Thomas Aquinas Commentary Matthew 26:57-75

"And they that had taken Jesus led him away to [the house of] Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were gathered together. But Peter followed him afar off, unto the court of the high priest, and entered in, and sat with the officers, to see the end. Now the chief priests and the whole council sought false witness against Jesus, that they might put him to death; and they found it not, though many false witnesses came. But afterward came two, and said, This man said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days. And the high priest stood up, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee? But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou art the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus said unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Henceforth ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven. Then the high priest rent his garments, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy: what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? They answered and said, He is worthy of death. Then did they spit in his face and buffet him: and some smote him with the palms of their hands, saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ: who is he that struck thee? Now Peter was sitting without in the court: and a maid came unto him, saying, Thou also wast with Jesus the Galilaean. But he denied before them all, saying, I know not what thou sayest. And when he was gone out into the porch, another [maid] saw him, and saith unto them that were there, This man also was with Jesus of Nazareth. And again he denied with an oath, I know not the man. And after a little while they that stood by came and said to Peter, Of a truth thou also art [one] of them; for thy speech maketh thee known. Then began he to curse and to swear, I know not the man. And straightway the cock crew. And Peter remembered the word which Jesus had said, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly." — Matthew 26:57-75 (ASV)

This section discusses Christ’s arrest; now, it discusses where He would be led, describing the place and those gathered there. He says, therefore: But they, namely, those who held Him, led him to Caiaphas. This Caiaphas was the priest of that year, according to Jerome, and as it is stated: Being the high priest that year (John 11:49).

At that time, the priesthood was not being handled according to the precepts of the Law. The Lord had commanded that Aaron and his sons would be priests by hereditary right, so that when one died, another priest would replace him. But afterwards, as the ambition of the Jews grew, they were unable to bear the Law. When Judea became subject to the Romans, this Caiaphas bought the priesthood from the Jews, and he also bought it from Pilate; for this reason, the leader was wicked. It is not surprising, then, that a wicked judge or leader makes a wicked judgment.

This relates to a mystery: because just as Christ’s Passion was the offering of a true sacrifice, so also the place ought to be fitting for a true sacrifice, so that Christ, who is a priest forever, should be offered in the house of the priest. ‘Caiaphas’ is interpreted ‘investigator,’ and this can refer to the malice with which he condemned Christ.

But a question arises here, because John 18 states that He was first led to Annas. This is understood to be true, and in this their malice appears. Although they should have been focused on the solemn feast, they were intent on doing evil, so that what is said in Isaiah 1:14 applies well to them: My soul hateth your solemnities. Hence, what is said in Psalm 2:2 was fulfilled: They met together, against God, and against his Christ.

And Peter followed him afar off. Previously, the place of Christ’s arrest was discussed; here, Peter’s coming to Him is discussed. First, Christ is led away, and then Peter arrives.

The Evangelist does three things:

1. He mentions the manner in which Peter came to Christ.
2. He mentions the place where Peter came to Christ.
3. He mentions how Peter, following Christ, came to Him.

That he came was due to his fervor; that he was far off was due to his fear. Hence, the Church, founded upon Peter’s faith, would follow Christ, yet far off, because Christ suffered for the Church, not for Himself. However, Peter and the Church suffered for themselves.

Likewise, the place where Peter comes to Christ is mentioned, for he says, Even to the court of the high priest; for Peter did not dare to enter the house, for fear that he would be seen as a disciple of Jesus. Now regarding how he entered, Matthew is silent, but John recounts that a certain disciple therefore, who was known to the high priest brought in Peter (John 18:15).

His company follows: And going in, he sat with the servants, that he might see the end; and he was doing this either out of curiosity or out of piety.

There were three things at this point that somewhat disposed Peter to his fall. First, following far off disposed him to this, because it indicated that he was not firm, for he who is firm ought to draw near. Hence, it is said: Draw nigh to God: and he will draw nigh to you (James 4:8). For in God’s house there is the throne of God and of the Lamb, as it is stated in Revelation 22:3. In Christ’s house there is perfect charity; hence, Peter did not draw near to Christ’s charity.

Second, he had not become as malicious as the Jews; for that reason, he was tepid. Therefore, what is said happened to him: Because thou art lukewarm, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth (Revelation 3:16). Third, he was disposed to fall because there were wicked servants. As the judge of the people is himself, so also are his ministers . For that reason, it was not surprising that he fell, because he remained in bad company. This is why it is said: With the holy thou wilt be holy… and with the perverse thou wilt be perverted (Psalms 17:26-27).

Then Christ’s trial follows. First, He is tried by witnesses; and second, He is tried by His own confession, where it is said, And the high priest rising up, said to him, etc.

Regarding the first part, the Evangelist does three things:

1. The evil intention of the chief priests is made manifest.
2. The lack of proof is pointed out.
3. The false testimony is shown.

He says, therefore: And the chief priests and the whole council sought false witness against Jesus, that they might put him to death.

But a question arises: why did they not put Him to death without testimony? One reason is that hypocrites seek what appears to be good, but they do not seek the truth. So these men sought to appear as if they were not acting on their own initiative; hence, they were acting against the Law: Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor (Exodus 20:16). If it is not lawful to give false testimony, it is also not lawful to seek it. Another reason was that they did not possess the authority to kill, and for that reason, they were seeking false testimony so that they could hand Him over to the Roman leader.

And they found not, whereas many false witnesses had come in. Behold, the lack of testimony, in which Christ’s innocence is shown, so that He could say: I have walked in my innocence (Psalms 25:1). For they were always lying in wait for Christ, but they found nothing evil. Hence, He fulfilled what is stated: By doing well you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men (1 Peter 2:15). Then the false testimony follows: And last of all there came two false witnesses, and they said.

But a question arises here: why are they called false witnesses, since it is clear that Christ had said what is found in John 2?

According to Jerome, not only may one be called a false witness who says what he does not know, but also one who gives a false interpretation to what has been said. This man said, I am able to destroy the temple of God and after three days to rebuild it. But He did not mean the material temple, but the temple of His own Body.

Likewise, there is false witness not only as to the meaning but also as to the words, because He had said: Destroy this temple (John 2:19). He had not said, ‘I can destroy God’s Temple.’ It was as though He said, ‘You Jews destroy the temple (meaning Christ), and after three days I will raise it up.’ To rebuild pertains more to a material temple, but to raise it up pertains rather to a body. Hence, they were false witnesses both in respect to the words and in respect to the meaning.

Likewise, a question arises: Why do they not accuse Him of violating the Sabbath? Chrysostom answers that it is because they often accused Him of this, and He had always excused Himself and confirmed His excuse with miracles; therefore, they thought that it would not avail them. Moreover, the judge was not Jewish, and for that reason, they knew that he would not accept this accusation.

Then the trial by His own confession follows. First, a question regarding the testimony of the witnesses is related; second, a question of the chief priest is related. The second part is where it is said, And the high priest said to him, etc.

He says, therefore: And the high priest rising up, said to him: Answerest thou nothing to the things which these witness against thee? The fact that he rose up was due to his impatience and fury, hearing that Christ was not being convicted. What he says, Answerest thou nothing, etc., he does not say to excuse Him, but to catch Him in His words: The fool will speak foolish things, and his heart will work iniquity (Isaiah 32:6).

But Jesus held his peace. But why was He silent? It was for three reasons.

1. To teach us caution: for He knew that whatever He would say, they would turn it all into a calumny. In such a case, one ought to be silent before those laying snares: I have set a guard to my mouth, when the sinner stood against me (Psalms 38:2).
2. It was not then the time for teaching, but for having patience. And so what is said was fulfilled: He shall be led as a sheep to the slaughter, and shall be dumb as a lamb before his shearer, and he shall not open his mouth (Isaiah 53:7).
3. To teach us constancy when someone accuses us unjustly: Fear ye not the reproach of men (Isaiah 51:7).

Then the question of the chief priest follows: And the high priest said to him: I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us if thou be the Christ the Son of God. First, the question is related; and second, the Lord’s reply is related.

The high priest, seeing that he could not ensnare Him, adjured Him, doing this to catch Him in His words. This is stated in John 10:21: How long dost thou hold our souls in suspense? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. For among the Jews, it was considered a serious matter to adjure, for to adjure is to pressure someone to take an oath. Just as Christians ought not to swear except out of necessity, so they ought not to use adjurations; instead of adjurations, they ought to use words of request.

Then the reply follows: Jesus saith to him: Thou hast said it. Observe that when something was said against Himself, He kept silent; but immediately when God’s power is adjured, He answers.

Hence, He always sought the glory of His Father: I seek not my own glory (John 8:50). Concerning this, the Evangelist first relates His response, and second, he relates His manifestation. He says, therefore: Jesus saith to him: Thou hast said it.

This can be expounded as Christ not asserting anything, but leaving the matter in doubt. Give not that which is holy to dogs (Matthew 7:6). Or it can be understood as an assertion: Thou hast said it, meaning that what was said is true. This is evident, because it is said in Mark 14:62: I am.

Then He shows the proof of what He said: Nevertheless I say to you, hereafter you shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of the power of God. He evidently wishes to show that He is the Son of God, according to two passages. One is in Psalm 109:1: The Lord said to my Lord: Sit thou at my right hand. By this passage He had shown (Matthew 22) that Christ is the Son of God. Another passage is: I beheld in the vision of the night, and lo, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, etc. (Daniel 7:7).

I say that He is speaking in this way, namely, Thou hast said it; ‘but you have not known the truth.’ Observe that the Truth shall be manifested, because You shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of the power of God. Because He said, ‘sitting on the right hand,’ Chrysostom expounds that sitting at the right hand signifies a royal dignity: He shall sit upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom (Isaiah 9:7).

Or, to sit on the right hand is to be in the full beatitude of power, or to be in goods of greater consequence, for the right hand is the more noble one. Therefore, it signifies a greater dignity—not that He has greater power, but equal power: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth (Matthew 28:18). Likewise, concerning His power He says: Coming in the clouds of heaven.

But what does He mean when He says, Hereafter you shall see, etc.? It ought to be observed that what He says, In the clouds, can be referred to His final Coming or to His daily coming. His final Coming will be in a cloud: As you have seen him going into heaven (Acts 1:11). This phrase can also be expounded concerning His daily coming, about which it is said: If he come to me, I shall not see him (Job 11:11).

This daily coming is ‘in the clouds,’ meaning in the Apostles and in holy teachers. Concerning these men, it is said: Who are these, that fly as clouds? (Isaiah 60:8). These men are called ‘clouds’ because they ascend on high. Likewise, clouds are fruitful: the first point pertains to the loftiness of their lives, and the second point to the fruitfulness of their teaching. They are ‘the clouds of heaven,’ meaning they are heavenly men because they carried the heavenly image.

But what is the meaning of the words, Hereafter you shall see? The meaning is that, immediately after the Passion, He converted some men to the faith, and He converted others through the evidence of their deeds. Similarly, some were converted on account of their faith, and others on account of their good deeds.

Moreover, if this passage is referred to His final Coming, Origen says, “All the world’s time compared to eternity is nothing, and is like one moment.” A thousand years in thy sight are as yesterday, which is past (Psalms 89:4). Therefore, He says, Hereafter, because the time until the Judgment, in respect to eternity, is nothing. ‘Nevertheless, after you have departed from Me, nothing remains to be done except that you will know Me clearly, because I will come in the clouds of heaven. And then you will know that I am the Son of man.’ A similar manner of speech is found previously: You shall not see me henceforth till you say: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord (Matthew 23:39).

Then the high priest rent his garments. Here His condemnation is related. First, how He was condemned is related; and second, how He was denied by His disciple is related. First, the Evangelist treats of His condemnation; and second, he treats of the mockery.

For first, the high priest condemns Him, and second, asks for a verdict. The condemning high priest lays blame both by an action and by words; he does this by an action, in that he rends his garments. He rends his garments with the same fury with which, shortly before, he rose from his seat, for it was the custom that those who heard a blasphemy rent their garments as a sign that they could not bear to listen.

But the fact that the high priest did these two things signified something: that he rose from his seat signified that he lost the priesthood; and that he rent his garments signified that the priesthood was due to be transferred: The priesthood being translated, it is necessary that a translation also be made of the law (Hebrews 7:12). Christ’s garment was not rent: Let us not cut it but let us cast lots for it, whose it shall be (John 19:24). Hence, it signified an abolition. This is signified in 1 Samuel 15:28: The Lord hath rent the kingdom of Israel from thee this day. In this way, the priesthood was rent from the Jews and given to Christ’s members.

Then the high priest lays blame, saying, He hath blasphemed. Because Christ had said this, he considers Him to be a blasphemer; hence: For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy: and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself the Son God (John 10:33). And such a man deserves death. Then he lays blame: What further need have we of witnesses? Then he asks for a verdict: What think you? But they answering, said: He is guilty of death, according to the judgment of the Law.

This would have been true if He were a blasphemer; but He was not. Therefore, they judged Him badly, because they condemned the Author of life to death: As death is through Adam unto all men, so also is life through Jesus (1 Corinthians 15:22).

Then did they spit in his face, etc. After Christ’s condemnation, the mockery is discussed. This is very fitting, because Christ bore our sins, as it is said in Isaiah 53. Now man, by sin, was handed over to death, when it was said to him: In what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death (Genesis 2:17). Likewise, he lost his own honor, because man when he was in honor did not understand; he is compared to senseless beasts (Psalms 48:13).

For that reason, Christ the Redeemer first undergoes death and reproaches by an action, and second, He undergoes these by words, where it is said, Prophesy unto us, O Christ. In the first part, He is spit upon and beaten; in the second part, He is struck in the face. As to the first point, it is said: Then did they spit in his face and buffeted him. According to the words given in Holy Writ, this used to be done as a sign of contempt of God’s commandment; hence, it is stated in Deuteronomy 25 that if someone did not want to take the wife of his brother, they spat upon his face. Similarly, this was done as a sign of contempt of a father’s commandment, as was said concerning Mary, the sister of Moses.

Therefore, they spat in His face because they considered Him to be a blasphemer: I have not turned away my face from them that rebuked me, and spit upon me (Isaiah 50:6). Likewise, they buffeted him, as would be done to a drunkard or a fool: We have seen him the most abject of men (Isaiah 53:2), meaning that He seemed so despised as if He were the most abject of men. And others struck his face with the palms of their hands, as an irreverence: He shall give his cheek to him that striketh him (Isaiah 3:30).

Mystically, according to Augustine, some still do this: for to spit in the face is nothing other than to contemn the presence of Christ’s grace: How much more, do you think he deserveth worse punishments, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God and hath esteemed the blood of the testament unclean, by which he was sanctified, and hath offered an affront to the Spirit of grace? (Hebrews 10:29). Now properly, they beat who esteem the head less than the hands; such are those who seek their own dignity rather than Christ’s honor. Concerning such men, it is said that Men loved darkness rather than the light (John 3:19). Now they who strike the face are those who, in a certain way, strive to destroy His presence; such do the Jews. Concerning them it is said: Let the Holy One of Israel cease from before us (Isaiah 30:11).

Then they mock Him with words: Prophesy unto us, O Christ. Who is he that struck thee? They said this mockingly because none of them held Him to be a prophet, and it was not necessary to say anything, for their bad conduct was manifest. Hence, He did not wish to speak: Reproaching me they have struck me on the cheek (Job 16:11).

But Peter sat without in the court. Here Peter’s denial is discussed. Now Luke recounts these events in a different order, because first, he relates Peter’s denial, and afterwards the mocking of Christ; Matthew, however, does the contrary. There is no contradiction, because when He was being mocked, the denial happened at the same time; hence, it does not matter if the denial is related before or afterwards.

It ought to be observed that when He was being led away, Peter did not deny Him; but when He was being mocked, he denied Him. This signifies that some men fear reproaches more than beatings, contrary to what is written: Fear ye not the reproach of men, and be not afraid of their blasphemies (Isaiah 51:7).

Concerning this, the denial is first related, and second, Peter’s repentance when both the cock crowed and he recalled the words of Jesus. The first part (the denial) is divided into three sections, according to his three denials. The second section begins where it is said, And as he went out of the gate; and the third section where it is said, And after a little while, they came that stood by, etc. Regarding the first denial: first, the place is related; second, the occasion of his denial is related; and third, the denial is related.

He says, therefore: But Peter sat without, namely, outside of the place where Christ was suffering: O Lord, all that forsake thee shall be confounded (Jeremiah 17:13). On the contrary, it is written: Come ye to him and be enlightened: and your faces shall not be confounded (Psalms 33:6). For he who is outside of Christ’s Passion easily falls.

Then what prompted him to deny Christ is related: And there came to him a servant maid, saying: Thou also wast with Jesus the Galilean. Peter’s fall corresponds to the fall of the first man: From the woman came the beginning of sin . In like manner, Peter denied Christ upon the words of a woman, by which the Lord wished to humble his presumption, because he fell not by the words of a man, but by the words of a woman. This man also was with Jesus of Nazareth.

This should have been something glorious to him, but now it was something terrifying to him. For that reason, he denied Him, and he denied Him before others, saying: I know not what thou sayest.

If we wish to increase Peter’s guilt, we can do so due to three things.

1. His guilt is increased in that he immediately denied Him from a little fear: The sound of a flying leaf shall terrify them (Leviticus 26:36).
2. His guilt is increased because he was not ashamed to deny Him in front of others.
3. His guilt is increased by his lie, because he said, I know not what thou sayest, and I know not the man. This is opposed to what is written: Be not ashamed to say the truth (Leviticus 4:24).

And as he went out of the gate, another maid saw him; and she saith to them that were there: This man also was with Jesus of Nazareth. First, the place is mentioned; second, his motivation is mentioned; and third, his denial is mentioned.

As to the historical account, according to Mark, the cock crew after a first denial, and then Peter went out of the gate, and the maid saw him, and he denied Him a second time. But this seems opposed to the other Evangelists, because it seems that they say that others spoke while sitting down; and Luke says that one of those sitting spoke. Why, therefore, is it said here that the maid spoke as he went out of the gate?

It ought to be observed, according to Augustine, that Peter went out after he had denied Him. When he was going out, the maid spoke to him, etc., and then he denied Him again. Because Peter heard the maid speaking to others, he came back in. Then those who had heard the maid asked him again.

It can be that one man, who knew him, was inciting him more: And again he denied with an oath: I know not the man. This is contrary to what is written: Let not thy mouth be accustomed to swearing .

Then, the third denial follows. First, the time is told; second, the motivation is told; and third, the denial is related. He says, therefore: And after a little while. Luke says that it was after the space, as it were of one hour (Luke 22:59). The devil was controlling this, so that Peter would not have time to catch his breath. Hence, they say to him: Thou also art one of them; and they were proving this: For even thy speech doth discover thee.

But it is evident that they were all Jews. How then does he say, For even thy speech doth discover thee? Jerome resolves this question, saying that in the same language there are often different manners of speaking. As it appears in France, there are different manners of speaking in Picardy and in Burgundy, and yet there is one language. So the Galileans have a different manner of speaking from the Jerusalemites.

So also it can be said to anyone: For even thy speech doth discover thee, because, as it is said: Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh (Luke 6:45). For when a man is carnal, he quickly bursts out in carnal words; and when a man is spiritual, he bursts out in spiritual words.

Then he began to curse and to swear, etc. Some men try to excuse Peter, namely, that he did not sin. Hence, when he said, I know not the man, they argue it is true that he did not know Him as just a man, but as man and God. This is not good, because it ascribes a lie to Christ, for Christ had said: Thou wilt deny me. For that reason, it is better to say that Peter lied, rather than Christ.

Likewise, it ought to be observed that he not only denied Christ, but he also denied that he was a Christian. Hence, he said in one denial, I do not know him, that is to say, ‘I am not a Christian.’

Similarly, it ought to be observed that he who does not quickly remove himself from evil quickly goes from bad to worse: He that contemneth small things, shall fall by little and little . Hence, he added perjury to his denial, and blasphemy to perjury. Gregory says, “The sin which is not remitted by penance soon draws man into another sin.”

Moreover, it ought to be noted that the threefold temptations by which man is tempted are signified. First, man is tempted by the concupiscence of the flesh: Every man is tempted by his own concupiscence (James 1:14). Second, man is tempted by the concupiscence for earthly things: This the desire of gain devised . Third, man is tempted by demons, and this is signified by that denial in which it is said, After a little while, they came that stood by. Our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and powers, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places (Ephesians 6:12). Concerning these three temptations, it is stated: All that is in the world is the concupiscence of the flesh and the concupiscence of the eyes and the pride of life (1 John 2:16).

Alternatively, according to Augustine, the errors of all the heretics are signified by these three denials. For some men denied Christ’s divinity, such as Photinus; others denied His humanity, such as Eunomius; and certain other men denied both Christ’s humanity and divinity, such as Arius, who said that the Son was not equal to the Father.

Similarly, according to Origen, three persecutions are signified, which the Church was about to experience. The first persecution was by the Jews, in which many men died; the second was by the Gentiles, in which many men were made martyrs; and the third was by the heretics, who seduced many, and some men also died.

Likewise, it ought to be observed that certain writings are found which seem to excuse Peter, saying that he did not sin mortally, because Bernard says, “Charity in him was not quenched, but cooled.” It ought to be said, however, that Peter sinned mortally; nevertheless, it was not due to malice but to fear of death. And Bernard wished to say this in stating that his charity was cooled, etc.

And immediately the cock crew. Here, Peter’s repentance is discussed. First, the motive or stimulus of his repentance is discussed; and second, his repentance is discussed, where it is said, And going forth, he wept bitterly. Two things are mentioned by which the incitement occurred. First, there was the cock’s crowing; hence: And immediately the cock crew.

By the cock, preachers are signified, who rouse sinners to repentance; hence: Awake, ye just, and sin not (1 Corinthians 15:34); and: Rise, thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead: and Christ shall enlighten thee (Ephesians 5:14). The second stimulus of his repentance was Peter’s remembering: And Peter remembered the word of Jesus which he had said, etc. All the ends of the earth shall remember, and shall be converted to the Lord (Psalms 21:28). These two things often happen as a consequence of a preacher’s words, because those who forget God through their sins return to Him by the preacher’s words. Concerning that cock, it is said: Who gave the cock understanding? (Job 38:36).

Likewise, Luke relates a third stimulus, namely, that The Lord looked on Peter (Luke 22:61). The Apostle says: Being justified freely by his grace (Romans 3:24). Convert us, O Lord, to thee, and we shall be converted (Lamentations 5:21).

Afterwards, Peter’s repentance is discussed: And going forth, he wept bitterly. His repentance is commendable for three reasons.

1. It is commendable because it was quick, since he went out immediately: Delay not to be converted to the Lord .
2. It was prudent, because he withdrew from the company of those who had led him to deny the Lord. So also penitents ought to avoid occasions of sin: Go out from among them and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing, and I will receive you (2 Corinthians 6:17–18).
3. His repentance was efficacious and true: Make thee mourning as for an only son, a bitter lamentation (Jeremiah 6:26); I will recount to thee all my years in the bitterness of my soul (Isaiah 38:15).