there to do for my vineyard, that I have not done it? (Isaiah 5:4). When they were not converted by the revelation of His power, He voluntarily offered Himself to be taken by them. When again therefore he asked them: whom do you seek? And they said, Jesus of Nazareth, He again identified Himself and answered, I have told you that I am he. It is obvious from this that they were so blind that they could not recognize Him.

He offers Himself when He says, if therefore you seek me, to arrest me, then do what you want, but let these men go—My disciples—for it is not yet their time to be taken from the world by suffering: I pray not that you would take them out of the world (John 17:15). It is clear from this that Christ gave them the power to capture Him, for just as He saved His disciples by His own power, so, much more clearly, He could have saved Himself: no man takes it away from me, but I lay it down of myself (John 10:18).

14. The Evangelist shows that the officers allowed the apostles to leave not because Christ persuaded them to do so, but because of His power, when he says, that the word might be fulfilled which he said. The officers let the apostles go because they were not able to hold them, since Christ had said that of those whom you have given me I lost not one (John 17:12).

15. On the contrary, when our Lord said that none was lost, He was referring to the soul. How can the Evangelist adapt this to refer to the loss of the body?

We may answer, according to Chrysostom, that our Lord was speaking of the loss of both the soul and the body when He said, those whom you gave me have I kept; and none of them is lost (John 17:12). And if He spoke only of the soul, we could say that here the Evangelist extends it to the loss of the body.

Alternatively, with Augustine, we could say that we must understand these words to refer here also to the loss of the soul. The reason is that the apostles did not yet believe in the way that those who do not perish believe. And so, if they had left the world then, some would have perished.

1. The Evangelist has shown how ready Christ was to suffer His betrayal, since He willingly offered Himself. He now shows this same readiness because Christ forbade a disciple to resist.

   First, he mentions the resistance of the disciple;

   Second, his being restrained: Jesus therefore said to Peter: put up your sword into its scabbard.

   In regard to the first, he does two things:

   First, he shows the zeal of the disciple in striking the servant;

   Second, we see the name of the servant, the name of the servant was Malchus.

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

3. Two questions can be asked about this. Since the Lord had commanded His disciples not to have even two tunics (Matthew 10:10), why did Peter have a sword?

   I answer that Christ gave them this command when He sent them out to preach, and it was to be in effect until His passion. But when His passion drew near, Christ revoked it: when I sent you out with no money bag or bag or sandals, did you lack anything? (Luke 22:35). And then He said, but now, let him who has a money bag take it, and likewise a bag. And let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one (Luke 22:36). Because of this permission, Peter understood that he was allowed to carry a sword.

   How could he get a sword so quickly, since our Lord had spoken these words such a short time before?

   According to Chrysostom, Peter obtained the sword earlier, when he heard that the Jews were planning to deliver Christ over to the chief priests to be crucified. Or, we could say, with the interlinear, that sword is used here for a knife, which he probably had at the paschal meal and which he took along when they left.

4. The second question is why Peter struck the servant of the high priest, since our Lord had told them not to resist evil (Matthew 5:39).

   One could answer that they were forbidden to resist someone in order to defend themselves, but this did not apply to defending the Lord. Or, one could say that they had not yet been strengthened by a power coming from above: stay in the city, until you are clothed with power from on high (Luke 24:49). For this reason, they were not yet so perfect that they could entirely refrain from resisting evil.

5. Now the name of the servant is given. Only John mentions this name because, as stated below (John 18:10), John himself was known by the high priest, and so he also knew some of the priest’s servants. Since John was certain of this servant’s name, he gives it. It is Luke who adds that our Lord healed the ear (Luke 22:51).

   This is appropriate for a mystery, for the servant stands for the Jewish people, who were oppressed by the chief priests: you eat the fat (Ezekiel 34:3). Peter, the head of the apostles, takes away this servant’s sense of hearing, because he heard the words of the law in a defective, carnal way. But our Lord gave him back a new sense of hearing: as soon as they heard of me they obeyed me (Psalms 18:44). With this in mind, the servant is fittingly named Malchus, which means “king,” because through Christ we have become kings by having a new life: you... have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they will reign on earth (Revelation 5:10).

6. Now we see Peter’s zeal being restrained.

   First, we see Peter’s restraining;

   Second, the reason it was restrained: the chalice which my Father has given me, shall I not drink it?

7. The Evangelist says that Peter drew his sword, and our Lord said to him, put your sword into its scabbard. It was as if to say that it was not defense that was needed, but patience, and that he was not allowed to use a material sword: ah, sword of the Lord! How long till you are quiet? (Jeremiah 47:6).

   The mystical interpretation is that this signifies that the sword of God’s word was to be put into its sheath—that is, into the faith of the Gentiles.

8. The reason Christ restrained Peter is given when He says, the chalice which my Father has given me, shall I not drink it? For one should not resist what has been arranged by divine providence: who has resisted him and has had peace? (Job 9:4).

   The passion is called a cup, a drinking vessel, because the love of the one suffering gave it a certain sweetness, though in its own nature it was bitter. It was like a healing medicine which, because it gives hope of being cured, acquires a certain sweetness, although it has a bitter taste: I will lift up the chalice of salvation and call on the name of the Lord (Psalms 116:13).

   The Father gave Christ this cup because Christ willingly underwent the passion by His own will and by the will of the Father: you would not have any power against me, unless it had been given to you from above (John 19:11).

1. Now the Evangelist describes how our Lord was taken by the officers and led before the leaders. He is first led to one leader, Annas, and second, to another, Caiaphas: and Annas sent him bound to Caiaphas the high priest (John 18:24).

   Concerning the first, he shows what is done to Christ:

   1. He mentions how He was presented before Annas.
   2. He shows how He was questioned by Annas: the high priest therefore asked Jesus about his disciples, and his doctrine.

   In regard to the first point, he does two things:

   1. He mentions that Jesus is led to Annas’s house.
   2. He notes that Christ’s disciples followed Him: and Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple.

   In regard to being led to Annas's house, he describes the high priest before whom Jesus was brought: for he was father-in-law to Caiaphas.

2. Three things were done to Christ.

   1. He was seized. For it says, the band of soldiers and the tribune, and the servants of the Jews, took Jesus, who is incomprehensible: great in counsel, incomprehensible in thought (Jeremiah 32:19). Perhaps they were thinking of what is written: God has forsaken him; pursue and seize him, for there is none to deliver him (Psalms 71:11). Again, the breath of our mouth, Christ the Lord, is taken in our sins (Lamentations 4:20), that is, on account of our sins, in order to free us: even the captives of the mighty will be taken (Isaiah 49:25).
   2. Christ was bound, and bound him, who came to untie their bonds and break their chains: you have loosed my bonds (Psalms 116:16).
   3. He was led away, they led him away to Annas, so that they might destroy Him who came to lead all to the way of salvation: you have led me, because you became my hope (Psalms 61:4).

3. Two reasons can be given why Jesus was first brought to Annas. This could have been done by the order of Caiaphas, the high priest that year. Caiaphas did this because he would have had more of an excuse for condemning Jesus if Annas had already condemned Him.

   The other reason was that they were nearer to the house of Annas, which was on their way. They were fearful that if the people became aroused, Jesus might be taken away from them, so they made straight for the house of Annas.

4. Here the high priest is described by his relationship to Caiaphas: he was the father-in-law to Caiaphas. Then Caiaphas is described as high priest that year.

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

5. He is described by the advice he gave: neither do you consider that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people and that the whole nation should not perish (John 11:50). The Evangelist recalls this to prevent the hearts of the faithful from faltering. He shows that even by the prophecy of the enemy, Christ was captured and killed not because He was weak and lacked power, but for the salvation of the people—that is, so the entire nation would not perish. For the testimony of one’s adversary is very effective, and truth is of such a nature that even its enemy is unable not to speak it.

6. Now we see how the disciples joined Christ.

   1. We see how Peter and another disciple followed Him.
   2. We see how they entered the place where Christ was.
   3. We see how one denied Him.

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

8. In the mystical interpretation, these two disciples indicate the two ways of life in which Christ is followed: namely, the active life, which is signified by Peter, and the contemplative life, signified by John. Those in the active life follow Christ by obedience: my sheep hear my voice (John 10:27). Those in the contemplative life follow Christ by knowledge and contemplation: we will know and follow you (Hosea 6:3).

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

10. The manner in which Peter entered is now given in order:

    1. First, how John preceded him.
    2. Second, how Peter was led in, which begins with the phrase, the other disciple therefore.

11. It was John who entered first, with Jesus, as that disciple was known to the high priest . . . but Peter stood at the door without. Although John had been a fisherman and had been called as a young man by Christ, he was still known by the high priest, either because John’s father was a servant of the high priest or a relative. John did not mention that the high priest knew him because he was proud, but because of his humility, so that the fact that he was the first to enter the court of the high priest with Jesus, ahead of Peter, would not be ascribed to his virtue and superiority but rather to his acquaintance with the high priest. Thus he says, that disciple, John himself, was known to the high priest. Consequently, he was able to enter with Jesus into the high priest’s court, where Christ had been led. But Peter stood at the door outside; this was like a foreboding of his future denial, for those who saw me fled outside from me (Psalms 31:11).

12. Mystically understood, John enters with Jesus because the contemplative life is one of familiarity with Jesus: when I enter my house, I will find rest with her . Peter stands outside because the active life is busy with external things: Mary sat at the Lord’s feet and listened to his teaching. But Martha was distracted with much serving (Luke 10:39–40).

13. Here we see how Peter was let in due to John’s intervention, because the other disciple, John, who was known to the high priest, went out and spoke to the maid who kept the door, with the intention of bringing Peter in, and then he brought Peter in.

    The mystical interpretation of this is that the active life is brought to Christ by the contemplative life. For just as the lower reason is directed by the higher reason, so the active life is directed by the contemplative life: O send out your light and your truth; let them lead me, let them bring me to your holy hill and to your dwelling (Psalms 43:3).

14. Now we see the denial of Peter:

    1. First, the circumstances or the incitement of his denial.
    2. Second, the denial itself, beginning with, he said: I am not.
    3. Third, how Peter strengthens his denial: now the servants and ministers stood at a fire of coals.

15. The circumstance and incitement of his denial was the question of the female servant who kept the door: the maid who kept the door said to Peter: are you not also one of this man’s disciples? She says you also because she knew that John was a disciple of Christ, but she did not mention this to him because of their friendliness.

    This incident shows how weak Peter was at that time, for he was incited to deny Christ under feeble circumstances. How weak these circumstances were is shown, first of all, from the person who asked him, because it was not an armed soldier or an imposing high priest, but a woman, and a doorkeeper at that.

    Second, it is shown by the very form of the question; she did not say, Are you a disciple of that traitor? This seemed to indicate a certain sympathy. We can learn from this that by the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their power by the breath of his mouth (Psalms 33:6), because this same person who denied Christ at the questioning of a female servant afterward professed and preached the name of Christ before the chief priests (Acts 4:8).

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

    Some say that Peter’s denial did not come from fear, but from love, for he wanted to always be with Christ and follow Him constantly. But he knew that if he admitted he was a disciple of Christ, he would have been separated from Him and expelled. This does not agree with our Lord’s words, for Peter did not deny Christ because he feared being separated from Him, but because he was not willing to lay down his life for Christ. Before, when Peter said, I will lay down my life for you, Jesus answered, Will you lay down your life for me? Amen, amen I say to you, the cock will not crow, until you deny me thrice (John 13:37–38).

17. We see Peter strengthen his denial when we read, now the servants and ministers stood at a fire of coals . . . Peter also was with them, standing and warming himself, so that he would not seem to be one of Christ’s disciples. Trying not to seem like a disciple, he mixed with the servants and officers standing by the fire because of the cold, which sometimes occurs in March during the early spring. Peter was not attentive to the Psalm: be holy with the holy, persevere with those who persevere (Psalms 18:26).

    Even the very time of the year corresponded to his heart, in which love had grown cold: most men’s love will grow cold (Matthew 24:12).

18. The high priest therefore asked Jesus about his disciples, and his doctrine.

    1. First we see Christ’s interrogation.
    2. Second, His reply: Jesus answered him.
    3. Third, He is struck for His reply: and when he had said these things, one of the servants standing by, gave Jesus a blow (John 18:22).

19. Two charges were brought against Christ by the Jews: that His teachings were false and novel (what is this? A new teaching! (Mark 1:27)); and that He was inciting civil discord by gathering His own followers (he stirs up the people, teaching throughout all Judea, from Galilee even to this place (Luke 23:5)). Consequently, He is interrogated on these two points: first, about His followers, about his disciples, who were thought to be misled; second, about his teaching, which was regarded as false.

20. Our Lord's answer is now given:

    1. First, we see His manner of teaching.
    2. Second, He asks for the testimony of others: why do you ask me?

    Regarding the first point, two things are noted:

    1. We see how Christ taught His doctrine.
    2. This is further described.

21. He says, I have spoken openly to the world.

    This seems to conflict with, the hour comes when I will speak no more to you in proverbs, but will show you plainly of the Father (John 16:25). So, if He had not yet spoken openly to His disciples, how could He have spoken openly to the world?

    I answer that He had not yet spoken openly to His disciples in the sense that He had set forth for them His most profound thoughts. But He did speak openly to the world in the sense that He spoke to many, publicly.

22. This is described more fully as He says, I have always taught in the synagogue, and in the temple.

    On the contrary, Matthew shows that Christ taught His disciples many things without using figures when they were alone with Him (Matthew 16). This can be answered in three ways.

    1. What Christ said to the twelve disciples was not considered to be spoken in secret.
    2. He did not teach these things to them with the intention that they be kept hidden.
    3. Our Lord is speaking here of the teaching He gave to the people, which was not given to them secretly but in public places: I have told the glad news of deliverance in the great congregation (Psalms 40:9); I did not speak in secret, in a land of darkness (Isaiah 45:19).

23. To support Himself, He asks for the testimony of others, saying, why do you ask me? Ask those who have heard what I have spoken to them. He does three things:

    1. He sends them to the testimony of others.
    2. He shows whose testimony He wants.
    3. He gives the reason for this.

    As to the first, He says, why do you ask me? He is saying, in effect: you can find this out from others. And then He adds, referring to the second point, ask those who have heard what I have spoken. We know that then the Pharisees went and took counsel how to entangle him in his talk (Matthew 22:15). Nevertheless, they could not find anything against Him. Then He gives the reason for His request, saying, behold they know what things I have said, and they can testify to this.

1. After telling us of our Lord’s answer, the Evangelist now shows how it was rebuked. First, we see the rebuke given by an officer; second, our Lord’s defense of His answer: Jesus answered him: If I have spoken evil, give testimony of the evil; but if well, why do you strike me?

2. An officer rebuked our Lord’s answer, first of all, with an action. He delivered a rebuking blow, for the Evangelist says, when he, that is, Jesus, had said these things, one of the servants of the high priest, standing by, gave Jesus a blow. This did not happen by chance; it had been predicted long before and many times: I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to those who pulled out the beard (Isaiah 50:6); let him give his cheek to the smiter, and be filled with insults (Lamentations 3:30); with a rod they strike upon the cheek the ruler of Israel (Micah 5:1).

   Second, the officer rebuked Christ with words, saying, Do you answer the high priest like that? We can see from this that Annas was a high priest and that Jesus had not yet been sent to Caiaphas. This is why Luke mentions two high priests: in the high-priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas (Luke 3:2). Two high priests are mentioned because they alternated as high priests, but that year Annas was the high priest.

3. Earlier, when the testimony of those who had heard Jesus was being sought and the chief priests had sent their officers to arrest Him (John 7:32), they themselves were captivated by the words of Jesus and returned, saying, never has a man spoken like this man (John 7:46). The officer who now struck Christ was incited to do so in order to show that he had not been one of those in the previous group. He thought that Christ had shown a lack of respect because in saying, Why do you ask me? Ask those who have heard what I have spoken (John 18:21), He seemed to be finding fault with the high priest for asking a thoughtless question, and it is written: You will not speak evil of a ruler of your people (Exodus 23:28).

4. Jesus justified Himself, saying, If I have spoken evil in my answer to the high priest, give testimony of the evil. That is, if you have reason to reproach me for what I have just said, show that I have spoken badly, because only on the evidence of two witnesses, or of three witnesses, will a charge be sustained (Deuteronomy 19:18). But if well, if you cannot show I have spoken badly, why do you strike me? Why strike out against me?

   Alternatively, this reply of Christ could refer to what He had said before this time: Ask those who have heard me, what I have spoken to them (John 18:21). Then the meaning is: If I have spoken evil in the synagogue and in the temple, which I should not have done, then give testimony of the evil; report what I have said to the high priest. But the officer was unable to do this. But if well, that is, if I taught rightly, why do you strike me? In other words, this is unjust: Is evil a recompense for good? Yet they have dug a pit for my life (Jeremiah 18:20).

5. A difficulty arises here, for in Matthew our Lord commanded His disciples, if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also (Matthew 5:39). We also read about Christ that Jesus began to do and teach (Acts 1:1). Therefore, Christ ought to have done Himself what He had taught others to do. But He did not do this. Indeed, He did the contrary and defended Himself.

   To this I say, with Augustine, that the statements and commands found in Sacred Scripture can be interpreted and understood from the actions of the saints, since it is the same Holy Spirit who inspired the prophets and the other sacred authors and who inspires the actions of the saints. As we read, moved by the Holy Spirit, holy men of God spoke (2 Peter 1:21), and for all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God (Romans 8:14). Thus, Sacred Scripture should be understood according to the way Christ and other holy persons followed it. Now, Christ did not turn His other cheek here, and Paul did not do so either (Acts 16:22). Accordingly, we should not think that Christ has commanded us to actually turn our physical cheek to one who has struck the other.

   We should understand it to mean that we should be ready to do this if it becomes necessary. That is, our attitude should be such that we are not inwardly angered by the one striking us but are ready and disposed to endure the same or even more. This is how our Lord observed it, for He offered His body to be killed. Therefore, our Lord’s defense is useful for our instruction.

6. Now there is mention that He was sent from one high priest to the other. First, it is mentioned that Jesus was sent to the other high priest; second, the narration of Peter’s denial is completed, at and Simon Peter was standing, and warming himself.
7. He says, Annas sent him bound to Caiaphas the high priest, to whom He was originally being led. We saw before why He had been first brought to Annas. Note the wickedness of Annas; although he ought to have released Christ, since He was without fault, he still sent Him bound to Caiaphas.
8. Now the second and third denials of Peter are presented. First, the circumstances of the denials; second, the two denials: They said therefore to him: Are not you also one of his disciples?; and third, the fulfillment of Christ’s prediction: and immediately the cock crowed.

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

   But this interpretation is not acceptable because it would follow that Peter’s second and third denials were made in the absence of Christ. This is contrary to Luke, who says that after the third denial of Peter, our Lord turned and looked at him (Luke 22:61).

   For this reason, Augustine explains it another way, saying that the Evangelist is giving a general view in his own way to show the connection and order of the denials. The Evangelist had said above that the servants and ministers stood at a fire of coals, because it was cold, and warmed themselves. And Peter also was with them, standing and warming himself (John 18:18). The Evangelist then interposes the examination of Christ by the high priest and immediately returns to continue the series of Peter’s denials, using about the same words, saying, and Simon Peter was standing and warming himself, referring to the time before Christ was sent to Caiaphas.

10. Then the Evangelist mentions the next two denials of Peter: And Simon Peter was standing, and warming himself. They said therefore to him: Are you also one of his disciples? Two things are stated about each: the circumstance of the denial (that is, the question) and the denial itself.

    There are two questions about the literal meaning. When Matthew speaks of the second denial, he says, and when he went out to the porch, another maid saw him, and she said to the bystanders: This man was with Jesus of Nazareth. And again he denied it with an oath (Matthew 26:7–12). There seem to be two disagreements here. John says that Peter denied Christ by the fire: and Simon Peter was standing, and warming himself. They said therefore to him: Are not you also one of his disciples? But Matthew says this happened as Peter was going out to the porch.

    Again, in Matthew, Peter is questioned by another maid, but John has him questioned by others (that is, a number of others), for he says that they said therefore to him: Are not you also one of his disciples? (John 18:25). Luke also says that Christ was questioned by one person: and after an interval of about an hour still another insisted, saying: Certainly this man also was with him (Luke 22:59).

    To these points I say that after Peter first denied Christ, he got up, and as he was going out the door, another maid questioned him. Or, this maid told others that Peter was one of them, as Matthew says (Matthew 26:71). Thus Peter denied Christ a second time. After this, Peter returned so as to avoid seeming to be a follower of Christ and sat with the others. As he was sitting there, bystanders who had heard it from the maid questioned him again (Matthew 26:73). Or, one of the servants asked first, as John has it here, and then other bystanders joined in. This was Peter’s third denial.

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

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

11. Now he mentions the sign given by Christ which Peter recalled: And immediately the cock crowed. This was moved by God’s power, so that the prediction of the Physician would be fulfilled and the presumption of the one who was sick would be demonstrated.

1. Now the Evangelist tells about Christ’s being handed over to the Gentiles. This involves three points:

1. We see him delivered to the governor.
2. Christ is examined by him: Pilate therefore went out to them and said, “What accusation do you bring against this man?”
3. The governor declares that Christ is innocent: And when he had said this, he went out again to the Jews and said to them, “I find no fault in him” (John 18:38).

Regarding the first point, he does three things:

1. The place where Christ was delivered is stated.
2. The time is stated.
3. The way he was handed over is stated.

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

But how can Christ be led to Caiaphas in the praetorium?

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

Alternatively, one could say that the Greek text is better, which says, then they led Jesus from Caiaphas to the praetorium. This removes every difficulty.

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

Here we find a difficult problem. The other three Evangelists say that early in the evening Christ was struck at the residence of Caiaphas and questioned by him: If you are the Christ, tell us (Luke 22:67), and in the morning Christ was led to Pilate. But John says that he was led to Caiaphas.

If we want to adhere to the letter of the text, we could say that Caiaphas first saw Jesus when he was at the house of Annas during the night, and at that time Christ could have been examined by him.

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

4. They did not go into the praetorium, so that they might not be defiled, but might eat the Passover. Here we see two things:

• Their useless superstition, because they would not go into the praetorium.
• The deference Pilate paid them, since he went out to meet them.

A problem arises about the first point: that they would not enter the praetorium so as not to be defiled. The other Evangelists say that Christ was seized in the evening on the day of the supper, and this would be the Passover meal: I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you (Luke 22:15). And then on the morning of the next day, he was brought to the praetorium. Why then do we read, so that they might eat the Passover, since it was the day after the Passover?

Some of the modern Greeks say that this was the fourteenth lunar day of the month, and that Christ was crucified on the day the Jews celebrated the Passover. They argue that Christ anticipated the Passover by one day, since he knew he would be killed on the day of the Jewish Passover. Thus, he celebrated the Passover on the evening of the thirteenth lunar day. And since the law commanded that the Jews should not have leavened bread from the fourteenth day of the first month to the twenty-first day, they say that Christ consecrated leavened bread.

5. This is not acceptable for two reasons.

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

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

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

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

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

8. Now we see the deference Pilate showed them when he says, So Pilate went out to them to take Christ, whom they were offering, and said, “What accusation do you bring against this man?” In this examination of Christ, we see two things:

1. How Christ is examined by Pilate before his accusers.
2. How Christ is examined by Pilate in private: So Pilate entered his headquarters again and called Jesus (John 18:33).

Concerning the first, he does two things:

• We have Pilate’s questioning.
• We have his generous concession to the Jews, You take him.

9. Concerning the first, we have the examination by Pilate and then the malicious reply of the Jews. When Pilate saw Jesus bound and brought by many who were seeking his condemnation, he said, “What accusation do you bring against this man?” Their reply was, “If this man were not an evildoer, we would not have delivered him up to you.” They are saying here: we have already examined and condemned him, and are now handing him over to you to be punished. They were regarding their own judgment as sufficient for Pilate. Yet they were not speaking truly when they said he was an evildoer, for he went about doing good and healing all that were oppressed by the devil (Acts 10:38). They were acting as the Psalm says, They requite me evil for good (Psalms 35:12).

10. Luke is different, for he says that the Jews accused Christ of many crimes: He stirs up the people, teaching throughout all Judea, from Galilee even to this place (Luke 23:5).

I reply that, as Augustine says, the Jews said many things to Pilate at that time, and it could be that they first said what John reports and then said what Luke tells us.

11. The Evangelist now mentions Pilate’s generous concession: You take him. This involves three points:

1. We see this concession.
2. The Jews refuse it: The Jews said to him (John 18:31).
3. We see the reason for their refusal: so that the word of Jesus might be fulfilled (John 18:32).

12. Pilate said, “You take him,” intending to do them a favor. Festus did the same to Paul: But Festus, wishing to do the Jews a favor, said to Paul, “Do you wish to go up to Jerusalem and there be tried on these charges before me?” (Acts 25:9). Or, this could be said as a taunting remark. Since they had already examined and condemned Christ, Pilate wanted those who had condemned Christ as an evildoer to pass the sentence, because it was not the custom of the Romans to give up anyone before the accused met the accusers face to face and had an opportunity to make his defense concerning the charge laid against him (Acts 25:16). So the meaning is this: you want my judgment, but you take him and judge him according to your own law, for I will never be that kind of a judge.

13. The refusal of the Jews is mentioned when he says, The Jews therefore said to him, “It is not lawful for us to put any man to death.” This seems not to agree with Exodus: You will not permit a sorcerer to live (Exodus 22:18). And they regarded Jesus as a sorcerer.

According to Augustine, the meaning is, it is not lawful for us to put any man to death on a feast day, but it is lawful on other days. Or, according to Chrysostom, the Jews had lost much of their power, for they could not pass judgment on a crime against the state. But here they intended to condemn Christ especially for matters against the state: Whoever makes himself a king speaks against Caesar (John 19:12). This is why they said, it is not lawful for us to put any man to death for crimes against the state, although we can do this for some sins against the law, for this kind of judgment was reserved to them.

Or, it could be said that some things are not lawful either because they are prohibited by divine law (and they were not prohibited from doing this by divine law), or because they are forbidden by human law. In this latter way, it was not lawful for them to put anyone to death, for such power was now in the hands of the governor.

14. There is another question: how then could they have stoned Stephen? (Acts 7:58).

Chrysostom answers this by saying that the Romans allowed the Jews to make use of their own laws, and because the punishment of stoning was part of their law, the Romans allowed them to do this. But in the law, death on the cross was abhorred: A man who is hung on a tree is accursed by God (Deuteronomy 21:23). And so they did not use this kind of death. The Jews, in their malice, were not satisfied just to stone Christ; they wanted to condemn him to the most disgraceful of deaths, as we see from Wisdom . Thus they now say, it is not lawful for us to put any man to death, meaning death on a cross.

Or, one could say that Stephen was stoned during a change of governors, when many laws were violated which were not violated before.

15. The Evangelist gives the reason the Jews refused when he says, so that the word of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spoke, signifying by what kind of death he was to die. The words might be fulfilled do not indicate the intention the Jews had, but the arrangement of God’s providence. For Jesus had said in Matthew that he would be crucified and killed by the Gentiles, but that he would be handed over to them by the Jews (Matthew 20:19). So, in order that this be accomplished, the Jews were unwilling to judge and kill him themselves.