The history of the passion of Christ.
Being gone to the place that Iudas the Traitor did knovv, 4 he offereth him self to the hand of his enemies, shovveth his Diuine might in ouerthrovving them al vvith a vvord, and in sauing his Apostles from them also vvith a vvord: 10 rebuketh Peter that vvould defend him from them: 1• and so being apprehended, is brought bound to Annas and Caiphas, vvhere he is striken by a seruant, and thrise denied of Peter. 28 Againe in the morning he is by them brought to Pilate. 29 Who demaunding their accusation, vvhereas they vvould oppresse him vvith their authoritie, 〈◊〉 and examining the point of his kingdom, pronounceth him innocent: yet they crie rather to haue a theeues life saued.
1When Jesus had said these things, he went forth with his disciples over the brook Cedron, where there was a garden, into which he entered with his disciples.Detto questo, Gesù uscì co' suoi discepoli di là dal torrente Cedron, dove era un orto, in cui entrò egli, e i suoi discepoli.WHEN IESVS had said these things, he vvent forth vvith his disciples beyond the Torrent-Cedron, vvhere vvas a garden, into the vvhich he entred and his Disciples.Hæc cum dixisset Jesus, egressus est cum discipulis suis trans torrentem Cedron, ubi erat hortus, in quem introivit ipse, et discipuli ejus. 2And Judas also, who betrayed him, knew the place: because Jesus had often resorted thither together with his disciples.Or questo luogo era cognito anche a Giuda, il quale lo tradiva: perché frequentemente si era colà portato Gesù co' suoi discepoli.And Iudas also, that betraied him, knevv the place: because IESVS had often resorted thither together vvith his Disciples.Sciebat autem et Judas, qui tradebat eum, locum: quia frequenter Jesus convenerat illuc cum discipulis suis. 3Judas therefore having received a band of soldiers and servants from the chief priests and the Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons.Giuda pertanto avuta una coorte, e de' ministri dai Principi dei sacerdoti, e da' Farisei, andò colà con lanterne, fiaccole, e armi.Iudas therfore hauing receiued the band of men, and of the cheefe Priests and the Pharisees, ministers, commeth thither vvith lanternes and torches and vveapons.Judas ergo cum accepisset cohortem, et a pontificibus et pharisæis ministros, venit illuc cum laternis, et facibus, et armis. 4Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him, went forth and said to them: Whom seek ye?Ma Gesù, che sapeva tutto quello che doveva accadere sopra di lui, si fece avanti, e disse loro: Di chi cercate voi?IESVS therfore knovving al things that should come vpon him, vvent forth, and said to them, Vvhom seeke ye?Jesus itaque sciens omnia quæ ventura erant super eum, processit, et dixit eis: Quem quæritis ? 5They answered him: Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith to them: I am he. And Judas also, who betrayed him, stood with them.Gli risposero: Di Gesù Nazzareno. Disse loro Gesù: Son io. Ed era con essi anche Giuda, il quale lo tradiva.they ansvvered him, IESVS of Nazareth. IESVS saith to them, I am he. And Iudas also that betraied him, stoode vvith them.Responderunt ei: Jesum Nazarenum. Dicit eis Jesus: Ego sum. Stabat autem et Judas, qui tradebat eum, cum ipsis.
6As soon therefore as he had said to them: I am he; they went backward and fell to the ground.Appena però ebbe detto loro: Son io: dettero indietro, e stramazzaron per terra.As sone therfore as he said to them, I am he: they vvent backvvard, and fel to the ground.Ut ergo dixit eis: Ego sum: abierunt retrorsum, et ceciderunt in terram. 7Again therefore he asked them: Whom seek ye? And they said: Jesus of Nazareth.Di nuovo adunque domandò loro: Di chi cercate? E quelli dissero: Di Gesù Nazzareno.Againe therfore he asked them, Vvhom seeke ye? And they said, IESVS of Nazareth.Iterum ergo interrogavit eos: Quem quæritis ? Illi autem dixerunt: Jesum Nazarenum. 8Jesus answered: I have told you that I am he. If therefore you seek me, let these go their way,Rispose Gesù: vi ho detto, che son io: se adunque cercate di me, lasciate, che questi se ne vadano.IESVS ansvvered, haue told you, that I am he, if therfore you seeke me, let these goe their vvaies.Respondit Jesus: Dixi vobis, quia ego sum: si ergo me quæritis, sinite hos abire. 9That the word might be fulfilled which he said: Of them whom thou hast given me, I have not lost any one.Affinchè si adempisse la parola detta da lui: Di quelli, che hai dati a me, nissuno ne ho perduto.That the vvord might be fulfilled vvhich he said, That of them vvhom thou hast giuen me, I haue not lost any.Ut impleretur sermo, quem dixit: Quia quos dedisti mihi, non perdidi ex eis quemquam. 10Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it and struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his right ear. And the name of the servant was Malchus.Ma Simon Pietro, che aveva la spada, la sfoderò: e ferì un servidore del sommo Pontefice: e gli tagliò l'orecchia destra. Questo servitore chiamavasi Malco.Simon Peter therfore hauing a svvord, drevve it out: and smote the seruant of the high priest: & cut of his right eare. And the name of the seruant vvas Malchus.Simon ergo Petrus habens gladium eduxit eum: et percussit pontificis servum, et abscidit auriculam ejus dexteram. Erat autem nomen servo Malchus. 11Jesus therefore said to Peter: Put up thy sword into the scabbard. The chalice which my father hath given me, shall I not drink it?Gesù però disse a Pietro: Rimetti la tua spada nel fodero. Non berrò io il calice datomi dal Padre?IESVS therfore said to Peter, Put vp thy svvord into the scabbard. The chalice vvhich my father hath giuen me, shal not I drinke it?Dixit ergo Jesus Petro: Mitte gladium tuum in vaginam. Calicem, quem dedit mihi Pater, non bibam illum ?
12Then the band and the tribune and the servants of the Jews took Jesus and bound him.La coorte pertanto, e il tribuno, e i ministri de' Giudei afferrarono Gesù, e lo legarono:The band therfore and the Tribune & the ministers of the Ievves apprehended IESVS, and bound him:Cohors ergo, et tribunus, et ministri Judæorum comprehenderunt Jesum, et ligaverunt eum. 13And they led him away to Annas first, for he was father-in-law to Caiphas, who was the high priest of that year.E lo menarono di là primieramente ad Anna; perché era suocero di Caifa, il quale era Pontefice in quell'anno.and they brought him to Annas first, for he vvas father in lavv to Caiphas, vvho vvas the high priest of that yere.Et adduxerunt eum ad Annam primum: erat enim socer Caiphæ, qui erat pontifex anni illius. 14Now Caiphas was he who had given the counsel to the Jews: That it was expedient that one man should die for the people.Caifa poi era quello, che avea dato per consiglio a' Giudei, che era spediente, che un sol uomo morisse pel popolo.And Caiphas vvas he that had giuen the cousel to the Ievves, That it is expedient that one man die for the people.Erat autem Caiphas, qui consilium dederat Judæis: Quia expedit unum hominem mori pro populo. 15And Simon Peter followed Jesus: and so did another disciple. And that disciple was known to the high priest and went in with Jesus into the court of the high priest.Teneva dietro a Gesù Simone Pietro, e un altro discepolo. E quest'altro discepolo era conosciuto dal Pontefice, ed entro con Gesù nel cortile del Pontefice.And Simon Peter folovved IESVS, and an other disciple. And that Disciple vvas knovven to the high priest, and vvent in vvith IESVS into the court of the high priest.Sequebatur autem Jesum Simon Petrus, et alius discipulus. Discipulus autem ille erat notus pontifici, et introivit cum Jesu in atrium pontificis. 16But Peter stood at the door without. The other disciple therefore, who was known to the high priest, went out and spoke to the portress and brought in Peter.Pietro poi restò di fuori alla porta. Ma uscì quell'altro discepolo, che era conosciuto dal Pontefice, e parlò alla portinaja, e fece entrar Pietro.but Peter stoode at the doore vvithout. The other disciple therfore that vvas knovven to the high Priest, vvent forth, and spake to the portresse, and brought in Peter.Petrus autem stabat ad ostium foris. Exivit ergo discipulus alius, qui erat notus pontifici, et dixit ostiariæ: et introduxit Petrum. 17The maid therefore that was portress saith to Peter: Art not thou also one of this man’s disciples? He saith: I am not.Disse però a Pietro la serva portinaja: Sei forse anche tu dei discepoli di quest'uomo? Ei rispose: Nol sono.The vvench therfore that vvas portresse, saith to Peter, Art not thou also of this mans disciples? He saith to her, I am not.Dicit ergo Petro ancilla ostiaria: Numquid et tu ex discipulis es hominis istius ? Dicit ille: Non sum.
18Now the servants and ministers stood at a fire of coals, because it was cold, and warmed themselves. And with them was Peter also, standing and warming himself.Stavano i servi, e i ministri al fuoco, perché faceva freddo, e si scaldavano: e Pietro se nè stava con essi, e si scaldava.And the seruants and ministers stoode at a fire of coles, because it vvas cold, and vvarmed them selues. And vvith them vvas Peter also standing, and vvarming him self.Stabant autem servi et ministri ad prunas, quia frigus erat, et calefaciebant se: erat autem cum eis et Petrus stans, et calefaciens se. 19The high priest therefore asked Jesus of his disciples and of his doctrine.Or il Pontefice interrogò Gesù circa i suoi discepoli, e circa la sua dottrina.The high priest therfore asked IESVS of his disciples, and of his doctrine.Pontifex ergo interrogavit Jesum de discipulis suis, et de doctrina ejus. 20Jesus answered him: I have spoken openly to the world. I have always taught in the synagogue and in the temple, whither all the Jews resort: and in secret I have spoken nothing.Gesù gli rispose: Io ho parlato alla gente, in pubblico: Io ho sempre insegnato nella Sinagoga, e nel Tempio, dove si radunano tutti i Giudei, e non ho fatto parola in segreto:IESVS ansvvered him, I haue openly spokē to the vvorld: I haue alvvaies taught in the synagogue, and in the temple vvhither al, the Ievves resort together: and in secrete I haue spoken nothing.Respondit ei Jesus: Ego palam locutus sum mundo: ego semper docui in synagoga, et in templo, quo omnes Judæi conveniunt, et in occulto locutus sum nihil. 21Why askest thou me? Ask them who have heard what I have spoken unto them. Behold they know what things I have said.Perché interroghi me? Domanda a coloro, che hanno udito quel, che io abbia loro detto: questi sanno, quali cose io abbia dette.Vvhy askest thou me? aske them that haue heard vvhat I haue spoken vnto them: behold they knovv vvhat things I haue said.Quid me interrogas ? interroga eos qui audierunt quid locutus sim ipsis: ecce hi sciunt quæ dixerim ego. 22And when he had said these things, one of the servants standing by gave Jesus a blow, saying: Answerest thou the high priest so?Appena ebbe egli detto questo, che uno de' ministri quivi presenti diede uno schiaffo a Gesù, dicendo: Così rispondi al Pontefice?Vvhen he had said these things, one of the ministers stāding by, gaue IESVS a blovv, saying, Ansvverest thou the high priest so?Hæc autem cum dixisset, unus assistens ministrorum dedit alapam Jesu, dicens: Sic respondes pontifici ?
23Jesus answered him: If I have spoken evil, give testimony of the evil; but if well, why strikest thou me?Risposegli Gesù: Se ho parlato male, dammi accusa di questo male: se bene, perché mi percuoti?IESVS ansvvered him, If I haue spoken il, giue testimonie of euil: but if vvel, vvhy strikest thou me?Respondit ei Jesus: Si male locutus sum, testimonium perhibe de malo: si autem bene, quid me cædis ? 24And Annas sent him bound to Caiphas the high priest.Lo aveva dunque mandato Anna legato al sommo Pontefice Caifa.And Annas sent him bound to Caiphas the high priest.Et misit eum Annas ligatum ad Caipham pontificem. 25And Simon Peter was standing and warming himself. They said therefore to him: Art not thou also one of his disciples? He denied it and said: I am not.Ed eravi Simon Pietro, che si stava scaldando. A lui dunque dissero: Sei forse anche tu de' suoi discepoli? Egli negò, dicendo: Nol sono.And Simon Peter vvas standing, and vvarming him self. They said therfore to him, Art not thou also of his disciples? He denied and said: I am not.Erat autem Simon Petrus stans, et calefaciens se. Dixerunt ergo ei: Numquid et tu ex discipulis ejus es ? Negavit ille, et dixit: Non sum. 26One of the servants of the high priest (a kinsman to him whose ear Peter cut off) saith to him: Did not I see thee in the garden with him?Dissegli uno de' servi del sommo Pontefice, parente di quello, cui Pietro avea tagliato l'orecchia? Non ti ho io veduto nell'orto con lui?One of the seruants of the high priest saith to him, his cosin vvhose eare Peter did cut of, Did not I see thee in the garden vvith him?Dicit ei unus ex servis pontificis, cognatus ejus, cujus abscidit Petrus auriculam: Nonne ego te vidi in horto cum illo ? 27Again therefore Peter denied: and immediately the cock crew.Ma Pietro negò di nuovo: e subito cantò il gallo.Againe therfore Peter denied: and forth vvith the cocke crevve.Iterum ergo negavit Petrus: et statim gallus cantavit. 28Then they led Jesus from Caiphas to the governor’s hall. And it was morning: and they went not into the hall, that they might not be defiled, but that they might eat the pasch.Condussero adunque Gesù dalla casa di Caifa al pretorio. Ed era di mattino: ed essi non entrarono nel pretorio per non contaminarsi, affin di mangiare la Pasqua.They therfore bring IESVS from Caiphas into the Palace. And it vvas morning: and they vvent not in into the Palace, that they might not be contaminated, but that they might eate the Pasche.Adducunt ergo Jesum a Caipha in prætorium. Erat autem mane: et ipsi non introierunt in prætorium, ut non contaminarentur, sed ut manducarent Pascha.
29Pilate therefore went out to them, and said: What accusation bring you against this man?Uscì adunque fuora Pilato ad essi, e disse: Che accusa presentate voi contro quest'uomo?Pilate therfore vvent forth to them vvithout, and said, Vvhat accusation bring you against this man?Exivit ergo Pilatus ad eos foras, et dixit: Quam accusationem affertis adversus hominem hunc ? 30They answered and said to him: If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up to thee.Gli risposer, e dissero: Se non fosse costui un malfattore, non lo avremmo rimesso nelle tue mani.They ansvvered and said to him, If he vvere not a malefactour, vve vvould not haue deliuered him vp to thee.Responderunt, et dixerunt ei: Si non esset hic malefactor, non tibi tradidissemus eum. 31Pilate therefore said to them: Take him you, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said to him: It is not lawful for us to put any man to death.Disse adunque loro Pilato: Prendetelo voi, e giudicatelo secondo la vostra legge. Mai Giudei gli dissero: Non è lecito a noi di dar morte ad alcuno.Pilate therfore said to them, Take him you, and according to your lavv iudge him. The Ievves therfore said to him, It is not lavvful for vs to kil any man.Dixit ergo eis Pilatus: Accipite eum vos, et secundum legem vestram judicate eum. Dixerunt ergo ei Judæi: Nobis non licet interficere quemquam. 32That the word of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he said, signifying what death he should die.Affinchè si adempisse la parola detta da Gesù, per significare, di qual morte doveva morire.That the vvord of IESVS might be fulfilled vvhich he said, signifying what death he should die.Ut sermo Jesu impleretur, quem dixit, significans qua morte esset moriturus. 33Pilate therefore went into the hall again and called Jesus and said to him: Art thou the king of the Jews?Entrò adunque di nuovo Pilato nel pretorio, e chiamò Gesù, e gli disse: Se' tu il Re de' Giudei?Pilate therfore vvent into the Palace againe, and called IESVS, and said to him, Art thou the king of the Ievves?Introivit ergo iterum in prætorium Pilatus: et vocavit Jesum, et dixit ei: Tu es rex Judæorum ? 34Jesus answered: Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or have others told it thee of me?Gli rispose Gesù: Dici tu questo da te stesso, ovvero altri te lo hanno detto di me?IESVS ansvvered, Saiest thou this of thy self, or haue others told it thee of me?Respondit Jesus: A temetipso hoc dicis, an alii dixerunt tibi de me ? 35Pilate answered: Am I a Jew? Thy own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee up to me. What hast thou done?Rispose Pilato: Son io forse Giudeo? La tua nazione, e i Pontefici ti hanno messo nelle mie mani: che hai tu fatto?Pilate answered, Vvhy, am I a Iewe? Thy nation, and the cheefe priests haue deliuered thee vp to me: vvhat hast thou done?Respondit Pilatus: Numquid ego Judæus sum ? gens tua et pontifices tradiderunt te mihi: quid fecisti ?
36Jesus answered: My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would certainly strive that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now my kingdom is not from hence.Rispose Gesù: Il regno mio non è di questo mondo: se fosse di questo mondo il mio regno, i miei ministri certamente si adoprerebbero, perché non venissi dato in poter de' Giudei: ora poi il regno mio non è di qua'.IESVS ansvvered, My kingdom is not of this vvorld. if my kingdō vvere of this vvorld, my ministers verily vvould striue that I should not be deliuered to the Ievves. but novv my kingdom is not from hēce,Respondit Jesus: Regnum meum non est de hoc mundo. Si ex hoc mundo esset regnum meum, ministri mei utique decertarent ut non traderer Judæis: nunc autem regnum meum non est hinc. 37Pilate therefore said to him: Art thou a king then? Jesus answered: Thou sayest that I am a king. For this was I born, and for this came I into the world; that I should give testimony to the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.Dissegli però Pilato: Tu dunque sei re? Rispose Gesù: Tu dici, che io sono re. Io a questo fine son nato, e a questo fine sono venuto nel mondo, di render testimonianza alla verità: Chiunque sta per la verità, ascolta la mia voce.Pilate therfore said to him, Art thou a king then? IESVS ansvvered, Thou saiest, that I am a king. For this vvas I borne, and for this came I into the vvorld: that I should giue testimonie to the truth. Euery one that is of the truth, heareth my voice.Dixit itaque ei Pilatus: Ergo rex es tu ? Respondit Jesus: Tu dicis quia rex sum ego. Ego in hoc natus sum, et ad hoc veni in mundum, ut testimonium perhibeam veritati: omnis qui est ex veritate, audit vocem meam. 38Pilate saith to him: What is truth? And when he said this, he went out again to the Jews and saith to them: I find no cause in him.Dissegli Pilato: Che cosa è la verità? E detto questo, di nuovo uscì a trovar i Giudei, e disse loro: Io non trovo in lui nissun delitto.Pilate saith to him, Vvhat is truth? And vvhen he had said this, he vvent forth againe to the Ievves, and saith to them, I finde no cause in him.Dicit ei Pilatus: Quid est veritas ? Et cum hoc dixisset, iterum exivit ad Judæos, et dicit eis: Ego nullam invenio in eo causam. 39But you have a custom that I should release one unto you at the Pasch. Will you, therefore, that I release unto you the king of the Jews?Ora poi avete per uso, che io vi lasci libero un uomo nella Pasqua: Volete adunque, che vi metta in libertà il Re de' Giudei.But you haue a custome that I should release one to you in the Pasche: vvil you therfore that I release vnto you the king of the Ievves?Est autem consuetudo vobis ut unum dimittam vobis in Pascha: vultis ergo dimittam vobis regem Judæorum ?
40Then cried they all again, saying: Not this man, but Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a robber.Ma gridarono replicatamente tutti dicendo: Non costui, ma Barabba. Or Barabba era un assassino.They al therfore cried againe, saying, Not him but Barabbas. And Barabbas vvas a theefe.Clamaverunt ergo rursum omnes, dicentes: Non hunc, sed Barabbam. Erat autem Barabbas latro.
18:1
Witham
Over the torrent, or brook Cedron,[Ver. 1. Cedron, not Cedrorum. In most Greek copies, ton Kedron. In some manuscripts tou Kedron. So the Protestant translation, the brook Cedron.] which ran betwixt Jerusalem and Mount Olivet, in the valley of Cedron, or of Hennom, or of Josaphat, not of Cedars, as in many Greek copies. See the history of Christ's Passion. (Matthew xxvi. and xxvii.) (Witham)
18:5
Theophylactus
Jesus here asks them, whom they were seeking, not as if he were ignorant of their errand, but to shew them, that of their own power they could do nothing, because, though he, whom they sought, was present, and stood before them, yet, they did not know him. (Theophylactus)
St. Chrysostom
The darkness of the night could not have been the reason why they did not see him, because, as the evangelist observes, they had lanterns and torches with them, and if they could not see him, at least they might have known him by his voice; for how could Judas, their leader, who was one of his own apostles, be unable to know him by his voice. (St. Chrysostom)
18:6
St. Chrysostom
Jesus again shews the Jews his power, and works another miracle before them, to give them another opportunity of being converted; but they would not: they still persevere in their hardness of heart; he therefore now delivers himself up to them, as now they can have no excuse for their incredulity. (St. Chrysostom)
18:13
18:15
18:17
Bible de Vence
St. John gives here Peter's first denial, which is reunited to the other two by all the preceding evangelists. This is one of the circumstances, which the others may have neglected, to unite three similar facts, and relating to the same object. (Bible de Vence)
St. Chrysostom
St. Peter, the prince and head of the Church, was permitted to fall, to teach him to treat with more mildness and condescension those, whom he would afterwards have to raise out of the same miserable state of sin. One weak and frail man is placed over another, that seeing him unhappily fallen, he may give him his kind and helping hand, to free him from that unhappy state, in which he knows himself to have been. (St. Chrysostom)
Butler's Lives of the Saints
Of all which our divine Saviour suffered in the court of Caiphas, nothing so much affected him as the dangerous fall of Peter, the chief of all his apostles, who had received the most signal favours from him. He had boasted that very night, that although all the rest of the disciples should abandon their master, he would never forsake him. Yet, see the weakness and inconstancy of human nature; at the voice of a poor maid, he forthwith denies his master; repeats his denial a second, and a third time, and even swears with an imprecation, that he never knew the man. O what is man, when he confides too much in himself! Let us look to ourselves, and see, that we never fall into the same unfortunate state. But if we have the misfortune to imitate this apostle in his fall, let us likewise imitate him in his speedy repentance: for immediately after his fall, going out, he wept bitterly; a practice which, it is said, he ever after retained, as often as he heard the cock crow. (Butler's Lives of the Saints)
18:21
Witham
Why askest thou me? Caiphas, in quality of judge, was to examine the crimes laid to the charge of the accused, by the testimony of the witnesses. (Witham)
18:24
Witham
Annas sent him bound to Caiphas. Christ was but a little while there: for both the box on the ear, given to our Saviour, and St. Peter's denial, were at the house of Caiphas: so that St. John does not here observe the order of time. (Witham)
18:28
Witham
That they might eat the Pasch. They, who by the Pasch will always understand the paschal-lamb, look upon it certain from these words, that the Scribes and Pharisees at least, had deferred eating the paschal-lamb, till Friday the 15th day, in the evening: but there are passages in the Scripture, which shew, that the word Pasch, or Phase, comprehended not only the paschal sacrifice of the lamb, but also the sacrifices, that were to be eaten with unleavened bread, during the seven days of the paschal solemnity, as Deuteronomy 16:2. thou shalt offer up the Phase, or Pasch, to the Lord, of sheep and oxen. And 1 Paralipomenon 35:8. They gave to the priests to make the Phase, or Pasch, in altogether two thousand six hundred small cattle, and three hundred oxen. The oxen, therefore, were also given, to make up the Pasch, and were comprehended by the word Pasch, or Phase. It might, therefore, be these paschal sacrifices, and not the paschal-lamb, which the priests designed to partake of, and therefore would not enter into the palace of Pilate. See Tillemont against Lamy, on the 2nd passage out of St. John, tom. 2:p. 696. See also the Lexicon of Mr. Heure on the word Paque. (Witham)
18:35
18:1
THVRSDAY night.
Concordance Mt. 26, 36. Mr. 14. 32.
The PASSION according to S. Iohn in these two Chapters, is the Gospel at Masse vpon Good friday.
Concordance Lu. 22, 39.
18:3
So the PASSION is read in holy weeke foure times, according to the foure Euangelistes, as S. Augustine appointed also in his Church at Hippo. Ser. 144. de tempore.
Concordance Mt. 26, 47. Mr. 14, 43.
18:4
Concordance Luc. 22, 47.
18:9
Concordance Io. 17, 12.
18:14
Concordance Io. 11, 49.
18:15
Concordance Mt. 26, 58. Mr, 14, 54.
Concordance Lu. 22, 54.
18:17
It is al one for a man to deny Christ, and, that he is a disciple of Christ, or a Catholike, or a Christian man, vvhen he is demaunded, Aug. tract, 11• in Io. for so Peter here denieth Christ, in denying him self to be his Disciple.
18:28
Concordance Mt. 27, 1.
Concordance Mr. 15, 1.
Concordance Lu. 23, 1.
GOOD FRIDAY.
18:31
Concordance Io. 12, 33.
Concordance Mt. 20, 19.
18:33
Concordance Mt. 27, 11. Mr. 15, 2. Lu. 23, 4.
18:35
It pleased God, that Christ who was to dy both for the Iewes & the Gē tiles, should be betraied of the one, and put to death by the other.
18:38
Concordance Mt. 27, 15. Mr. 15, 6. Lu. 23, 17.
18:1
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 48
… Then he rose from [19] his prayer, and came to his disciples, and found them sleeping. And he [20] said unto them, Sleep now, and rest: the end hath arrived, and the hour hath come; [21] and behold, the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. Arise, let us go: for he hath come that betrayeth me.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies on the Statues to the People of Antioch 11.2
… And what marvel is it that faint-hearted men have felt this, when we find that the Disciples also fell into the same infirmity. For after that mystic Supper, when Christ took
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 3.4
… There, we understand, was the garden which John brings into notice when he gives the following narration: “When Jesus had spoken these words, He went forth with His disciples over the brook Cedron, where was a garden, into the which He entered, and His disciples.”
18:2
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 48
[1] This said Jesus, and went forth with his disciples to a place which was called Gethsemane, on the side that is in the plain of Kidron, the mountain, the place [2] in which was a garden; and he entered thither, he and his disciples.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 83
Ver. 2 . “Judas also, which betrayed Him, knew the place; for Jesus ofttimes resorted thither with His disciples.”
18:3
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 48
[22] And while he was still speaking, came Judas the betrayer, one of the twelve, and with him a great multitude carrying lanterns and torches
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 83
Ver. 3 . “Judas then, having received a band of men and officers from the Chief Priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns, and torches, and weapons.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 3.25
… Hence they shall pass thither, and there, shall they see Him, as the wicked do not see Him. For the wicked shall be taken away, so that he shall not see the brightness of the Lord; and the unrighteousness shall not see the light. For He says, “And this is life eternal, that they might know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom Thou hast sent;”
Pope St Leo I the Great † AD 461 Sermons 59
… that He in Whom alone was all men’s nature without fault, might undertake the cause of all. The sins of darkness, therefore, assailed the true Light, and, for all their torches and lanterns
18:4
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 48
… They answered, [31] Jesus the Nazarene. Jesus said unto them, I told you that I am he: and if ye seek [32] me, let these go away: that the word might be fulfilled which he spake, Of those [33] [Arabic, p. 183] whom thou hast given me I lost not even one. Then came those that were with Judas, and seized Jesus, and took him.
Origen † AD 254 Origen Against Celsus 2.10
… When, therefore, He had said to them, “I am He,” they went backwards and fell to the ground. Again He asked them, “Whom seek ye?” and they said again, “Jesus of Nazareth.” Jesus said to them, “I told you I am He; if then ye seek Me, let these go away.”
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Defence of His Flight. (Apologia de Fuga.) 15
… glorify Thy Son .’ And then He no longer hid Himself from those who sought Him, but stood willing to be taken by them; for the Scripture says, He said to them that came unto Him, ‘Whom seek ye
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 79
But wherefore doth He say this? Because often when seized by them He had gone out through the midst, without their knowing it. Nevertheless, then also this would have been done, if it had not been His own will that He should be taken. It was at least with a view to teach them this, that He then blinded their eyes, and Himself asked, “Whom seek ye?”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 53
… To this He replieth, “I do always those things that are pleasing unto Him”; showing that it was pleasing unto Him even that the Sabbath should be broken. So, for instance, just before the Crucifixion He said, “Think ye that I cannot call upon My Father?” ( Matt. xxvi. 53 .) And yet by merely saying, “Whom seek ye?” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 83
Ver. 4 . “Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon Him, went forth, and said, Whom seek ye?”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 3.5
… Then asked He them again, Whom seek ye? And they said, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus answered, I have told you that I am He: if therefore ye seek me, let these go their way; that the saying might be fulfilled which He spake, Of them which thou gavest me have I lost none.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 11.2
… For when the Jews desired to lay hold of Him, He said to them, “Whom seek ye? But they said, Jesus of Nazareth. And said He, I am He. On hearing this saying, they went backward, and fell to the ground.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 47.7
… they might rage, but they could have no power: let them rage as they can; if I were unwilling to lay down my life, what would all their raging effect? By one answer of His they were prostrated in the dust: when they were asked, “Whom seek ye?” they said, “Jesus;” and on His saying to them, “I am He, they went backward, and fell to the ground.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 35.14
… For had He not willed to lie hid neither could He have died, since in one moment of time one drop only of His Power, if indeed it is to be called a drop, He put forth, when they wished to seize Him, and at His one question, “Whom seek ye?” they all went back and fell to the ground.
18:5
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 2.21
… And God was able without the judges to save His people; but it was profitable for the people that for a season judges should be raised up to them. The Saviour too might have come among us from the beginning, or on His coming might not have been delivered to Pilate; but He came ‘at the fulness of the ages ,’ and when sought for said, ‘I am He
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 3.29
… But if, as you would hold, the Word was in terror wherefore, when He spoke long before of the conspiracy of the Jews, did He not flee, nay said when actually sought, ‘I am He?’ for He could have avoided death, as He said, ‘I have power to lay down My life, and I have power to take it again;’ and ‘No one taketh it from Me
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Against Eunomius 2.11
… I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again ”; and when those who were armed with swords and staves drew near to Him on the night before His Passion, He caused them all to go backward by saying “I am He
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 83
Ver. 5 . “They answered Him, Jesus of Nazareth.”
18:6
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 48
… and kissed him. And Jesus said unto him, Judas, with a kiss betrayest [27] thou the Son of man? Was it for that thou camest, my friend? And Jesus said [28] to those that came unto him, Whom seek ye? They said unto him, Jesus the Nazarene. Jesus said unto them, I am he. And Judas the betrayer also was standing [29] with them.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Against Marcionists and Manichæans 3
… And if He did not wish it what difficulty was there in hindering those who came for that purpose? But in fact you behold Him hastening towards the deed. At least when they came upon Him He said “Whom seek ye?” and they replied “Jesus.” Then He saith to them “Lo! I am He: and they went backward and fell to the ground.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 21
… What can be more gentle than the words spoken to them? For when He had power to demolish them all in an instant, He did nothing of the kind, but as expostulating ( ἐντρεπτικὥς ), addressed them in the words, “Why, are ye come out as against a thief with swords and staves?” ( Matt. xxvi. 55 .) And having cast them down backwards (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 48
… from this also the Jews became Christ-slayers. And declaring this the Evangelist said, “After these things Jesus walked in Galilee; for He had not power to walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill Him.” What sayest thou, O blessed John? Had not He “power,” who was able to do all that He would? He that said, “Whom seek ye?” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 75
… 53 ), He speaketh to the secret thoughts of the hearers; since no one, even in the height of madness, would say that He was not able to help Himself, but needed Angels; but because they thought of Him as a man, therefore He spoke of “twelve legions of Angels.” Yet in truth He did but ask those who came to take Him a question, and cast them backwards. (
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 28.2
… For He manifested this power when He willed; for when they would lay hold of Him, as He was now about to suffer, “He said to them, Whom seek ye? They answered, Jesus. Then, said He, I am He,” not concealing, but manifesting Himself. That manifestation, however, they did not withstand, but “going backwards, they fell to the ground.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 31.6
… The Lord, however, was found to be already dead, and the men marvelled; and they who despised Him when living, so wondered at Him when dead, that some of them said, “Truly this was the Son of God.” Whence also that, brethren, where He says to those that seek Him, “I am He;” and they, going backward, all fell to the ground?
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 37.9
… no man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself and take it again?” He showed this power when the Jews sought Him. “Whom seek ye?” saith He. “Jesus,” said they. And He answered, “I am He.” When they heard this voice, “they went back and fell to the ground.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 27.2
… that with their reviling tooth they may consume not me, but rather my fleshly desires. “Mine enemies who trouble me.” Not they only who trouble me, blaming me with a friendly intent, and wishing to recall me from my purpose, but mine enemies also. “They became weak, and fell.”
18:7
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 48
… Was it for that thou camest, my friend? And Jesus said [28] to those that came unto him, Whom seek ye? They said unto him, Jesus the Nazarene. Jesus said unto them, I am he. And Judas the betrayer also was standing [29] with them. And when Jesus said unto them, I am he, they retreated backward, and [30] fell to the ground.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 83
Ver. 7 . “He saith again, Whom seek ye?” What madness! His word threw them backward, yet not even so did they turn, when they had learnt that His power was so great, but again set themselves to the same attempt. When therefore He had fulfilled all that was His, then He gave Himself up.
18:8
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 48
… They said unto him, Jesus the Nazarene. Jesus said unto them, I am he. And Judas the betrayer also was standing [29] with them. And when Jesus said unto them, I am he, they retreated backward, and [30] fell to the ground. And Jesus asked them again, Whom seek ye? They answered, [31] Jesus the Nazarene.
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 6.26
… so Manes was the cause of the child’s death through his vain boasting, and of the gaolers’ death through his flight. Ought then he, who shared the guilt of murder, to be worshipped? Ought he not to have followed the example of Jesus, and said, If ye seek Me, let these go their way
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 59
… and giveth no open handle to the listeners? What then doth this hireling? He “seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and the wolf cometh, and scattereth them.” This those false teachers did, but He the contrary. For when He was taken, He said, “Let these go their way, that the saying might be fulfilled” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 83
Ver. 8 . “He answered, I told you that I Am.” ( Ver. 5 . “And Judas also which betrayed Him stood with them.”)
18:9
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 48
… And when Jesus said unto them, I am he, they retreated backward, and [30] fell to the ground. And Jesus asked them again, Whom seek ye? They answered, [31] Jesus the Nazarene. Jesus said unto them, I told you that I am he: and if ye seek [32] me, let these go away: that the word might be fulfilled which he spake,
St Hilary of Poitiers † AD 367 De Trinitate or On the Trinity 10.42
… The effect of this prayer and the security which prompted the command, ‘sleep on,’ is noticed by the Evangelist in the course of the Passion, when he says of the Apostles just before they escaped from the hands of the pursuers, That the word might be fulfilled which He had spoken, Of those whom Thou hast given Me I lost not one of them
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Apology to the Emperor. (Apologia Ad Constantium.) 35
… so that the wickedness of my accusers may be made manifest, and that you, both now and in the day of judgment, may have boldness to say to our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the King of all, ‘“None of Thine have I lost
St Ephrem the Syrian † AD 373 Ephraim Syrus: Nineteen Hymns on the Nativity of Christ in the Flesh 13.22
22. In the eighteenth year, let the Vine which the wild boar out of the wood had eaten, praise the True Vine which trimmed Himself, and kept His fruit, and brought the fruits to the Lord of the Vineyard.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 83
Ver. 9 . “That the saying might be fulfilled which He spake, Of those which Thou gavest Me have I lost none.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Predestination of the Saints 2.35
Will any man dare to say that God did not foreknow those to whom He would give to believe, or whom He would give to His Son, that of them He should lose none?
18:10
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 48
[34] And when his disciples saw what happened, they said, Our Lord, shall we smite [35] them with swords?
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 80
Who was this “one,” who cut off the ear? John saith that it was Peter.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 83
[2.] Peter, therefore, taking courage from His voice, and from what had already happened, arms himself against the assailants,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Answer to the Letters of Petilian, the Donatist 2.89
… But the first establishing of this principle was in the case of Peter, as it is written, ‘Simon Peter having a sword, drew it, and smote the high priest’s servant, and cut off his right ear. Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath. For all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.’"
18:11
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 48
[34] And when his disciples saw what happened, they said, Our Lord, shall we smite [35] them with swords? And Simon Cephas had a sword, and he drew it, and struck the servant of the chief priest, and cut off his right ear. And the name of that servant [36] was Malchus.
St Dionysius of Alexandria † AD 265 Exegetical Fragments 2
… For John, who has given us the record of the sublimest and divinest of the Saviour’s words and deeds, heard Him speak thus: “And the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?”
St Hilary of Poitiers † AD 367 De Trinitate or On the Trinity 1.32
… There is the widest difference between My soul is sorrowful even unto death , and Henceforth ye shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power ; so also between Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass away, from Me , and The cup which the Father hath given Me, shall I not drink it
St Hilary of Poitiers † AD 367 De Trinitate or On the Trinity 10.30
… Abba, Father, all things are possible unto Thee: remove this cup from Me . To take the narrowest ground of argument, might you not have refuted for yourself this dull impiety by your own reading of the words, Put up thy sword into its sheath: the cup which My Father hath given Me, shall I not drink it
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 80
Christ however suffered not any harm to ensue. For He healed him, and showed forth a great miracle, enough to indicate at once both His forbearance and His power, and the affection and meekness of His disciple. For then he acted from affection, now with dutifulness. For when he heard, “Put up thy sword into its sheath,”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 83
Ver. 11 . “The cup which My Father hath given Me, shall I not drink it?”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 3.5
… But how then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?” Along with these words we may also place the question to which John tells us He gave utterance on the same occasion, namely, “The cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?”
Pope St Leo I the Great † AD 461 Sermons 58
… from Me .” Wherein it is not to be thought that the Lord Jesus wished to escape the Passion and the Death, the sacraments of which He had already committed to His disciples’ keeping, seeing that He Himself forbids Peter, when he was burning with devoted faith and love, to use the sword, saying, “The cup which the Father hath given Me, shall I not drink it
18:12
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 48
… and they seized him; so he [47] [Arabic, p. 184] left the towel, and fled naked. Then they took Jesus, and bound him, and brought him to Annas first; because he was the father in law of Caiaphas, [48] who was chief priest that year. And Caiaphas was he that counselled the Jews, that it was necessary that one man should die instead of the people.
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 De Decretis. (Defence of the Nicene Definition.) 1
… For, perceiving that their heresy is utterly unreasonable, they invent excuses, “Why was this defined, and not that?” Yet wonder not if now they practise thus; for in no long time they will turn to outrage, and next will threaten ‘the band and the captain
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 83
Ver. 12, 13 . “Then Jesus was taken; and they bound Him, and led Him away to Annas.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 3.6
… On the other hand, Mark and Luke omit all mention of the name of the high priest. Moreover [we find that] He was led away bound. For, as John informs us, there were at hand there, in the multitude, a tribune and a cohort, and the servants of the Jews.
18:13
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 3.6
19. In the line of Matthew’s narrative we come next upon this statement: “And they that laid hold on Jesus led Him away to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were assembled.” We learn, however, from John that He was conducted first to Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas.
18:14
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 48
… And a certain young man [46] followed him, and he was wrapped in a towel, naked: and they seized him; so he [47] [Arabic, p. 184] left the towel, and fled naked. Then they took Jesus, and bound him, and brought him to Annas first; because he was the father in law of Caiaphas, [48] who was chief priest that year.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 83
Ver. 14 . “Now Caiaphas was he which gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people.”
18:15
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 48
… And the servants and the soldiers rose, and made a fire in the [54] middle of the court, that they might warm themselves; for it was cold. And when [55] the fire burned up, they sat down around it. And Simon also came, and sat down with them to warm himself, that he might see the end of what should happen.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 62
And he conceals not Peter’s good deeds, but relates both the confession, which he openly made when all were silent, and his entering into the tomb, and puts the apostle before himself. For, because both continued with Him at His crucifixion, taking away the ground of his own commendation, he saith, “That disciple was known unto the high priest.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 80
Great was the fervor of the disciple; neither did he fly when he saw them flying, but stood his ground, and went in with Him. And if John did so too, yet he was “known to the high priest.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 83
Ver. 15 . “And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple.”
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 77.4
… What sins would such a penance fail to purge away? What ingrained stains would such tears be unable to wash out? By a threefold confession Peter blotted out his threefold denial.
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 127.5
… It was for this reason that Jesus loved the evangelist John more than the other disciples. For John was of noble birth and known to the high priest, yet was so little appalled by the plottings of the Jews that he introduced Peter into his court,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 3.6
… That disciple (namely, that other) was known unto the high priest, and went in (as John also tells us) with Jesus into the palace of the high priest. But Peter (as the same John adds) stood at the door without. Then went out that other disciple, which was known unto the high priest, and spake unto her that kept the door, and brought in Peter.”
18:16
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 48
[49] And Simon Cephas and one of the other disciples followed Jesus. And the chief [50] priest knew that disciple, and he entered with Jesus into the court;
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies on the Statues to the People of Antioch 12.11
… “Why then?” replies some one, “did not Cain bring his offering?” This man also did offer sacrifice, but not in like manner. And from thence again the knowledge of conscience is apparent. For when, envying him who had been honoured, he deliberated upon murder, he conceals his crafty determination. And what says he; “Come, let us go forth into the field.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin 1.49
… let them consider how that the Lord Jesus was at that moment within, having a hearing before the chief of the priests; whilst the Apostle Peter was outside, and down in the hall, sitting at one time with the servants at the fire, at another time standing,
18:17
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 48
[49] And Simon Cephas and one of the other disciples followed Jesus. And the chief [50] priest knew that disciple, and he entered with Jesus into the court; but Simon was standing without at the door. And that other disciple, whom the chief priest knew, [51] went out and spake unto her that kept the door, and she brought Simon in.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 83
Ver. 17 . “Art not thou also one of this man’s disciples? And he saith, I am not.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 3.6
… For all that John says there is this, “Then saith the damsel that kept the door unto Peter, Art not thou also one of this man’s disciples? He saith, I am not.”
18:18
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 48
… And when the maid that kept the door saw Simon, she looked stedfastly at him, and said unto him, Art not thou also one of the disciples of this man, I mean Jesus the [52] Nazarene? But he denied, and said, Woman, I know him not, neither know I even [53] what thou sayest.
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 13.24
24. Christ then was crucified for us, who was judged in the night, when it was cold, and therefore a fire of coals
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 83
… The, “Art not thou also,” is said on this account, that John was within. So mildly did the woman speak. But he perceived none of this, nor took it into his mind, neither the first time, nor the second, nor the third, but when the cock crew; nor did this even bring him to his senses, till Jesus gave him the bitter look. And he stood warming himself
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 3.6
… His record of this is to the following effect: “And the servants and officers stood there, who had made a fire of coals, for it was cold. And they warmed themselves; and Peter stood with them, and warmed himself.”
18:19
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 49
… And when he had said that, one of the soldiers which were standing there struck the cheek of Jesus, and said unto him, [5] Dost thou thus answer the chief priest? Jesus answered and said unto him, If I [6] have spoken evil, bear witness of evil: but if well, why didst thou smite me? And Annas sent Jesus bound unto Caiaphas the chief priest.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 83
Ver. 19 . “The high priest then asked Jesus of His disciples, and of His doctrine.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 3.6
… Then went out that other disciple, which was known unto the high priest, and spake unto her that kept the door, and brought in Peter.” For the last fact we are thus indebted to John’s narrative. And in this way we see how it came about that Peter also got inside, and was within the hall, as the other evangelists mention.
18:20
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 49
[1, 2] And the chief priest asked Jesus about his disciples, and about his doctrine.
Tertullian † AD 220 The Prescription Against Heretics 26
Besides which, it must have followed, that, for the man to whom he committed the ministration of the gospel, he would add the injunction that it be not ministered in all places, and without respect to persons, in accordance with the Lord’s saying, “Not to cast one’s pearls before swine, nor that which is holy unto dogs.” Openly did the Lord speak,
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 29
… And this Christ conversing with Pilate declared, when He said, “I ever taught openly, and in secret have I said nothing.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 83
Ver. 20 . “I spake openly to the world, (not to the disciples privately,) I taught openly in the temple.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Concerning the Nature of Good, Against the Manichæans 25
… for nothing is itself something." But they have also the Lord Himself placing this word at the end of a sentence, when He says: "And in secret have I spoken nothing."
18:21
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 49
[1, 2] And the chief priest asked Jesus about his disciples, and about his doctrine. And Jesus said unto him, I was speaking openly to the people; and I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, where all the Jews gather; and I have spoken nothing in [3] [Arabic, p. 185] secret.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 83
Ver. 21 . “Why askest thou Me? Ask them which heard Me.”
18:22
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 49
… And Jesus said unto him, I was speaking openly to the people; and I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, where all the Jews gather; and I have spoken nothing in [3] [Arabic, p. 185] secret. Why askest thou me? ask those that have heard, what I spake unto [4] them: for they know all that I said.
St Cyprian of Carthage † AD 258 The Epistles of Cyprian 54.4
… and he that rejecteth you, rejecteth me; and he that rejecteth me, rejecteth Him that sent me.” And when he had cleansed the leprous man, he said, “Go, show thyself to the priest.” And when afterwards, in the time of His passion, He had received a buffet from a servant of the priest, and the servant said to Him, “Answerest thou the high priest so?”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles 39
… In these things He shares with us, but not so in the contrary things. For He never insulted another unjustly: God forbid! He never reviled, never did a wrong. So that we are those who share with Him, not ye. For to endure when insulted is God’s part: to be merely abusive, is the part of the devil. See the two sides. “Thou hast a devil” ( John vii. 20 ; ib.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 83
Ver. 22 . “And when he had thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by smote Him with the palm of his hand.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Lying 27
… but He, when smitten on the cheek, said not, Behold here is the other cheek, but He said, “If I have spoken ill, bear witness of the evil; but if well, why smitest thou Me?”
18:23
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 49
… and I have spoken nothing in [3] [Arabic, p. 185] secret. Why askest thou me? ask those that have heard, what I spake unto [4] them: for they know all that I said. And when he had said that, one of the soldiers which were standing there struck the cheek of Jesus, and said unto him, [5] Dost thou thus answer the chief priest?
St Cyprian of Carthage † AD 258 The Epistles of Cyprian 54.4
… but rather asserting His own innocence, and showing it, He says, “If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if well, why smitest thou me?”
St Cyprian of Carthage † AD 258 The Epistles of Cyprian 64.2
… also under the very sting of His passion, when He had received a blow, and it was said to Him, “Answerest thou the high priest so?” He said nothing reproachfully against the person of the high priest, but rather maintained His own innocence saying, “If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if well, why smitest thou me?”
St Cyprian of Carthage † AD 258 The Epistles of Cyprian 68.3
… And moreover the Lord, in the Gospel, when it was said to Him, “Answerest thou the high priest so?” guarding the priestly dignity, and teaching that it ought to be maintained, would say nothing against the high priest, but only clearing His own innocence, answered, saying, “If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if well, why smitest thou me?”
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Festal and Personal Letters of Athanasius 59
… On the contrary, the incorporeal Word made His own the properties of the Body, as being His own Body. Why, when the Body was struck by the attendant, as suffering Himself He asked, ‘Why smitest thou Me
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Against Marcionists and Manichæans 4
… What can match this lowliness of mind? for He teaches this virtue no longer by His words only but also by His deeds. Again He teaches meekness and forbearance by His acts. How so? He was struck on the face by the servant of the high priest, and said “If I have spoken evil bear witness of the evil: but if well why smitest thou me?”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 75
… But what are the things which He wills us to speak? Words full of gentleness and meekness, even as also He Himself used to speak, saying to them that were insulting Him, “I have not a devil;” and again, “If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on Second Corinthians 3
… liii. 7 .) And yet Isaac spake; for his Lord spake also. How dumb then? This meaneth, he spake nothing wilful or harsh, but all was sweet and mild, and the words more than the silence manifested his gentleness. For Christ also said, “If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if well, why smitest thou Me?” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on 1 Timothy 17
… Therefore He says, “When ye have done all, say we are unprofitable servants.” ( Luke xvii. 10 .) The publican was accepted only from his humility, the Pharisee perished by his boastfulness. He who is puffed up knoweth none of these things. Again, Christ Himself says, “If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if well, why smitest thou me?” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 70
… Still after such conduct He ceaseth not to do well to them both by words and deeds. And, when a certain domestic smote Him on the face, He said, “If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil, but if well, why smitest thou Me?” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 83
Ver. 23 . “And He saith, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 28
… xxvi. 68 ); and they brought vinegar to Him, and said, “If Thou be the Son of God, come down from the Cross.” ( Matt. xxvii. 40 .) And again, the servant of the High Priest struck Him with the palm of his hand; and He says, “If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if well, why smiteth thou Me?” (
St Jerome † AD 420 Jerome's Apology for Himself Against the Books of Rufinus 3.2
… you who are first in age among the monks, good presbyter, follower of Christ; is it possible for you to wish to kill your brother, when even to hate him is to be a homicide? Have you learned from your Saviour the lesson that if one strike you on the one cheek you should turn to him the other also? Did not he make answer to the man who struck him,
St Jerome † AD 420 Against the Pelagians 3.4
… When the Apostle was struck by the servant, he delivered himself thus against the High Priest who commanded the blow to be given: “God shall strike thee, thou whited wall.” We miss the patience of the Saviour Who was led as a lamb to the slaughter, and opened not His mouth, but mercifully said to the smiter,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Letters of St. Augustin 138.13
… “If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil, but if not, why smitest thou me?”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount 1.19
… But in truth, the Lord Himself, who certainly was the first to fulfil the precepts which He taught, did not offer the other cheek to the servant of the high priest when smiting Him thereon; but, so far from that, said, “If I have spoken evil, hear witness of the evil; but if well, why smitest thou me?”
18:24
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 49
… for they know all that I said. And when he had said that, one of the soldiers which were standing there struck the cheek of Jesus, and said unto him, [5] Dost thou thus answer the chief priest? Jesus answered and said unto him, If I [6] have spoken evil, bear witness of evil: but if well, why didst thou smite me?
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 83
… What then was next to be done? Either to refute, or to accept what He said. This however is not done, but a servant buffets Him. So far was this from being a court of justice, and the proceedings those of a conspiracy, and a deed of tyranny. Then not having even so made any farther discovery, they send Him bound to Caiaphas.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 3.6
… After these statements, John reverts to the account which he had previously begun of Peter’s denial. Thus he brings us back to the house in which the incidents took place which he has recorded, and from which Jesus was sent away to Caiaphas, to whom He was being conducted at the commencement of this scene, as Matthew has informed us.
18:25
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 49
… And immediately, while he was speaking, the cock crew [16] twice. And in that hour Jesus turned, he being without, and looked stedfastly at Cephas. And Simon remembered the word of our Lord, which he said unto him, [17, 18] Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And Simon went forth without, and wept bitterly.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 83
Ver. 25 . “And Simon Peter stood and warmed himself.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 3.6
… Falling back upon his narration of that incident with the view of making up a complete account of the threefold denial, he proceeds thus: “And Simon stood and warmed himself. They said therefore unto him, Art not thou also one of his disciples? He denied it, and said, I am not.”
18:26
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 83
Ver. 26 . Then saith “the kinsman of him whose ear Peter cut off, (grieving at what had taken place,) Did I not see thee in the garden?”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 3.6
… And immediately while he yet spake the cock crew.” John follows with his account of Peter’s third denial, which is thus given: “One of the servants of the high priest, being his kinsman whose ear Peter cut off, saith, Did not I see thee in the garden with him? Peter then denied again; and immediately the cock crew.”
18:27
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 83
Ver. 26 . Then saith “the kinsman of him whose ear Peter cut off, (grieving at what had taken place,) Did I not see thee in the garden?”
18:28
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 49
[43] And all of their assembly arose, and took Jesus, and brought him bound to [44] the prætorium, and delivered him up to Pilate the judge; but they entered not into the prætorium, that they might not be defiled when they should eat the passover.
St Peter of Alexandria † AD 311 Fragments from the Writings of Peter 5.7
… “Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment-hall, lest they should be defiled, but that they might eat the passover.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 77
… for on the fifth day of the week they came unto Him. And this one calls the day before the feast of unleavened bread, speaking of the time when they came to Him, and another saith on this wise, “Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed;”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 80
… For neither did they then eat the passover, but watched for this other purpose. For John, when he had said that “it was early,” added, “they entered into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled, but that they might eat the passover.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 83
“They lead Him therefore from Caiaphas to Pilate.”
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 108.9
… And although the proconsul of Palestine, who was an intimate friend of her house, sent forward his apparitors and gave orders to have his official residence
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 3.7
… In like manner John, after recording what was done with the Lord as fully as he deemed requisite, and after telling also the whole story of Peter’s denial, continues his narrative in these terms: “Then lead they Jesus to Caiaphas, unto the hall of judgment. And it was early.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 3.8
… He proceeds thus: “And they themselves went not into the judgment-hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover. Pilate then went out unto them, and said, What accusation bring ye against this man? They answered and said unto him, If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee.”
18:29
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 83
Ver. 29 . “And having gone out, he said, What accusation bring ye against this man?”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 3.13
… “They answered and said unto him, If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee. Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death.”
18:30
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 49
[45] And Jesus stood before the judge. And Pilate went forth unto them without, and [46] said unto them, What accusation have ye against this man?
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 83
Ver. 30 . “If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee.”
18:31
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 49
… They answered and said unto him, If he had not been doing evils, neither should we have delivered [47] him up unto thee. We found this man leading our people astray, and restraining from giving tribute to Cæsar, and saying of himself that he is the King, the Messiah. [48]
Eusebius of Caesarea † AD 339 The Church History of Eusebius 2.23.23
… For he had not done right even this first time. And certain of them also went to meet Albinus, who was journeying from Alexandria, and reminded him that it was not lawful for Ananus to summon the Sanhedrim without his knowledge.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 80
For in proof that indeed they had power to have put Him to death, even amongst themselves, hear what Pilate saith: “Take ye Him, and judge Him according to your law.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 82
And wherefore did he scourge Him. Either as one condemned, or willing to invest the judgment with due form, or to please them. And yet he ought to have resisted them. For indeed even before this he had said, “Take ye Him, and judge Him according to your law.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles 39
… 14, 15 .) ( g ) He taught them that not such are the matters which crave a judicial sentence, but they do all things out of order. And he does not say, It is not my duty, but, “I do not choose,” that they may not trouble him again. Thus Pilate said in the case of Christ, “Take ye Him, and judge him according to your law.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 83
Ver. 31, 32 . “Take ye him and judge him according to your law. They therefore said, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death.” But this they said, “that the saying of the Lord might be fulfilled, which He spake, signifying by what death He should die.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 3.8
… that the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which He spake, signifying what death He should die. Then Pilate entered into the judgment-hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto Him, Art thou the King of the Jews? And Jesus answered, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 116.9
… “Therefore he delivered Him unto them to be crucified.” But was it, then, anything different that he had previously desired when he said, “Take ye him, and crucify him;” or even earlier still, “Take ye him, and judge him according to your law?” And why did they show so great reluctance, when they said, “It is not lawful for us to put any man to death,”
18:32
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 49
… We found this man leading our people astray, and restraining from giving tribute to Cæsar, and saying of himself that he is the King, the Messiah. [48] Pilate said unto them, Then take ye him, and judge him according to your law. [Arabic, p. 188] The Jews said unto him, We have no authority to put a man to death: [49]
18:33
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 49
… Pilate said unto him, Then thou art a king? Jesus said unto him, Thou hast said that I am a king. And for this was I born, and for this came I into the world, that I should bear witness [55] of the truth. And every one that is of the truth heareth my voice. Pilate said unto him, And what is the truth? And when he said that, he went out again unto the Jews.
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 1.23
… glorify Thy Son, that the Son also may glorify Thee.” We also find Him declaring Himself to be a king, as when He answers Pilate’s question,
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 83
Ver. 33, 34 . “Having entered in, he asked Jesus, and said, Art thou the King of the Jews? Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of Me?”
18:34
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 49
[50] And Pilate entered into the prætorium, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art [51] thou the King of the Jews?
18:35
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 49
[50] And Pilate entered into the prætorium, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art [51] thou the King of the Jews? Jesus said unto him, Of thyself saidst thou this, or [52] did others tell it thee concerning me?
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 83
Ver. 35 . “Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me; what hast thou done?”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 3.8
… what hast thou done? Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now is my kingdom not from hence. Pilate therefore said unto Him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king.”
18:36
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 49
[50] And Pilate entered into the prætorium, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art [51] thou the King of the Jews? Jesus said unto him, Of thyself saidst thou this, or [52] did others tell it thee concerning me? Pilate said unto him, Am I, forsooth, a Jew? The sons of thy nation and the chief priests delivered thee unto me: what [53] hast thou done?
Tertullian † AD 220 On Idolatry 18
… If, also, He exercised no right of power even over His own followers, to whom He discharged menial ministry; if, in short, though conscious of His own kingdom,
Origen † AD 254 Origen Against Celsus i.61
… And Jesus, knowing this well, and denying that He was a king in the sense that the multitude expected, but declaring the superiority of His kingdom, says: “If My kingdom were of this world, then would My servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is My kingdom not of this world.”
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on Matthew 13.9
… death which is contrary to and the enemy of Him who said, “I am the Life,” in accordance with which “the soul that sinneth, it shall die.” But that it was not God who gave Him up into the hands of men, the Saviour manifestly declares when He says, “If My kingdom were of this world, then would My servants fight that I should not be delivered to the Jews.”
St Hilary of Poitiers † AD 367 De Trinitate or On the Trinity 11.32
… The abolishing is not the same as the subjecting. To abolish the power of the enemy is to sweep away for ever his prerogative of power, so that by the abolition of his power is brought to an end the rule of his kingdom. Of this the Lord testifies when He says, My kingdom is not of this world
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 82
This at any rate Pilate then asked. What then said Christ? “Thou sayest.” He confessed that He was a king, but a heavenly king, which elsewhere also He spake more clearly, replying to Pilate, “My kingdom is not of this world;”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles 27
… But if this man, because it was said to him, “It is the voice of God and not of a man ( v. 22 ) although he said nothing himself, suffered such things: much more should Christ, had He not Himself been God (have suffered) for saying always as He did, “These words of mine are not Mine” ( John xiv. 10 ;
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on First Corinthians 7
… secondly, that they prevailed on them to take the difficulties upon trial, and to account the blessings as matter of hope. Now if they had been deceivers they would have done the contrary: their good things they would have promised as of this world ( ἐντεῦθεν , so St.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 42
… He came also to teach us to despise the things of the world, and not be amazed or astonished by the splendors of this life, but to laugh them all to scorn, and to desire those which are to come. For he who admires things which are here, will not admire those in the heavens. Wherefore also He saith to Pilate, “My Kingdom is not of this world” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 83
Ver. 36 . “My Kingdom is not of this world.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 4.10
… Hence Christ Himself also departs into the mountain from the men whose habit is to seek for His kingdom with earthly conceptions of it. Thus is it that He expresses Himself elsewhere to this effect, “My kingdom is not of this world.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 54.3
… Or indeed was there wanting to Him the power to flourish? Nay but here He chose rather amid the Ziphites to hide, and to say to Pontius Pilate, as if to one being himself also a flower of the Ziphites, and in suspicion about His kingdom, “My kingdom is not of this world.”
18:37
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 49
… Pilate said unto him, Am I, forsooth, a Jew? The sons of thy nation and the chief priests delivered thee unto me: what [53] hast thou done? Jesus said unto him, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be [54] delivered to the Jews: now my kingdom is not from hence.
St Hippolytus † AD 235 Treatise on Christ and Antichrist 6
… For the deceiver seeks to liken himself in all things to the Son of God. Christ is a lion, so Antichrist is also a lion; Christ is a king,
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 2.20
… ‘I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on Me, should not abide in darkness .’ And again he says; ‘To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on 2 Thessalonians 4
… “Who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” He calls Christ, “the Love of the Truth.” “For because,” says he, “they received not the love of the truth.” For He was both, and came for the sake of both, both as loving men, and on behalf of things that were true.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on 1 Timothy 18
But to what “good confession” does he allude? To that which He made when Pilate asked, “Art thou a King?” “To this end,” He said, “was I born.” And again, “I came, that I might bear witness to the Truth. Behold, these have heard Me.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 3
… for if he were even, as you assert, created, this argument could not have place. For He was not first created and afterwards God chose Him, nor does He hold a kingdom which could be thrown aside, but one which belongs by nature to His Essence; since, when asked if He were a King, He answers, “To this end was I born.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 83
Ver. 37 . “Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a King. To this end was I born.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 3.8
… And Pilate saith unto them, Behold the man! When the chief priests therefore and officers saw Him, they cried out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify him; for I find no fault in him. The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.”
18:38
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 49
… if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be [54] delivered to the Jews: now my kingdom is not from hence. Pilate said unto him, Then thou art a king? Jesus said unto him, Thou hast said that I am a king. And for this was I born, and for this came I into the world, that I should bear witness [55] of the truth.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Confessions 7.21
… What shall “wretched man” do? “Who shall deliver him from the body of this death,” but Thy grace only, “through Jesus ‘Christ our Lord,’” whom Thou hast begotten co-eternal, and createdst in the begin ning of Thy ways, in whom the Prince of this world found nothing worthy of death,
18:39
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 50
[20] And at every feast the custom of the judge was to release to the people one [21] prisoner, him whom they would. And there was in their prison a well-known prisoner, [22, 23] called Barabbas. And when they assembled, Pilate said unto them,
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 84
Ver. 39, 40 . “Ye have a custom that I should release unto you one at the Passover”; then in a persuasory way, “Will ye therefore that I release the king of the Jews? Then cried they all, Not this man, but Barabbas.”
18:40
Tatian † AD 180 The Diatessaron 50
… And there was in their prison a well-known prisoner, [22, 23] called Barabbas. And when they assembled, Pilate said unto them, Ye have a custom, that I should release unto you a prisoner at the passover: will ye that I [24] release unto you the King of the Jews?
Rufinus of Aquileia † AD 411 The Apology of Rufinus. Addressed to Apronianus, in Reply to Jerome's Letter to Pammachius 2.12
… Pardon me for this that I have preferred to be thought of as an unskilled and unlearned man rather than to be called the disciple of Barabbas. For, when Christ and Barabbas were offered for our choice, I in my simplicity made choice of Christ. You, it appears, are willing to join your shouts with those who say,
18:1
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. cxii
The discourse, which our Lord had with His disciples after supper, and the prayer which followed, being now ended, the Evangelist begins the account of His Passion. When Jesus had spoken these words, He came forth with His disciples over the brook Cedron, where was a garden, into which He entered, and His disciples. But this did not take place immediately after the prayer was ended; there was an interval containing some things, which John omits, but which are mentioned by the other Evangelists.
St Augustine † AD 430 de Con. Ev. iii. c. 3.
A contention took place between them, which of them was the greater, as Luke relates. He also said to Peter, as Luke adds in the same place, Behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he might sift you as wheat, &c. (Luke 22:31) And according to Matthew and Mark, they sang a hymn, and then went to Mount Olivet. (Mat. 26:30. Mark 14:26) Matthew lastly brings the two narratives together: Then went Jesus with His disciples to a place which is called Gethsemane. That is the place which John mentions here, Where there was a garden, into the which He entered, and His disciples.
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. cxii
When Jesus had spoken these words, shews that He did not enter before He had finished speaking.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. lxxxiii
But why does not John say, When He had prayed, He entered? Because His prayer was a speaking for His disciples’ sake. It is now night time; He goes and crosses the brook, and hastens to the place which was known to the traitor; thus giving no trouble to those who were lying in wait for Him, and shewing His disciples that He went voluntarily to die.
Alcuin † AD 804
Over the brook Cedron, i. e. of cedars. It is the genitive in the Greek. He goes over the brook, i. e. drinks of the brook of His Passion. Where there was a garden, that the sin which was committed in a garden, He might blot out in a garden. Paradise signifies garden of delights.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. lxxxii
That it might not be thought that He went into a garden to hide Himself, it is added, But Judas who betrayed Him knew the place: for Jesus often resorted thither with His disciples.
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. cxii
There the wolf in sheep’s clothing, permitted by the deep counsel of the Master of the flock to go among the sheep, learned in what way to disperse the flock, and ensnare the Shepherd.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. lxxxiii
Jesus had often met and talked alone with His disciples there, on essential doctrines, such as it was lawful for others to hear. He does this on mountains, and in gardens, to be out of reach of noise and tumult. Judas however went there, because Christ had often passed the night there in the open air. He would have gone to His house, if he had thought he should find Him sleeping there.
Theophylact † 1107
Judas knew that at the feast time our Lord was wont to teach His disciples high and mysterious doctrines, and that He taught in places like this. And as it was then a solemn season, he thought He would be found there, teaching His disciples things relating to the feast.
The Latin text
Augustinus in Ioannem
Terminato sermone quem post coenam dominus ad discipulos habuit, adiuncta oratione quam dixerat ad patrem, eius passionem Ioannes Evangelista sic exorsus est haec cum dixisset Iesus, egressus est cum discipulis suis trans torrentem Cedron, ubi erat hortus, in quem introivit ipse, et discipuli eius. Non autem continuo hoc factum est cum eius illa finita esset oratio; sed alia quaedam sunt interposita, quae ab isto praetermissa, apud alios Evangelistas leguntur
Augustinus de Cons. Evang
Facta est enim contentio inter eos, quis eorum videretur esse maior, sicut Lucas commemorat. Dixit etiam ipse Petro, sicut ipse Lucas subiungit: ecce Satanas expetivit vos, ut cribraret sicut triticum et cetera quae ibi sequuntur. Et hymno dicto, sicut Matthaeus et Marcus commemorant, exierunt in montem oliveti. Contexit ergo narrationem Matthaeus, et dixit: tunc venit Iesus cum illis in villam quae dicitur Gethsemani. Iste locus est quem commemorat hic Ioannes: ubi erat hortus, in quem introivit ipse, et discipuli eius
Augustinus
Ad hoc ergo valet quod dictum est, haec cum dixisset, ut non eum ante opinemur ingressum quam illa verba finiret
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Sed propter quid non dixit: cessans ab oratione venit illuc? Quoniam oratio illa fuit loquela propter discipulos facta. De nocte autem vadit, et flumen pertransit, et properat ad locum proditori cognitum, auferens his qui insidiabantur, laborem, et ostendens discipulis quoniam volens ad mortem venit
Alcuinus
Dicit autem trans torrentem Cedron, idest cedrorum: genitivus enim est Graecus. Transit torrentem, quia de torrente passionis bibit. Ubi erat hortus, ut peccatum quod in horto commissum fuerat, in horto deleret: Paradisus enim hortus deliciarum interpretatur
Chrysostomus
Ne autem audiens hortum, eum occultari aestimes, subiungit sciebat autem et Iudas, qui tradebat eum, locum: quia frequenter Iesus convenerat illuc cum discipulis suis
Augustinus
Ibi ergo lupus ovina pelle contectus, et inter oves alto patrisfamilias consilio toleratus didicit, ubi ad tempus exiguum dispergeret gregem, insidiis appetendo pastorem
Chrysostomus
Multoties autem ibi cum discipulis Iesus singulariter convenerat, de necessariis loquens, et quae non erat fas alios audire. Facit autem hoc in montibus et in hortis, maxime purum a tumultibus inquirens semper locum, ne mens impediatur ab auditione. Ideo autem Iudas illuc venit, quoniam multoties Christus extra pernoctabat. Ivisset autem ad domum, si putasset eum ibi invenire dormientem
Theophylactus
Noverat etiam Iudas dominum festo tempore consuevisse semper docere discipulos aliquod sublime: erat autem solitus docere huiusmodi mystica in talibus locis: ac quoniam tunc dies erat solemnis, arbitratus est illum esse illic, et discipulos docere quae ad celebritatem spectabant
18:3
The Gloss Nihil tale in G.
The Evangelist had shewn how Judas had found out the place where Christ was, now he relates how he went there. Judas then, having received a band of men and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons.
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. cxii
It was a band not of Jews, but of soldiers, granted, we must understand, by the Governor, with legal authority to take the criminal, as He was considered, and crush any opposition that might be made.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. lxxxiii
But how could they persuade the band? By hiring them; for being soldiers, they were ready to do any thing for money.
Theophylact † 1107
They carry torches and lanterns, to guard against Christ escaping in the dark.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. lxxxiii
They had often sent elsewhere to take Him, but had not been able. Whence it is evident that He gave Himself up voluntarily; as it follows, Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon Him, went forth, and said unto them, Whom seek ye?
Theophylact † 1107
He asks not because He needed to know, for He knew all things that should come upon Him; but because He wished to shew, that though present, they could not see or distinguish Him: Jesus saith unto them, I am He.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. lxxxiii
He Himself had blinded their eyes. For that darkness was not the reason is clear, because the Evangelist says that they had lanterns. Though they had not lanterns, however, they should at least have recognised Him by His voice. And if they did not know Him, yet how was it that Judas, who had been with Him constantly also, did not know Him? And Judas also which betrayed Him stood with them. Jesus did all this to shew that they could not have taken Him, or even seen Him when He was in the midst of them, had He not permitted it.
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. cxiii
As soon then as He said unto them, I am He, they went backtward. Where now is the band of soldiers, where the terror and defence of arms? Without a blow, one word struck, drove back, prostrated a crowd fierce with hatred, terrible with arms. For God was hid in the flesh, and the eternal day was so obscured by His human body, that He was sought for with lanterns and torches, to be slain in the darkness. What shall He do when He cometh to judge, Who did thus when He was going to be judged? And now even at the present time Christ saith by the Gospel, I am He, and an Antichrist is expected by the Jews: to the end that they may go backward, and fall to the ground; because that forsaking heavenly, they desire earthly things.
St Gregory the Great † AD 604 Ezech. Hom. ix.
Why is this, that the Elect fall on their faces, the reprobate backward? Because every one who falls back, sees not where he falls, whereas he who falls forward, sees where he falls. The wicked when they suffer loss in invisible things, are said to fall backward, because they do not see what is behind them: but the righteous, who of their own accord cast themselves down in temporal things, in order that they may rise in spiritual, fall as it were upon their faces, when with fear and repentance they humble themselves with their eyes open.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. lxxxiii
Lastly, lest any should say that He had encouraged the Jews to kill Him, in delivering Himself into their hands, He says every thing that is possible to reclaim them. But when they persisted in their malice, and shewed themselves inexcusable, then He gave Himself up into their hands: Then asked He them again, Whom seek ye? And they said, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus answered, I have told you that I am He.
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. cxii
They had heard at the first, I am He, but had not understood it; because He who could do whatever He would, willed not that they should. But had He never permitted Himself to be taken by them, they would not have done indeed what they came to do; but neither would He what He came to do. So now having shewn His power to them when they wished to take Him and could not, He lets them seize Him, that they might be unconscious agents of His will; If ye seek Me, let these go their way.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. lxxxiv
As if to say, Though ye seek Me, ye have nothing to do with these: lo, I give Myself up: thus even to the last hour does He shew His love for His own.
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. cxii
He commands His enemies, and they do what He commands; they permit them to go away, whom He would not have perish.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. lxxxiii
The Evangelist, to shew that it was not their design to do this, but that His power did it, adds, That the saying might be fulfilled which He spoke, Of them which Thou hast given Me, have I lost none. He had said this with reference not to temporal, but to eternal death: the Evangelist however understands the word of temporal death also.
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. cxii. 4
But were the disciples never to die? Why then would He lose them, even if they died then? Because they did not yet believe in Him in a saving way.
The Latin text
Glossa
Ostenderat Evangelista quomodo Iudas ad locum ubi Christus erat, pervenire potuerit; nunc ostendit quomodo illuc pervenit, dicens Iudas ergo cum accepisset cohortem, et a pontificibus et Pharisaeis ministros, venit illuc cum laternis et facibus et armis
Augustinus in Ioannem
Cohors non Iudaeorum, sed militum fuit. A praeside itaque intelligatur accepta, tamquam ad tenendum reum servato ordine legitimae potestatis, ut nullus tenentibus auderet obsistere; quamquam et manus tanta fuerat congregata, et sic armata veniebat, ut vel terreret, vel etiam repugnaret, si quisquam Christum defendere auderet
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Sed qualiter cohorti suaserunt? Quia milites erant, pecuniarum gratia omnia facere meditantes
Theophylactus
Faces autem afferunt et laternas, ne Christus latens in tenebris fugeret
Chrysostomus
Multoties autem alias miserunt comprehendere eum, sed non valuerunt: unde manifestum est quod tunc sponte seipsum dedit; propter quod subditur Iesus autem sciens omnia quae ventura erant super eum, processit, et dixit ad eos: quem quaeritis?
Theophylactus
Quaerit autem non ut volens scire: nam utique noverat omnia quae ventura erant super eum: sed ostendere volens quoniam cum praesens esset, ab eis videri non poterat vel discerni; nam sequitur dicit ei Iesus: ego sum
Chrysostomus
In medio enim eorum existens, excaecavit eorum oculos: quoniam enim non tenebrae causa erant, indicavit Evangelista dicens, quoniam habuerunt lampades. Si vero lampades non essent, a voce saltem debebant eum agnoscere. Si vero et illi ignorabant, qualiter Iudas ignoravit, qui cum eo fuerat continue? Et ideo subdit stabat autem et Iudas, qui tradebat eum, cum ipsis. Fecit autem hoc Iesus, ostendens quoniam non solum comprehendere eum non possent, sed nec videre in medio existentem, nisi ipse concederet; unde subditur ut ergo dixit eis: ego sum, abierunt retrorsum, et ceciderunt in terram
Augustinus
Ubi nunc militum cohors, ubi terror, et munimen armorum? Una vox turbam odiis ferocem armisque terribilem sine telo ullo percussit, repulit, stravit. Deus enim latebat in carne, et sempiternus dies ita membris occultabatur humanis, ut cum laternis et facibus quaereretur occidendus a tenebris. Quid iudicaturus faciet qui iudicandus hoc fecit? Et nunc utique per Evangelium, ego sum, dicit Christus, et a Iudaeis expectatur Antichristus, ut retro redeant, et in terram cadant: quoniam deserentes caelestia, terrena desiderant
Gregorius super Ezech
Quid autem hoc est quod electi in faciem, et reprobi retrorsum cadunt, nisi quod omnis qui post se cadit, ibi cadit ubi non videt; qui vero ante se ceciderit, ibi cadit ubi videt? Iniqui ergo quia in invisibilibus cadunt, post se cadere dicuntur, quia ibi corruunt ubi quod tunc eos sequitur, modo videre non possunt: iusti vero, quia in istis visibilibus semetipsos sponte deiciunt ut in invisibilibus erigantur, quasi in faciem cadunt, quia timore compuncti videntes humiliantur
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Demum ne quis dicat quoniam ipse Iudaeos ad hoc induxit ut eum occiderent, seipsum in manibus eorum tradens, manifeste ostendit eis omnia quae sufficiebant eos revocare. Sed quia permanebant in malitia et nullam habebant excusationem, tunc seipsum in manibus eorum tradidit; unde sequitur iterum ergo interrogavit eos: quem quaeritis? Illi ergo dixerunt: Iesum Nazarenum. Respondit Iesus: dixi vobis quia ego sum
Augustinus in Ioannem
Audierant primo ego sum; sed non comprehenderant: quia hoc noluit qui potuit quidquid voluit. Verum si nunquam se ab eis permitteret apprehendi; non quidem illi facerent propter quod venerant, sed nec ipse faceret propter quod venerat: proinde quia tenere volentibus et non valentibus ostendit potestatem suam, iam tenebunt eum, ut faciat de nescientibus voluntatem suam; unde subditur si ergo me quaeritis, sinite hos abire
Chrysostomus
Quasi dicat: si me quaeritis, nihil vobis ad hos commune est: ecce meipsum trado: usque ad ultimam horam ad suos dilectionis conservantiam demonstrans
Augustinus
Inimicos iubet, et hoc faciunt quod iubet: sinunt scilicet nunc eos abire quos non vult perire
Chrysostomus
Unde Evangelista ostendens quod hoc non fuit eorum propositi, sed virtus eius qui comprehensus fuerat, subiungit ut impleretur sermo quem dixit: quia quos dedisti mihi, non perdidi ex eis quemquam. Perditionem autem non hanc dixerat quae est mortis, sed illam aeternam: Evangelista vero et de praesenti morte id accepit
Augustinus
Numquid autem non erant postea morituri? Cur ergo si tunc morerentur, perderet eos, nisi quia nondum in eum sic credebant quomodo credunt quicumque non pereunt?
18:10
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. lxxxiii
Peter trusting to these last words of our Lord’s, and to what He had just done, assaults those who came to take Him: Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest’s servant. But how, commanded as he had been to have neither scrip, nor two garments, had he a sword? Perhaps he had foreseen this occasion, and provided one.
Theophylact † 1107
Or, he had got one for sacrificing the lamb, and carried it away with him from the Supper.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. lxxxiii. 2
But how could he, who had been forbidden ever to strike on the cheek, be a murderer? Because what he had been forbidden to do was to avenge himself, but here he was not avenging himself, but his Master. They were not however yet perfect: afterwards ye shall see Peter beaten with stripes, and bearing it humbly. And cut off his right ear: this seems to shew the impetuosity of the Apostle; that he struck at the head itself.
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. cxii
The servant’s name was Malchus; John is the only Evangelist who mentions the servant’s name; as Luke is the only one who mentions that our Lord touched the ear and healed him.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. lxxxiii
He wrought this miracle both to teach us, that we ought to do good to those who suffer, and to manifest His power. The Evangelist gives the name, that those who then read it might have the opportunity of enquiring into the truth of the account. And he mentions that he was the servant of the high priest, because in addition to the miracle of the cure itself, this shews that it was performed upon one of those who came to take Him, and who shortly after struck Him on the face.
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. cxii. 5
The name Malchus signifies, about to reign. What then does the ear cut off for our Lord, and healed by our Lord, denote, but the abolition of the old, and the creating of a new, hearing1 in the newness of the Spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter? To whomsoever this is given, who can doubt that he will reign with Christ? But he was a servant too, hath reference to that oldness, which generated to bondage: the cure figures liberty.
Theophylact † 1107
Or, the cutting off of the high priest’s servant’s right ear is a type of the people’s deafness, of which the chief priests partook most strongly: the restoration of the ear, of ultimate reenlightenment of the understanding of the Jews, at the coming of Elias.
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. cxii
Our Lord condemned Peter’s act, and forbad him proceeding further: Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath. He was to be admonished to have patience: and this was written for our learning.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. lxxxiii. 2
He not only restrained Him however by threats, but consoled him also at the same time: The cup that My Father giveth Me, shall I not drink it? Whereby He shews that it was not by their power, but by His permission, that this had been done, and that He did not oppose God, but was obedient even unto death.
Theophylact † 1107
In that He calls it a cup, He shews how pleasing and acceptable death for the salvation of men was to Him.
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. cxii
The cup being given Him by the Father, is the same with what the Apostle saith, Who spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all. (Rom. 8:32) But the Giver of this cup and the Drinker of it are the same; as the same Apostle saith, Christ loved us, and gave Himself for us. (Eph. 5:2)
The Latin text
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Petrus confidens in praedicta voce domini et in his quae iam facta erant, armatur adversus eos qui supervenerant; unde dicitur Simon ergo Petrus habens gladium, eduxit eum, et percussit pontificis servum. Sed qualiter iussus non peram habere neque duo vestimenta, gladium habet? Mihi videtur hunc formidans praeparasse dudum
Theophylactus
Vel ad opus agni illo indigens, ferebat hunc etiam post coenam
Chrysostomus
Sed qualiter qui iussus erat non alapam dare, homicida fit? Quia maxime non se ulcisci iussus est; hic autem non se ulciscebatur, sed magistrum. Demum nondum perfecti adhuc erant, sed videbis postea Petrum verberatum, et humiliter ferentem. Non sine causa autem subdit et abscidit eius auriculam dexteram. Videtur mihi enim impetum apostoli significare quoniam ad ipsum caput impetum fecit
Augustinus in Ioannem
Solus autem hic Evangelista etiam nomen servi huius expressit, cum dixit erat autem nomen servo Malchus: sicut Lucas solus quod eius auriculam dominus tetigerit, et sanaverit eum
Chrysostomus
Tunc enim miraculum fecit, et erudiens nos, quoniam eis qui male faciunt benefacere oportet, et virtutem revelans suam. Nomen autem propterea posuit Evangelista, ut his qui tunc legerent, liceret quaerere si vere factum sit. Servum autem eum summi pontificis dicit: quia magnum est quod factum est, non solum quia curavit, sed quia curavit eum qui super eum venerat, et paulo post alapam daturus erat
Augustinus
Malchus autem interpretatur regnaturus. Quid ergo auris pro domino amputata et a domino sanata significat, nisi auditum amputata vetustate renovatum, ut sit in novitate spiritus, et non in vetustate litterae: quod cui praestitum fuerit a Christo, quis dubitet regnaturum esse cum Christo? Quod autem servus inventus est, et hoc ad illam pertinet vetustatem, quae in servitutem generat; sed cum accessit sanitas, figurata est et libertas
Theophylactus
Vel caesio auris dexterae servi principis sacerdotum signum erat surditatis eorum, quae praecipue in principibus sacerdotum inoleverat; quod autem denuo restituta sit auris, significat ultimam reparationem intellectus in Israeliticis veniente Elia
Augustinus
Factum autem Petri dominus improbavit, et progredi ultra prohibuit; unde sequitur dixit ergo Iesus Petro: mitte gladium tuum in vaginam. Etenim ille ad patientiam commonendus fuit, et hoc ad intelligentiam conscribendum
Chrysostomus
Non solum autem minis eum cohibuit, ut Matthaeus refert; sed et aliter consolatur eum, dicens calicem quem dedit mihi pater, non vis ut bibam illum? Ostendens quoniam non illorum virtutis quae fiebant erant, sed suae concessionis; et quod non est Deo contrarius, sed obediens usque ad mortem
Theophylactus
In eo autem quod ipsam calicem dicit, quam sibi grata et acceptabilis pro salute mortalium mors videatur, edisserit
Augustinus
Quod autem a patre traditum sibi dicit calicem passionis, illud est quod ait apostolus: filio proprio non pepercit, sed pro nobis omnibus tradidit eum. Verum auctor calicis huius est etiam ipse qui bibit: unde idem apostolus dicit: Christus dilexit nos, et tradidit seipsum pro nobis
18:12
Theophylact † 1107
Every thing having been done that could be to dissuade the Jews, and they refusing to take warning, He suffered Himself to be delivered into their hands: Then the band and the captain and officers of the Jews took Jesus.
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. cxii
They took Him Whom they did not draw nigh to; nor understood that which is written in the Psalms, Draw nigh unto Him, and be ye lightened. (Ps. 34:5. accedite ad eum, Vulg.) For had they thus drawn nigh to Him, they would have taken Him, not to kill Him, but to be in their hearts. But now that they take Him in the way they do, they go backward. It follows, and bound Him, Him by Whom they ought to have wished to be loosed. And perhaps there were among them some who, afterwards delivered by Him, exclaimed, Thou hast broken My chains asunder. (Ps. 116) But after that they had bound Jesus, it then appears most clearly that Judas had betrayed Him not for a good, but a most wicked purpose: And led Him away to Annas first.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. lxxxiii. 2
In exultation, to shew what they had done, as if they were raising a trophy.
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. cxiii
Why they did so, he tells us immediately after: For he was father in law to Caiaphas, which was the high priest that same year. Matthew, in order to shorten the narrative, says that He was led to Caiaphas; because He was led to Annas first, as being the father in law of Caiaphas. So that we must understand that Annas wished to act Caiaphas’s part.
St Bede † AD 735
In order that, while our Lord was condemned by his colleague, he might not be guiltless, though his crime was less. Or perhaps his house lay in the way, and they were obliged to pass by it. Or it was the design of Providence, that they who were allied in blood, should be associated in guilt. That Caiaphas however was high priest for that year sounds contrary to the law, which ordained that there be only one high priest, and made the office hereditary. But the pontificate had now been abandoned to ambitious men.
Alcuin † AD 804
Josephus relates that this Caiaphas bought the high priesthood for this year. No wonder then if a wicked high priest judged wickedly. A man who was advanced to the priesthood by avarice, would keep himself there by injustice.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. lxxxiii
That no one however might be disturbed at the sound of the chains, the Evangelist reminds them of the prophecy that His death would be the salvation of the world: Now Caiaphas was he which gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people. Such is the overpowering force of truth, that even its enemies echo it.
The Latin text
Theophylactus
Peractis cunctis quae sufficienter se habebant ad prohibendum Iudaeos, cum illi hoc nequaquam discernerent, tunc duci se permisit; unde dicitur cohors ergo et tribunus et ministri Iudaeorum comprehenderunt Iesum
Augustinus in Ioannem
Comprehenderunt ad quem non accesserunt: nec audierunt illud: accedite ad eum, et illuminamini. Si enim sic accederent, non eum manibus occidendum, sed recipiendum corde comprehenderent. Nunc autem quando eum illo modo comprehenderunt, ab eo longius recesserunt. Sequitur et ligaverunt eum; a quo solvi potius velle debuerunt: et erant forte in eis qui postea liberati ab eo, dixerunt: dirupisti vincula mea. Postea vero quam persecutores tradente Iuda dominum ligaverunt, ut intelligatur Iudas non laudabilis utilitate traditionis huius, sed sceleris voluntate damnabilis, subditur et adduxerunt eum ad Annam primum
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Prae delectatione enim gloriabantur in his quae fiebant, quasi trophaeum statuentes
Augustinus in Ioannem
Nec tacet causam cur ita factum sit, subdens erat enim socer Caiphae, qui erat pontifex anni illius. Merito et Matthaeus, cum id brevius narrare voluisset, eum ad Caipham ductum fuisse commemorat: quia et ad Annam prius ideo ductus est, quod socer eius fuerit; ut intelligendum sit hoc eumdem Caipham fieri voluisse
Beda
Quatenus dum a consimili pontifice damnaretur, ipse quoque minoris criminis reus haberetur. Vel fortassis sic domus eius sita erat ut praeterire eam non possent. Sive divinitus actum est, ut qui erant affines sanguine, sociarentur in scelere. Sed quod dicitur, quod esset pontifex anni illius, sonat contrarium legi, in qua praeceptum erat ut unus esset pontifex summus, quo mortuo succederet ei filius suus; sed iam pontificatus ambitione erat infectus
Alcuinus
Refert enim Iosephus, istum Caipham, unius anni sacerdotium redemisse. Non ergo mirum si iniquus pontifex inique iudicaverit: saepe qui per avaritiam ad sacerdotium accedit, per iniustitiam in eo servatur
Chrysostomus
Ne autem audiens vincula auditor tumultuetur, recoluit prophetiae, quoniam mors eius salus fuit orbis terrarum; unde sequitur erat autem Caiphas qui consilium dederat Iudaeis, quia expedit unum hominem mori pro populo: tanta enim est veritatis superabundantia, ut et inimici eam personent
18:15
St Augustine † AD 430 de Con. Evang. iii. vi
The temptation of Peter, which took place in the midst of the contumelies offered to our Lord, is not placed by all in the same order. Matthew and Mark put the contumelies first, the temptation of Peter afterwards; Luke the temptation first, the contumelies after. John begins with the temptation: And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple.
Alcuin † AD 804
He followed his Master out of devotion, though afar off, on account of fear.
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. cxiii
Who that other disciple was we cannot hastily decide, as his name is not told us. John however is wont to signify himself by this expression, with the addition of, whom Jesus loved. Perhaps therefore he is the one.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407
He omits his own name out of humility: though he is relating an act of great virtue, how that he followed when the rest fled. He puts Peter before himself, and then mentions himself, in order to shew that he was inside the hall, and therefore related what took place there with more certainty than the other Evangelists could. That disciple was known unto the high priest, and went in with Jesus into the palace of the high priest. This he mentions not as a boast, but in order to diminish his own merit, in having been the only one who entered with Jesus. It is accounting for the act in another way, than merely by greatness of mind. Peter’s love took him as far as the palace, but his fear prevented him entering in: But Peter stood at the door without.
Alcuin † AD 804
He stood without, as being about to deny his Lord. He was not in Christ, who dared not confess Christ.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. lxxxiii
But that Peter would have entered the palace, if he had been permitted, appears by what immediately follows: Then went out that other disciple who was known to the high priest, and spake unto her who kept the doors, and brought in Peter. He did not bring him in himself, because he kept near Christ. It follows: Then saith the damsel that kept the door unto Peter, Art not thou also one of this Man’s disciples? He saith, I am not. What sayest thou, O Peter? Didst thou not say before, I will lay down my life for thy sake? (Mat. 26:35) What then had happened, that thou givest way even when the damsel asks thee? It was not a soldier who asked thee, but a mean porteress. Nor said she, Art thou this Deceiver’s disciple, but, this Man’s: an expression of pity. Art not thou also, she says, because John was inside.
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. cxiii
But what wonder, if God foretold truly, man presumed falsely. Respecting this denial of Peter we should remark, that Christ is not only denied by him, who denies that He is Christ, but by him also who denies himself to be a Christian. For the Lord did not say to Peter, Thou shalt deny that thou art My disciple, but, Thou shalt deny Me. (Luke 22:34) He denied Him then, when he denied that he was His disciple. And what was this but to deny that he was a Christian? How many afterwards, even boys and girls, were able to despise death, confess Christ, and enter courageously into the kingdom of heaven; which he who received the keys of the kingdom, was now unable to do? Wherein we see the reason for His saying above, Let these go their way, for of those which Thou hast given Me, have I lost none. If Peter had gone out of this world immediately after denying Christ, He must have been lost.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Serm. de Petro et Elia.
Therefore did Divine Providence permit Peter first to fall, in order that he might be less severe to sinners from the remembrance of his own fall. Peter, the teacher and master of the whole world, sinned, and obtained pardon, that judges might thereafter have that rule to go by in dispensing pardon. For this reason I suppose the priesthood was not given to Angels; because, being without sin themselves, they would punish sinners without pity. Passible man is placed over man, in order that remembering his own weakness, he may be merciful to others.
Theophylact † 1107
Some however foolishly favour Peter, so far as to say that he denied Christ, because he did not wish to be away from Christ, and he knew, they say, that if he confessed that he was one of Christ’s disciples, he would be separated from Him, and would no longer have the liberty of following and seeing his beloved Lord; and therefore pretended to be one of the servants, that his sad countenance might not be perceived, and so exclude him: And the servants and officers stood there, who had made a fire of coals, and warmed themselves; and Peter stood with them, and warmed himself.
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. cxiii
It was not winter, and yet it was cold, as it often is at the vernal equinox.
St Gregory the Great † AD 604 ii. Mor. c. 11
The fire of love was smothered in Peter’s breast, and he was warming himself before the coals of the persecutors, i. e. with the love of this present life, whereby his weakness was increased.
The Latin text
Augustinus de Cons. Evang
De Petri tentatione, quae inter domini contumelias facta est, non eodem ordine omnes narrant: nam ipsas primo commemorant Matthaeus et Marcus, deinde Petri tentationem; Lucas vero explicat prius tentationes Petri, demum domini contumelias. Ioannes autem incipit Petri tentationem dicere, cum dicit sequebatur autem Iesum Simon Petrus, et alius discipulus
Alcuinus
Ex devotione sequebatur magistrum, quamvis a longe propter timorem
Augustinus in Ioannem
Quis sit autem ille alius discipulus, non temere affirmandum est, quia tacetur. Solet autem se idem Ioannes ita significare et addere: quem diligebat Iesus: fortassis ergo et hic ipse est
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Se autem occultat humilitatis gratia; etenim magnam rectitudinem enarrat, quomodo omnibus fugientibus ipse sequitur. Sed praeponit sibi Petrum, et sui ipsius coactus est meminisse, ut discas quoniam certius aliis enarrat ea quae facta sunt in atrio, quasi intus existens. Succidit autem propriam laudem, subdens discipulus autem ille erat notus pontifici, et introivit cum Iesu in atrium pontificis; non enim hoc ut magnum quid de seipso ponit; sed quia dixit quod intravit cum Iesu solus, ut non aestimes hoc excelsae mentis esse, addit causam. Igitur Petrum venisse illuc, amoris fuit; non intrasse autem intro, timoris; unde sequitur Petrus autem stabat ad ostium foris
Alcuinus
Foris stabat qui negaturus erat dominum, nec erat in Christo qui Christum confiteri non erat ausus
Chrysostomus
Sed quoniam et Petrus intrasset utique domum, si ei concessum esset, indicavit subdens exivit ergo discipulus alius, qui erat notus pontifici, et dixit ostiariae, et introduxit Petrum. Ideo autem ipse eum non introduxit, quia Christo adhaerebat, et sequebatur eum. Sequitur dixit ergo ancilla ostiaria: numquid et tu ex discipulis es hominis istius? Dicit ille: non sum. Quid dicis, o Petre? Nonne prius dixisti: et si oportuerit, animam meam pro te ponam? Quid ergo factum est, quoniam nec ostiariae fers interrogationem? Non erat miles qui interrogabat, sed ostiaria vilis; neque dixit: seductoris discipulus es, sed hominis illius; quod miserentis erat. Dicit autem numquid et tu? Quia Ioannes intus erat
Augustinus
Sed quid mirum si Deus vera praedixit, homo autem falsa praesumpsit? Sane in ista quae iam coepta est negatione Petri debemus advertere, non solum ab eo negari Christum qui dicit eum non esse Christum, sed ab illo etiam qui negat se esse Christianum. Dominus enim non ait Petro: discipulum meum te negabis; sed: me negabis. Negavit ergo ipsum cum se negavit esse discipulum. Quid autem aliud isto modo quam se negavit esse Christianum? Quam multi postea, etiam pueri et puellae, potuerunt mortem pro Christi confessione contemnere, et regnum caelorum fortiter introire, quod tunc iste non potuit, qui claves regni eius accepit. Ecce unde dictum est sinite hos abire: quia quos dedisti mihi, non perdidi ex eis quemquam. Utique enim Petrus, si negato Christo hinc iret, quid aliud quam periret?
Chrysostomus
Idcirco autem divinae providentiae secretum permisit ut primus ipse laberetur Petrus, quo erga peccantes duriorem sententiam proprii casus intuitu temperaret. Petrus enim orbis terrarum doctor et magister peccavit, et veniam impetravit, ut haec indulgentiae norma et regula iudicantibus praeberetur. Idcirco enim non Angelis arbitror commissam sacerdotii potestatem, ne cum ipsi minime peccarent, in peccatoribus sine misericordia vindicarent. Homo passibilis supra homines ordinatur, ut dum ipse in aliis suas recolit passiones, mitem apud eos se praebeat et benignum
Theophylactus
Quidam tamen inanem quamdam gratiam appropriantes Petro, dicunt, quod ideo negavit Petrus, quoniam volebat semper esse cum Christo, et sequi continue. Novit enim quod si fateretur se esse de Christi discipulis, divideretur ab eo, et non haberet ultra spatium sequendi videndique dilectum: unde simulabat se officium gerere ministrorum, ne vultus moestitia cognitus excluderetur; unde sequitur stabant autem servi et ministri ad prunas, quia frigus erat, et calefaciebant se. Erat autem et Petrus stans cum eis, et calefaciens se
Augustinus
Non hiems erat, et tamen frigus erat, quale solet etiam aequinoctio verno accidere
Gregorius Moralium
Iam autem intus a caritatis calore Petrus torpuerat, et ad amorem praesentis vitae, quasi ad persecutorum prunas, infirmitate aestuante recalebat
18:19
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. lxxxiii. 3
As they could bring no charge against Christ, they asked Him of His disciples: The high priest then asked Jesus of His disciples; perhaps where they were, and on what account He had collected them, he wished to prove that he was a seditious and factious person whom no one attended to, except His own disciples.
Theophylact † 1107
He asks Him moreover of His doctrine, what it was, whether opposed to Moses and the law, that he might take occasion thereby to put Him to death as an enemy of God.
Alcuin † AD 804
He does not ask in order to know the truth, but to find out some charge against Him, on which to deliver Him to the Roman Governor to be condemned. But our Lord so tempers His answer, as neither to conceal the truth, nor yet to appear to defend Himself: Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing.
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. cxiii
There is a difficulty here not to be passed over: if He did not speak openly even to His disciples, but only promised that He would do so at some time, how was it that He spoke openly to the world? He spoke more openly to His disciples afterwards, when they had withdrawn from the crowd; for He then explained His parables, the meaning of which He concealed from the others. When He says then, I spake openly to the world, He must be understood to mean, within the hearing of many. So in one sense He spoke openly, i. e. in that many heard Him; in another sense not openly, i. e. in that they did not understand Him. His speaking apart with His disciples was not speaking in secret; for how could He speak in secret before the multitude, especially when that small number of His disciples were to make known what He said to a much larger?
Theophylact † 1107
He refers here to the prophecy of Esaias; I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth. (Isa. 45:19)
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. lxxxiii
Or, He spoke in secret, but not, as these thought, from fear, or to excite sedition; but only when what He said was above the understanding of the many. To establish the matter, however, upon superabundant evidence, He adds, Why askest thou Me? ask them which heard Me what I said unto them; behold, they know what I said unto them: as if He said, Thou askest Me of My disciples; ask My enemies, who lie in wait for Me. These are the words of one who was confident of the truth of what He said: for it is incontrovertible evidence, when enemies are called in as witnesses.
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. cxiii. 3
For what they had heard and not understood, was not of such a kind, as that they could justly turn it against Him. And as often as they tried by questioning to find out some charge against Him, He so replied as to blunt all their stratagems, and refute their calumnies.
The Latin text
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Quia Christo nullum crimen inferre poterant, de discipulis interrogabant; unde dicitur pontifex ergo interrogavit Iesum de discipulis suis: fortassis ubi erant, vel cuius gratia eos collegit. Hoc autem dicebat quasi seditiosum et novarum rerum factorem eum redarguere volens, quasi nullo alio attendente ei quam eius discipulis
Theophylactus
Explorat insuper de doctrina; unde sequitur et de doctrina eius, cuiusmodi scilicet foret, utrum a lege discrepans et adversa Moysi, ut exinde occasione concepta ut Dei aemulum perdat
Alcuinus
Non enim cognoscendae veritatis amore interrogat, sed ut causam inveniret qua eum accusare potuisset, et tradere Romano praesidi ad damnandum. Sed dominus ita temperavit responsionem ut nec veritatem taceret, nec se defendere videretur; sequitur enim respondit ei Iesus: ego palam locutus sum mundo; ego semper docui in synagoga et in templo quo omnes Iudaei conveniunt, et in occulto locutus sum nihil
Augustinus in Ioannem
Non praetereunda nascitur hic quaestio: si enim ipsis discipulis non loquebatur palam, sed horam promittebat quando palam fuerat locuturus, quomodo palam locutus est mundo? Deinde ipsis discipulis suis multo manifestius loquebatur quando cum eis erat remotus a turbis; tunc enim et parabolas aperiebat, quas clausas proferebat ad alios. Sed intelligendum est ita eum dixisse palam locutus sum mundo, ac si dixisset: multi me audierunt. Et rursus non erat palam, quia non intelligebant; et quod seorsum discipulis loquebatur, non in occulto utique loquebatur; quis namque in occulto loquitur qui coram tot hominibus loquitur? Praesertim si hoc loquitur paucis, quod per eos velit innotescere multis
Theophylactus
Reminiscitur autem hic prophetiae quae dicit: non in occulto locutus sum, nec in loco terrae tenebroso
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Vel locutus est quidem in occulto, sed non, ut hi aestimabant, trepidans et seditionem faciens; sed ubi multorum auditione superiora erant quae dicebantur. Volens autem ex superabundantia fide dignum constituere suum testimonium, subdit quid me interrogas? Interroga eos qui audierunt quid locutus sim ipsis: ecce hi sciunt quae dixerim ego; quasi dicat: tu me de meis interrogas; interroga inimicos meos, qui insidiantur mihi. Sunt autem haec verba confidentis in eorum quae dicta erant veritate: haec est enim veritatis inaltercabilis demonstratio, cum inimicos quis invocat teste
Augustinus
Ipsa enim quae audierant et non intellexerant, talia erant ut non possent iuste ac veraciter criminari: et quotiescumque interrogando tentarunt ut invenirent unde accusarent eum, sic eis respondit ut omnes eorum retunderentur doli, et calumniae eorum frustrarentur
18:22
Theophylact † 1107
When Jesus had appealed to the testimony of the people by, an officer, wishing to clear himself, and shew that he was not one of those who admired our Lord, struck Him: And when He had thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, Answerest Thou the high priest so?
St Augustine † AD 430 de Con. Evang. iii. vi
This shews that Annas was the high priest, for this was before He was sent to Caiaphas. And Luke in the beginning of his Gospel says, that Annas and Caiaphas were both high priests.
Alcuin † AD 804
Here is fulfilled the prophecy, I gave my cheek to the smiters. Jesus, though struck unjustly, replied gently: Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou Me?
Theophylact † 1107
As if to say, If thou hast any fault to find with what I have said, shew it; if thou hast not, why ragest thou? Or thus: If I taught any thing unadvisedly, when I taught in the synagogues, give proof of it to the high priest; but if I taught aright, so that even ye officers admired, why smitest thou Me, Whom before thou admiredst?
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. cxiii
What can be truer, gentler, kinder, than this answer? He Who received the blow on the face neither wished for him who struck it that fire from heaven should consume him, or the earth open its mouth and swallow him; or a devil seize him; or any other yet more horrible kind of punishment. Yet had not He, by Whom the world was made, power to cause any one of these things to take place, but that He preferred teaching us that patience by which the world is overcome? Some one will ask here, why He did not do what He Himself commanded, i. e. not make this answer, but give the other cheek to the smiter? But what if He did both, both answered gently, and gave, not His check only to the smiter, but His whole body to be nailed to the Cross? And herein He shews, that those precepts of patience are to be performed not by posture of the body, but by preparation of the heart: for it is possible that a man might give his cheek outwardly, and yet be angry at the same time. How much better is it to answer truly, yet gently, and be ready to bear even harder usage patiently.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. lxxxiii
What should they do then but either disprove, or admit, what He said? Yet this they do not do: it is not a trial they are carrying on, but a faction, a tyranny. Not knowing what to do further, they send Him to Caiaphas: Now Annas sent Him bound to Caiaphas the high priest.
Theophylact † 1107
Thinking that as he was more cunning, he might find out something against Him worthy of death.
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. cxiii
He was the one to whom they were taking Him from the first, as Matthew says; he being the high priest of this year. We must understand that the pontificate was taken between them year by year alternately, and that it was by Caiaphas’s consent that they led Him first to Annas; or that their houses were so situated, that they could not but pass straight by that of Annas.
St Bede † AD 735
Sent Him bound, not that He was bound now for the first time, for they bound Him when they took Him. They sent Him bound as they had brought Him. Or perhaps He may have been loosed from His bonds for that hour, in order to be examined, after which He was bound again, and sent to Caiaphas.
The Latin text
Theophylactus
Cum Iesus astantium interpellasset testimonium, volens se minister excusare quod non esset de his qui admirabantur Iesum, percussit eum; unde dicitur haec autem cum dixisset, unus assistens ministrorum dedit alapam Iesu, dicens: sic respondes pontifici?
Augustinus de Cons. Evang
Hic sane ostenditur quod Annas pontifex erat, nondum enim erat missus ad Caipham cum hoc diceretur; et hos duos Annam et Caipham pontifices commemorat etiam Lucas in initio Evangelii sui
Alcuinus
Hic impletur prophetia threnorum: dedi maxillam meam percutientibus. Sed Iesus iniuste percussus mansuete respondit; unde sequitur respondit ei Iesus: si male locutus sum, testimonium perhibe de malo; si autem bene, quid me caedis?
Theophylactus
Quasi dicat: si habes ex his quae nunc a me prolata sunt reprehendere, ostende quod male dixerim; quod si nequis, quid furis? Vel etiam sic: si perperam docui cum in synagogis docebam, certifica principem sacerdotum; quod si recte docui, ita ut etiam vos ministri miraremini, quid me nunc caedis, quem prius admirabaris?
Augustinus in Ioannem
Quid ista responsione verius, mansuetius, iustius? Qui enim accepit alapam, numquid vellet eum qui percussit aut caelesti igne consumi, aut terra dehiscente sorberi, aut correptum Daemonio volutari, aut etiam alia huiusmodi qualibet poena, vel etiam graviori puniri? Quid horum per potentiam iubere non potuisset per quem factus est mundus, nisi patientiam nos docere maluisset, qua vincitur mundus? Hic dicet aliquis: cur non fecit quod ipse praecepit? Percutienti scilicet non sic respondere, sed maxillam debuit alteram praebere. Quid quod et mansuete respondit, et non solum maxillam alteram iterum percussuro, sed totum corpus figendum praeparavit in ligno? Et hinc potius demonstravit sua illa praecepta patientiae non ostentatione corporis, sed cordis praeparatione fienda: fieri enim potest ut alteram maxillam visibiliter homo praebeat iratus. Quanto ergo melius et respondet vera placatus, et ad perferenda graviora tranquillo animo fit paratus?
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Quid igitur consequens erat, nisi aut redarguere, aut acceptare quod dictum est? Sed hoc non fit: ea enim quae fiebant non erant iudicium, sed seditio et tyrannis. Non invenientes autem quid plus facerent, mittunt eum ligatum ad Caipham; unde sequitur et misit eum Annas ligatum ad Caipham pontificem
Theophylactus
Suspicantes hunc, cum astutior esset, excogitare aliquid posse adversum Iesum dignum morte
Augustinus
Ad illum autem, sicut Matthaeus dicit, ab initio ducebatur, quoniam ipse erat illius anni princeps sacerdotum. Alternis quippe intelligendi sunt solere annis agere pontificatum, et credendum est secundum voluntatem Caiphae id esse factum ut Iesum primo ad Annam ducerent; vel etiam domos eorum ita fuisse positas ut non deberet Annas a transeuntibus praeteriri
Beda
Quod autem dicit ligatum, non sic intelligendum quod tunc tantum fuerit ligatus; sed tunc ligatus est cum est captus: itaque ligatum ad Caipham misit sicut sibi fuerat praesentatus. Sive fieri potuit ut ad horam solveretur, quatenus discuteretur, post hoc discussus iterum ligaretur, et sic ad Caipham mitteretur
18:25
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. cxiii
After the Evangelist has said that they sent Jesus bound from Annas to Caiaphas, he returns to Peter and his three denials, which took place in the house of Annas: And Simon Peter stood and warmed himself. He repeats what he had said before.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. lxxxiii
Or, He means that the once fervid disciple was now too torpid, to move even when our Lord was carried away: shewing thereby how weak man’s nature is, when God forsakes him. Asked again, he again denies: They said therefore unto him, Art not thou also one of His disciples? He denied it, and said, I am not.
St Augustine † AD 430 de Con. Evang. iii. 6
Here we find Peter not at the gate, but at the fire, when he denies the second time: so that he must have returned after he had gone out of doors, where Matthew says he was. He did not go out, and another damsel see him on the outside, but another damsel saw him as he was rising to go out, and remarked him, and told those who were by, i. e. those who were standing with her at the fire inside the hall, This fellow also was with Jesus of Nazareth. (Matt. 26:71, 72) He heard this outside, and returned, and swore, I do not know the man. Then John continues: They said therefore unto him, Art not thou also one of His disciples? which words we suppose to have been said to him when he had come back, and was standing at the fire. And this explanation is confirmed by the fact, that besides the other damsel mentioned by Matthew and Mark in the second denial, there was another person, mentioned by Luke, who also questioned him. So John uses the plural: They said therefore unto him. And then follows the third denial: One of the servants of the high priest, being his kinsman whose ear Peter cut off, saith, Did not I see thee in the garden with Him? That Matthew and Mark speak of the party who here question Peter in the plural number, whereas Luke mentions only one, and John also, adding that that one was the kinsman of him whose ear Peter cut off, is easily explained by supposing that Matthew and Mark used the plural number by a common form of speech for the singular; or that one who had observed him most strictly put the question first, and others followed it up, and pressed Peter with more.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. lxxxiii. 3
But neither did the garden bring back to his memory what he had then said, and the great professions of love he had made: Peter then denied again, and immediately the cock crew.
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. cxiii
Lo, the prophecy of the Physician is fulfilled, the presumption of the sick man demonstrated. That which Peter had said he would do, he had not done. I will lay down my life for Thy sake; but what our Lord had foretold had come to pass, Thou shall deny Me thrice. (Luke 22:34)
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. lxxxiii. 3
The Evangelists have all given the same account of the denials of Peter, not with any intention of throwing blame upon him, but to teach us how hurtful it is to trust in self, and not ascribe all to God.
St Bede † AD 735
Mystically, by the first denial of Peter are denoted those who before our Lord’s Passion denied that He was God, by the second, those who did so after His resurrection. So by the first crowing of the cock His resurrection is signified; by the second, the general resurrection at the end of the world. By the first damsel, who obliged Peter to deny, is denoted lust, by the second, carnal delight: by one or more servants, the devils who persuade men to deny Christ.
The Latin text
Augustinus in Ioannem
Cum dixisset Evangelista, quod Iesum ligatum miserat Annas ad Caipham, reversus est ad locum narrationis, ubi reliquerat Petrum, ut explicaret quod in domo Annae de trina eius negatione contigerat; unde dicitur erat autem Simon Petrus stans, et calefaciens se. Hic recapitulat quod ante iam dixerat
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Vel multo stupore detinebatur qui fervidus erat, ut deducto Iesu de cetero non moveretur. Sed hoc fit, ut discas quanta naturae sit imbecillitas, cum Deus hominem dereliquerit. Et interrogatus rursus etiam negat; unde sequitur dixerunt ergo ei: numquid et tu ex discipulis eius es? Negavit ille, et dixit: non sum
Augustinus de Cons. Evang
Hoc loco invenimus non ante ianuam, sed ad focum stantem, secundo negasse Petrum; quod fieri non posset nisi iam rediisset postea quam foras exierat, ut Matthaeus dicit. Neque enim iam exierat, et foris vidit eum altera ancilla; sed cum exiret, eum vidit; idest, cum surgeret et exiret, animadvertit eum et dixit his qui erant ibi, idest qui simul erant ad ignem intus in atrio: et hic cum Iesu Nazareno erat. Ille autem qui foras exierat, hoc audito, rediens, iuravit illis contra nitentibus: quia non novi hominem. Deinde in eo quod Ioannes hic ait dixerunt: numquid et tu ex discipulis eius es? Quod redeunti et stanti dictum intelligimus, hoc quoque confirmatur, non illam tantum alteram ancillam, quam commemorant in hac secunda negatione Matthaeus et Marcus, sed alium quemdam, quem commemorat Lucas, cum Petro illud egisse; unde Ioannes dicit dixerunt ergo ei. Ioannes autem secutus de tertia Petri negatione, ita explicat dicit ei unus ex servis pontificis, cognatus eius cuius abscidit Petrus auriculam: nonne ego vidi te in horto cum illo? Quod Matthaeus et Marcus non singulari, sed plurali numero enuntiant eos qui cum Petro agebant, cum Lucas unum dicat; Ioannes quoque unum eumdemque cognatum eius cuius abscidit Petrus auriculam: facile est intelligere aut pluralem numerum pro singulari usitata locutione usurpasse Matthaeum et Marcum; aut quod unus maxime tamquam sciens, et qui eum viderat, affirmabat; ceteri autem secuti eius fidem Petrum simul urgebant
Chrysostomus
Sed neque hortus in memoriam eius reduxit ea quae ibi dicta sunt, neque multa dilectio quam illic per verba multa ostendit; unde sequitur iterum ergo negavit Petrus, et statim gallus cantavit
Augustinus
Ecce medici completa est praedictio, aegroti convicta praesumptio: non enim factum est quod ille dixerat: animam meam pro te ponam; sed factum est quod ille praedixerat: ter me negabis
Chrysostomus
Evangelistae vero concorditer negationem Petri scripserunt, non discipulum accusantes, sed nos erudire volentes quantum malum sit non Deo totum concedere, sed in semetipso confidere
Beda
Mystice autem per primam Petri negationem illi designantur qui ante passionem ipsius negaverunt eum esse Deum; per secundam vero illi qui post resurrectionem eius in divinitate pariter et humanitate offenderunt. Item per primum galli cantum ipsius designatur capitis resurrectio, per secundum illa quae in fine celebrabitur totius corporis. Per primam autem ancillam, quae Petrum negare coegit, designatur cupiditas; per secundam carnalis delectatio; per unum seu plures servos, Daemones, qui suadent Christum negare
18:28
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. cxiv
The Evangelist returns to the part where he had left off, in order to relate Peter’s denial: Then led they Jesus to Caiaphas (a Caiapha Vulg.) unto the hall of judgment: to Caiaphas from his colleague and father in law Annas, as has been said. But if to Caiaphas, how to the prætorium, which was the place where the governor Pilate resided?
St Bede † AD 735
The prætorium is the place where the prætor sat. Prætors were called prefects and preceptors, because they issue decrees.
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. cxiv
Either then for some urgent reason Caiaphas proceeded from the house of Annas, where both had been sitting, to the prætorium of the governor, and left Jesus to the hearing of his father in law: or Pilate had established the prætorium in the house of Caiaphas, which was large enough to afford a separate lodging to its owner, and the governor at the same time.
St Augustine † AD 430 de Con. Evang. l. iii. c. vii
According to Matthew, When the morning came, they led Him away, and delivered Him to Pontius Pilate. (Mat. 27:1, 2) But He was to have been led to Caiaphas at first. How is it then that He was brought to him so late? The truth is, now He was going as it were a committed criminal, Caiaphas having already determined on His death. And He was to be given up to Pilate immediately. And it was early.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. lxxxiii
He was led to Caiaphas before the cock crew, but early in the morning to Pilate. Whereby the Evangelist shews, that all that night of examination, ended in proving nothing against Him; and that He was sent to Pilate in consequence. But leaving what passed then to the other Evangelists, he goes to what followed.
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. xiv
And they themselves entered not into the judgment hall: i. e. into that part of the house which Pilate occupied, supposing it to be the house of Caiaphas. Why they did not enter is next explained: Lest they should be defiled, but that they might eat the Passover.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. lxxxiii
For the Jews were then celebrating the passover; He Himself celebrated it one day before, reserving His own death for the sixth day; on which day the old passover was kept. Or, perhaps, the passover means the whole season.
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. cxiv
The days of unleavened bread were beginning; during which time it was defilement to enter the house of a stranger.
Alcuin † AD 804
The passover was strictly the fourteenth day of the month, the day on which the lamb was killed in the evening: the seven days following were called the days of unleavened bread, in which nothing leavened ought to be found in their houses. Yet we find the day of the passover reckoned among the days of unleavened bread: Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto Him, Where wilt Thou that we prepare for Thee to eat the passover? (Mat. 26:17) And here also in like manner: That they might eat the passover; the passover here signifying not the sacrifice of the lamb, which took place the fourteenth day at evening, but the great festival which was celebrated on the fifteenth day, after the sacrifice of the lamb. Our Lord, like the rest of the Jews, kept the passover on the fourteenth day: on the fifteenth day, when the great festival was held, He was crucified. His immolation however began on the fourteenth day, from the time that He was taken in the garden.
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. cxiv
O impious blindness! They feared to be defiled by the judgment hall of a foreign prefect, to shed the blood of an innocent brother they feared not. For that He Whom they killed was the Lord and Giver of life, their blindness saved them from knowing.
Theophylact † 1107
Pilate however proceeds in a more gentle way: Pilate then went out unto them.
St Bede † AD 735
It was the custom of the Jews when they condemned any one to death, to notify it to the governor, by delivering the man bound.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. lxxxiii. 4
Pilate however seeing Him bound, and such numbers conducting Him, supposed that they had not unquestionable evidence against Him, so proceeds to ask the question: And said, What accusation bring ye against this Man? For it was absurd, he said, to take the trial out of his hands, and yet give him the punishment. They in reply bring forward no positive charge but only their own conjectures: They answered and said unto him, If He were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered Him up unto thee.
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. cxiv
Ask the freed from unclean spirits, the blind who saw, the dead who came to life again, and, what is greater than all, the fools who were made wise, and let them answer, whether Jesus was a malefactor. But they spoke, of whom He had Himself prophesied in the Psalms, They rewarded Me evil for good. (Ps. 39.)
St Augustine † AD 430 de Cons. Evang. iii. 8
But is not this account contradictory to Luke’s, who mentions certain positive charges: And they began to accuse Him, saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Cæsar, saying that He Himself is Christ a King. (Luke 23:2) According to John, the Jews seem to have been unwilling to bring actual charges, in order that Pilate might condemn Him simply on their authority, asking no questions, but taking it for granted that if He was delivered up to him, He was certainly guilty. Both accounts are however compatible. Each Evangelist only inserts what he thinks sufficient. And John’s account implies that some charges had been made, when it comes to Pilate’s answer: Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye Him, and judge Him according to your law.
Theophylact † 1107
As if to say, Since you will only have such a trial as will suit you, and are proud, as if you never did any thing profane, take ye Him, and condemn Him; I will not be made a judge for such a purpose.
Alcuin † AD 804
Or as if he said, Ye who have the law, know what the law judgeth concerning such: do what ye know to be just. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death.
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. cxiv. 4
But did not the law command not to spare malefactors, especially deceivers such as they thought Him? We must understand them however to mean, that the holiness of the day which they were beginning to celebrate, made it unlawful to put any man to death. Have ye then so lost your understanding by your wickedness, that ye think yourselves free from the pollution of innocent blood, because ye deliver it to be shed by another?
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. lxxxiii. 4
Or, they were not allowed by the Roman law to put Him to death themselves. Or, Pilate having said, Judge Him according to your law, they reply, It is not lawful for us: His sin is not a Jewish one, He hath not sinned according to our law: His offence is political, He calls Himself a King. Or they wished to have Him crucified, to add infamy to death: they not being allowed to put to death in this way themselves. They put to death in another way, as we see in the stoning of Stephen: That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which He spake, signifying what death He should die. Which was fulfilled in that He was crucified, or in that He was put to death by Gentiles as well as Jews.
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. cxiv
As we read in Mark, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests, and unto the scribes; and they shall condemn Him to death, and shall deliver Him to the Gentiles. (Mark 10:33) Pilate again was a Roman, and was sent to the government of Judæa, from Rome. That this saying of Jesus then might be fulfilled, i. e. that He might be delivered unto and killed by the Gentiles, they would not accept Pilate’s offer, but said, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death.
The Latin text
Augustinus in Ioannem
Redit Evangelista ad locum narrationis suae, ubi eam reliquerat ut explicaret Petri negationem; unde dicitur adducunt ergo Iesum ad Caipham in praetorium: ad Caipham quippe ab Anna collega et socero eius dixerat missum. Sed si ad Caipham, cur ad praetorium, quod nihil aliud vult intelligi quam ubi praeses Pilatus habitavit?
Beda
Praetorium enim dicitur sedes praetoris; praetores vero dicuntur praefecti, sive praeceptores, eo quod civibus praecepta donent
Augustinus
Aut igitur aliqua urgente causa de domo Annae, quo ad audiendum ambo convenerant, Caiphas perrexerat ad praetorium praesidis, et socero suo Iesum reliquerat audiendum; aut in domo Caiphae praetorium Pilatus acceperat, et tanta domus erat ut seorsum habitantem dominum suum, seorsum iudicem ferret
Augustinus de Cons. Evang
Tamen ad ipsum Caipham ab initio ducebatur, ad quem in extremo perductus est; sed quia iam tamquam convictum reum adducebant, Caiphae autem antea visum fuerat ut Iesus moreretur, nulla mora interposita est quin occidendus Pilato traderetur. Sequitur erat autem mane
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Antequam gallus cantaret, ad Caipham ducitur; mane vero ad Pilatum: per quae demonstrat Evangelista quoniam per totum intermedium noctis a Caipha interrogatus in nullo redarguitur; et idcirco misit eum Pilato. Sed illa aliis dimittens enarranda, ipse quaesivit quod deinceps est; sequitur enim et ipsi non introierunt in praetorium
Augustinus in Ioannem
Hoc est in eam partem domus quam Pilatus tenebat, si ipsa erat domus Caiphae. Cur autem non introierunt, exponit subdens ut non contaminarentur, sed manducarent Pascha
Chrysostomus
Quoniam tunc Iudaei faciebant Pascha; ipse vero ante unam diem tradidit Pascha, reservans suam occisionem sextae feriae quando vetus Pascha fiebat: vel Pascha dicit totum festum
Augustinus
Dies enim agere coeperant azymorum, quibus diebus contaminatio illis erat in alienigenae habitaculum intrare
Alcuinus
Pascha enim proprie dicebatur dies illa qua agnus ad vesperam quartadecima luna occidebatur; septem vero dies sequentes dies azymorum dicebantur, in quibus nihil fermentatum in domibus eorum debuit inveniri. Sed tamen dies paschalis invenitur inter dies azymorum, ut apud Matthaeum: prima autem die azymorum accesserunt discipuli ad Iesum, dicentes: ubi vis paremus tibi comedere Pascha? Pascha etiam dies azymorum inveniuntur nominati, sicut hic: ut manducarent Pascha: Pascha enim non immolationem agni hic notat, quae fiebat quartadecima luna ad vesperam; sed magnam solemnitatem, quae quintadecima luna celebrabatur post agni immolationem; quartadecima enim luna dominus, sicut et alii Iudaei, Pascha celebravit; quintadecima luna, quando magna solemnitas celebrabatur, est crucifixus; quartadecima vero luna coepit esse immolatio ex quo captus est in horto
Augustinus
O impia caecitas. Alienigenae iudicis praetorio contaminari timebant, et fratris innocentis sanguinem fundere non timebant. Nam quod etiam dominus erat et vitae dator qui occidebatur, non eorum conscientiae, sed nescientiae deputetur
Theophylactus
Sed Pilatus utcumque procedens mitius, ipse idem egreditur; unde sequitur exivit ergo Pilatus ad eos foras
Beda
Haec autem erat consuetudo Iudaeorum, ut quem mortis reum iudicarent, vinctum praesidi traderent, ut dum praeses vinctum cerneret, intelligeret morti addictum
Chrysostomus
Sed videns eum ligatum et a tot ductum, non aestimavit hoc argumentum esse inaltercabile accusationis, sed interrogat; unde sequitur et dixit eis: quam accusationem affertis adversus hominem hunc? Inconveniens enim dicit esse, iudicium eos rapuisse, supplicium autem illi concedere. Sed illi renuentes ex directo accusationem, coniecturis quibusdam utuntur; unde sequitur responderunt, et dixerunt: si non esset hic malefactor, non tibi tradidissemus eum
Augustinus
Interrogentur atque respondeant ab immundis spiritibus liberati, caeci videntes, mortui resurgentes, et, quod omnia superat, stulti sapientes, utrum sit malefactor Iesus. Sed ista dicebant, de quibus per prophetam iam ipse praedixerat: retribuebant mihi mala pro bonis
Augustinus de Cons. Evang
Sed videndum est ne contra sit quod Lucas dicit, certa in eum dicta esse crimina: coeperunt autem illum, inquit, accusare, dicentes: hunc invenimus subvertentem gentem nostram, et prohibentem tributa dari Caesari, et dicentem se Christum regem esse. Sed secundum Ioannem videntur Iudaei noluisse dicere crimina ut eorum auctoritatem secutus Pilatus, quid ei obicerent desineret quaerere; sed ob hoc tantum nocentem crederet, quod sibi ab eis tradi meruisset. Ergo intelligere debemus et hoc dictum esse, et illud quod Lucas commemoravit: multa enim dicta et multa responsa sunt. Unde in narratione sua quisque posuit quod satis esse iudicavit: nam et ipse Ioannes dicit quaedam quae obiecta sunt, quae suis locis videbimus. Itaque sequitur dicit ergo eis Pilatus: accipite eum vos, et secundum legem vestram iudicate eum
Theophylactus
Quasi dicat: quoniam ad votum iudicium poscitis, et superbitis, ac si nihil unquam profanum egeritis, accipite vos et damnate; ego nequaquam talis iudex efficiar
Alcuinus
Vel hoc dicit, quasi dicat: vos qui legem habetis, scitis quid lex de talibus iudicet; secundum quod iustum esse scitis, ita facite. Sequitur dixerunt ergo Iudaei: nobis non licet interficere quemquam
Augustinus in Ioannem
Sed nonne lex praecepit, ne malefactoribus, praesertim seductoribus adeo qualem istum putabant, parcant? Sed intelligendum est eos dixisse non sibi licere interficere quemquam propter festi diei sanctitatem quam celebrare iam coeperant. Ita ne omnem sensum nimia malitia perdidistis, ut ideo vos a sanguine innocentis impollutos esse credatis, quia eum fundendum alteri traditis?
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Vel ideo ipsi eum non interfecerunt, quia multum de potestate eorum abscissum erat eis Romanis regibus subiacentibus. Vel aliter. Quia dixerat eis secundum legem vestram interficite eum, volentes ostendere quod peccatum eius non est Iudaicum, dicunt non licet nobis: non enim secundum legem nostram peccavit; sed crimen eius est publicum, quia se regem dixit. Vel quia eum crucifigi cupiebant, ut etiam modo mortis eum diffament. Non autem licebat eis crucifigere. Sed quod alio modo interficiebant, monstrat Stephanus ab eis lapidatus; et ideo subditur ut sermo Iesu impleretur quem dixit significans qua morte esset moriturus: quoniam scilicet Iudaeis crucifigere non licebat. Aut dicit hoc Evangelista, quoniam non ab eis solum, sed et a gentibus debebat interfici
Augustinus
Sic enim legimus apud Marcum, ubi ait: ecce ascendimus Ierosolymam, et filius hominis tradetur principibus sacerdotum et Scribis, et tradent eum gentibus. Pilatus autem Romanus erat, eumque in Iudaeam Romani praesidem miserant. Ut ergo iste sermo Iesu impleretur, idest ut eum sibi traditum gentes interficerent, noluerunt eum accipere, dicentes nobis non licet interficere quemquam
18:33
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. lxxxiii.
Pilate, wishing to rescue Him from the hatred of the Jews, protracted1 the trial a long time: Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall, and called Jesus.
Theophylact † 1107
i. e. Apart, because he had a strong suspicion that He was innocent, and thought he could examine Him more accurately, away from the crowd: and said unto Him, Art Thou the King of the Jews?
Alcuin † AD 804
Wherein Pilate shews that the Jews had charged Him with calling Himself King of the Jews.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. lxxxiii. 4
Or Pilate had heard this by report; and as the Jews had no charge to bring forward, began to examine Him himself with respect to the things commonly reported of Him. Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of Me?
Theophylact † 1107
He intimates here that Pilate was judging blindly and indiscreetly: If thou sayest this thing of thyself, He says, bring forward proofs of My rebellion; if thou hast heard it from others, make regular enquiry into it.
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. cxv
Our Lord knew indeed both what He Himself asked, and what Pilate would answer; but He wished it to be written down for our sakes.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. lxxxiii
He asks not in ignorance, but in order to draw from Pilate himself an accusation against the Jews: Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered Thee unto me.
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. cxv
He rejects the imputation that He could have said it of Himself; Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered Thee unto me: adding, what hast Thou done? Whereby he shews that this charge had been brought against Him, for it is as much as to say, If Thou deniest that Thou art a King, what hast Thou done to be delivered up to me? As if it were no wonder that He should be delivered up, if He called Himself a King.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. lxxxiii
He then tries to bring round the mind of Pilate, not a very bad man, by proving to him, that He is not a mere man, but God, and the Son of God; and overthrowing all suspicion of His having aimed at a tyranny, which Pilate was afraid of, Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world.
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. cxv. 1
This is what the good Master wished to teach us. But first it was necessary to shew the falsity of the notions of both Jews and Gentiles as to His kingdom, which Pilate had heard of; as if it meant that He aimed at unlawful power; a crime punishable with death, and this kingdom were a subject of jealousy to the ruling power, and to be guarded against as likely to be hostile either to the Romans or Jews. Now if our Lord had answered immediately Pilate’s question, He would have seemed to have been answering not the Jews, but the Gentiles only. But after Pilate’s answer, what He says is an answer to both Gentiles and Jews: as if He said, Men, i. e. Jews and Gentiles, I hinder not your dominion in this world. What more would ye have? Come by faith to the kingdom which is not of this world. For what is His kingdom, but they that believe in Him, of whom He saith, Ye are not of the world: although He wished that they should be in the world. In the same way, here He does not say, My kingdom is not in this world; but, is not of this world. Of the world are all men, who created by God are born of the corrupt race of Adam. All that are born again in Christ, are made a kingdom not of this world. Thus hath God taken us out of the power of darkness, and translated us to the kingdom of His dear Son.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. lxxxiii
Or He means that He does not derive His kingdom from the same source that earthly kings do; but that He hath His sovereignty from above; inasmuch as He is not mere man, but far greater and more glorious than man: If My kingdom were of this world, then would My servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews. Here He shews the weakness of an earthly kingdom, that it has its strength from its servants, whereas that higher kingdom is sufficient to itself, and wanting in nothing. And if His kingdom was thus the greater of the two, it follows that He was taken of His own will, and delivered up Himself.
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. cxv
After shewing that His kingdom was not of this world, He adds, But now My kingdom is not from hence. He does not say, Not here, for His kingdom is here unto the end of the world, having within it the tares mixed with the wheat until the harvest. But yet it is not from hence, since it is a stranger in the world.
Theophylact † 1107
Or He says, from hence, not, here; because He reigns in the world, and carries on the government of it, and disposes all things according to His will; but His kingdom is not from below, but from above, and before all ages.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. lxxxiii
Heretics infer from these words that our Lord is a different person (ἀλλότριον) from the Creator of the world. But when He says, My kingdom is not from hence, He does not deprive the world of His government and superintendence, but only shews that His government is not human and corruptible. Pilate therefore said unto Him, Art Thou a King then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a King.
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. cxv
He did not fear to confess Himself a King, but so replied as neither to deny that He was, nor yet to confess Himself a King in such sense as that His kingdom should be supposed to be of this world. He says, Thou sayest, meaning, Thou being carnal sayest it carnally. He continues, To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. The pronoun here, in hoc, must not be dwelt long on, as if it meant, in hâc re, but shortened, as if it stood, ad hoc natus sum, as the next words are, ad hoc veni in mundum. Wherein it is evident He alludes to His birth in the flesh, not to that divine birth which never had beginning.
Theophylact † 1107
Or, to Pilate’s question whether He was a King, our Lord answers, To this end was I born, i. e. to be a King. That I am born from a King, proves that I am a King.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. lxxxiii. 4
If then He was a King by birth, He hath nothing which He hath not received from another. For this I came, that I should bear witness to the truth, i. e. that I should make all men believe it. We must observe how He shews His humility here: when they accused Him as a malefactor, He bore it in silence; but when He is asked of His kingdom, then He talks with Pilate, instructs him, and raises his mind to higher things. That I should bear witness to the truth, shews that He had no crafty purpose in what He did.
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. cxv
But when Christ bears witness to the truth, He bears witness to Himself; as He said above, I am the truth. (c. 14:6) But inasmuch as all men have not faith, He adds, Every one that is of the truth heareth My voice: heareth, that is, with the inward ear; obeys My voice, believes Mc. Every one that is of the truth, hath reference to the grace by which He calleth according to His purpose. For as regards the nature in which we are created, since the truth created all, all are of the truth. But it is not all to whom it is given by the truth to obey the truth. For had He even said, Every one that heareth My voice is of the truth, it still would be thought that such were of the truth, because they obeyed the truth. But He does not say this, but, Every one that is of the truth heareth My voice. A man then is not of the truth, because he hears His voice, but hears His voice because he is of the truth. This grace is conferred upon him by the truth.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. lxxxiii
These words have an effect upon Pilate, persuade him to become a hearer, and elicit from him the short enquiry, What is truth? Pilate said unto Him, What is truth?
Theophylact † 1107
For it had almost vanished from the world, and become unknown in consequence of the general unbelief.
The Latin text
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Pilatus ab odio Iudaeorum eripi volens, iudicium non protraxit in longum; unde dicitur introivit ergo iterum in praetorium Pilatus, et vocavit Iesum
Theophylactus
Seorsum, eo quod magnam habebat de eo suspicionem. Proponebat autem omnia exquisite rimari amoto strepitu Iudaeorum; unde sequitur et dixit ei: tu es rex Iudaeorum?
Alcuinus
His verbis ostendit Pilatus Iudaeos obiecisse hoc criminis, ut diceret se esse regem Iudaeorum
Chrysostomus
Vel hoc Pilatus a multis audierat. Quia vero nihil illi habebat dicere, ut non multa fieret investigatio, quod communiter dicebatur, hoc in medium ducere vult. Sequitur et respondit Iesus: a temetipso hoc dicis, an alii tibi dixerunt de me?
Theophylactus
Innuit ex hoc, Pilatum esse vecordem, ac indiscrete iudicantem; ac si diceret: si hoc ex te ipso loqueris, pande signa meae rebellionis; at si ab aliis percepisti, inquisitionem fac ordinariam
Augustinus in Ioannem
Sciebat utique dominus et quod ipse interrogavit, et quod ille responsurus fuit; sed tamen dici voluit, non ut ipse sciret, sed ut conscriberetur quod voluit ut sciretur
Chrysostomus
Non ergo ignorans interrogat, sed ab ipso accusari Iudaeos volens; unde sequitur respondit Pilatus: numquid ego Iudaeus sum?
Augustinus
Abstulit a se suspicionem qua posset putari a semetipso dixisse, id se a Iudaeis audisse demonstrans; unde subdit gens tua et pontifices tui tradiderunt te mihi. Deinde dicendo quid fecisti? Satis ostendit illud ei pro crimine obiectum; tamquam diceret: si te regem negas, quid fecisti, ut tradereris mihi? Quasi mirum non esset, si puniendus iudici traderetur qui se diceret regem
Chrysostomus
Reducit autem Pilatum non valde malum existentem, et vult ostendere quod non est homo nudus, sed Deus et Dei filius: et quod formidaverit Pilatus, dissolvit tyrannidis suspicionem; unde sequitur respondit Iesus: regnum meum non est de hoc mundo
Augustinus
Hoc est quod bonus magister scire nos voluit. Sed prius nobis demonstranda fuerat vana hominum de regno eius opinio, sive gentium, sive Iudaeorum, a quibus id Pilatus audierat; quasi propterea fuisset morte plectendus, quod illicitum affectaverit regnum, vel quoniam solent regnaturi invidere regnanti: et videlicet cavendum erat ne huius regnum sive Romanis sive Iudaeis esset adversum. Quod si interrogante Pilato continue respondisset, non etiam Iudaeis, sed solis gentibus hoc de se opinantibus respondisse videretur. Sed post responsionem Pilati, iam Iudaeis et gentibus opportunius aptiusque respondit; quasi dicat: audite, Iudaei et gentes, non impedio dominationem vestram in hoc mundo. Quid vultis amplius? Venite credendo ad regnum quod non est de hoc mundo. Quid est enim eius regnum, nisi credentes in eum? Quibus dicit: de hoc mundo non estis; quamvis eos esse vellet in mundo. Unde et hic non ait regnum meum non est in hoc mundo; sed non est de hoc mundo. De mundo enim est quidquid hominum a Deo quidem creatum, sed ex Adam vitiata stirpe generatum est; factum est autem regnum non iam de mundo quidquid inde in Christo regeneratum est. Sic enim nos Deus eruit de potestate tenebrarum, et transtulit in regnum filii caritatis suae
Chrysostomus
Vel hoc dicit, quoniam non tenet regnum ut hic reges terreni tenent; sed quoniam desuper habet principatum, qui non est humanus, sed multo maior et clarior; unde subdit si ex hoc mundo esset regnum meum, ministri mei utique decertarent ut non traderer Iudaeis. Ostendit hic regni eius quod apud nos est imbecillitatem, quoniam a ministris habet fortitudinem; superius vero regnum sufficiens est sibi ipsi, nullo indigens. Si igitur maius est illud regnum, volens captus est, seipsum tradens
Augustinus
Cum autem probasset regnum suum non esse de hoc mundo, subdit nunc autem regnum meum non est hinc. Non dixit: non est hic: hic enim est regnum eius usque ad finem saeculi, habens intra se commixta zizania usque ad messem; sed tamen non est hinc, quia peregrinatur in mundo
Theophylactus
Vel ideo non dicit: non est hic, sed non est hinc: nam regnat in mundo, et utitur eius provisione, et iuxta votum cuncta disponit; non est autem ab infimis constitutum regnum eius, sed caelitus et ante saecula
Chrysostomus
Hinc autem haeretici accipientes occasionem, alienum eum esse a mundi conditione dicunt. Sed cum dicit regnum meum non est hinc, non privat mundum a sua providentia et praelatione; sed ostendit regnum suum non esse humanum neque corruptibile. Sequitur dicit itaque ei Pilatus: ergo rex es tu? Respondit Iesus: tu dicis quia rex sum ego
Augustinus
Non quia regem se timuit confiteri: sed ita dictum est, ut neque regem se neget, neque regem se talem esse fateatur cuius regnum putetur esse de hoc mundo. Dictum est enim tu dicis, ac si diceretur: carnalis carnaliter dicis. Deinde subiungit ego in hoc natus sum, et ad hoc veni in mundum, ut testimonium perhibeam veritati. Non est producenda huius pronominis syllaba quod ait in hoc natus sum, tamquam dixerit: in hac re natus sum; sed corripienda, tamquam dixerit: ad hoc natus sum; sicut et ait ad hoc veni in mundum. Unde manifestum est eum temporalem nativitatem suam hic commemorasse, qua incarnatus venit in mundum; non illam sine initio qua Deus erat
Theophylactus
Vel aliter. Quaesito per Pilatum si dominus esset rex, ego, inquit, in hoc natus sum, idest ad hoc quia rex sum; hoc enim ipso quod a rege productus sum, me quoque testor fore regem
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Si igitur rex natus est, nihil nisi accipiens habet. Ad hoc, inquit, veni, ut testimonium perhibeam veritati, hoc est, ut hoc ipsum suadeam omnibus. Et notandum est, quod suam humilitatem ostendit, dum dicentibus quoniam malefactor est, ferebat silens; quando vero interrogatus est de regno, tunc locutus est ad Pilatum, erudiens eum et reducens ad altiora: et ostendit se nihil versutum operatum esse, per hoc quod dicit ut testimonium perhibeam veritati
Augustinus
Cum autem Christus testimonium perhibeat veritati, testimonium perhibet sibi: eius quippe est vox: ego sum veritas. Sed quia non omnium est fides, adiungit, atque ait omnis qui est ex veritate, audit vocem meam. Audit utique interioribus auribus; idest, obedit meae voci; ac si diceret: credit mihi. Quod vero ait omnis qui est ex veritate, gratiam commendavit, qua secundum propositum vocat. Nam si naturam cogitemus in qua creati sumus, cum omnes veritas creaverit, quis non est ex veritate? Sed non omnes sunt, quibus ut obediant veritati, ex ipsa veritate praestatur. Si enim dixisset: omnis qui audit vocem meam, ex veritate est, ideo dictus ex veritate putaretur, quia obtemperat veritati. Non autem hoc dicit, sed ait omnis qui est ex veritate, audit vocem meam. Audit utique, ac per hoc non ideo est ex veritate quia eius audit vocem, sed ideo audit quia ex veritate est: quia hoc illi donum ex veritate collatum est
Chrysostomus
Haec autem dicens, attrahit, et suadet fieri eorum quae dicuntur, auditorem: ita denique et eum cepit his brevibus verbis, ut quaereret quid est veritas; sequitur enim dixit ei Pilatus: quid est veritas?
Theophylactus
Nam fere ab hominibus evanuerat, et cunctis erat incognita, dum essent increduli
18:38
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. cxv
After Pilate had asked, What is truth? he remembered a custom of the Jews, of releasing one prisoner at the passover, and did not wait for Christ’s answer, for fear of losing this chance of saving Him, which he much wished to do: And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. lxxxiii
He knew that this question required time to answer, and it was necessary immediately to rescue Him from the fury of the Jews. So he went out.
Alcuin † AD 804
Or, he did not wait to hear the reply, because he was unworthy to hear it. And saith unto them, I find no fault in Him.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Hom. lxxxiii
He did not say, He has sinned and is worthy of death; yet release Him at the feast; but acquitting Him in the first place, he does more than he need do, and asks it as a favour, that, if they are unwilling to let Him go as innocent, they will at any rate allow Him the benefit of the season: But ye have a custom, that I should release one unto you at the passover.
St Bede † AD 735
This custom was not commanded in the law, but had been handed down by tradition from the old fathers, viz. that in remembrance of their deliverance out of Egypt, they should release a prisoner at the passover. Pilate tries to persuade them: Will ye therefore that I release unto you the King of the Jews.
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. cxv
He could not dismiss the idea from his mind, that Jesus was King of the Jews; as if the Truth itself, whom he had just asked what it was, had inscribed it there as a title.
Theophylact † 1107
Pilate is judicious in replying that Jesus had done nothing wrong, and that there was no reason to suspect Him of aiming at a kingdom. For they might be sure that if He set Himself up as a King, and a rival of the Roman empire, a Roman prefect would not release Him. When then He says, Will ye that I release unto you the King of the Jews? he clears Jesus of all guilt, and mocks the Jews, as if to say, Him whom ye accuse of thinking Himself a King, the same I bid you release: He does no such thing.
St Augustine † AD 430 Tr. cxv
Upon this they cried out: Then cried they all again, saying, Not this man, but Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a robber. We blame you not, O Jews, for releasing a guilty man at the passover, but for killing an innocent one. Yet unless this were done, it were not the true passover.
St Bede † AD 735
Inasmuch then as they abandoned the Saviour, and sought out a robber, to this day the devil practises his robberies upon them.
Alcuin † AD 804
The name Barabbas signifies, The son of their master, i. e. the devil; his master in his wickedness, the Jews’ in their perfidy.
The Latin text
Augustinus in Ioannem
Cum dixisset Pilatus quid est veritas? Credo in mentem illi venisse continuo consuetudinem Iudaeorum, qua solet eis dimitti unus in Pascha; et ideo non expectavit ut responderet ei Iesus, ne mora fieret, cum recoluisset morem quo posset eis in Pascha dimitti; quod eum valde voluisse manifestum est; unde dicit et cum hoc dixisset, iterum exivit ad Iudaeos
Chrysostomus in Ioannem
Sciebat enim quidem quoniam haec indigebat tempore interrogatio; oportebat autem eum eripere ab impetu Iudaeorum; idcirco et exivit
Alcuinus
Vel non expectabat audire responsum, quia forte indignus fuit audire. Sequitur et dixit eis: ego nullam in eo invenio causam
Chrysostomus
Non dixit: quia peccavit, et dignus est morte, donate eum festo; sed primum eum excusans, tum rogat ex abundanti, ut si nollent eum ut innocentem dimittere, saltem obnoxium donarent tempori, ideoque induxit est autem consuetudo vobis ut unum dimittam vobis in Pascha
Beda
Haec consuetudo non erat legis praeceptum, sed ex antiqua patrum traditione descendit, ut ob recordationem liberationis ex Aegypto unum etiam in die Paschae dimitterent vinctum. Deinde exhortative dicit. Vultis ergo dimittam vobis regem Iudaeorum?
Augustinus
Avelli enim ex eius corde non potuit Iesum regem Iudaeorum esse, tamquam hoc ibi sicut in titulo ipsa veritas fixerit, de qua quid esset interrogavit
Theophylactus
Pulchre autem Pilatus respondet per hoc quod in nullo Iesus erraverit; sed frustra inquietetur ab eis velut regnum desiderans. Non enim eum qui se regem assereret ac aemulum Romanae potestatis, Romanorum vicarius absolvisset. Quamobrem in hoc quod dixit regem Iudaeorum absolvam, prorsus innoxium Iesum prodit, illuditque Iudaeos; quasi dicat: quem vos criminamini ut regem se putantem, hunc ego absolvi iubeo quasi talem non existentem
Augustinus
Sed hoc audito clamaverunt; unde sequitur clamaverunt omnes rursum dicentes: non hunc, sed Barabbam. Erat autem Barabbas latro. Non reprehendimus, o Iudaei, quod per Pascha liberastis nocentem, sed quod occidistis innocentem; quod tamen nisi fieret, verum Pascha non fieret
Beda
Quia ergo reliquerunt salvatorem et petiverunt latronem, usque hodie Diabolus sua latrocinia exercet in ipsos
Alcuinus
Barabbas autem interpretatur iste filius magistri eorum, idest Diaboli, qui huic latroni in suo scelere, Iudaeis in sua perfidia magister fuit
18:1
I have commented on the Passion (Mat 27 and 28.), I shall therefore only briefly touch on those points which are related by S. John only. Ver. 1. When Jesus had spoken these words, He went forth with His disciples over she brook Cedron, where was a garden, into the which He entered and His disciples. Jesus had now finished that glowing, and long discourse, in which He bade His disciples farewell, and was hastening to His Passion and Death. In fact, He offered Himself to it, voluntarily, by going into the garden, and there waiting for Judas and the Jews, by whom He knew He was to be taken. He gave thus an example of boldness of mind, by first choosing for Himself the very spot in which He was about to contend with death, sin, and the devil, as though sure of victory and triumph. It is hence inferred that Jesus, as soon as He had finished His discourse, crossed the Brook, and that the dispute of the Apostles about precedence (Luk 22:24) took place, not after this discourse (as S. Augustine thinks) but before it. When the hymn was sung is uncertain, for S. Matthew seems to intimate that it was sung at the end of the discourse (Mat 26:30). But reason seems to suggest that it was sung before it, as being a giving of thanks which was sung immediately after the supper, and the Eucharist, and before this discourse. So Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthymius on Matt. xxvi., and Ribera on this passage.
He went forth. From the house, where He began and finished the whole discourse. But F. Lucas and others think that the latter part of the discourse (from xiv. 31) was spoken after He had left the house on the way to the Brook Cedron. But then "went forth" must be interpreted "passed over."
Over the Brook Cedron. "The torrent" flowing in winter, dry in summer. The torrent signifies the violence of the attack made on Christ at His Passion. And He passed through the torrent, to signify that He was going into a torrent of sufferings, says Jansenius, as the Psalm has it, "He will drink of the Brook in the way" (Psa 110:7). And hence some think that Jesus was brought back through the Brook, and thrown into it (see Adricom. num. 207), as in Psa 69
Cedron. So called from the cedars growing there. S. Thomas and the Syriac and Arabic version. But it is a Hebrew word signifying darkness. See S. Jerome in Locis Hebr. It was dark as being a shady place, or from the blackness of the waters, or from the smoke from the burning of bodies. Cedron is a singular, and not a plural, word. It lies between Jerusalem and Mount Olivet, and runs through the valley of Jehosaphat. It was the common burial-place, and the Turks are now buried there. And it is in this valley that all men will be gathered together at the last judgment. St. John mentions it, (1.) To establish historical accuracy. (2.) As it was figurative, for as David, fleeing from Absalom, crossed the Brook Cedron, so did Christ cross the same Brook, not indeed as flying from the Jews, but as going forth to meet them. (3.) To show that He was going to expiate, not His own sins, but those of Adam and his posterity, however monstrous, such as those committed in this valley, where parents burnt their children alive in honour of Moloch. (4.) That He might turn the place of His suffering into one of triumph: For it was from the neighbouring Mount Olivet that He rose in triumph after His Resurrection. And when He returns to judge the world, it is there that He will be seated as judge, and recompense all men according to their deserts.
Where was a garden. Because Adam sinned in a garden, Christ began to expiate His sin in a garden. "For all things had to revert to their pristine state," says S. Cyril. S. Chrysostom adds, "For He tarries in the garden, as in a prison." "To save trouble," says Theophylact, "to the Jews who were seeking Him;" adding also another reason, "for He used to seek solitary places which gender silence," that we should do the same. (See Matt. xxvi.) Symbolically. Observe that Christ first went into the desert, afterwards into the corn-fields, and at last into the garden, to teach us to go into the harvest-fields of preaching, and thence to the Passion and the Cross. Hear S. Ambrose in Luc. lib. iv. "Behold," says he, "by what ways we are brought back to paradise. Christ is first in the desert. He guides, He instructs, He informs, He exercises man. He anoints him with spiritual oil. When He sees that he is stronger He leads him through corn-fields and fruitful places (as when the Jews complained that His disciples plucked the ears of corn on the Sabbath day), for He hid then placed the Apostles in cultivated ground, and in a profitable work. And afterwards He planted them in paradise, at the time of His Passion, when He crossed the Brook Cedron, where was a garden." Ver. 4. Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon Him (the word "knowing" is added, that no one should suppose that He had fallen without knowing it, and unwillingly, into the hands of the Jews, but that He knowingly and willingly gave Himself up to them, and also went forward to meet them), went forth, and said unto them, Whom seek ye? Judas had already kissed Jesus, and had thus given a sign to the band that they should take Him. But Jesus did not wish to be taken when that sign was given, lest He should seem to be taken against His will. He then by the almighty power of His Godhead held back the soldiers, and fixed them to the spot, so that when the sign was given they did not dare to rush forward to take Him, and indeed could not. Christ accordingly boldly stepped forward of His accord to meet them, and challenged them, as it were, to seize Him, by asking, Whom seek ye? Ver. 5. They answered Him, Jesus of Nazareth. They said not, "We seek Thee," but they say, "We seek Jesus." And therefore they did not recognise Him, though pointed out by the traitor's kiss (because Jesus had smitten them with blindness), and though the officers of the chief Priests had often seen and heard Him before this. So S. Chrysostom says: "Thou seest His irresistible power, that standing in the midst of them He smote them with blindness." And S. Cyril, "His Divine Power shone forth, for though He put Himself in their way, He was not recognised by those who were seeking Him."
18:5
And Judas also, who betrayed Him, stood with them. Judas had preceded the soldiers in order to betray Jesus, but finding that they did not rush forward to take Him, he became conscious of his perfidy, and turned back in obstinate impenitence, not to the disciples, but to the soldiers, in order to be defended by them against Jesus, whose power he feared, and was therefore struck to the ground with them. So S. Augustine. But Euthymius and Ribera think that Judas came up to Christ and kissed Him, after he had been struck down. This is probable, and only proves the greater shamelessness of Judas.
18:6
As soon then as He had said unto them, I am He, they went backward. They did not fall forward on their breasts, lest the power which threw them down should seem to have come from behind, but they fell backward, to make it plain that they were thrown down by the power of Christ's words, and that they could not bear to behold His face or hear His words. For the words "I am" reminded them of what God said to Moses (Exo 3:14) "I am that I am: this is My Name;" and I can annihilate you if I will. And therefore ye are those who are not: for all your being ye receive not from yourselves, but directly from Me. The tropological and allegorical meaning I have given Mat 26:50. Ver. 7. If therefore ye seek Me, let these go their way. Why was this? (1.) That He might by His own death alone redeem the world. "He removed His disciples out of danger," says S. Cyril, "as knowing that the contest and the work of our salvation pertained to Him alone, as being the work of a ruler and not of one under him." (2.) Because He destined the Apostles to succeed Him, and spread His truth over the world after His death and Resurrection. (3.) To show His great love and care for them, as a shepherd careth for his sheep, as S. John suggests in the next verse. Ver. 9. That the saying might be fulfilled, which He spake, Of them which Thou gavest Me have I lost none, i.e., of the eleven Apostles which Thou gavest Me: for Judas, as the son of perdition, was not given Him absolutely of the Father. But of what loss and death does Christ here speak: of the soul or of the body? Some say one, some another. But I say, both of body and soul. For they would have perished in the body if they had been seized and slain together with Jesus, more especially because Peter had withstood them and had wounded Malchus. They would have also perished in their souls, because they would have denied Christ in their weakness, and from fear of the threats of the Jews, just as Peter denied Him. And so, when killed by the Jews they would have perished both in body and soul. For they would have died in the mortal sin of denial. So Rupertus, Cajetan, Ribera, F. Lucas, Toletus, and others. Ver. 10. But there was a servant named Malchus. He mentions the name of the servant to signify the mystery. For Malchus is the same as "king." But as the servant of the High Priest he signifies the Jewish people, which was formerly a kingly and free power, but afterwards became subject to the Priesthood, which burdened it with its traditions and ceremonies, and also preyed upon it. See Matt. xxiii. Now this man, when S. Peter and the Apostles preached the Gospel, lost his right ear on account of his unbelief and hatred of Christ: that is, he became deaf to the Gospel, and to those things which were necessary to salvation, till the Lord converted him, and healed his ear. So S. Cyril (in loc.), S. Ambrose on Luk 22:5-51., and S. Jerome on Mat 26:51-52 S. Ambrose adds that S. Peter wished to imitate the zeal of Phinehas, who slew a prince of Israel who committed fornication with the daughters of Moab: and thus obtained the High Priesthood (Num. xxv.) The love therefore of S. Peter, and his zeal for Christ, lessened his fault. And yet he sinned in drawing his sword without consulting Christ, more especially when he had heard just before from His own lips, that He was going of His own accord to His Passion and Death. Ver. 12. Bound Him. By Whom they should have wished to be set free. And maybe they were of the number of those who, when afterwards set free by Him, said, "Thou hast burst my bonds in sunder" (Psa 116:14), says S. Augustine. Christ, had He so willed, would have broken all the bonds of the Jews more easily than Samson burst the hempen bonds of Delilah (Jdg 15:9). But He would not (1.) In order to expiate the sin of Adam which he committed with His hands. For since the first Adam too readily stretched forth his hands to the forbidden fruit, Christ the second Adam was willing to be bound in order to expiate the sins of Adam and his posterity, which are most commonly wrought with the hands. (2.) To fulfil the type: for Isaac, who was a type of Christ, was bound when about to be offered by Abraham. For the victims were bound, lest they should struggle against being offered (Gen. xxii. 9). (3.) That by having taken on Him these bonds from love of us, He might bind us with the cords of love, as is said (Hos. xi. 4), "I will draw them with cords of a man, with bands of love." Moreover, it is clear that the Jews firmly and cruelly bound Christ, both from the intense hatred with which they, and their masters the Chief Priests, burnt against Him, as wishing to avenge their ignominious fall which they had suffered at His hands, and the violence of St. Peter towards Malchus and themselves. See notes on Matt. xxv. 55. Ver. 13. And they led Him away to Annas first, for he was father-in-law to Caiaphas, which was the High Priest that same year. But why did Judas and the Jews lead Him first to Annas, and not to Caiaphas, when He had to be judged by Caiaphas (as High Priest), and not by Annas? I answer (1.) To pay honour to Annas, as being the elder, and father-in-law to Caiaphas, whom "Caiaphas honoured as father," says Euthymius, and by whose counsel he governed the people. (2.) The house of Annas was in the way to that of Caiaphas. (3.) Because Annas especially wished and arranged for the seizure of Christ. And hence the soldiers lead Him as it were in triumph, in order to delight him, and that they, in return, themselves might obtain some reward for so doing. (4.) To summon Annas (who on the previous evening had gone to his own house, on account of the cold) to attend the council which was about to be held the next morning at the house of Caiaphas to try Jesus. (5.) And specially, because Annas had promised Judas the reward of his betrayal, Judas therefore takes Jesus to his house, to obtain from him the thirty pieces he had promised, and, as S. Cyril thinks, he then actually received. And this is inferred from the fact that in the first agreement with the Rulers, the money was only promised, not paid (see Mat 26:15). Judas therefore received them this very night at the house of Annas, and shortly afterwards, in sorrow at what he had done, threw them down in the temple (Mat 27:3). For he could not receive them at the house of Caiaphas, who was so engaged in finding false witnesses, in examining Christ, in summoning the Council, &c., that he had no time to treat with Judas. And Judas does not appear to have gone with the soldiers further than to the house of Annas, or to have entered the house of Caiaphas. For if Judas had been there, Peter would not have gone in, for fear of Judas betraying him. For if Judas had been present in the house of Caiaphas when Peter thrice denied Christ, he would certainly have either publicly convicted him of falsehood, or have secretly informed the servants that Peter was a fellow-disciple of Christ, in order that they might apprehend him.
18:13
The High Priest that same year. Because the Roman Governors often changed the High Priests every year, and created new ones; though it was peculiar to Pilate that he did not remove Caiaphas whom he found High Priest: who accordingly held the High Priesthood for the whole three years of Christ's ministry. Ver. 22. One of the servants struck Jesus. S. Augustine (in loc.) having enumerated many punishments which a slave deserved, says, "But which of these could He not have commanded by His power (since the world was made by Him), unless He preferred to teach us patience by which the world is overcome?" See on Mat 26:59. Moreover, Christ turned not the other cheek, lest He should appear to admit His fault. As S. Paul, too, when smitten unjustly said, in his zeal for justice, "God shall smite thee, thou whited wall" (Act 23:3). "He offered not," says S. Augustine, "His other cheek to the smiter, but made His whole Body ready for being nailed to the Cross, in order to confirm His own teaching, by His example" (Mat 5:39). Ver. 24. Now Annas sent Him bound unto Caiaphas the High Priest. The Syriac and Arabic versions, as also S. Cyril, read " had sent Him," and so too English version. But it seems as if S. John had forgotten to mention the sending of Jesus from Annas to Caiaphas, and here inserted it out of place, whereas it should come in after ver. 13. Ver. 28. Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the prætorium. To the house and hall of Pilate; for he was Prætor, that is, both civil and criminal judge of Judæa. S. Augustine reads (inaccurately) unto Caiaphas into the Prætorium, and therefore was obliged to say either that Caiaphas came to the house of Pilate, or that they both lived in the same house, though the contrary is plain from the Gospel. Every magistrate who had an army under him, was called Prætor, a præeundo. And the place in which he held trials was called Prætorium; a place in which criminals were tried, for which purpose Jesus was brought thither by the Chief Priests. But they themselves entered not into the judgment-hall lest they should be defiled (by entering the house of the heathen governor), but that they might (as pure and clean) eat the Passover. The Passover does not here mean the Paschal Lamb (as SS. Chrysostom and Cyril suppose), for that they had eaten the day before; but the Paschal victims, which were sacrificed during the whole seven days, which could be eaten only by those who were clean. See here the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, who wished to appear most religious, though in truth utterly wicked and the murderers of Christ. S. Augustine exclaims, "O impious and foolish blindness! for forsooth they would be defiled by a dwelling which was another's, and not be defiled by a crime which was their own." See S. Cyril. Ver. 31. It is not lawful for us to put any one to death. For the Romans, it appears, had deprived the Jews, as a conquered people, of the power of capital punishment and claimed it for themselves. This is the meaning of the words. See Rupertus, S. Thomas, Jansen, Suarez, and others. You will say the Jews stoned S. Stephen, and threw down S. James headlong. But this was not in course of law, but in a popular tumult. Josephus (Ant. xx. 8, Rev 16) says that Annas was deposed from his office by the Roman governor for ordering S. James to be killed, and (Act 18) the Jews did not dare to kill Paul, but handed him over to the Proconsul Gallio. But you will urge that Pilate had already given the Chief Priests liberty to judge and to put Him to death, when he said, "Take ye Him and judge Him according to your law." I answer, that they could have done so, but were unwilling to accept his offer. They said, as it were, in their minds, Ye, Romans have taken away from us altogether the power of the sword. We therefore do not wish to exercise it in this particular case. Either restore us this power absolutely, or else take your part in the deed. This they said as wishing Jesus to suffer the most ignominious death, that of crucifixion as a seditious person, and aiming at kingly power. And they wished to transfer from themselves to Pilate the unpopularity of His death. For they feared they should be stoned by the people, who were in favour of Jesus, or else be assailed by their revilings. Others reply (as S. Augustine and S. Cyril, and Suarez after them, par iii. Quæst. lxvii. art. 4), that it was not lawful for the Jews to put Him to death at the Passover (being a solemn feast), but that it was lawful at other times. But Ribera replies, that it was specially the practice of the sect of the Pharisees not to condemn any one to death (see Josephus Ben-Gorion, Hist. Jud 4:6). They said therefore, "It is not lawful for us," under the cloak of religion. For many, and the chief of those who aimed at the death of Christ, were Pharisees. And because they had authority with the people, others followed their lead. Ver. 32. That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled which He spake signifying by what death He should die, viz. that He was to be delivered up to the Gentiles, and to be crucified by them. See Joh 12:32 and Mat 20:18. Ver. 33. Then Pilate entered into the judgment-hall gain. He had gone out, to hear the charges which the Jews brought against Jesus, and then came back again to examine Him.
18:33
And said unto Him, Art Thou the King of the Jews? It appears from Luk 23:2, that when the Chief Priests saw that they could not move Pilate by their mere authority to condemn Jesus, they brought against Him the charge of perverting the nation, of forbidding to pay tribute to Cæsar. Pilate caught at this last charge, and put this question. See notes on Matt. xxvii. 11. Ver. 37. Thou sayest that I am a King, i.e., I am in truth the King of the Jews, to rule in the faithful by faith and grace, and bring them to My heavenly Kingdom.
18:37
To this end was I born, and for this cause I came into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. To evangelical truth, which mainly consists in these things (1.) In the true knowledge of God, namely, that He is One in Essence, and threefold in Person. For every being is true, that is a true and not an imaginary thing, and is true in itself. Wherefore God, who is Very Being (I am that I am) is also truth, and good itself. Because His essential Being is Truth and Goodness. Again, the Son who proceedeth from the Father, as His Word, is Truth Itself, not merely of existence but of mind. Whence S. Augustine says, when Jesus bears witness to the truth, He bears witness to Himself, for He Himself is truth. (2.) In the knowledge of the Incarnation; namely, to know that the Son was sent into the world in the flesh, that He might save the world, and that no one can be saved, except by faith in Him (see John xvii. 3). (3.) In the knowledge of true blessedness: viz., that it consists not in wealth, honours, &c., but in the kingdom of heaven, i.e. in the vision and possession of God. For the sum of Christ's preaching was, "Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Mat 3:2). Christ says that He was born to bear witness to the Truth. (1.) To keep Pilate from wondering that He owned Himself to be a King, for it was but speaking the truth. (2.) That Pilate might learn the innocence and candour of Jesus; for in this truth consists. (3.) To remind him of the justice with which he ought to decide His cause, and that he should not be so moved by the false charges and clamours of the Chief Priests, so as to condemn Him against truth and justice.
Every one that is of the truth heareth My voice. Those, i.e., who are studious and desirous of the truth; who earnestly and with their whole heart seek the Truth, i.e., the true God and the true Messiah, true happiness and salvation. And who when they have found it embrace it before all things beside. They are opposed to those who are "of contention" (Rom. ii. 8), who, like the philosophers of that time, are ever striving to contend, dispute, and argue. To be, then, "of the truth" is the same as being "of God." For the Son of God is the Son of the Truth; for God is truth, according to Joh 8:47, "He that is of God heareth God's words. Ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God." Because, though ye are "of God" by creation, yet ye are not "of Him" by election, faith, and grace. "He commended," says S. Augustine (in loc.) "that grace which calls according to His purpose." For he that hath received his testimony (the testimony of the Baptist) "hath set to his seal that God is true" (Joh 3:33). And how true it is, is shown by the statements of enemies. For Josephus (Antiq. xiv. 8) writes, "At that time lived a wise man called Jesus, if indeed it is allowable to call Him a man, for He performed wonderful works, and taught those who willingly received the truth." Christ tacitly answers Pilate's objection, viz. "If Thou bearest witness to the truth, why do the Scribes and Pharisees, who profess the truth, hear Thee not nay more, persecute Thee even to the death?" He answers, "Because they themselves are not of the truth, but of a lie. For they follow the false opinions of wealth, honours, &c., which the devil suggests to them." See Joh 8:44. Ver. 38. Pilate saith unto Him, What is truth? Pilate supposed Christ to be a philosopher or prophet, who speculated about truth. And therefore he asked Him what that truth was to which He was born to bear witness. But this was not much to the point which he was aiming at, viz., the deliverance of Jesus, who was a grave, wise, and innocent man. And therefore he thought on a very fitting means for His deliverance. For he was about to set free one at the feast; and therefore compared Jesus and Barabbas, in order that the Jews should rather ask for Jesus than Barabbas. He therefore rushed out to propose it to them. Symbolically. What is truth? S. Augustine answers (in Sententiæ, 386), "Truth is God Himself, who is the primal source of life, and the primal essence, as He is the highest wisdom. For He is that unchangeable truth which is rightly termed 'the law of all arts, and the art of the Almighty Artificer.'" And also (Epist. ix.), "The truth held by Christians is incomparably more beautiful than Helen of Greece. For our martyrs contended more boldly in its behalf against this Sodom of ours, than these heroes fought for her against Troy." Nay, Christ Himself died as the first martyr for the truth.
What is truth? Hear Lactantius (de Ira Dei, cap. ii.) pointing out its three steps. (1.) The first is to know what religions are false, and to cast aside the impious worship of gods made by man's hands. (2.) To understand that there is one supreme God, whose power and providence created the world at the first, and governed it afterwards. (3.) To recognise His minister and messenger and delegate to man. By whose teaching we shall be set free from the error in which we were entangled, that being fashioned for the worship of the true God we might learn righteousness.
What is truth? "I am the way, the Truth, and the life." (John xiv.)
What is truth? It is the very highest good, says S. Basil in Antonius, surnamed Melissa.
What is truth? It is God, says S. Dionysius, inasmuch as He is in His nature one only, and not many. For the truth is one falsehood is manifold.
What is truth? It is the faculty which brings to the light things which are shrouded in darkness, says Philo.
What is truth? The mightiest of all things, says Nazianzen (Orat. xiii.)
What is truth? It is a firm apprehension of an object in the mind, says S. Chrysostom. Hence the saying of Zorobabel, 3 Esdr. 3., "A king is strong, wine is strong, but truth is strongest of all." And chap iv. 36, "All the earth invokes truth, heaven also blesses it, and all things are moved by, and tremble at it;" and vcr. 40, "There is no iniquity in its judgment, but strength and sovereignty and power, and the majesty of all ages. Blessed be the God of truth." Accordingly, Alphonso King of Arragon says, "Truth ought to be innate in all men. But it ought to be the chief ornament of kings, so that a single word of a prince ought to be of as great weight for settling the truth as the oath of private men." (See Panormitan. de Gentis Alphonsi, lib. 1.) Hence the Jewish High Priest bore written on his breastplate (rationali) Urim and Thummim. Exo 28:30. The Gentiles saw this in shadow (Stobæus, Serm. xi.), and Menander says, Truth is a citizen of heaven, and alone enjoys converse with the gods. Plato used to term "Truth" a most sweet mode of speech. Iamblicus speaks of it as "conversant with the gods and their purity of action." Æschines, "So mighty is truth, that it transcends all human thought." Plato again (de Legg. v.), "Truth is the guide to all good both in gods and men. Every one who would hereafter be good and happy ought to have a share in it, in order to live as long as he can a life of truthfulness." Trismegistus, "Truth exists only in eternal subsistences; and those subsistences are themselves true. All things therefore on earth are not truth itself, but merely its imitations and shadows. Truth is the most perfect virtue and the very highest good, which is neither disquieted with matter, nor encompassed with a body, but is pure, conspicuous, august, unchangeable, and unalterable good." Plutarch (in Antonius, cap. xxi.) says, "equality is tested by a balance, but truth by reasons of philosophy." And Evagrius (ibid.), "To keep back the truth is to bury gold." And Democrittis, "Piety should be openly declared, and truth stedfastly defended." And Epictetus, "Nothing should be counted more precious than truth, not even friendship, as being under the influence of our feelings, which hinder what is just, and cast it into the shade." Whence the saying, "Plato is dear, but truth is dearer:" and also, "Truth is an eternal and undying thing, for it bestows not a beauty which will gradually fade, nor does it deprive us of that confidence which arises from justice. But it sets forth those things which are just and rightful, refuting and distinguishing from them those which are unjust." Demosthenes was asked, "What should men have which is like God?" and he answered, "To act kindly, and to love the truth." (Val. Max. viii.) Pythagoras used to say, "The most gracious gifts bestowed by God on man, were to embrace the truth, and to devote oneself to acts of kindness; for both these can be compared with the actions of the immortal gods." (Ælian, Var. Hist. lib. xii.)
18:1
Supra, ante passionem, dominus praeparavit discipulos suos, multipliciter informando exemplis, confortando verbis, et promovendo suffragiis; hic Evangelista accedit ad narrandum eius passionem, et primo proponit mysterium passionis; secundo gloriam resurrectionis, XX cap. ibi una autem sabbati et cetera. Passio autem Christi partim completa est per Iudaeos, partim per gentiles. Primo ergo describit passionem Christi quantum ad ea quae passus est per Iudaeos; secundo quantum ad ea quae passus est per gentiles, XIX cap., ibi tunc apprehendit Pilatus et cetera. Circa primum tria facit. Primo ostendit quomodo a discipulo dominus traditur; secundo quomodo a ministris principibus praesentatur, ibi cohors ergo, et tribunus, et ministri Iudaeorum comprehenderunt Iesum; tertio quomodo a principibus apud praesidem accusatur, ibi adducunt ergo Iesum et cetera. Circa proditionem discipuli tria tangit Evangelista. Primo quidem locum; secundo apparatum, ibi Iudas ergo cum accepisset cohortem (...) venit illuc cum lanternis etc.; tertio promptum Christi affectum ad proditionem sustinendam, ibi Iesus itaque sciens omnia quae ventura erant super eum, processit et cetera. Locus autem ostenditur proditioni congruus ex tribus: quia a civitate remotus, in se occultus et conclusus, et proditori notus. Remotus quidem erat a civitate, unde facilius Iudas poterat facere quod intendebat: unde dicit haec cum dixisset, scilicet quae supra dicta sunt. Sed cum ea quae dixit, pertinerent ad Christi orationem, convenientius dixisset Evangelista: haec cum orasset. Sed hoc fecit Evangelista ut ostendat hanc orationem non propter sui necessitatem fecisse, quia ipse erat qui orabat ut homo, et exaudiebat ut Deus: sed hoc propter nostram instructionem. Unde erat quasi quaedam dictio. Egressus est cum discipulis suis, non quidem continuo, secundum Augustinum, post eius orationem, cum alia quaedam intervenerint narrata ab aliis Evangelistis, ab isto autem praetermissa, scilicet quod facta fuit contentio inter discipulos quis eorum videretur esse maior, Lc. XXII, 24. Interim etiam dixit Iesus Petro: ecce Satanas expetivit vos ut cribraret sicut triticum. Ego autem rogavi pro te, ut non deficiat fides tua: ut Lucas narrat ibid. 31. Dixerunt etiam discipuli hymnum cum domino, ut narrant Matthaeus et Marcus. Sic ergo non est intelligendum, quod cum hoc dixisset, statim egrederetur: sed quia non ante egressus est quam dixisset. Egressus est, inquam, trans torrentem Cedron. Sed Matthaeus et Marcus dicunt, quod exierunt in montem oliveti, et tunc venit cum illis in villam quae dicitur Gethsemani. In quo nulla est contrarietas, quod idem locus est quem Ioannes commemorat et Matthaeus: torrens enim Cedron est ad radices montis oliveti, ubi etiam est villa quae dicitur Gethsemani. Cedron autem in Graeco est genitivus pluralis; quasi dicat: trans torrentem cedrorum. Forte erant ibi multae cedri plantae. Convenit autem mysterio quod torrentem transivit, quia per eum eius passio designatur; Ps. CIX, 7: de torrente in via bibet, propterea exaltavit caput. Convenit etiam quod trans torrentem Cedron. Cedron enim interpretatur obumbratio, et Christus sua passione abstulit umbram peccati et legis, et expansis manibus in cruce protexit nos sub umbra manus suae; Ps. XVI, 9: sub umbra alarum tuarum protege me. Erat autem congruus locus proditioni: unde dicit ubi erat hortus, in quem introivit ipse, et discipuli eius. Et hoc convenienter, quia ipse satisfaciebat pro peccato primi hominis in horto commisso. Paradisus enim hortus deliciarum interpretatur. Item quia per passionem nos in hortum et Paradisum coronandos introducit; Lc. XXIII, 43: hodie mecum eris in Paradiso.
18:2
Erat etiam congruus locus, quia proditori notus; unde dicit sciebat autem Iudas, qui tradebat eum, locum; et huius ratio est, quia frequenter Iesus venerat illuc cum discipulis suis, inter quos Iudas fuerat sicut lupus inter oves; supra VI, 71: nonne ego vos duodecim elegi, et ex vobis unus Diabolus est? Lupus ovina pelle contectus, et inter oves alto patrisfamilias consilio toleratus, didicit ubi ad tempus exiguum ovium dispergeret gregem. Sed cum Iudas diu ante exierit a coena ut proditionem compleret, quaeritur quomodo scivit quod Christus illa hora egrederetur illuc? Ad quod dicendum, secundum Chrysostomum, quod consuetudo Christi erat, et praecipue in magnis festis, post coenam discipulos seorsum ducere, et aliqua sublimia de festo docere, quae non erat fas alios audire: et ideo quia tunc erat festum praecipuum, existimavit Iudas quod post coenam illuc exisset. Fecit autem hoc ut in montibus et in hortis sublimia doceret discipulos, maxime purum a tumultibus inquirens locum, ne eorum mens impediatur; Oseae II, 14: ducam eam in solitudinem, et loquar ad cor eius. Hic ponitur proditoris apparatus. Et nota, quod, sicut dicitur Lc. XXII, 3 ss., Iudas postquam tractaverat proditionem cum principibus, quaerebat opportunitatem quomodo sine turbarum tumultu traderet eum: et ideo voluit eum in secreto invenire, et in nocte, quia in die semper circa turbarum instructionem occupatus erat. Sed quia in nocte poterat impediri vel propter subitum concursum turbarum, vel propter tenebras, quibus posset eripi vel evadere de manibus eorum; ideo contra turbas munivit se armis, contra tenebras lanternis et facibus. Sed quia de turba aliqui poterant sibi resistere per potentiam populi, ideo contra hos accepit cohortem, non Iudaeorum, sed militum a praeside: ut sic servato ordine legitimae potestatis, nullus ei auderet obsistere.
18:3
Item aliqui ex Iudaeis zelo legis ducti, praesertim quia a gentilibus capiebatur, eis fortasse resistere voluissent: et ideo accepit etiam a pontificibus et Pharisaeis ministros, et venit illuc. Iob XV, 26: cucurrit adversus Deum erecto collo; Lc. XXII, 52: tamquam ad latronem existis cum gladiis et fustibus. Hic ponit Evangelista promptum Christi affectum ad proditionem voluntarie suscipiendam, dupliciter. Primo se voluntarie offerendo; secundo discipulum resistentem comprimendo, ibi Simon ergo Petrus habens gladium, eduxit eum. Et circa primum duo facit Evangelista. Primo narrat quod Christus ostendit se, ad ostendendum suam potentiam; secundo ad demonstrandum suam patientiam, ibi iterum ergo interrogavit eos, quem quaeritis? Circa primum tria facit. Primo ponit Christi interrogationem; secundo suiipsius manifestationem, ibi dixit eis Iesus, ego sum; tertio manifestationis effectum, ibi ut ergo dixit eis, ego sum, abierunt retrorsum. Circa primum tria facit. Primo commendat Christi scientiam et cognitionem: quia Iesus sciens omnia quae ventura erant super eum, processit etc.; supra XIII, 1: sciens Iesus quia venit hora eius et cetera. Quod interposuit Evangelista propter duo. Primo ne videretur interrogationem quam facturus erat eis Christus, ex ignorantia fecisse; secundo ne videatur quod se ipsis invitum et propter ignorantiam obtulisset, cum venirent ad eum occidendum.
18:4
Unde omnia quae ventura erant super eum, sciebat. Secundo ponit Christi interrogationem, qui cum ista sciret tamen processit, et dixit ad eos, quem quaeritis? Non ex ignorantia, ut dictum est.
18:5
Tertio subdit ipsorum responsionem: quia Iesum Nazarenum, supple, quaerimus, non quidem ad imitandum, sed ad malignandum et occidendum. Unde supra VIII, 11: quaeritis me, et in peccato vestro moriemini. Hic ponitur suiipsius manifestatio, qua se eis capiendum exhibuit: unde dicit ego sum, scilicet Iesus Nazarenus quem quaeritis. Addit autem Evangelista Iudae praesentiam: ideo quia supra dixit quod Iudas ab eo exiverat. Posset autem credi quod non esset mirum, si Christus ab eis non cognosceretur facie propter tenebras; sed quod quis non cognoscatur voce, maxime a multum sibi familiari, hoc non potest tenebris ascribi. Ostendit ergo per hoc quod dicit ego sum, quod etiam a Iuda familiari sibi, qui stabat cum ipsis, non est cognitus: quod est maxime divinitatis Christi potentiae ostensivum. Stabat ergo Iudas cum ipsis; idest perseverabat in malo, ut eum osculi signo monstraret; Is. XXXIII: os eius erit et cetera.
18:6
Hic ponitur manifestationis effectus: quia abierunt retrorsum, et ceciderunt in terram. Et, ut Gregorius dicit, aliquando legitur de sanctis, quod cadunt in terram; Daniel. II, 46: cecidit in faciem suam, et adoravit Danielem etc.; Ez. II, 1: cecidi in faciem meam. De iniquis autem legitur quod cadunt; Is. III, 25: pulcherrimi viri tui cadent. Sed haec est differentia: quia de iniquis dicitur quod cadunt retrorsum, I Reg. c. IV, 18, cecidit de sella retrorsum; de sanctis autem quod cadunt in faciem suam. Cuius ratio assignatur Prov. IV, 18: quia iustorum semita quasi lux splendens procedit, et crescit usque ad perfectam diem. Et via impiorum tenebrosa, nesciunt ubi corruant. Omnis enim qui post se cadit, ibi cadit ubi non videt. Iniqui ergo, quia in invisibilibus cadunt, retrorsum cadere dicuntur: quia ibi currunt ubi quid eos tunc sequatur, modo videre non possunt. Sed qui ante se cadit, ibi cadit ubi videt: et ideo sancti qui in istis visibilibus semetipsos sponte deiiciunt, ut in invisibilibus erigantur, in faciem suam cadere dicuntur, quia timore compuncti videntes humiliantur. Mystice autem, per hoc quod ceciderunt retrorsum, datur intelligi quod populus Iudaeorum, qui erat populus peculiaris, vocem Christi in praedicatione non audiens, abiit retrorsum exclusus a regno. Hic ponitur secunda interrogatio. Et primo ponit iteratam interrogationem; secundo Christi manifestationem, et tertio eius oblationem. Interrogavit autem iterato, secundum Chrysostomum, propter duo: ut dum scilicet indicavit suam potentiam, quod inimici contra eum venientes, coram eo retrorsum ceciderunt in terram, instruantur fideles quod sua voluntate captus sit; Is. LIII, 7: oblatus est, quia ipse voluit. Secundo, ut etiam, quantum in se est, daret Iudaeis materiam conversionis, viso potentiae suae miraculo; Is. V, 4: quid ultra debui facere? Et ideo cum statim ad ostensionem suae potentiae non fuerunt conversi, eis capiendum se sponte obtulit.
18:7
Unde cum iterum interrogavit eos: quem quaeritis?
18:8
Et illi dixerunt: Iesum Nazarenum, ipse se iterum manifestans, respondit: dixi vobis, quia ego sum. In quo patet quia caeci erant, ut eum non possent cognoscere. Oblatio sui ipsius ponitur cum dicit si ergo me quaeritis, scilicet comprehendere, faciatis quod intenditis, ita tamen quod sinite hos, scilicet discipulos meos, abire: quia nondum est tempus ut tollantur de mundo per passionem; supra XVII, 15: non rogo ut tollas eos de mundo. In quo patet quod ipse dedit eis potestatem eum capiendi: nam sicut ex sua potentia discipulos suos servavit, ita multo magis se servare potuisset; supra X, 18: nemo tollit animam meam: sed ego pono eam a meipso. Et quod non dimiserunt ministri apostolos ex Christi persuasione, sed ex eius potestate, ostendit Evangelista dicens ut impleretur sermo quem dixit: quasi ideo dimiserunt ministri apostolos abire, quia eos tenere non poterant; cum ipse dixerit, supra c.
18:9
XVII, 12: quos dedisti mihi, non perdidi ex eis quemquam. Sed contra. Supra dixit hoc dominus de perditione animae: quomodo Evangelista hoc adaptat ad perditionem corporis? Responsio. Dicendum, secundum Chrysostomum, quod dominus supra locutus est de perditione animae et corporis. Et si tantum de perditione animae locutus sit, dicendum, quod Evangelista hic per quamdam extensionem refert ad perditionem corporis. Vel, secundum Augustinum, dicendum, quod hoc quod dicitur est intelligendum etiam quantum ad perditionem animae; quia apostoli nondum sic credebant quomodo credunt qui non pereunt. Et ideo si tunc exissent de hoc mundo, fuissent de illis qui pereunt.
18:10
Postquam Evangelista ostendit promptitudinem Christi ad proditionem sustinendam, seipsum voluntarie proditori offerendo, hic ostendit eum esse promptum ad idem, discipuli resistentiam prohibendo, et primo ponitur resistentis discipuli manifestatio; secundo eius cohibitio, ibi dixit Iesus Petro et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ponit zelum discipuli in servi percussione; secundo Evangelista inserit servi nuncupationem, ibi erat autem nomen servo Malchus. Dicit ergo sic: ministri comprehenderunt Iesum, sed Simon Petrus, ceteris discipulis ardentior, habens gladium eduxit eum, et percussit pontificis servum, qui erat inter ministros, et abscidit eius auriculam dexteram: non ex sua principali intentione, cum eum intenderet occidere, sed ictus quem dirigebat ad caput, relapsus est ad aurem. Ideo enim ictum dirigebat ad caput, ut facilius moneat, quod id faciebat ex zelo domini sui; III Reg. XIX, 10: zelo zelatus sum pro domino Deo exercituum. Sed hic incidit duplex quaestio; quia cum dominus mandaverit discipulis, Matth. X, 10, quod nec etiam duas tunicas haberent, quomodo Petrus habebat etiam gladium? Respondeo. Dicendum quod illud praeceptum dedit eis Christus quando misit eos ad praedicandum, et durabile erat usque ad tempus passionis: unde Christus in passione revocavit ipsum; Lc. XXII, 35: quando misi vos sine sacculo et pera, numquid aliquid defuit vobis? Et infra: sed nunc qui habet sacculum, tollat similiter et peram; et qui non habet, vendat tunicam suam, et emat gladium. Ex hac concessione Petrus intellexerat quod liceret ei portare gladium. Sed unde tam cito potuisset gladium habere, cum praedicta verba dixisset dominus paulo ante? Dicendum, secundum Chrysostomum, quod Petrus iamdiu ante, audiens quod Iudaei Christum tradere deberent principibus sacerdotum ad crucifigendum, timens praeparaverat sibi gladium. Vel dicendum, secundum interlinearem, quod gladius accipitur hic pro cultello quem forte habuerat in mensa ad esum agni, et de coena surgens tulerat secum. Secundo quaeritur, quod cum dominus dixisset eis quod non resisterent malo, Matth. V, 39, quid est, quod Petrus percussit servum principis? Ad quod dicendum, quod dominus prohibuit quod non resisterent alicui ad defendendum seipsos, non autem ad defendendum dominum. Vel dicendum, quod nondum confirmati erant virtute superveniente ex alto; Lc. ult., 49: sedete in civitate, quoadusque induamini virtute ex alto. Ideo non erant adhuc perfecti, ut omnino malo non resisterent. Hic ponitur nomen servi: et hoc ideo specialiter a Ioanne describitur, quia, sicut infra dicitur, ipse erat notus pontifici: et ideo etiam notitiam ministrorum eius habebat. Unde sciens nomen eius, non tacuit ipsum propter certitudinem facti. Sed Lucas addit, quod dominus sanavit auriculam eius; Lc. XXII, 51. Et hoc mysterio competit. Nam per hunc servum significatur populus Iudaeorum, qui opprimebatur a principibus sacerdotum; Ez. c. XXXIV, 3: quod crassum erat comedebatis. Istius ergo servi Petrus princeps apostolorum amputavit auditum: quia male audiebat verba legis, carnaliter scilicet; sed dominus restituit novum auditum; Ps. XVII, 45: in auditu auris obedivit mihi. Et secundum hoc congrue vocatur Malchus, idest rex, quia per Christum in novitate vitae efficimur reges; Apoc. V, 10: fecisti nos Deo nostro regnum et sacerdotes, et regnabimus super terram. Hic ponitur Petri cohibitio zeli, et primo ponitur Petri cohibitio; secundo cohibitionis ratio, ibi calicem quem dedit mihi pater, non vis ut bibam illum? Dicit ergo, quod Petrus ita eduxit gladium, sed dominus dixit ei mitte gladium tuum in vaginam, quasi non esset opus defensionis, sed patientiae, nec ei licitus usus gladii materialis: Ier. XLVII, 6: usquequo concideris? O mucro domini, usquequo non quiesces? Mystice autem signatur per hoc, quod gladius verbi Dei mittendus erat in vaginam, idest in fidem gentilium.
18:11
Et ratio cohibitionis ponitur cum dicit calicem quem dedit mihi pater, non vis ut bibam illum? Non enim resistendum his quae ex divina providentia disponuntur; Iob IX, 4: quis restitit ei, et pacem habuit? Dicitur autem passio calix, quia ex caritate patientis dulcedinem habet, sed ex natura sua amaritudinem; sicut et medicina sanativa, propter spem sanitatis dulcis est, sed amara propter saporem; Ps. CXIV, 13: calicem salutaris accipiam, et nomen domini invocabo. Hunc ergo calicem dedit ei pater, quia passionem ex sua et patris voluntate sponte suscepit; infra XIX, 11: non haberes in me potestatem, nisi datum esset tibi desuper.
18:12
Hic ponitur quomodo dominus a ministris captus, principibus praesentatur, et primo quomodo ducitur ad unum principem, scilicet Annam; secundo quomodo ducitur ad alium, scilicet Caipham, ibi et misit eum Annas ligatum ad Caipham. Circa primum duo facit. Primo dicit quomodo Annae praesentatur; secundo quomodo ab Anna examinatur, ibi pontifex ergo interrogavit. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ponit quomodo ducitur ad Annae domum; secundo quomodo discipuli sequuntur eum, ibi sequebatur autem Iesum Simon Petrus, et alius discipulus. Circa primum primo ostenditur quid circa Iesum sit factum; secundo describitur ipse pontifex ad quem ducitur, ibi erat autem socer Caiphae. Circa Christum autem tria acta sunt. Primo enim comprehenditur, unde dicit cohors ergo, idest militum, et tribunus eorum, et ministri Iudaeorum comprehenderunt Iesum, qui incomprehensibilis est; Ier. XXXII, v. 19: magnus consilio, et incomprehensibilis cogitatu. Forte enim cogitabant illud Ps. LXX, 11: Deus dereliquit eum: persequimini et comprehendite eum, quoniam non est qui eripiat; Thren. IV, 20: spiritus oris nostri Christus dominus captus est in peccatis nostris, idest propter peccata nostra, ut scilicet nos liberaret; Is. XLIX, 25: equidem captivitas a forti tolletur. Secundo ligatur, unde dicit et ligaverunt eum, qui solvere venit ligatos et vincula eorum disrumpere; Ps. CXV, 17: dirupisti vincula mea et cetera.
18:13
Tertio adducitur, unde dicit et adduxerunt eum ad Annam, ut eum perderent qui venit omnes ducere in viam salutis; Ps. LX, 4: deduxisti me, quia factus es spes mea. Potest autem duplex ratio assignari quare primum ad Annam ducitur. Una scilicet mandatum Caiphae pontificis anni illius, qui scilicet ideo Iesum ad Annam misit, ut excusabilior esset, si ab Anna condemnatum ipse postmodum condemnaret. Alia ratio ex propinquitate domus Annae quae, in via posita, propinquior erat. Et ideo timentes ne si excitaretur tumultus populi, Iesus de manibus eorum eriperetur, declinaverunt illuc. Hic primo describitur pontifex ex affinitate ad Caipham, quia socer eius erat; secundo describitur ipse Caiphas, quia pontifex erat anni illius. Sciendum est enim, quod secundum legem summus sacerdos per totam vitam officio fungebatur, cui post mortem filius succedebat. Postmodum vero invidia et ambitione principum crescente, non solum patri non succedebat filius, sed nec ultra annum pontificatus fungebatur officio, et hoc ipsum pecunia procurabat, ut Iosephus dicit. Et ideo non est mirum si in anno illius pontificatus tam nequiter acquisiti rem sic nefariam gessit.
18:14
Describitur etiam ex consilio; unde dixit erat autem Caiphas qui consilium dederat Iudaeis, supra XI, 50, hoc scilicet quia expedit unum hominem mori pro populo. Quod ideo Evangelista commemoravit, ut removeret scandalum de cordibus fidelium, ostendendo et per adversariorum prophetias, quod non propter infirmitatem aut impotentiam suam captus est et mortuus, sed propter populi salutem, ut scilicet non tota gens pereat. Testimonium enim adversarii efficacius est; et talis naturae est veritas quod etiam adversarius eam tacere non potest. Hic ponitur quomodo discipuli associaverunt Christum, et primo ponitur quomodo Petrus cum alio discipulo sequebatur Christum; secundo quomodo introeunt ad locum ubi Christus erat; tertio quomodo negavit.
18:15
Dicit ergo quantum ad primum sequebatur autem Iesum Simon Petrus, ex devotione, quamvis a longe propter timorem, et alius discipulus, scilicet Ioannes, cuius nomen ipsemet occultat humilitatis gratia. Datur autem per hoc intelligi quod reliqui discipuli aufugerant relicto Iesu, ut dicitur Matth. XXVI, 56. Mystice autem per hos duos discipulos duae vitae intelliguntur, quae Christum sequuntur, scilicet activa, quae signatur per Petrum, et contemplativa, quae per Ioannem. Et activa quidem sequitur Christum obediendo, supra X, 27: oves meae vocem meam audiunt, contemplativa vero cognoscendo et contemplando, Oseae VI, 3: sciemus sequemurque te. Sequebantur autem isti duo discipuli, quia plus prae ceteris diligebant Christum: unde primi venerunt ad monumentum, infra XX, 2, et quia eos ad invicem maior vis dilectionis uniebat: unde saepe in Evangelio simul iunguntur; et in Act. Apost. dicitur, quod miserunt ad illos Petrum et Ioannem. Et iterum: Petrus et Ioannes ascenderunt in templum ad horam orationis nonam. Hic ponitur quomodo Petrus introivit quantum ad ordinem: et primo quomodo Ioannes praecessit; secundo quomodo Petrum introduxit, ibi exivit ergo discipulus alius et cetera. Ordo autem fuit talis, quia Ioannes primo intravit cum Iesu.
18:16
Et huius ratio erat, quia erat notus pontifici, et Petrus stabat ad ostium atrii foris. Et licet Ioannes piscator fuisset, et iuvenis vocatus a Christo, erat tamen notus pontifici: vel quia pater Ioannis ei servus erat, vel aliquis ex consanguineis suis. Nec hoc posuit Ioannes propter sui iactantiam, sed propter humilitatem, ne hoc quod primo intravit quam Petrus cum Iesu in atrium pontificis et non Petrus, magis virtuti suae, et maioritati quam notitiae adscribatur. Et ideo dicit discipulus autem ille, scilicet Ioannes, erat notus pontifici: et ideo intravit cum Iesu in atrium pontificis, ubi Christus erat ductus. Petrus autem stabat, quasi praesagiens futuram negationem; Ps. XXX, 13: qui videbant me, foras fugerunt a me. Mystice autem Ioannes intrat cum Iesu, quia vita contemplativa est ei familiaris; Sap. VIII, 16: intrans in domum meam, conquiescam cum illa. Sed Petrus stat foris, quia activa vita circa exteriora occupatur; Lc. X, v. 39: Maria sedens secus pedes domini, audiebat verbum illius. Martha autem satagebat circa frequens ministerium. Hic ostenditur quomodo Petrus Ioannis interventu introductus est, quia ille alius discipulus, scilicet Ioannes, erat notus pontifici, et dixit ostiariae, ut eum introduceret, et introduxit Petrum. Per quod mystice datur intelligi quod per contemplativam introducitur ad Christum activa vita: sicut enim ratio inferior dirigitur per superiorem, ita activa per contemplativam; Ps. XLII, 3: emitte lucem tuam et veritatem tuam: ipsa me deduxerunt et adduxerunt in montem sanctum tuum, et in tabernacula tua. Hic ponitur Petri negatio, et primo ponitur motivum negationis, seu occasio; secundo ponitur ipsa negatio, ibi dicit ille: non sum; tertio negationis confirmatio, ibi stabant autem servi et ministri ad prunas.
18:17
Occasio autem negationis et motivum fuit Petro ancillae interrogatio; unde dicit dixit Petro ancilla ostiaria: numquid et tu ex discipulis eius es? Dicit autem et tu, quia sciebat Ioannem Christi esse discipulum, et tamen propter familiaritatem nil dicit ei. Apparet autem in hoc infirmitas Petri pro tempore illo, quia ex debili occasione motus est ad negandum: et hoc ex duobus. Primo ex ipsa persona interrogante, quia non armatus miles, non admirandus pontifex, sed mulier et ancilla ostiaria interrogavit. Secundo ex forma interrogationis, quia non dicit: numquid ex discipulis es proditoris istius? Per quod videbatur magis ex compassione loqui. Unde et ex hoc percipitur quod verbo domini caeli firmati sunt, et spiritu oris eius omnis virtus eorum: Ps. XXXII, v. 6, quia qui ad vocem ancillae Christum negavit, postmodum nomen Christi coram principibus sacerdotum confitetur et praedicat; Act. IV, 8 ss. Negatio Petri ponitur cum dicit dicit ille: non sum. In quo debemus advertere, secundum Augustinum, non solum ab eo negari Christum qui dicit eum esse Christum, sed ab eo etiam qui negat se esse Christianum. Nil autem aliud isto modo negavit Petrus, quam se esse Christianum. Ideo autem dominus Petrum negare permisit, quia voluit ut ipse, qui praeponendus erat toti Ecclesiae, infirmis et peccantibus magis compateretur, expertus in seipso infirmitatem peccati; Hebr. IV, 15: non habemus pontificem qui non possit compati infirmitatibus nostris, tentatum per omnia absque peccato: verum est de Christo, sed de Petro potest dici etiam cum peccato. Quidam tamen quamdam inanem gratiam appropriantes Petro, dicunt, quod non timore negavit, sed amore, volens semper esse cum Christo, et sequi continue; noverat enim quod si fateretur se esse de Christi discipulis, fuisset separatus a Christo, et expulsus. Sed hoc non consonat dictis domini: quia non ideo negavit quia noluit a Christo separari, sed quia noluit pro Christo animam ponere. Supra enim cum dixisset, animam meam pro te ponam, respondit Iesus: animam tuam pro me pones? Amen, amen dico tibi: non cantabit gallus antequam ter me neges.
18:18
Confirmatio negationis ponitur ibi stabant autem servi et ministri ad prunas (...) erat autem cum eis et Petrus; quasi ut magis videretur non esse eius discipulus. Nam Petrus ad hoc quod non videretur ex discipulis, posuit se inter ministros et servos stantes ad prunas quia frigus erat, sicut quandoque in aequinoctio hiemali in Martio contingit: in quo Petrus non bene consideravit quod dicitur in Ps. XVII, 26: cum sancto sanctus eris (...) et cum perverso perverteris. Ipsum etiam tempus congruit conditioni mentis eius, in qua refriguerat caritas; Matth. c. XXIV, 12: refrigescet caritas multorum, quoniam abundavit iniquitas.
18:19
Pontifex ergo interrogavit Iesum, ubi primo ponitur examinatio; secundo Christi responsio, ibi respondit ei Iesus; tertio responsionis reprehensio, ibi haec autem cum dixisset et cetera. Duo autem imponebantur Christo a Iudaeis: scilicet falsa doctrina, et nova; Mc. I, 27: quae est haec nova doctrina? Secundo seditio, et attractio hominum ad se; Lc. XXIII, 5: commovit populum per universam Iudaeam, incipiens a Galilaea usque huc. Et ideo de istis duobus eum examinat. Primo quidem de discipulis eius quos videbat seduxisse; secundo de doctrina eius, quasi notans eam falsitatis. Hic ponitur responsio domini, et primo ponit suae doctrinae modum; secundo requirit aliorum testimonium, ibi quid me interrogas? Circa primum duo facit. Primo doctrinae manifestationem proponit; secundo eam exponit.
18:20
Dicit ergo ego palam locutus sum mundo. Sed contra. Supra XVI, 25, dicit: venit hora, quando non in proverbiis, sed palam de patre annuntiabo vobis. Si ergo discipulis nondum palam locutus fuerat, quomodo palam locutus est mundo? Responsio. Dicendum, quod discipulis nondum loquebatur palam, quia excellentes sententias proponebat; mundo autem locutus est palam, quia publice praedicabat. Unde hoc exponit dicens ego semper docui in templo et synagogis. Sed contra. Matth. XVI dicitur, quod discipulis multa seorsum sine parabolis proponebat. Sed ad hoc est triplex responsio. Una, quia quod duodecim discipulis dicebat, non reputabatur in occulto dici. Alia est, quia non proponebat ea discipulis intentione occultandi. Tertio, si fiat vis in verbo, quia dominus hic loquitur de doctrina quam populo tradidit, quam non proposuit eis in conventiculis, sed in locis publicis; Ps. XXXIX, 10: annuntiavi iustitiam tuam in Ecclesia magna; Is. XLV, 19: non fui locutus in abscondito, in loco terrae tenebroso. Et ad hoc exigit aliorum testimonium, dicens quid me interrogas? Interroga eos qui audierunt quid locutus sum ipsis: et primo remittit eos ad testimonium aliorum; secundo ostendit quorum testimonium requirat; tertio rationem eorum assignat. Quantum ad primum dicit quid me interrogas? Quasi dicat: per alios potes hoc scire.
18:21
Et ideo quantum ad secundum subdit interroga eos qui audierunt. Nam, ut Matth. XXII, v. 15 dicitur, miserunt ad Iesum Pharisaei, ut caperent eum in sermone: qui tamen contra eum nihil invenire potuerunt. Et ideo remittit eum ad eos. Et rationem huius subdit ecce hi sciunt quid dixerim ego: de quibus possunt testimonium perhibere.
18:22
Posita domini responsione hic ponitur responsionis reprehensio, et primo ponitur ministri reprehensio; secundo domini satisfactio, ibi respondit ei Iesus et cetera. Minister autem reprehendit responsionem domini, primo quidem facto, quia dedit ei alapam ad improperium; unde dicit haec cum dixisset, scilicet Iesus, unus assistens ministrorum, scilicet pontificis, dedit ei alapam. Quod quidem non casu contigit, sed longe ante et multipliciter fuerat prophetatum; Is. l, 6: dedi corpus meum percutientibus, et genas meas vellentibus; Thren. III, 30: dabit percutienti se maxillam, saturabitur opprobriis; Mich. V, 1: in virga percutient maxillam iudicis Israel. Secundo reprehendit verbo, dicens sic respondes pontifici? In quo datur intelligi quod Annas pontifex erat et nondum missus erat ad Caipham, unde Lc. III, 2, hos duos pontifices commemorat: sub principibus, inquit, sacerdotum Anna et Caipha. Sed dicuntur duo pontifices, quia alternis vicibus pontificatum sibi vindicabant; sed illo anno Annas erat princeps sacerdotum. Motus est autem minister ad percutiendum Iesum ex hoc scilicet quia cum audientium eum interpellasset testimonium, supra VII, 32: cum pontifices misissent ministros ut caperent eum, ipsi capti ad verba Iesu redierunt dicentes quia numquam sic locutus est homo sicut hic homo. Volens ergo hic se excusare quod non esset de illis, percussit eum. Sed Christum male respondisse pontifici ex hoc coniecit, quia per hoc quod dixit, quid me interrogas? Interroga eos qui audierunt, videbatur notasse pontificem de imprudenti interrogatione, cum tamen scriptum sit Ex. XXII, 28: principem populi tui ne maledicas.
18:23
Consequenter Iesus rationabiliter excusat se, cum dicit si male locutus sum, respondens pontifici, testimonium perhibe de malo, quasi dicat: si habes ex his quae a me prolata sunt unde me possis reprehendere, ostende quod male dixerim: quia in ore duorum vel trium testium stat omne verbum, Deut. XIX, 15. Si autem bene, idest si nequis hoc ostendere, quid me caedis? Idest, quid in me furis? Vel hoc potest referri ad hoc quod dixit supra interroga eos qui audierunt quid locutus sum ipsis, ut sit sensus: si male locutus sum, in synagoga et in templo, quod non debui, testimonium perhibe de malo, quod dixi coram principe sacerdotum. Sed hoc non potuisset minister ostendere. Si autem bene, scilicet docui, quid me caedis? Quasi dicat, iniustum est; Ier. XVIII, 20: numquid redditur pro bono malum, quia foderunt foveam animae meae? Sed hic est quaestio, quia Matth. c. V, 39, dominus praecipit discipulis suis: si quis te percusserit in dexteram maxillam, praebe ei et alteram. De Christo autem dicitur Act. I, 1: coepit Iesus facere et docere. Debuit ergo facere quod docuit. Sed hoc non fecit; immo, quod contrarium videtur, se excusavit. Responsio. Dicendum, secundum Augustinum, quod dicta et praecepta sacrae Scripturae ex factis sanctorum interpretari possunt et intelliguntur, cum idem spiritus sanctus qui inspiravit prophetis et aliis sacrae Scripturae auctoribus, moverit sanctos ad opus. Nam, sicut II Petr. I, 21 dicitur, spiritu sancto inspirati locuti sunt sancti Dei homines; ita Rom. VIII, 14, dicitur: qui spiritu Dei aguntur, hi sunt filii Dei. Sic sacra Scriptura intelligenda est secundum quod Christus et alii sancti servaverunt. Christus autem non praebuit isti aliam maxillam: nec Paulus, Act. XVI, 22 ss. Unde non est intelligendum quod Christus mandasset quod praeberent maxillam aliam corporalem ad litteram ei qui percutit unam; sed hoc debet intelligi quantum ad praeparationem animi, quod si necesse fuerit, ita debet esse dispositus ut non turbetur animo contra percutientem, sed paratus sit simile et etiam amplius sustinere. Et hoc dominus servavit, qui corpus suum praebuit occisioni. Sic ergo excusatio domini utilis fuit ad nostram instructionem. Hic ostenditur quomodo a pontifice mittitur ad alium pontificem, et primo ponitur Iesu missio; secundo completur Petri negatio, ibi erat autem Simon Petrus stans et calefaciens se.
18:24
Dicit ergo et misit eum Annas ligatum ad Caipham pontificem, ad quem a principio ducebatur; sed causa quare prius declinaverat illuc, expressa est supra. Sed attende Annae nequitiam: quia cum debuisset eum absolvere, utpote sine culpa existentem, tamen eum ligatum misit. Hic agitur de secunda negatione Petri et tertia, et primo ponitur negationis occasio; secundo Petri duplex negatio, ibi dixerunt ergo ei etc.; tertio ponitur signi verborum Christi adimpletio, ibi et statim gallus cantavit et cetera. Occasio autem secundae negationis Petri fuit mora cum ministris pontificis stantibus ad ignem. Nam Chrysostomus dicit: recedente Christo ad Caipham, Petrus adhuc cum ministris remansit. Sic enim absorptus erat a peccato post negationem, ut qui prius fervidus erat, iam non videbatur curare de Christo; Ier. VIII, 6: nullus est qui agat poenitentiam super peccato suo, dicens, quid feci? Et ideo dicit erat autem Simon Petrus adhuc stans et calefaciens se; quamvis Christus recesserit inde, immemor eius quod dicitur in Ps. I: beatus vir qui non abiit in consilio impiorum. Sed haec expositio stare non potest: quia sic sequeretur quod secunda et tertia negatio facta fuisset in absentia Christi; quod est contra illud quod dicitur Lc. XXII, 61, quod post tertiam negationem Petri conversus dominus respexit Petrum. Et ideo Augustinus aliter exponens, dicit quod Evangelista loquitur per recapitulationem more suo, ut ostendat continuationem et ordinem rei. Dixerat enim supra quod stabant servi et ministri ad prunas, quia frigus erat et calefaciebant se, et, Petrus erat cum eis stans, et calefaciens se, et postea interposuit de examinatione Christi a pontifice; et postmodum, ut continuet seriem, resumit quasi eadem verba dicens erat autem Simon Petrus stans, ante scilicet quam Christus mitteretur ad Caipham.
18:25
Deinde ponitur duplex negatio Petri, cum dicit dixerunt ergo ei: numquid et tu ex discipulis eius es? Et circa utrumque ponuntur duo, scilicet negationis occasio, idest interrogatio, et ipsa negatio. Sed hic occurrit duplex quaestio litteralis. Nam Matth. XXVI, 71, loquens de secunda negatione dicit: exeunte autem illo ianuam, vidit eum alia ancilla, et ait his qui erant ibi: et hic erat cum Iesu Nazareno. Et iterum negavit cum iuramento. Et sic videtur hic duplex contrarietas. Quia Ioannes dixit Petrum negasse eo stante ad focum, Matthaeus autem eo exeunte domum. Alia contrarietas est: quia secundum Matthaeum interrogatur ab alia ancilla, secundum Ioannem ab aliis, scilicet multis, unde dicit dixerunt ergo ei: numquid et tu ex discipulis eius es? Item etiam secundum Lucam solum ab una interrogatur, unde Lc. c. XXII, 59, dicitur: et intervallo facto quasi horae unius alius quidam affirmabat, dicens: vere et hic cum illo erat. Responsio. Dicendum, quod quando Petrus primo negavit, surrexit et exivit ianuam, et eo exeunte alia ancilla interrogavit eum. Vel dixit aliis, quia de illis erat, sicut refert Matthaeus. Et sic negavit secundo. Et postmodum rediit Petrus ut excusaret se de hoc etiam, et sedit cum aliis; quo sedente ibi, alii qui audierunt ab ancilla, iterum interrogaverunt eum, ut dicit Matthaeus. Vel unus primo, ut dicitur hic et postea alii multi. Et sic negavit tertio. Unde subditur de tertia negatione: dixit unus ex servis pontificis cognatus eius, cuius abscidit Petrus auriculam.
18:26
Iste tertius testimonium perhibuit, quia de visu unde dicit nonne ego te vidi in horto cum illo? Iterum ergo Petrus, facto intervallo horae unius, negavit, tertio. Nec refert si alii Evangelistae dicunt tertiam interrogationem factam a pluribus, Ioannes vero factam ab uno. Potuit enim fieri ut iste, qui magis certus erat, interrogaret, et alios ad interrogandum incitaret. Multa enim circa haec verba dicta sunt a circumstantibus, quorum unum commemorat Evangelista unus, et alius aliud, cum non esset eorum principalis intentio ad hoc, sed ad commemorandum verba Petri, et ostendendum veritatem eius quod dominus dixerat Petro; unde in verbis Petri omnes conveniunt; Num. XXIV, 13: quidquid dominus dixerit, haec loquar.
18:27
Consequenter agit de signo commemorationis Christi: unde dicit et statim gallus cantavit, motus virtute divina, ut medici esset completa praedictio, et aegroti convicta praesumptio.
18:28
Hic agitur de assignatione Christi gentilibus, et primo dicit Evangelista quomodo assignatur praesidi; secundo causa eius a praeside examinatur, ibi et dixit: quam accusationem affertis adversus hominem hunc? Tertio quomodo eius innocentia declaratur, ibi et haec cum dixisset, iterum exivit. Circa primum tria facit. Primo describit assignationis locum; secundo tempus; tertio modum. Locus quidem, quia in praetorium: unde dicit adducunt autem Iesum ad Caipham in praetorium, quod est locus iudicii. Unde et in exercitu ubi erat tabernaculum principis consuevit praetorium appellari; unde hic domus praesidis praetorium appellatur. Sed quomodo ducitur ad Caipham in praetorium? Ad quod dicendum, quod potest dici, quod Caiphas praevenerat in domum Pilati, ut eum informaret de facto Iesu sibi praesentandi: unde eo exeunte cum Pilato in praetorium, assignatus est ei Iesus. Vel potest dici, quod cum Caiphas esset princeps sacerdotum, habebat spatiosas domos, ita quod in aliqua parte earum etiam praeses hospitaretur: et sic est sensus: adducunt Iesum ad Caipham, scilicet ad domum eius, et hoc in praetorium. Vel dicendum, quod melius in Graeco habetur: adducunt Iesum a Caipha in praetorium: et sic tollitur omnis dubitatio. Tempus describitur: erat autem mane, nam tanta erat eorum nequitia, ut nulla interponeretur mora quin occidendum traderent Pilato. Mich. II, 1: vae qui cogitatis inutile, et operamini malum in cubilibus vestris. In luce matutina faciunt illud, quoniam contra Deum est manus eorum; Iob c. XXIV, 14: mane primo surgit homicida, interficit egenum et pauperem. Sed ex hoc quaestio gravis insurgit. Nam tres alii Evangelistae dicunt, quod circa principium noctis dominus fuit flagellatus in domo Caiphae, et examinatus ab eo, cum dixit: dic nobis si tu es Christus: et summo mane ductus est ad Pilatum. Ioannes vero dicit, quod ductus est ad Caipham. Ad quod dicendum, quod si volumus salvare litteram nostram, quod Caiphas primo vidit eum cum esset in domo Annae de nocte, et tunc potuit examinari ab eo. Sed adhuc dubium remanet de hoc quod dicunt, quod fuit flagellatus in domo Caiphae. Quod totum solvitur secundum illud quod habetur in Graeco, scilicet quod ducunt eum a Caipha in praetorium, quia secundum hoc a domo Annae fuit de nocte adductus ad domum Caiphae, ubi flagellatus et examinatus fuit, et de mane fuit a Caipha ductus in praetorium. Ut non contaminarentur, sed ut manducarent Pascha. Ubi primo designatur eorum vana superstitio, quia non introierunt in praetorium; secundo Pilati ad eos reverentia, quia exivit eis obviam. Sed hoc quod dicit quantum ad primum, quod non introierunt ut non contaminarentur, habet dubitationem. Dicunt enim alii Evangelistae, quod Christus captus fuit in sero in die coenae: et tunc erat Pascha, Lc. c. XXII, 15: desiderio desideravi hoc Pascha manducare vobiscum. Et de mane in crastino fuit ductus ad praetorium. Quomodo ergo ut manducarent Pascha, cum esset in crastino Paschae? Sed ad hoc quidam moderni Graeci dicunt, quod hoc factum fuit decima quarta luna, et crucifixus eo die quo Iudaei celebrabant Pascha, dicentes, quod Christus una die praevenit Pascha, sciens sibi imminere occisionem in Pascha Iudaeorum, unde celebravit Pascha decimatertia luna ad vesperam. Et hoc dicunt, quia in lege praeceptum est, quod a quartadecima luna primi mensis usque ad vigesimum primum diem mensis, non inveniatur fermentatum apud Iudaeos. Unde dicunt, quod Christus consecravit de fermentato corpus suum. Sed hoc stare non potest propter duo. Primo quia numquam invenitur in veteri testamento quod alicui liceret praevenire celebrationem Paschae; sed si haberet impedimentum, liceret differre usque ad alium mensem. Num. IX, 10: homo qui fuerit immundus super anima, aut in via procul in gente vestra, faciat phase domino, mense secundo, quartadecima die mensis ad vesperam. Cum ergo Christus nil praetermiserit de observantiis legis, falsum dicunt, eum Pascha praevenisse. Secundo, quia Mc. XIV, 12; expresse habetur, quod Christus venit die azymorum quando necesse erat occidi Pascha; et Matthaeus dicit quod primo die azymorum accesserunt discipuli ad Iesum dicentes: ubi vis paremus tibi comedere Pascha? Non ergo dicendum est quod Christus praevenit Pascha. Et ideo Chrysostomus aliter dicit scilicet quod Christus legem per omnia implens, suo tempore Pascha celebravit, scilicet quartadecima luna ad vesperam; sed Iudaei sic intenti erant ad Christi occisionem quod non celebraverunt Pascha die suo: sed in sequenti die, scilicet luna decimaquinta. Unde de hoc dicit ut non contaminarentur, sed ut manducarent Pascha, quod praecedenti die omiserunt. Sed nec hoc stare potest, quia Num. IX, v. 10 s., dicitur quod si quis propter impedimenta non potest celebrare Pascha decimaquarta luna primi mensis, celebrat illud non sequenti die, sed luna decimaquarta mensis secundi. Et ideo dicendum est, secundum Hieronymum et Augustinum et alios doctores Latinos, quod decimaquarta luna est principium solemnitatis; sed Pascha non dicitur solum vespera, sed totum tempus septem dierum: per quod comedebant azyma, quae debebant manducari a mundis. Unde quia Iudaei alieni iudicis praetorio immunditiam contrahebant; ideo non introierunt in praetorium ut non contaminarentur, sed ut manducarent Pascha, idest panes azymorum. Sed attende impiam caecitatem, quia timebant contaminari de homine gentili; sed sanguinem Dei et hominis effundere non timebant. Is. XLIX, 17: venerunt structores tui; destruentes te, et dissipantes a te exibunt.
18:29
Consequenter ponitur Pilati ad eos reverentia, cum dicit exivit ergo Pilatus ad eos foras, et tunc Christum ab eis oblatum suscepit et dixit: quam accusationem affertis adversus hominem hunc? Ubi ponitur Christi examinatio, et primo quomodo examinatur a Pilato coram accusatoribus; secundo quomodo a se, ibi introivit ergo et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ponit Pilati examinationem; secundo liberalem eius concessionem, ibi accipite eum vos et cetera. Circa primum, primo ponitur eius examinatio; secundo malitiosa Iudaeorum responsio. Pilatus ergo videns eum ligatum, et a tot ductum ad damnandum dicit quam accusationem affertis adversus hominem hunc?
18:30
Responderunt, et dixerunt ei: si non esset hic malefactor, non tibi tradidissemus eum; quasi dicerent: nos examinavimus eum, et iam condemnatum tradidimus eum tibi iam puniendum, quasi Pilato sufficeret eorum iudicium. Sed falsum dicunt, dicentes eum esse malefactorem, quia, ut dicitur Actor. X, 38: pertransit benefaciendo, et sanando omnes oppressos a Diabolo. Sed faciunt secundum illud Ps. XXXIV, 12, retribuebant mihi mala pro bonis. Sed contra hoc est quod dicitur Lc. XXIII, 5, quod imponebant Christo multa crimina, unde dicebant commovit populum per universam Iudaeam, incipiens a Galilaea usque huc: hic autem nullum. Respondeo. Dicendum, quod multa verba dixerunt Iudaei tunc Pilato, ut Augustinus dicit, sed potuit esse quod primo hoc quod hic ostendit Ioannes, et postea fuit quod dicit Lucas. Consequenter ponitur liberalis concessio Pilati, cum dicit accipite eum vos, et primo ponitur Pilati concessio; secundo Iudaeorum recusatio, ibi dixerunt ergo ei Iudaei; tertio recusationis ratio, ibi ut sermo Iesu impleretur. Dicit ergo accipite eum vos volens eis praestare gratiam. Sic et Felix dixit Paulo: si velis iudicari apud Iudaeos, Act. c. XXIV. Vel hoc dixit arguens eos: nam ipsi examinaverant, et condemnaverant: unde volebat quod qui condemnaverant eum malefactorem, darent sententiam: quia, ut dicitur Act. XXV, 16: non est consuetudo Romanis damnare aliquem hominem, priusquam is qui accusatur praesentes habeat accusatores, locumque defendendi accipiat ad abluenda peccata. Et sic est sensus: nostrum iudicium petitis; sed vos eum accipite et damnate secundum legem vestram: ego autem nequaquam talis iudex efficiar. Sed Iudaeorum recusatio ponitur consequenter, ibi dixerunt ergo ei Iudaei: nobis non licet interficere quemquam. Sed contra. Ex. XXII, 18 dicitur: maleficos non patieris vivere. Iesum autem maleficum reputabant.
18:31
Sed, secundum Augustinum, dicunt nobis non licet interficere quemquam, in die festo, alio autem tempore sic. Vel, secundum Chrysostomum, Iudaei amiserunt multum de potestate: quia iudicium de peccato contra rempublicam non pertinebat ad eos, ipsi autem potissime intendebant condemnare eum de hoc quod erat contra rempublicam; infra XIX, v. 12: omnis qui se regem facit contradicit Caesari. Unde dicunt nobis non licet interficere quemquam, scilicet qui facit contra rempublicam; quamvis liceret pro aliquo peccato legis, cuius iudicium reservatum eis erat. Vel aliter dicendum, quod aliquid non licet alicui, vel quia est divina lege prohibitum; et hoc modo non erat eis prohibitum: vel quia prohibitum erat eis lege humana; et hoc modo non licebat eis interficere quemquam, quia iam residebat haec potestas apud praesidem. Sed tunc remanet quaestio: quia lapidaverunt Stephanum, Actor. VII, 58. Sed ad hoc respondet Chrysostomus, quod Iudaeis concessum erat a Romanis quod uterentur legibus suis: unde quia poena lapidationis erat inflicta per legem, ideo concessa erat eis a Romanis. Sed mors crucis in lege exprobrabilis erat; Deut. XXI, 23: maledictus omnis qui pependit in ligno. Et ideo hoc genus mortis non erat eis servatum. Iudaei autem ex sua malitia non erant contenti si Christum lapidarent; sed volebant eum morte turpissima condemnare, ut dicitur Sap. II, v. 20. Et ideo nunc dicunt non licet nobis interficere quemquam, scilicet morte crucis. Vel dicendum, quod Stephanus fuit lapidatus in magistratus mutatione: et tunc multa illicita usurpantur, quae non fierent in processu temporis.
18:32
Ratio recusationis subditur cum dicit ut sermo Iesu impleretur: ut ly ut non referatur ad intentionem Iudaeorum, sed ad dispositionem divinae providentiae. Iesus enim dixit, Matth. XX, 19, quod occidendus erat a gentibus, et crucifigendus, traditus tamen a Iudaeis. Et ideo ut istud impleretur, ipsi noluerunt eum iudicare et occidere.
18:33
Supra posita est examinatio qua Pilatus examinavit Christum coram accusatoribus hic autem ponit Evangelista quomodo Pilatus examinavit Christum apud seipsum, et primo Evangelista agit de interrogatione Pilati examinantis; secundo de responsione Christi examinati, ibi respondit Iesus: regnum meum non est de hoc mundo. Circa primum duo facit. Primo proponit Pilati interrogationem; secundo interrogationis causam, seu examinationem, ibi respondit Iesus: a temetipso hoc dicis? Circa primum sciendum, quod Pilatus ut iustus iudex, et omnia exquisite tractans, non statim acquievit accusationi pontificis. Ex. XXIII, 2: non sequeris turbam ad faciendum malum nec in iudicio plurimorum acquiesces sententia, ut a vero devies. Sed introivit iterum in praetorium et vocavit Iesum, scilicet seorsum, eo quod magnam de eo habebat suspicionem. Ideo autem Christum ad se vocavit, ut exquisitius omnia rimaretur, et Christus quietius responderet, amoto strepitu Iudaeorum. Iob XXIX, 16: causam quam ignorabam, diligentissime investigabam. Et tunc dixit ei tu es rex Iudaeorum? Ex quo patet, ut Lucas refert c. XXIII, 2 quod Iudaei hoc crimen ei imposuerunt; licet Ioannes dicat tantum si non esset hic malefactor, non tibi tradidissemus eum, et multa alia crimina ei obiecerunt. Sed hoc magis tetigit cor Pilati, et ideo de hoc solo eum interrogat. Matth. XII, v. 34: ex abundantia cordis os loquitur.
18:34
Consequenter cum dicit respondit Iesus etc. ponitur interrogationis examinatio, et primo ponitur Christi interrogatio; secundo Pilati responsio, ibi numquid ego Iudaeus sum? Dixit ergo respondit Iesus, versa vice interrogando, a temetipso hoc dicis? Ubi sciendum est, quod duplici ex causa homo interrogat. Quandoque ut sciat rem quam prius ignorabat, et sic discipulus interrogat magistrum; quandoque interrogat de re scita, ut sciat responsionem de quo interrogat, et sic magister interrogat discipulum. Sed dominus sciebat et id de quo ipse interrogabat, et illud quod responsurus erat; et ideo non interrogabat quasi ignorans, quia omnia nuda et aperta sunt oculis eius, Hebr. c. IV, 13, sed interrogat ut sciamus quam opinionem habebant Iudaei et gentiles, ac simul de illo regno instruamur. Consequenter cum dicit respondit Pilatus etc., ponitur responsio Pilati. Sed quare sic respondet? Ideo scilicet quia dominus quaesivit ab eo an a semetipso hoc dixisset. Et ideo Pilatus ostendit quod non pertinebat ad eum quaerere an esset rex Iudaeorum, sed potius ad Iudaeos, quorum se regem dicebat; dans per hoc intelligere quod ab aliis hoc sibi dicebatur.
18:35
Et ideo subdit gens tua et pontifices tui tradiderunt te mihi, hanc scilicet accusationem adversum te dicentes. Et dicit gens tua, quia ex Iudaeis, secundum hominem, natus erat. Ier. XX, 10: audivi enim contumelias multorum et terrores in circuitu: persequimini eum, ab omnibus viris qui erant pacifici mei; Michaeae VII, 6: inimici hominis, domestici eius. Et dicitur pontifices, quia quanto maiores erant in potestate, tanto potiores in crimine. I Esdrae c. IX, 2: manus principum et magistratuum fuit in transgressione hac prima; Ier. V, 5: ibo ad optimates, et loquar eis: ipsi enim cognoverunt vias domini, et iudicium Dei sui: et ecce magis hi confregerunt iugum, ruperunt vincula. Si ergo ipsi tradiderunt te mihi, quid fecisti? Quasi dicat: non est credendum quod tradidissent te mihi nisi pro magna causa. Hic ponitur responsio Christi, et primo removet suspicionis de regno suo falsitatem; secundo astruit veritatem, ibi dixit itaque ei Pilatus: ergo rex es tu? Circa primum duo facit. Primo excludit falsam suspicionem; secundo adhibet signi probationem, ibi si ex hoc mundo esset regnum meum, ministri mei utique decertarent, ut non traderer Iudaeis.
18:36
Falsam suspicionem removet, dicens regnum meum non est de hoc mundo. Quod male intelligentes Manichaei, dicebant esse duos deos et duo regna; scilicet Deum bonum, qui habet regnum suum in regione lucis; et Deum malum, qui habet regnum suum in regione tenebrarum; et hanc dicebant esse hunc mundum, quia omnia corporalia dicebant esse tenebras. Et secundum hoc sensus est: regnum meum non est de hoc mundo, quasi dicat: dominus pater, qui bonus est, et ego non habemus regnum in regione tenebrarum. Sed contra hoc est quod dicitur in Ps. XLVI, 8: quoniam rex omnis terrae Deus. Et iterum: omnia quaecumque voluit dominus fecit in caelo et in terra. Et ideo dicendum, quod hoc dixit Christus propter Pilatum, qui credebat Christum affectare regnum terrenum, quo corporaliter, sicut et homines terreni, regnaret; et per hoc esset morte plectendus, quod illicitum affectaverit regnum. Sciendum est autem, quod regnum quandoque dicitur ille populus qui regnat, quandoque ipsa regia potestas. Primo ergo modo accipiendo regnum exponit Augustinus, et dicit regnum meum, idest fideles mei, Apoc. V, 10: fecisti nos Deo nostro regnum, non est de hoc mundo. Non dicit: non est in hoc mundo; supra XVII, 11: et hi in mundo sunt, sed non est de hoc mundo, per affectum et imitationem, ereptus quidem per gratiae electionem. Sic enim nos Deus eruit de potestate tenebrarum, et transtulit in regnum caritatis suae. Chrysostomus autem exponit accipiendo regnum secundo modo, et dicit: regnum meum, idest potestas mea et auctoritas qua rex sum, non est de hoc mundo idest, non habet originem ex causis mundanis et electione hominum, sed aliunde, scilicet ab ipso patre. Dan. VII, 14: potestas eius, potestas aeterna quae non auferetur, et regnum eius quod non corrumpetur. Hic adhibet signa evidentia ad probandum quod regnum eius non est de hoc mundo, et primo ponit signum; secundo concludit intentum, ibi nunc autem regnum meum non est hinc. Circa primum sciendum est, quod qui habet regnum terrenum, sive iuste sive violenter, oportet quod habeat socios et ministros, per quos in potestate fulciatur. Cuius ratio est, quia non est potens per seipsum, sed per ministros suos. II Reg. III, 1: facta est longa concertatio inter domum Saul et inter domum David: David proficiscens et semper seipso robustior, domus autem Saul decrescens quotidie. Sed rex supernus, quia potens est per seipsum, servis suis potentiam tribuit; ideo non indiget ad regnum suum ministris. Et ideo dicit, quod regnum suum non est de hoc mundo: quia si ex hoc mundo esset regnum meum, ministri utique mei decertarent, ut non traderer Iudaeis. Unde et Petrus volens decertare pro Christo, non advertebat se de hoc mundo non esse: supra eodem. Habebat tamen dominus alios ministros, scilicet Angelos, qui potuissent eum eripere de manibus Iudaeorum; sed dominus eripi noluit. Matth. XXVI, v. 53: an non possum rogare patrem meum, et exhibebit mihi plusquam duodecim legiones Angelorum? Nunc autem regnum meum non est hinc. Scilicet, quia non quaerit tales ministros, concludit quod regnum suum non est hinc, idest, non habet principium de hoc mundo; est tamen hic, quia ubique est: attingit enim a fine usque ad finem fortiter, et disponit omnia suaviter: Sap. VIII, 1; Ps. II, v. 8: postula a me, et dabo tibi gentes hereditatem tuam, et possessionem tuam terminos terrae; Dan. VII, 14: dedit potestatem et honorem et regnum; et omnes populi, tribus et linguae servient ei. Hic dominus manifestat veritatem de regno suo quod sit, et primo ponitur manifestationis occasio; secundo ipsa manifestatio, ibi respondit ei Iesus etc.; tertio manifestationis effectus, ibi dixit ei Pilatus, quid est veritas? Circa primum sciendum, quod Pilatus ex supradictis verbis domini intelligens quod regnum quasi carnale et longinquum esset de partibus illis I Cor. II, 14: animalis homo non percepit ea quae sunt spiritus Dei anhelavit ad veritatem sciendam; et ideo inquit dicens ergo rex es tu? Scilicet et dominus. Consequenter respondens dicit tu dicis quia rex sum ego, ubi primo se esse confitetur regem; secundo sui regni ostendit rationem, ibi ego in hoc natus sum (...) ut testimonium perhibeam veritati; tertio insinuat supra quos regnat, ibi omnis qui est ex veritate, audit vocem meam. Circa primum sciendum est, quod dominus ad quaestionem respondens de regno, ita responsionem suam temperavit ut nec manifeste confiteretur se esse regem, cum rex non esset eo modo quo Pilatus intelligebat; nec negaret, cum spiritualiter esset rex regum. Dicit ergo tu dicis quia rex sum ego, scilicet carnaliter secundum quem modum rex non sum, sed alio modo rex sum ego; Is. XXXII, 1: ecce in iustitia regnabit rex, principes in iudicio praeerunt.
18:37
Modum autem et rationem regni sui ostendit dicens ego in hoc natus sum, et ad hoc veni in mundum, ut testimonium perhibeam veritati; quod dupliciter exponitur. Uno modo, secundum Augustinum, ut regnum Christi sint fideles sicut dictum est supra: et sic Christus super fideles regnat; et ad hoc venit in mundum ut congregans sibi fideles, regnum sibi acquirat. Lc. XIX, 12: homo quidam nobilis abiit in regionem longinquam accipere sibi regnum. Et sic est sensus: ego in hoc, idest ad hoc, natus sum, nativitate scilicet carnali. Et hoc exponit dicens et ad hoc veni in mundum, carnaliter nascendo; sic enim venit in mundum, Gal. IV, v. 4: misit Deus filium suum in mundum, ut testimonium perhibeam veritati, scilicet mihi, qui sum veritas, supra XIV, 6. Et si testimonium perhibeo de meipso, verum est testimonium meum, supra VIII, 14. Et inquantum manifesto me veritatem, intantum regnum mihi paro. Hoc enim non potest fieri nisi per manifestationem veritatis, quam manifestationem non decebat fieri nisi per me, qui sum lux. Supra I, 18: unigenitus, qui est in sinu patris, ipse enarravit. Hebr. II, 3: quae cum initium accepisset enarrandi per dominum, ab eis qui audierunt, in nos confirmata est, contestante Deo signis et portentis et variis virtutibus et spiritus sancti distributionibus. Alio modo exponit Chrysostomus sic: tu quaeris si rex ego sum, et ego dico quod sic: sed potestate divina, quia in hoc natus sum, nativitate aeterna a patre, sicut Deus ex Deo, ita rex ex rege; Ps. II, 6: ego autem constitutus sum rex, et subdit: ego hodie genui te. Sed quod addit et ad hoc veni in mundum, non ponitur expositive, sed intelligitur de nativitate temporali; quasi diceret: etsi sum rex aeternus, tamen ad hoc veni in mundum, ut testimonium perhibeam veritati; mihi scilicet quod sum rex a Deo patre. Hic ostendit super quos regnet. Ubi notandum quod supra X, 1, dixit se pastorem, et subditos dixit oves, quod idem est quod hic dicit se regem et subditos regnum: quia eadem est proportio regis ad subditos et pastoris ad oves: et sicut pastor pascit oves, Ez. XXXIV, 2: nonne greges pascuntur a pastoribus, ita et rex sustentat subditos. Et specialiter inter alia dixit oves meae vocem meam audiunt: unde et hic dicit qui est ex veritate, audit vocem meam, non solum exterius, sed credendo interius et amando ac opere implendo; supra VI, 45: omnis qui audivit a patre et didicit venit ad me. Sed unde hoc homini ut audiat vocem meam? Inde scilicet quia est ex veritate, quae est Deus. Sed cum omnes sint ex Deo, omnes sunt ex veritate et audiunt vocem eius. Respondeo. Dicendum, quod aliqui sunt ex Deo per creationem, et sic omnes sunt a Deo. Dicuntur etiam aliqui esse a Deo per affectum et imitationem; unde supra VIII, 47 dicitur: ex Deo non estis, scilicet secundum affectum, sed per creationem estis: ille ergo audit vocem credendo et amando, qui, scilicet, est ex veritate, idest, qui accepit hoc munus ut veritatem amet. Sed attende, quod non dicit: omnis qui audit vocem, est ex veritate, quia sequeretur quod ideo essemus ex veritate quia credimus: cum tamen ideo credamus quia sumus ex veritate, inquantum scilicet accepimus donum Dei per quod credimus et amamus veritatem. Eph. II, 8: gratia salvati estis per fidem, et hoc non ex vobis: Dei enim donum est; Phil. I, 29: vobis datum est non solum ut in eum credatis, sed etiam ut pro illo patiamini. Ponit responsionis effectum, in quo datur intelligi quod Pilatus propulsa suspicione regni terreni, ac intelligens Christum regem esse in doctrina veritatis, cupit veritatem scire, ac effici de regno eius; unde dicit quid est veritas? Non quaerens quae sit definitio veritatis, sed quid esset veritas cuius virtute de regno eius efficeretur: dans per hoc intelligere, quod veritas mundo incognita erat, et fere ab omnibus evanuerat, dum increduli essent. Is. LIX, 14: corruit veritas in plateis, et aequitas non potuit ingredi; Ps. XI, 2: diminutae sunt veritates a filiis hominum. Sed Pilatus responsionem non expectavit. Et ideo quantum ad hanc quaestionem sciendum est, quod duplicem veritatem invenimus in Evangelio: unam increatam et facientem; et haec est Christus, supra c. XIV, 6: ego sum via, veritas et vita, aliam factam, supra I, 17: gratia et veritas per Iesum Christum facta est. Veritas enim de sui ratione importat commensurationem rei ad intellectum. Intellectus autem dupliciter comparatur ad res. Quia quidam ut mensura rerum existens, ille scilicet qui est causa rerum; quidam autem mensuratus a re, ille scilicet cuius cognitio causatur a re. Non igitur est veritas in intellectu divino quia ipse adaequatur rebus, sed quia res ipsi divino intellectui adaequantur. Sed in intellectu nostro ideo est veritas, quia ita intelligit res ut res se habent. Et sic veritas increata et intellectus divinus est veritas non mensurata nec facta, sed veritas mensurans et faciens duplicem veritatem; unam scilicet in ipsis rebus, inquantum facit eas secundum quod sunt in intellectu divino; et aliam quam facit in animabus nostris, quae est veritas mensurata tantum et non mensurans. Et inde est quod veritas increata intellectus divini appropriatur filio, qui est ipsa conceptio divini intellectus et Dei verbum. Veritas enim conceptionem intellectus consequitur.
18:38
Deinde cum dicit et cum hoc dixisset, iterum exivit ad Iudaeos, agit de sententia Pilati in Christum, et primo declarat eius innocentiam; secundo intentat impendere misericordiam, ibi est autem consuetudo ut unum dimittam vobis in Pascha. Sciendum est autem circa primum, quod Pilatus, ut dicit Augustinus, volebat libenter Christum liberare, et dum quaesivisset a Christo quid est veritas? Subito venit illi in mentem quomodo per quandam consuetudinem Christum liberare poterat qua solet eis dimitti unus in Pascha: et ideo responsionem non expectans totaliter, contulit se ad hoc procurandum, et ideo dicit et cum hoc dixisset. Audiebat Iudaeorum tumultum, et credens se illum posse compescere et postmodum quietius difficilis quaestionis responsionem audire, iterum exivit ad Iudaeos, et proponens Christi innocentiam, dixit eis: ego nullam invenio in eo causam, scilicet mortis. I Petr. II, 22: qui peccatum non fecit. Et tamen si esset aliqua in eo, ego apud quem residet potestas, et praecipue iudicandi de his quae contra regem fiunt, volo eum liberare et absolvere.
18:39
Unde dicit est autem consuetudo ut unum dimittam vobis in Pascha. Ubi primo offert Christi absolutionem; secundo ponit Evangelista Iudaeorum responsionem. Sciendum est autem, quod hanc consuetudinem introduxit Pilatus, vel alii praesides Romanorum, ob favorem populi. Et ideo secundum hanc consuetudinem volens eum dimittere, dicit vultis ergo dimittam vobis regem Iudaeorum? Non dicit hoc quasi invenerit eum culpabilem de regno Iudaeorum, sed ut exaggeraret ipsorum malitiam; quasi dicat: etsi sit rex Iudaeorum, quod ad vos iudicare non pertinet, sed ad me, tamen, si vultis, dimittam eum vobis. Sed ipsi Iudaei clamaverunt rursum omnes dicentes: non hunc, sed Barabbam.
18:40
Et ut Iudaeorum malitiam ostendat, statim subdit eius, quem liberari petebant, crimen, dicens erat autem Barabbas latro. Is. I, 23: principes tui infideles, socii furum. In hoc impletur illud Ier. XII, 8: facta est mihi haereditas mea quasi leo in silva; Act. III, 14: iustum et sanctum negastis, et petistis virum homicidam donari vobis.
18:1
v. 1 haec cum dixisset Iesus , egressus est cum discipulis suis trans torrentem Cedron; nunc tandem id fit ad quod 15,31 adhortatus est; reliquit coenaculum et urbem et se contulit in regionem trans torrentem Cedron yiip (2 Sam. 15,23); inter montem oliveti qui urbi ab oriente obiacet et urbem interiecta est vallis profunda , φάρραγξ, quae Ks3pov appellatur (Josephus, Bell. iud. 5,2. 3), in qua valle erat χείμαρρος, torrens, qui fluit tempore hiemis, cui nomen Κεδρών turbidus, niger; cf. losephus, Antiq. 8,1. 5; 9,7. 3 (φάρραγξ τοῦ Κεδρῶνος); vallis et torrens eodem nomine appellantur (cf. Bell. iud. 5,6. 1). Monent aliqui David quoque quum fugeret ab Absalom transgressum esse torrentem Cedron, sane tristem (2 Sam. 15,93; Tol. Lap. Corl. Schg.). Solus Ioannes eius torrentis mentionem facit, ubt erat hortus, scil. Gethsemani (cf. Matth. 26,36 χωρίον et Marc. 15,32) ad radices montis oliveti, àn quem introitu tpse et discipuli etus; monent aliqui in horto omnis tristitiae nostrae initium fuisse, in horto paradisi; in horto quoque Christi passionem inchoari, qua veteris illius emendatio nobis obtingat (Cyr. Theoph. Rup. Tol.). « Ne vero hortum audiens in latibulum venisse putares addit » (Chr. Theoph.) v. 2 sctebat autem et [Iudas qui tradebat eum locum , quia frequenter Iesus convenerat illuc cum discipulis suis, praesertim etiam ultimis diebus ante passionem , uti Luc. 21,37 narratur : erat autem diebus docens in templo, noctibus vero exiens morabatur in monte qui vocatur oliveti. Cui consuetudini etiam eo die insistens elegit ire ad locum proditori notum. Quae in horto gesta sunt usque ad adventum proditoris, evangelista utpote ex synopticis nota omittit. Immerito aliqui obiecerunt ad imaginem illam quam evangelista de Christo nobis transmiserit non convenire tristitiam illam et agoniam quam synoptici nobis descripserint. Nam ipse quoque evangelista iam 11,33. 38 satis ostendit Christum etiam, si velit, variis affectibus commoveri, et insuper statim in v. 11 aperte alludit ad orationem in horto factam; praeterea Christum instante passione turbari angique, minime ille evangelista potuit velle negare, qui narrat passione nondum instante Christum dixisse : nunc anima mea turbata est; et quid dicam? Pater, salvifica me ex hac hora (12,27). Nonne haec verba prae se ferunt eundem affectum quem svynoptici describunt? Omittens itaque agoniam in horto eam negare nec voluit nec potuit;
Narrationem synopticorum evangelista et supponit et supplet. Effert Christum libere se tradidisse et documentum edidisse suae potentiae;
In enarranda passione loannes quattuor praeprimis ob oculis habuisse videtur : gloriam Iesu qui volens libensque inorti cruentae se offert tamquam verus Agnus Dei, malitiam principum, praesertim pontificum , narrationem synopticorum, quam et explicatione data ab errore vindicare et rebus narratis supplere voluit. Christum quidem nobis exhibet qui insidias proditoris minime fugit (18,2) , qui omnia scit super se ventura, qui uno verbo aggressores prosternit, qui calicem a Patre sibi datum bibere vult (18,&4-11), qui mediis in opprobriis ac perpessionibus eximia quadam dignitate ac maiestate loquitur (18, 20 seq. 19,11), qui summa quiete curam matris in cruce gerit, oculis quasi singula lustrat vaticinia, ut omnia impleat et tum demum cum omnia complesset caput inclinat et spiritum tradit (19.26 seq.). Ipso mortis die ac tempore et vaticinio singulari Dei providentia in eo impleto exhibetur verum nostrum pascha, Agnus paschalis (18,28; 19, 15). Principum malitia et perversitas praesertim elucet eo quod Pilatum qui Iesum omni culpa vacare saepius publice professus erat omni vi et astutia cogunt ad mortis sententiam ferendam (18,30; 19,7 seq.), et demum aperte abiiciunt et negant omnem exspectationem Messiae (19,15). Quae a synopticis iam narrata sunt aut plane omittuntur aut brevissime tantum attinguntur, quantum opus est, ut ea possint inseri, quae ad illorum narrationem aut explicandam aut pluribus supplendam necessaria sunt. autem narratio aliorum suppletur : Iesum trans torrentem Cedron egressum esse; adfuisse romanos milites, tribunum, cum caperetur; eos laternis et facibus fuisse instructos; Petrum eduxisse gladium, servum nomen Malchi habuisse; cuncta quae leguntur 18,4-9; Christi verba de calice a Patre sibi dato, Iesum esse ligatum, adductum ad Annam, loannem quoque secutum esse Iesum, ab eo Petrum inductum in atrium et ab ostiaria exploratum; totam illam apud Annam socerum Caiphae inquisitionem 18,19-23; primam Petri negationem faclam esse, dum Iesus esset coram Anna; id quod 18,26. 28-31. 34-38 daei non introierint in praetorium ; eorum cum Pilato expostulationes, colloquium Iesu cum Pilato. Evangelistae nostro pariter propria sunt quae 19,5-16 narrantur, Iesum etiam crucem baiulasse; narratione hac suus verus assignatur flagellationi locus, qua usus est Pilatus ut ad miserationem animos Iudaeorum inclinaret, dum apud synopticos videri posset eam esse inflictam sententia mortis in Iesum iam dicta. Pariter propria sunt quae referuntur de titulo crucis 19,19-22, de tunica inconsutili, quam scindere milites nolebant; quae de matre ad crucem stante, quae curae loannis commendatur habentur; verbum Christi : sitio, consummatum est et ea quoque quae 19,31-37 habentur; item Nicodemum circa Domini sepulturam fuisse adeo sollicitum etc. — Ex quibus satis apparet Ioannem spectatorem et testem passionis hanc quoque narrationem aliorum voluisse illustrare et supplere.
18:3
v. 3 ludas ergo cum accepisset cohortem et a pontificibus et pharisaeis ministros , venit illuc cum laternis et facibus el armis; cohors, σπεῖρα et v. 19 tribunus z0:zpg2;; proin milites quoque romani aderant. Neque id mirum est; potius mirum esset, si non adfuissent. Post sollemnem illum Iesu in urbem ingressum pharisaei dicebant : ecce mundus totus post eum abiit (12,19), timebant ne si palam eum tenerent, tumultus fieret in populo (Marc. 14,2), sciebant multos in urbe adesse Galilaeos; quare omnino necessarium esse putabant, ut auctoritate publica romana et caperetur et milite romano praesente, si quis fieret conatus defensionis vel tumultus asseclarum eius, statim vi et armis reprimeretur, vel etiam, ut milite praesente iam nemo resistere vel repugnare auderet. Quare probabile est eos etiam praesidi nuntium misisse, capiendum esse virum valde infestum et insidiosum et ad id prospere peragendum opus esse milite. Et quae in v. 29-31 legimus, suadent Pilatum iam antea certiorem factum esse. [ἢ arce Antonia erat praesidium romanum (τάγμα Ρωμαίων, Iosephus, Bell. iud. 5,5. 8), quod diebus festis etiam maiore numero praesto erat. Cohors, σπεῖρα, proprie est decima pars legionis romanae; apud Polybium dicitur saepius de tricesima parte, de manipulo (tertia parte cohortis) et adhibetur de qualibet caterva militum (Ὁ Iudith 15,11; 2 Mach. 8.23); qua notione hoc loco habetur. Milites isti ad custodiam additi erant, ut Iesus tuto comprehenderetur et ad synedristas adduceretur. A principibus sacerdotum et pharisaeis i. e. ἃ synedristis (cf. Matth. 26,&7; Marc. 14,&43 utroque loco etiam seniores populi nominantur) missi sunt ministri synedrii , apparitores, quorum erat Iesum captum et a militibus, si opus esset, custoditum et defensum, ad synedristas adducere. Isti ministri fustibus partim armati erant (Matth. 26,55; Marc. 14,48; Luc. 22,52) partim gerebant laternas, Xayz322;, vasa quae lucem velatam, transparentem continent, et faces, 2xvo0;, taedas. Erat quidem plenilunium; at magna cautione et circumspeclione rem aggrediuntur. Si forte nubes lunam occultarent vel in ipso horto Iesus et discipuli in latibulis sese absconderent, faces secum ferunt et ne forte vento lumina exstinguerentur, etiam laternas gerunt. Milites suis armis incedunt instructi. Mentionem militum synoptici quoque gladiis nominatis ingerunt; accurate id Ioannes narrat. Iudae osculum, ex synopticis notum, hic omittitur. Hoc proditionis signo dato vult Iesus ut illi qui venerant, inter quos erant quoque principes sacerdotum et magistratus templi et seniores (Luc. 22,52), palam profiteantur quem quaerant et Christi experiantur potentiam, ex qua et ipsis et omnibus innotesceret Iesum se tradere voluntarie et sponte
18:4
v. 4 Iesus itaque sciens omnia quae ventura erant super eum (cf. 2,25; 13,3), processit, ἐξῆλθεν, Nonn. xaxov ἐάσας, ex horto egressus est (Schz.); neque tamen id necessarium est (cf. v. 236), sufficit, ut egressus e loco, ubi a Iuda est salutatus, iis obviam ierit, quos post se ludas reliquit occurrens Domino, et dixtt etis : quem quaeritis? interrogat eos qui agmen ducebant, scil. ministros synedristarum, quibuscum etiam synedristae aliqui admixti erant; milites solum ad custodiam cautionis causa additi agmen claudebant;
18:5
v. 5 responderunt ei illi priores : Iesum Nazarenum ; dicit eis Iesus : ego Sum, ex qua quaestione et responsione veteres aliqui concluserunt eos divinitus fuisse excaecatos ita ut nemo, ne ludas quidem , Christum agnoverit (cf. Chr. Theoph. Cyr. Thom. Tol. Mald.); at id neque indicatur in narratione neque ex narratis sequitur ; ex apparitoribus sat multi fortasse Iesum non cognoverunt, sciebant solum eum debere comprehendi; ne igitur errarent, Iudas illud dederat signum; sed quia ludas, ut proditionem suam quantum posset velaret, aliqua festinatione processerat salutaturus Iesum, facile fieri poterat, ut multi non clare viderint quem illorum qui in horto stabant osculatus sit. ludas osculo dato cum reliquis discipulis Iesum satellitibus obviam euntem comitatus est; stabat autem et Iudas qui tradebat eum cum tpsis, ita iterum prope apparitores erat quos in hortum adduxerat (cf. Matth. 26,59. Marc. 15,45 : Luc. 22,11 : antecedebat eos et appropinquavit Iesu); v. ὁ ut ergo dizit eis : ego sum , abierunt retrorsum et ceciderunt in terram; ceciderunt ii quos interrogaverat et qui responderunt; ita ex v. 4-6; proin non omnes, sed qui priores accesserant; nam id ad omnes (etiam milites romanos qui agmen claudentes in recessu erant et nihil de eo colloquio audiebant) extendere, narratione non suadetur. Christus praeprimis synedristis, auctoribus sceleris, suam vult iterum ostendere et manifestam facere potentiam, quod non ex imbecillitate caperetur. Id iam saepius iis palpabile reddidit (cf. 7,30; 8,20. 59; 10,39; 11,53), et ea re gesta declarantur optime verba quae apud synopticos synedristis dicit : quotidie eram apud vos in templo docens et non me tenuistis — sed ut adimpleantur Seripturae; haec est hora vestra et potestas tenebrarum (Marc. 154,49; . Luc. 29,53). Ita eis ostendit se non capi ipsorum insidiis, armis, sed altiore divino consilio. Iterum igitur illa prostratione eis gratiam offert. At illi in sua obstinatione permanent; quod abeunt retrorsum et cadunt in terram , referri debet ad ostensionem potentiae Christi ; id explicare ex quodam terrore naturali propter quaestionem ac responsionem inopinatam, vanum est et ridiculum. Venerunt enim ad eum - capiendum, sciebant eum esse praesentem , Iudas signum proditionis dederat; quomodo itaque apparitores tam subito magnoque terrore voce illa ego sum corripi potuissent, nisi voluntas Iesu eos deiecisset? « ego sum, dicit, et impios deiicit; quid iudicaturus faciet qui iudicandus hoc fecit? quid regnaturus poterit, qui moriturus hoc potuit » (Aug.)? In ea prostratione cernunt adumbrari casum et ruinam universalem gentis iudaicae (cf. Theoph. Cyr. Thom.);
18:7
v. 1 iterum ergo interrogavit. eos : quem quaeritis? ills autem dixerunt * Iesum Nazarenum,
18:8
v. 8 respondit Iesus : dizi vobis quia ego sum; si ergo me quaeritis, sinite hos abire; « usque ad ultimam horam suam erga suos benignitatem exhibet » (Chr.). Ex hisce verbis et ex v. 9 erui videtur. synedristis in animo fuisse etiam in discipulos animad vertere. Christus enim praecipit, ut non capiant discipulos, sed ut eos immunes abire sinant; discipulis autem indicatur, non beneficio satellitum , sed Iesu voluntate se posse libere abire (cf. Cai.)
18:9
v. 9 «ut impleretur sermo quem dizit : quia. quos dedisti mihi non perdidi ex eis quemquam ; cf. 17,12; vide post tantillum scribendi intervallum evangelistam tamen non verbotenus sermonem Christi referre; nihil igitur admirationis relinquitur, si aliis quoque in locis verba veterum librorum sacrorum non eadem afferuntur. In cura et sollicitudine qua Iesus suos hic immunes reddit ab odio synedristarum eum cernit evangelista animi affectum expressum quem Christus 17,12 pandebat; et merito: nam revera eos custodit (17,12) ἃ periculo et persecutione , damnum
ab eis avertit, cavet, ne sibi eripiantur. Nam si tum capti fuissent, fortasse timore victi Christum negassent et culpam contraxissent. Christum 17,12 locutum esse de perditione corporis et animae, censet Chr.; apostolos tunc nondum sic credidisse quomodo credant qui non pereunt; idcirco si tunc occisi essent futurum fuisse ut perirent Aug. opinatur; imbecilles quippe adhuc erant, ait Rup.; si negarent et negantes tamen interficerentur, in illo indiscreto tumultu procul dubio perderentur (cf. To/.); Rup. aliter quoque concipi posse censet : sed esto, ut fortassis non negantes aliqui occiderentur; nonne quodammodo etiam sic perderentur, qui minime ad illud propter quod fuerant electi pervenire sinerentur? Cum iam propius ad Iesum accederent et manus in eum iniicere velle viderentur,
18:10
v. 10 Simon ergo Petrus habens gladium eduzit eum et percussit pontificis servum et abscidit auriculam eius dexteram ; erat autem. nomen servi Malchus; utroque nomine prolato Petri et auriculam dexteram dicit, sed, ut puto, quo apostoli impetum declararet quod ipsum fere caput impeteret » (CAr.). Ictum in caput servi dextera perculiatur. Servus ille prae aliis sese proripiens manus Iesu inferre tentavit. Nomen Malchus (455, ScAz. Corl., nón Schg.) alias quoque reperitur (cf. Josephus, Antiq. 1,15; plura vide apud ScAg. Wetstein). Petrus pro indole sua praecipite agit et cum tanta prope esset turba, animum ostendit fortem confidens Domino quem, uti saepius iam insidias elusit, ita nunc quoque cum suis incolumem abiturum esse credebat. Eius itaque facinus ex fide et amore in Iesum declaratur. Nisi enim fide in Iesu potentiam plane imbutus fuisset, nunquam audere potuit in conspectu turbae unus omnes provocare et lacessere. Quare a limine quoque reiicitur sententia quorundam, qui loannem nomen Petri animo in eum haud benevolo adscripsisse velint. Petrus revera expertus est potentiam Iesu; nam nemo ei propter audax facinus quidquam negotii facessit ;
18:11
v. 11 dixit ergo Iesus Petro : mitte gladium tuum tn vaginam ; calicem quem dedit mihi Pater, non bibam illum? omittit verba quae Matthaeus retulerat (26,52-5*), sed addit quae ille non adiunxerat; Iesus meminit orationis in horto : non quod ego volo, sed quod tu. Simul Petrum docet se comprehendi ex divina dispensatione; hanc esse Patris voluntatem, hanc sortem a Patre sibi attributam. De metaphora calicis vide ad Matth. 20,22 (Comment. ll. p. 185). Libens et volens Iesus se tradit in manus inimicorum; accipit calicem; nam « sicut mandatum dedit mihi Pater, sic facio » (15,31)
18:12
v. 12 cohors ergo et tribunus et ministri Iudaeorum SUM. DU Eae y UU RESERVE ID CNARENT, comprehenderunt Iesum et ligaverunt eum , Iesum iam in horto esse ligatum unus refert loannes; sequuntur ministri consilium Iudae : ducite caute (Marc. 154,45). Ostenduntur nobis gentilés et Iudaei solliciti,
18:13
v. 13 adduzerunt eum ad Annam primum; milites romani recesserunt, quam primum Iesus adductus erat in domum Annae ; de eo vide ad Luc. 3,2; cur ad Annam adducatur, ratio redditur : erat entm socer Catphae qui erat pontifex anni illius, ut socer eius qui eo tempore pontifex erat — Caiphas pontificatum gessit an. 18-36 — auctoritate pollebat, qua Caiphas quoque in rerum administratione plurimum regebatur. Quanta fuerit auctoritate, sequitur ex Act. 4,6 quoque. Voluit itaque Caiphas ut socero honoris causa Christus primo sisteretur; hanc igitur urbanitatem gener utile censebat socero exhibere, qui videns Iesum captum maligno gaudio replendus erat et cuius sententia vel iudicium contra Iesum plurimum valebat apud omnes. Quo vero animo Caiphas esset et quomodo iam ante omnem disquisitionem iudicialem sententia mortis in Iesum esset lata, voluit evangelista in memoriam revocare
Post v. 13 sin habet v. 24. In v. 15 sin Simon autem Cephas et unus ex discipulis notus erat pontifici, idco ingressus est cum Iesu in atrium, sin non habet v. 16.17.18 nisi post v. 23; in v. 19 de discipulis : qui essent ct de doctrina qualis csset ; et v. 23 sin : dixit ei Iesus : bene locutus sum; cur caedis me? Iesum comprehensum et ligatum
18:14
v. 15 erat autem Caiphas qui consilium dederat Iudaeis : quia expedit, unum hominem mori pro populo ; vide 11,59; « cur iterum prophetiam nobis in memoriam reducit evangelista? ut pro salute hoc factum esse significet » (Cr.). lam quaestio est discutienda, utrum ea quae narrantur in v. 15-23 gesta sint apud Annam, an apud Caipham. Cum in v. 24 demum legatur : et misit eum Annas ligatum ad Caipham , res priino aspectu videtur satis clara, haec scil. apud Annam esse acta; quare veteres communiter, ut Jans. dicit, ea apud Annam facta esse existimarunt, quam sententiam Bar. quoque vulgarem appellat. Altera sententia, haec apud Caipham geri, iam cerniturapud Cyr. qui affert textum post v. 13 : miserunt autem eum ligatum ad Caipham etc.; eodem modo versio syriaca nuper invenía habet post v. 13 statim v. 24 (vide lect. var.); eandem sententiam sequuntur Sa/m. Τοί. [Ians. Sa, Bar. Lap. Mariana, Tirinus, Nat. Corl. Fil. Verum haec apud Annam evenisse docent Chr. Theoph. Euth. Aug. Rup. Alb. Thom. Bon. Cai. Calm. Patr. Schg. Schz. Weiss, Keil, quam sententiam tenendam esse equidem censeo. Nam quae v. 19-23 narrantur, plane non congruunt cum eis quae coram Caipha fiunt; ibi Iesus privatim interrogatur de doctrina et discipulis ; hic instituitur disquisitio iudicialis i. e. reo adducto testes surgunt et testimonia dicunt; ibi Iesus respondet, hic tacet et solum adiuratione per Deum facta edicit quis sit; ibi nulla fertur sententia, hic reus mortis declaratur. Unde, si nunc v. 2^4 legitur : et misit eum Annas etc., ex antecedentibus omnino suadetur, hunc versum rite poni suo loco et ordine, immo ipso suo loco rem clare definiri. Unum tamen videtur obstare, quae est ratio potissima, cur alii alteram sequantur sententiam; vocatur enim in v. 13 Caiphas pontifex, item in v. 95. 96; quare dicunt : solus Caiphas vocatur in hac narratione pontifex, ergo etiam in v. 15. 16. 19. 22 titulus pontificis ad unum Caipham referri debet. At debet attendi modo in v. 3 sermonem fuisse de pontificibus; pontifices legi quoque 7,45; 11,47. 56; 18,35; 19,0. 15. 21; unde alterum quoque praeter Caipham appellari pontificem i. e. Annam, profecto res est maxime obvia. Unde ex solo hoc titulo non potest concludi de Caipha esse sermonem. Insuper iam T/Aom. Bon. Cai. Schz. monent merito ita designari Annam ab evangelista propter Luc. 3,2; declarat evangelista, cur Lucas praeter Caipham Annam quoque pontificem scripserit. Hisce adde, quae modo dictasunt de inquisitione plane diversa et adde v. 24; cum itaque argumentum illud ex titulo depromptum pro Caipha non subsistat, iam nulla est ratio, cur vetus illa et vulgaris opinio relinquatur. Qui eam relinquunt, explicant in v. 24 ἀπέστειλεν per modum temporis plusquamperfecti : m:serat; at id nequit admitti; nam aoristus ea notione solum adhibetur in sententiis secundariis, quae particula temporali vel relativa sententiae primariae subiunguntur ! (cf. Winer 80,5; Krüger 53,6. 1). Neque obstat quod synoptici narrant Christum ad Caipham esse adductum et tres negationes Petri in atrio Caiphae domus contigisse. Matthaeus enim et Marcus ita narrant , ut appareat eos velle id unum statim efferre Iesum ad synedristas et δὰ disquisitionem iudicialem esse adductum : at illi tenentes Iesum duxerunt ad Caipham, ubi scribae et seniores convenerant (Matth. 26,57; sim. Marc. 15,53); Lucas 22,55 : duxerunt ad domum principis sacerdotum ; id quod omnino verum est; nam ex narratione loannis merito colligitur, Annam et Caipham in eadem domo habitasse. Id consequitur ex v. 18 et v. 25 (cf. Patr. Schg. Schz. Fil.; vide ad v. 25). Uti synoptici alia quoque omiserunt, ita inquisitionem illam apud Annam, quae nullius fere momenti erat, facile praeterire poterant. Ioannes itaque refert id quod illi omiscrunt; e contra omittit quod apud illos satis erat declaratum , scil. ea quae apud Caipham acta sunt. De- . prehendimus itaque idem quod alias quoque loannes observare solet neque valet argumentatio quorundam (cf. 14.) : sessionem illam principalem apud Caipham loannes omittere non potuit; ergo haec nobis narratur, seu indicatur in v. 19-23. Quae argumentatio prorsus similis est huic : precationem in Gethsemani omittere non potuit, ergo haec habetur in cap. 17; ita utique Rup. censuit; at nullum invenit laudatorem. Discimus a Ioanne primam Petri negationem contigisse, dum Christus coram Anna adstitit;
18:15
v. 15 sequebatur autem Iesum Simon Petrus et alius discipulus, scil. ipse loannes; « ipse qui haec scripsit; et cur se non nominat? nam cum supra pectus Iesu recubuit, iure nomen occultat; nunc autem cur id ipsum facit? eadem certe de causa; nam hic quoque rem praeclaram narrat, quod nempe omnibus aufugientibus ipse sequeretur » (CAr. sim. Cyr.) ; paucissimi sunt qui de alio cogitent, de aliquo plane incognito, de aliquo incola urbis, de lacobo fratre Domini, de lacobo filio Zebedaei , de Iuda (cf. apud Schz. Weiss). Etiam hic narratio synopticorum multum suppletur et declaratur, quomodo Petrus in atrium domus admissus sit. Petrus enim, uti loannes, amore Iesu impulsus sequitur, « ei adhaeret, ferventius eo properans et nullo periculi metu sequitur » (Cyr.). Isti « duo discipuli plus prae ceteris diligebant Christum; unde primi venerunt ad monumentum (20,3) et quia eos ad invicem maior vis dilectionis uniebat; unde saepe in evangelio iunguntur (Luc. 92,8; cf. 5,10; 8,51; 9,28) et in Act. 3,1; 8,14.» (Thom.); discipulus autem ille erat notus pontifici φνωττῆς, cognitus, notus, familiaris (non dicit cognationem vel propinquitatem); inde explicant, quod nomen quoque servi pontificis, Malchi, noverit. Quia notus erat in domo Annae, statim ingredi ei permissum est : e£ introivit cum Iesu in atrium pon- (ificis; ità enim domus nobiliores solebant instrui, ut ingressos per ianuam seu portam exciperet αὐλή, quae ipsis palatii aedificiis erat cincta. Petrus, utpote ignotus ianitrici, non intromittebatur
18:16
v. 16 Petrus autem stabat ad ostium foris; loannes ingressus advertit Petrum non esse admissum ; exivit ergo discipulus alius qui erat notus pontifici et dixit ostiariae et introduxit. Petrum ; scil. loannes; aliqui explicant : ostiaria introduxit (CAr. Theoph. Schg.). loannes itaque effecit, ut Petro permitteretur ingredi i. e. eum introduxit. Neque enim cogitandum est loannem sePetro quasi socium seu comitem adiunxisse, sed permissione pro Petro obtenta festinavit rediens ad Iesum qui iam in ipsas aedes pontificis ex atrio erat inductus;
18:17
v. 17 dicit ergo Petro ancilla ostiaria, sane curiositate feminea et garrulitate : numquid et (4, sicut ille alter loannes. quem novit, ez discipulis es hominis istius? miserantis vocem, non despicientis agnoscunt Chr. ΤΛοορλ.; quando Petrum sit allocuta, non accurate designatur. Ab Ioanne discimus fuisse ostiariam, ἃ qua Petrus ad primam negationem est inductus, dum alii de ancilla quadam, de una ex ancillis summi sacerdotis loquuntur; dicit lle : non sum, « ecce columna firmissima ad unius aurae impulsum tota contremuit ; ubi est illa promittentis audacia et de se plurimum praefidentis? hoccine est sequi magistrum se negare discipulum » (Aug.)? Ne quid molestiae sibi ab ancilla garrula crearetur, Petrus praeceps sine ulteriore consideratione negat timens ne ἃ servis et apparitoribus qui Iesum vinctum adduxerant et fortasse iam male tractaverant etiam i ipse male adhibeatur. Aliquod cernitur discrimen in utraque narratione loannis et synopticorum. Nam apud hos prius narratur Petrum sedisse cum ministris ad ignem et ita ad eum accessisse ancillam ; loannes eam conditionem commemorat quaestione ancillae et responsione Petri narratis
18:18
v. 18 stabant autem servi et ministri ad prunas, quia frigus erat, et calefaciebant se ; erat autem. cum eis et Petrus stans et calefaciens se; sed contradictio non adest; nam loannes non dicit quando ancilla eum allocuta sit et hanc conditionem ita affert, ut facile concipi possit ea opportunitate ancillam usam esse ad quaestionem ponendam, prout apud synopticos legitur. Utique si quis fingit, ancillam ostiariam, antequam Petrum admitteret vel dum is ianuam ingrederetur, interrogasse, quia periculosum videretur asseclam Iesu admittere , is vix negare potest plane aliter rem exhiberi apud Ioannem. At si nihil fingitur, sed sola narratio simplex consideratur, nulla reperiri potest contradictio. Neque verba alia et alia tale constituunt diserimen. Nam, ut iam Aug. adnotavit, solent evangelistae non iisdem verbis rem eandem explicare, sed servato eodem sensu variis uti verbis (de cons. evang. 2,12. 97; M. 35,1090). Non sine causa narrat loannes se introisse cum Iesu; erat itaque testis eorum quae apud Annam gesta sunt; unde narrare potest quod apud alios desideratur
18:19
v. 19 pontifex ergo interrogavit Iesum de discipulis suis et de doctrina eius; quasi enim novatorem et seditiosum voluit eum arguere ; unde quaerit cur collegerit discipulos; quaerit de doctrina, si forte inveniat occasionein eam ut Moysi adversariam traducendi (Chr. Theoph.). Cum iudicialis inquisitio apud synedristas fieret, Annas sibi odioque suo in Iesum satisfacere voluit malitiose delectatus quod Iesum vinctum coram se videbat. Sed quia personam iudicis assumens quaestionem instituit, recte monet Iesus non ex reo esse quaerendum, sed testes vocandos;
18:20
v. 20 respondit ei Iesus : ego palam locutus sum mundo; ego semper docui in synagoga et in templo, quo omnes Iudaei conveniunt, et in occulto locutus sum nihil; « et quod seorsum discipulis loquebatur, non in occulto utique loquebatur; quis namque in occulto loquitur qui coram tot hominibus loquitur, cum scriptum sit in ore duorum vel trium testium stabit omne verbum (Deut. 19,15); praesertim si hic loquitur paucis quod per eos vult innotescere multis : quod dico vobis in tenebris, dicite in lumine » (Matth. 10,27; Aug.). Unde si causam accusandi obtinere vult, non licet ipsum reum interrogare
18:21
v. 21 quid me tnterrogas? 1nterroga eos qui audierunt quid locutus sim ipsis; ecce hi sciunt quae direrim ego; erat quaestio insuper etiam inepta; nam reus non potest censeri interrogatus de doctrina velle exponere ea praecise capita doctrinae quae offensioni sint materiamque accusationis praebeant. Unde Iesus innuit pontificem et illicite et insuper ad rem inepte quaerere. De discipulis Iesus nihil respondet; « satis enim constabat eos non esse nisi doctrinae auditores; unde de hac doctrina respondisse sufficeret » (Cor/.); pendebat enim totum de doctrina et discipulos ab omni inquisitione liberare volebat; immo eos defendit dicens, non eos solos, sed omnes audisse doctrinam (Tol.). Unus ex ministris adulari volens pontifici et zelum honoris eius prae se ferre, sciens quanto odio ab omnibus habeatur Christus ideoque sibi omnia impune licere iudicans, non erubuit flagitium patrare (Tol.)
18:22
v. 22 haec autem cum dixisset , unus assistens ministrorum dedit alapam Iesu, $ázwya alapam communiter explicant, quamquam etiam verber vel ictus virgae aut baculi flagellive ea voce designatur, dicens : sic respondes pontifici? « quid hoc petulantius fuerit? exhorresce coelum, contremisce terra de Domini patientia et de servorum scelere » (Chr.) et de pontificis iniustitia (To/.) qui in Iesum animadvertere permittit contra ius et fas, ac si esset proscriptus et omnium ludibriis traditus. Mirum est quod Chr. Ewth. putant ἃ Malcho fuisse Christum percussum; sed, ut alia omittantur, Malchus erat servus pontificis δοῦλος, non unus ex apparitoribus (τῶν ὑπηρετῶν). Bene dicit Rup. de hoc satellite : fortis percussor et mollis adulator; Christus autem accepit iniuriam, servavit patientiam, reddidit doctrinam (Rup.)
18:23
v. 93 respondit ei Iesus : si male locutus sum, testimonium perhibe de malo , me accusa οἱ testare et proba; si autem bene , quid me caedis? « suaviter quidem et mansuete dictum, sed iustissime inventum et gravissime est prolatum; etsi male locutus fuissem , inquit, nullam nisi iussus caedendi haberes potestatem , imo nec praeceptum sive potestatem accipere aequum esset, nisi dicta prius causa et a censoribus libera sententia; tuum quippe erat accusare causamque dicere qua probares malam esse locutionem » (Hup.); non iudicium hoc erat, sed tumultus et violentia (Chr.). Annas non potuit non sentire, quam iusta essel utraque Christi responsio; et si adhuc homo frontis inverecundae potuit erubescere, debuit confundi coram suis, quia eius interrogandi modus tam praeclare repudiatus erat; unum ei relinquebatur, ut quam citissime se ex angustiis expediret; unde
18:24
v. 2& et misit eum Annas ligatum ad Caipham pontificem; quam apte hoc post antecedentia sequatur neminem fugere poterit. Apud Caipham interea, dum Iesus erat coram Anna , convenerunt svnedristae; ibi nunc fit iudicialis inquisitio; non ipse Iesus primum interrogatur, sed exquiruntur indicia testium , testimonia (Matth. 26,59; Marc. 15,55). En, alius plane procedendi modus. loannes etiam nunc, dum Iesus est apud Caipham, Petrum exhibet iisdem verbis eodemque in loco stantem, uti in v. 18, cum tamen alias mutationem loci accurate efferre soleat (cf.
18:25
v. 1. 13. 24. 98. 99. 33. 38); v. 25 erat autem Simon Petrus stans et calefaciens se; repetit verba ex v. 18, ut indicetur Petrum in eodem loco consistere et alteram ac tertiam negationem contigisse, dum Christus coram Caipha accusaretur. Ex qua repetitione simul consequitur esse atrium idem et Annae et Caiphae, proinde etiam idem esse palatium, in quo uterque habitabat; unde patet synopticos etiam ea in re accurate narrare, dum scribunt Iesum adductum esse ad domum principis sacerdotum (Luc. 22,51), ad summum sacerdotem (Marc. 15,53), ad Caipham (Matth. 26,57). Alteram ettertiam negationem breviter narrat Ioannes; pluribus referunt synoptici; dixerunt ergo ei : numquid et tu ex discipulis eius es? illud xai σύ et tu explicatur eo quod alia quaedam dixerat circumstantibus : et hic erat cum Iesu Nazareno (Matth. 26, 71. Marc. 15,69); unde hi nunc ex eo quaerunt : numquid et tu (uti Luc. 92,58 : et tu de illis es) ; negavit ille et dixit : non sum; negavit cum iuramento (Matth. 26,72). Inter alteram et tertiam negationem intercessit aliquod temporis intervallum , prout Lucas 22,59 et Marcus 15,70 et Matthaeus 26,73 nos docent; pariter intervallum erat inter primam et alteram; nam post primam exiit Petrus foras ante atrium (Marc. 15,68; ἐξελθόντα εἰς τὸν πυλῶνα Matth. 26,71), mox tamen rediit in atrium. Ad tertiam negationem foannes iterum aliorum narrationem supplet ostendens praeter loquelam qua se Galilaeum pandebat Petrus, etiam aliud gravissimum testimoniuin ei esse obiectum :
18:26
v. 96 dicit ei unus ec servis pontificis , cognatus eius , cuius abscidit Petrus auriculam : nonne ego te vidi in horto cum illo?
18:27
v. 31 iterum ergo negavit Petrus et statim gallus cantavit ; fuerunt qui putarent Ioannem infesto Quae apud Caipham acta sunt, omittuntur utpote ab aliis sufficienter narrata (cf. Matth. 26,57-68; Marc. 14,55-65; Luc. 22,66-71); statim transit ad ea quae mane gesta sunt
18:28
v. 28 adducunt ergo Iesum a Caipha in praetorium; etiam hic narratio synoplicorum supponitur (Matth. 97,2 etc.) ; praetorium dicebatur etiam palatium in quo praeses aut procurator habitabat. Pontius Pilatus procurator sedem suam habebat Caesareae; at cum diebus festis in tanta hominum multitudine periculum esset tumultus, in urbem lerusalem praesides se conferre saepius solebant (cf. Bell. iud. 2,14,3). Praetorium, in quo Pilatus in urbe residebat alii dicunt fuisse palatium magnificum quod Herodes Magnus exstruxerat — ita Florus quoque ἐν τοῖς βασιλείοις diversabatur (Bell. iud. 2,15,8) — alii arcem Antoniam (cf. ScAg. Fil.); erat autem mane; sed ne tempus primum matutinum intelligas, narrat Lucas : ut factus est dies, convenerunt synedristae et inquisitione denuo facta sententiam nocte antecedente latam confirmarunt et tum demum [6sum ad praesidem adduxerunt (22,66 seq.); e£ ipst non introicrunt in praetorium, ut non contaminarentur, domus gentilium reputatas esse 1mmundas, patet etiam Act. 10,98, ubi Petrus ait : vos scilis quomodo abominatum sit vito Iudaeo coniungi aut accedere ad alieni- * genam, et Act. 11,3; etiam in tractatu mischnico de tentoriis dicitur : habitationes gentium sunt immundae (Ὡ ΝΘ, 18,7; SurenAusius VI, p. 210. 211) ; quaeimmunditia durabat per diem ; sed ut manducarent pascha i. e. agnum paschalem comederent; nam ut rite coenae paschali accumberent requirebatur, ut tempore mactationis agni paschalis essent mundi (vide quae dixi in Comment. Matth. 1I p. 509;. Sunt qui manducare pascha explicent de sacrificalibus epulis diebus azymorum celebrandis (cf. Patr. Corl. Schg. Fil.). At haec explicatio prorsus est falsa, et falso contendunt voce noz pascha etiain alia sacrificia designari et falso provocant ad Deut. 16,2 et 2 Par. 35,7, uti pluribus demonstravi in Comment. Matth. II p. 507 seq. Merito carpunt synedristas, principes sacerdotum , scribas, seniores populi, qui Iesum adduxerunt (Matth. 27,1; Marc. 15,1; Luc. 22,66; 23,1); nam revera sese praebent excolantes culicem , camelum autem glutientes (Matth. 23,24); « o impia caecitas, alienigenae iudicis praetorio contaminari timent et fratris innocentis sanguine non timebant » (Aug.); « qui decimabant mentham et anethum, iniuste occidentes se contaminari non putabant, contra vero in praetorium intrantes » (Chr. Cyr.). Iudaeis permissum erat secundum patrias leges vivere et Romani rationem habere solebant legum ac consuetudinum eorum prudenti quadam accommodatione (cf. losephus, Antiq. 16,2,3. 4; Bell. iud. 6,6,2). Cum itaque synedristae sibi religioni ducerent in praetorium intrare, praeses ad eorum se arbitrium conformavit eo magis quia generatim causae forenses publice agi solebant
18:29
v. 99 ezivi/ ergo Pilatus — mentionem praetorii, Pilati ita facit, ut praesidem aliunde notum esse supponat — ad eos foras et dizit : quam accusationem affertis adversus hominem hunc? videtur Pilatus a synedristis ortum) exciperet; certe iam edoctus erat agi de aliquo insigni malefactore, uti patet tum ex eo quod milites romani ad eum capiendum requirebantur, tum ex eo quod eum Pilato sistunt sine certa quadam accusatione, tum ex eorum quoque responsione v. 30 (cf. Corl. ScAg. Fil.). Pilatus autem sine certa cognitione causae voluntati eorum non vult obsequi. Quare quaerit, quia illi nullam accusationem de certo crimine proferunt; volebant igitur Pilatum quasi occupare, ut statim sententiam ad suam ipsorum ferret arbitrium ulteriore inquisitione omissa. De hoc eorum consilio astuto solus loannes nos docet. Atque id assumpto supercilio assequi conantur
18:30
v. 30 responderuntetdixerunt ei : si non esset hic malefactor, non tibi tradidissemus ewn; vafre subterfugere student, ne certam afferant causam ; nihil enim habent quo iudex romanus ad supplicium decernenduin inducatur ; proin suam propriam auctoritatem ut sufficientem ad damnandum Iesum ingerunt : nos pontifices, seniores , pharisaei, universum concilium (Cai.) : expetierunt enim exsecutorem magis saevitiae, quam arbitrum causae (Leo, M. 55,338). Verum uti alias (cf. Act. 17,6; 18,15; 95,*; 26,31), ita hic quoque iudex romanus ius servat; nam nocens nisi accusatus fuerit condemnari non potest (Cicero pro Roscio Am. 20,56)
18:31
v. 31 dizit ergo eis Pilatus * accipite eum vos et secundum legem vestram iudicate eum; « infert Pilatus responsionem congruam supercilio productae auctoritatis ludaeorum : ex quo recusatis accusationem proponere coram me, nolo ego accipere eum damnandum » (Cai.); absurdum enim esse censet quod illi supplicium a se causa minime dicta sumendum postulent (CÀr.); « si me vultis virum iudicare, etiam causam proferatis necesse est » (Theod. M.). Quare cum ironia irridens dicit : quia igitur causam dicere non vultis, ego iudex esse nolo; sitis ipsi iudices secundum legem vestram! scit Pilatus eos iam iudicasse, et velle sententiam mortis proferri. Unde in responsione, ut Iesum :udicent ipsi , magnum est ludibrium Iudaeorum (cf. ScAz. Fi/.). Perperam explicant aliqui Pilatum iure suo cessisse et permisisse ludaeis ut ipsi causam terminarent; at Iudaeos noluisse uti data facultate volentes invidiam mortis Iesu a se avertere et in Romanos reiicere (Corl. ScAg.). At Pilatus solum dicit : ?ud?cate eum, id quod ipsi iam fecerunt, et ut iudicent, quantum iis licet, ut tales e1 irrogent poenas quales infligere permissum sit illis. Ergo cum ludificatione eos monet minime assequi posse quod eos desiderare scit, nisi responderint ad quaestionem a se positam. Et hoc quidem Iudaei etiam bene intellexerunt. Nam statim edicunt non qualemcumque poenam, sed sententiam mortis se expetere et incipiunt varias accusationes contra Iesum proferre, ut Luc. 23,2 refertur et etiam ex v. 33 patet. Prius illud evangelista explicite commemorat : dixerunt ergo ei ludaei : nobis non licet interficere quemquam; proin tuum illud : iudicate eum, nihil prodest nobis, est ludificatio et irrisio : iam iudicavimus , reum mortis iudicavimus! Ius gladii iis erat ademptum ; id ipsi cum emphasi fatentur; noóts primo loco οὐδένα, quicumque demum est , ultimo loco cum ictu collocatur. Falso censent aliqui ob diem festum iis non licere (Theod. M. Cyr. Aug. Chr. Tol.) ; ipsis testimoniis talmudicis eruitur Iudaeis anno quadragesimo ante destructionem templi ius gladii esse ademptum (vide ad Matth. 27,1, Comment. Il p. 485 et cf. Lightfoot, Hor. hebr. ad ἢ. l. Schg., Wünsche p. 558); idque verbis ipsis clare enuntiatur, neque enim id solum dicunt (quod CAr. Euth. Salm. volunt) sibi non licere aliquem crucifigere. Illis solum permissum erat, si quis in templo alienigena, etiam Romanus, ultra columnas, graecis litteris ac latinis inscriptas progrederetur, eum occidere (Bell. iud. 6,2,4); quae referuntur de caede Stephani (Act. 7,58), lacobi fratris Domini (losephus, Antiq. 20,9,1; Hegesippus apud Euseb. h. e. 2,23; M. 20, 200. 204), ea tumultuarie gesta sunt in furore et rabie populari et quae Ananus pontifex absente praeside romano ausus est facere, male ei cessit; accusatus et pontificatu privatus est (losephus l. c.). Haec autem eo modo evenerunt,
18:32
v. 32 ut sermo Iesu impleretur quem dizit significans qua morte esset moriturus; praedixit enim fore, ut ἃ principibus saéerdotum et scribis traderetur gentibus ad crucifigendum; cf. Matth. 90,19; Marc. 10,33; Luc. 18,32; loan. 3,15; 8.32; 19,32;
18:33
v. 33 tn/rotvit ergo tterum in praetorium Pilatus et vocavit. Iesum. et dizit ei : tu es rez Iudaeorum? tu, σύ, declarat admirationem , quod homo adeo ut videtur vilis, ab ipsis suis popularibus traditus et proscriptus, talem sibi adscribat dignitatem. Pilatus iam eum potius tamquam hominem somniantem , fanaticum , insanum considerare velle videtur. Iesus autem, ut mentem Pilati ad iniquitatem accusationis attentam faciat,
18:34
v. 3& respondit Iesus : a temetipso hoc dicis, an alit dizerunt tibi de me? vult enim, ut Pilatus sibi conscius fiat nunquam de se a magistratu romano suspicionem rebellionis esse habitam (Corl.) ac proinde accusationem synedristarum falsam ex invidia et odio ducere originem. Item aliter erat ad quaestionem respondendum, si Pilatus eum putat regiam dignitatem sibi adscripsisse, aliter, si id solum ex accusatione accepisset. Iesus utique haec novit; at quaerit, ut Pilatus habeat opportunitatem de vera rei conditione sibi reddendi rationem. Animo irritato
18:35
v. 35 respondit Pilatus : numquid ego Iudaeus sum? qui scil. quidquam sciam de rege Iudaeorum, de Christo (Luc. 23,2), qui populari opinione venturus exspectatur; haec accusatio contra te facta est ἃ primoribus tuae genüs : gens tua et pontifices tradiderunt te mihi, quid fecisti? unde haec accusatio orta est? quid fecisti, ut illi habeant rationem te accusandi? Iesus solvit suspicionem regii tituli affectati (cf. CAr. Theoph.) ita respondens, ut Pilatus statim intelligat a tali rege prorsus nihil esse timendum, eum imperii Caesaris hostem minime esse (Cyr.) v. 36regnum meum non est de hoc mundo; affirmat ergo se regem esse; at simul asserit regnum suum non esse mundanum ; unde iam indicat Pilato illos esse mentitos regnum suum esse contradiclionem regni Caesaris (iup.); regnum meum non est tale, quale est regnum regis terreni; idque probat (Aug.) argumento ad persuadendum plane apto: s? ez hoc mundo esset regnum meum, ministri mei, apparitores, satellites, utique decertarent, ut non traderer Iudaeis ; haberem more ceterorum regum armatum satellitium, haberem stipatores; hi sane decertassent armis pro me, meque contra Iudaeos defendissent (lans.); sed nihil eiusmodi cernis, nihil eiusmodi factum est; nunc autem, cum nemo pro me decertet, sicut patet , regnum meum non est hinc, ex hoc mundo, proin regnum est originem habens e coelo, regnum spirituale; « audite ergo, ludaei et gentes, audi circumcisio, audi praeputium, audite omnia regna terrena : non impedio dominationem vestram in hoc mundo; nolite metuere metu vanissimo quo Herodes ille maior expavit » (Aug.). Regnum, βασιλείαν, itaque Iesus sibi attribuit; unde merito
18:37
v. 37 dixit itaque ei Pilatus : ergo rez es tu? respondit Iesus : tu dicis quia rez sum ego, utique, omnino, quoniam rex sum ego; sed qualis rex? ego in hoc natus sum et ad hoc veni in mundum , ut testimonium perhibeam veritati, nativitas intelligitur non illa aeterna (Chr.), sed temporalis, nativitas illa qua incarnatus venit in mundum (Aug. Thom. Tol. Cai. Corl.); alii venire tn mundum accipiunt de aditu quasi in scenam publicam, de publico ministerio (ScAz. F:l.); omnis qui est ex veritate, qui est quasi filius, amicus veritatis, eam quaerit, desiderat, sectatur; cf. 8,&7 et 3,21 qui facit veritatem, venit ad lucem, audit vocem meam, audit et credit meam doctrinam. Nunc Pilato persuasum est coram se adstare hominem innoxium, fanaticum , somniantem, qui subtilitates quasdam contemplationemque philosophicam sectetur seque eo in studio virum esse eximium aliorumque regem et dominatorem 1actet: quare contemptim ac frivole
18:38
v. 38 dicit ei Pilatus : quid est veritas? homo auditur scepticus, qui de inani philosophorum inquisitione ridet et sciri nunquam posse in quo consistat veritas apud se constitutum habet!. Nimis benigne de Pilato sentiunt Chr. Theoph. Euth. illum studio discendi dixisse, sed interim rei urgenti institisse, quia vidisset talem interrogationem egere tempore ; verum irridentis et impatientis hominis vox est haec, qui aegre fert talem regem suo sisti tribunali; et cum hoc dixisset, iterum exivit ad Iudaeos et dicit eis : ego nullam invenio in eo causam; optime v. 33-38 supplevit loannes narrationem synopticorum explicans illud quod v. g. legitur Luc. 23,3. * et quod nonnemini mirum videri possit, Iesum fateri se esse regem ludaeorum et statim Pilatum dicere ad principes sacerdotum : nihil invenio causae in hoc homine. Sed, uti modo supplevit narrationem, ita multa alia nunc omittit el ea nota esse supponit; sequuntur enim ordine rerum gestarum ea quae Luc. 23,5-16 narrantur, Matth. 27,12-15; Marc. 15,3-6 ; alias in Iesum congerunt accusationes; Pilatus audiens Iesum esse Galilaeum eum mittit ad Herodem, sperans ita se causa hac molesta iri liberatum, sed Herodes Iesum ad eum remittit. Bene novit Pilatus Iesum esse innoxium neque quidquam eorum commisisse de quibus accusatur; verum cum primores ludaeorum tanto iinpetu eum damnari cupiant, non audet eum absolvere et dimittere; timet iram et vindictam eorum; multa enim iam commiserat, quorum ne delationem facerent apud Imperatorem merito timebat (vide Comment. in Matth. II p. 486. 497). Expertus igitur quod nec iudicio suo nec remissione ad Herodem satisfacere poterat primatibus Iudacorum, tentat tertiam viam, si forte etiam invitis primatibus, quos sciebat invidia moveri, liberaretur Iesus favore populi et propterea commemorat consuetudinem (Ὁ αἱ.)
18:39
crucifixionem saepius praedixit, qua iam indicabatur fore, ut a Romanis morti addiceretur, quia hoc supplicium Iudaeis erat inusitatum ; ex lege mosaica blasphemus lapidabatur (Lev. 25,14). Coacti itaque erant synedristae eas proferre accusationes quibus Pilatus ad sententiam mortis ferendam induceretur. Eas nobis refert Lucas 23,29, Iesum subvertisse gentem, prohibuisse tributa dare Caesari, se regem esse dixisse. Duo priora negligit Pilatus, qui sane per- - spexit ea falso proferri; nam quae erat magistratuum romanorum in populo adeo iugi romani impatiente vigilantia, si rebellionem revera movisset aut solutionem tributorum prohibuisset, minime eousque id latuisset; insupersatis novit quomodo principes ludaeorum potestatem romanam ferrent, ut potius miraretur quod eum, si revera ea fecisset, ad iudicem romanum deferrent. [nde iam sufficienter intellexit euin per invidiam traditum esse (Matth. 27,18; Marc. 15,10) minime vero studio protegendi potestatem romanam. Quare satis esse iudicavit de tertia accusatione inquirere, quae magis est generalis et suspicioni exposita; v. 39 est autem consuetudo vobis, ut unum dimittam vobis in pascha; vultis ergo dimittam vobis regem Iudaeorum? i. e. eum qui hoc nomine accusatus ad supplicium postulatur. Valde Pilati interest, ut Iesum invitis primoribus dimittere possit ita ut ipse eorum offensionem non incurrat; ideo ad turbam quam Iesu potius favere existimat se convertit. Quare plane improbabile est eum dixisse regem Iudaeorum ad ludibrium populo inferendum , id quod tamen a Pilato factum esse aliqui opinantur (cf. Rup. ScAz. Fil.); eo nomine voluisse ostendere temere ipsum hoc crimine accusari Cyr. arbitratur; aliis placet non latuisse Pilatum pluries voluisse populum regem Iesum proclamare et ideo usum esse eo nomine (cf. Corl.). Brevissime hunc quoque eventum summatimque refert quasi volens narrationem accuratiorem aliunde notam in memoriam revocare
18:40
v. 40 clamaverunt ergo rursum , istud rursum explicatur non ex ipsa hac evangelistae narratione, verum ex Marc. 15,8 et Luc. 23,5-5, omnes dicentes : non hunc, sed Barabbam; erat autem. Barabbas latro ; cf. Matth. 27,17 seq. Marc. 15,7: Act. 3,1* vos autem sanctum et iustum negastis et petistis virum homicidam donari vobis; « o exsecrandam mentem; moribus sibi similes et noxios dimittunt; innoxium vero plecti iubent; hic enim iam olim mos illorum erat » (CAr.). Pilatus cupit Iesum dimittere; quod propter primores non audet, id per populum consequi vult; verum hoc populi clamore quam maxime ostenditur malitia Iudaeorum (TAom.) et hanc summam perversitatem Bene notat Euth. : « ista loannes breviter narrat tamquam ab aliis iam scripta, studens et hic recitare quae praeterita erant; et cur omnino meminit quae ab aliis memorata sunt? quia aliter nequaquam apte scribere poterat quae scripta non erant ». Turbae postularunt Barabbam , Iesum vero cruci suffigendum esse clamarunt (Matth. 97, 23; Marc. 15,13; Luc. 23,21); quibus ita cessit Pilatus, ut diceret se nullam quidem causam mortis in eo invenire, attamen : : corripiam illum et dimittam (Luc. 93,22). Ipse quidem Lucas nullam subiicit correptionem a Pilato adhibitam quae ad dimissionem Iesu pertineret, sed hoc supplet loannes narrans qualis fuerit haec correptio et quoflagellationis et illusionis etiam Matthaeus et Marcus, sed non sic ut ex eorum narratione videri possit Pilatum adhibuisse flagellationem tamquam medium per quod sperabat satiandos esse et placandos 1υdaeorum animos atque sic Jesum posse dimitti, verum ut videri possit eam esse decretam tamquam praeambulum ad sententiam crucifixionis exsequendam (/ans.). Narratio igitur aliorum suppletur;
18:1
του Κεδρων (5) plutôt que vou Κεδρου (T) ou τῶν Κεδρων (HV).
Comme on ne peut supposer que la prière de Jésus ait été prononcée dans les rues de la ville, ἐξῆλθεν ne peut s'entendre que de la maison où a été pris le repas. Il ἃ donc sous-entendu «et il se rendit », précisément comme Me. xiv, 26; Mt. xxvi, 30 dans celte circonstance; Le. seul a développé ἐξελθὼν ἐπορεύθη. Si Jo. ne nomme pas Gethsémani, ce n’est pas pour l’ « effacer » (Loïsy), car Lc. ne le nomme pas non plus, et le passage du Cédron y conduisait tout naturellement; on notera l'indication plus précise d’un jardin. Jo. ἃ sans doute préféré une désignation scripturaire, peut-être parce que David avait franchi cette vallée après la trahison d’Achitopel, parmi les larmes du peuple (II Regn. xv, 23). Sûrement, dès cette époque, il n’y avait d'eau dans ce torrent qu’au moment de la pluie, οἱ c'est bien le sens de χείμαρρος, en arabe ouadi. Il n'y a aucun doute non plus sur le nom de Qidron, le torrent noir. Mais on ne sait s’il faut lire τῶν Kédpwv (BCL6 etc.) ou τοῦ Képou (NDW abdr) ou τοῦ Ἱζεδρών (ASA cefgq Vg., syrsin d'après Tatien). Cette dernière leçon est la seule correcte comme traduction de l’hébreu, et le nom s'était ronservé au temps de Josèphe (Bell. V, n, 3) : le mont des Oliviers est séparé de la ville par une vallée profonde, ἢ Ἱζεδρὼν ὠνόμασται, Il lui est arrivé de décliner ce mot à la grecque, Ἱζεδρῶνος (Bell. V, vu, 3), Ἱζεδρῶνα (Ant. VIIL, τ, 5), mais il ne l’a jamais confondu avec le grec χέδρος « cèdre » au génitif pluriel. Il était naturel que cette erreur se produisit. Dans notre cas, le τοῦ est attesté par deux branches de la tradition, ente, on doit en dire autant de τῶν dans et comme Ἱζέδρου est une correction évid saurait prétendre que Jo. s’est appuyé τῶν Ἱζέδρων (Zahn, Bauer, Blass). On ne sur Ja fausse traduction des LXX τῶν Kéowv (II Regn. xv, 13; I Regn. xv, 23), a véritable traduction ancienne est attestée par B (II Regn. πὶ, 37; IV Regn. ence avec l’autre dans ΠῚ Regn. xv, 43) el non seulement xx, 6. 12; en COnCurr nter une correction hexaplaire. L'erreur de copiste des par A qui peut représe comment une pareille erreur à pu 86 produire dans Jo. LXX prouve seulement olonté de Jésus de s'offrir à la 2) Bauer voit ici l'intention de montrer la v mort. Jo. aurait ainsi répondu d'avance aux reproches du Juif d'Origène (contra Cels. 1, 9) : « Comment serions-nous obligés de regarder comme un dieu... celui qui a été pris de la manière la plus honteuse, au moment où il se cachait et fuyait. » Jésus serait donc venu dans ce lieu, sachant bien que Judas ne manquerait pas de l'y venir chercher. Mais Jo. dit simplement que Judas y est venu parce qu'il pensait y trouver son maître, dont la résolution se manifeste seulement en ceci qu'il n'a pas daigné changer ses habitudes, connues de Judas. Il faut probablement en conclure que Jésus passait là les nuits depuis quelques jours. Le soir de son arrivée, il était revenu à Béthanie (Mt. xx, 17; cf. Me. ΧΙ, 43), mais il n'est pas dit qu'il y fût retourné; Mc. dit seulement que [6 lendemain soir il sortit de la ville (χι, 49) et Le. parle d'une installation de fortune au mont des Oliviers (Le. xxt, 37), où il revenait selon sa coutume (Le. xx, 39): le soir de l'arrestation, il parle seulement du mont des Oliviers el de « l'endroit probablement celui où l'on se rassemblait (Zahn). Ge n'est pas une raison pour parier d'une maison qui aurait été la villa du jardin (Zahn) ; à Jérusalem on pouvait dès le printemps 56 contenter d'arranger quelques abris; c'était déjà bien beau d’avoir un chez soi lors de la Pâque.
18:3
Jo. se distingue des synoptiques en ajoutant une cohorte, c'est-à-dire de soldats appartenant à l'armée romaine, avec un tribun (χιλίαρχος v. 12). C'est là, a-t-on dit (Loisy, Bauer, ete.), une addition tout à fait invraisemblable, qu'elle émane d'une source différente ou d'un rédacteur symbolisant qui aura présenté de. En effet, dit-on, Si l'autorité romaine avait pris Judas en prince de ce mon l'initiative de l'arrestation, on aurait conduit immédiatement Jésus dans la tour Antonia (ou toute autre prison romaine) en attendant 58 comparution devant Pilate. Toute la physionomie de l'arrestation en serait changée, et personne ne donnera la préférence à Jo. sur l'accord des trois synoptiques. — L'objection serait décisive si vraiment l'autorité romaine avait pris l'initiative de l’arrestation ou si seulement elle s'en était chargée. Mais ce sont bien les valets du grand prêtre qui ont voulu prendre Jésus (ανπι, 40), et il est juste d'appliquer au récit de Jo. une exégèse tirée de faits analogues. La présence d'une troupe 5. om. o Inoovs ὦ. ἐγω (TH) plutôt que add. (SV). régulière dans une opération de police suppose qu'on craint une résistance sérieuse, et elle est destinée à assurer l’ordre, à prêter main forte, non à se substituer à la police : exemple : les inventaires des églises en France, les expulsions des religieux, les grèves, etc. À plus forte raison dans un pays où la force armée représente un pouvoir étranger au pays, qui laisse une certaine initiative aux autorités locales. On comprend très bien que les autorités du Temple aient expliqué au tribun ce qu'elles allaient tenter, les risques d'une résistance, etc. Le tribun, soit qu'il ait pris les ordres de Pilate, soit qu'il ait pris la chose sur lui (Act. xxr, 314), se rend sur les lieux, et, quand l'opération est finie il rentre chez lui avec sa troupe. Une troupe régulière étant mise en jeu, elle sortait avec son attirail ordinaire, flambeaux, lanternes (Denys Hal. XI, 40, 2) et armes. Ceux qui objectent la pleine lune ne savent pas sans doute ce qu'est une consigne militaire; et des soldats romains auraient-ils laissé leurs armes sous prétexte que la police plus ou moins improvisée avait des bâtons et des couteaux? Tout 16 récit est parfaitement cohérent et la présence des soldats vraisemblable. La seule difficulté est le silence des synaptiques : il s'explique cependant assez bien si, en réalité, les soldats n’ont pas pris part directement à l'arrestation. Il est vrai que Jo. leur y donne πὰ rôle (12), mais ils sont simplement en tête de la phrase à la place d'honneur, comme au v. 8, οἵ ils ne paraissent plus. Il est plus critique de reconnaître ici une manière de raconter peu précise que de peser sur les fermes. et de les forcer pour conclure à une invraisemblance. Il est bien évident par exemple que ce n'est pas Judas maïs le tribun qui avait le commandement de la cohorte; Judas marche en tête comme fait un guide en pareïl cas : Le style est. plutôt pittoresque que protocolaire. De même pour la σπεῖρα. Officiellement c'était un manipule, c’est-à-dire un tiers de cohorte (Polybe, χι, 23, 4), donc 200 hommes et non pas 609 (Loisy). Mais Jo. ne prétend pas employer un mot technique, puisque ce n’est pas même le cas de Josèphe qui met un τάγμα dans VAntonia (Bell. V, v, 8); il est même probable qu'il n'entend pas toute la troupe qui gardail le Temple. Un écrivain plus soucieux des choses de l'administration eût écrit : ἀνέδη φάσις τῷ χιλιάρχῳ τῆς σπείρης... ὃς ἐξαυτῆς παραλαδῶν στρατιώτας 2.7. À. (Act. χχὶ, 31 8.). — Aussi bien Jo. n’omet pas les ὑπηρέτας, ou serviteursfonctionnaires envoyés par les grands prêtres, c'est-à-dire la police du Temple que les synoptiques on caractérisée plus vaguement comme ἀπο foule. Les Pharisiens sont nommés aussi (cf. vu, 32. 48) comme ennemis de Jésus, οἱ comme représentant les scribes (Mc. xiv, 43) dans le Sanhédrin : les πρεσθύτεροι ne sont jamais nommés dans Jo. t ce qui doit arriver, mais il est résolu à 4) Jésus prend ici l'initiative : il sai Hi sortit donc du jardin, et prit la parole. faire la volonté de son Père (χιν, 30 8.) e l’action, Jésus ne se monire pas D'ailleurs, dans les synoptiques, au moment d moins ferme : ἄγωμεν (Mc. Mt.).
18:5
Ceux qui répondent sont naturellement les quelques officiers de police qui ont la responsabilité de l'exécution. Même s'ils connaissaient Jésus et le reconnaissaient ils pouvaient répondre en Jançant son nom. La réponse significrait c'est bien moi! Mais peut-être, soupconnant qu'il se cachait, ne l'ont-ils pas reconnu dans celui qui venait si hardiment à leur rencontre. Sur la forme Ναζωραῖος, cf. Comm. ME. p. 37 ss. C'est la seule forme dans Jo. xvur 7; XX, 19, — La présence de Judas avait été certes assez indiquée au v. 3. Et s’il paraît ici comme pour la première fois avec son épithète de traître au présent, c'est comme pour rappeler sans le dire qu'il a livré son Maïtre par un baiser. ἢ a fait son geste odieux avant que Jésus ait dit ἐγώ εἰμι,
18:6
Jo. a voulu relater un miracle, cela est reconnu de tous. Mais il n’y ἃ pas lieu de l’exagérer. Ceux qui ont pris la parole ne pouvaient être très nombreux, et ce sont les mêmes, ceux qui ont entendu la réponse, qui sont tombés par terre. Ce n’est pas une raison pour voir dans ἐγώ εἶμι un autre Sens que : « C'est moi ». Mais en disant ces mots Jésus ἃ mis dans son accent el dans son regard quelque chose de la puissance divine qui résidait en lui. C’est un indice e seul, que tout ce qu'il souffrira il le supportera volontairement, sans assuré, 1 ince de ce monde (xiv, 30 s.). Pour cette conscience de son être vaincu par le pr 53. — On a cité Marius (Velleius Paterc. ΤΊ, 19,3) et Marc pouvoir, οἵ, Mt. xxvr, Antoine (Vaiére Max. VII, 9,2), dont l'aspect effraya les meurtriers envoyés contre eux; l'indication ἃ son importance pour vi, 43 ss. où l'on doit reconnaître une influence morale ; ici le prestige n'est pas raisonné et plus saisissant, — χαμαί (1x, 6). très grande importance à cette chute, Ἢ) Jo. ne semble pas attacher une renversés, s'étaient aussitôt relevés comme si les premiers rangs, un instant tion et les mêmes, sans doute tout sans le moindre mal. Jésus réitère sa ques ébahis, lui font la même réponse.
18:7
ἐπηρώτησεν αὐτοὺς (H) ou a. e. (TSV).
18:8
Jésus manifeste sa bonté et sa sollicitude pour les siens; cependant il les nomme « ceux-ci » avec une sorte d’indifférence affectée : les nommer ses disciples eût été les compromettre. Les tirer d'affaire, c'est tout ce que Jésus ἃ à cœur, comme le prouve le v. suivant. C’est prêter trop d'esprit à Jo. que de lui attribuer l'intention de justifier les apôtres (Bauer), car leur conduite n’en fut que plus fâcheuse après ce trait de générosité, et le reproche du Maitre (xvi, 32) conservait sa valeur. En revanche il n’est pas assez naïf pour s’imaginer cet épisode d’après ce qui se passa plus tard, « en rapport avec certaines circonstances des persécutions contre les chrétiens » (Loisy, p. 456).
18:9
Certains critiques soulignent que cette citation de νι, 42 ne prend pas les paroles de Jésus dans leur vrai sens : il parlait de perte morale, ici il préserve d’un danger temporel. Pour maintenir le même sens, Schanz fait remarquer que ce danger pouvait être une occasion de chute morale, comme il arriva pour Pierre. Le plus simple est de dire que Jo. applique une parole de Jésus à un cas qui n’est qu'analogue. N’aurait-il pas mieux harmonisé s’il avait inventé la première parole? Cette parole s'impose à lui : il en retrouve un reflet, même dans un cas qui paraissait différent. Cela paraît être le sens de Chrys : ἀπώλειαν δὲ ἐνταῦθα (à l'endroit cité) οὐ ταύτην φησὶ τὴν τοῦ θανάτου, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκείνην τὴν αἰώνιον. Ὃ δὲ εὐαγγελιστὴς καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ παρόντος (même à la circonstance présente) αὐτὸ mapéhañe (il ἃ repris et appliqué le même principe); per quamdam extensionem refert ad perditionem corporis (Thom.). Ce procédé jette un certain jour sur linterprétation du mot de Caïphe (σι, 51).
18:10
Jo. se rapproche ici des synoptiques. L'auteur du coup d'éclat n'avait pas été nommé par eux, peut-être par prudence, car l'administration romaine goûtait peu ce recours à l'épée. Jo. écrivant plus tard nomme Simon Pierre. D'après les synoptiques il parait tout naturel que chacun ait une épée : mais Jo. le dit expressément de Pierre. De plus il nomme le serviteur du grand prêtre, Malchus, nom plutôt nabatéen que juif, à en juger par les inscriptions et par Josèphe. Le serviteur du grand prêtre (de même syn.) était l'officier de la police du Temple spécialement chargé de l'arrestation, c'est celui qui se met en avant. L'oreille est celle de droite, déjà indiquée par Le.; mais Jo. ne dit pas comme Le. qu'elle ait été guérie. On a l'impression qu’il a voulu donner des précisions nouvelles, sans reprendre tous les détails.
18:11
Le commencement comme dans Mt, mais noter θήκη (Ant. ὙΠ, ΧΙ, 7), moins sémitisant que τόπος, mais qui n'est pas cependant l'expression grecque technique pour le fourreau (κολεός), — On a opposé la résolution de Jésus de boire le calice à la prière d'écarter le calice dans les synoptiques, comme si tre. — Mais il faut distinguer Jo. avait voulu remplacer un souvenir par un au la prière et le résultat de la prière. Après avoir prié, le Jésus des synoptiques était décidé à boire le calice : c'est celte disposition que rappelle Jo. Sans doute elle contribue mieux à son dessein, mais elle devait naturellement rappeler plutôt que faire oublier la prière. On se demande vainement pourquoi le coup d'épée de Pierre est « un parfait contresens » en regard du tableau qui précède (Loisy, p. 456). Il est vrai que Jésus a voulu dégager ses disciples. Mais Pierre n'entre pas dans ses vues, pas plus qu’au lavement des pieds. Il a promis (x, 37) de mourir pour son maitre. Π a du moins fait un geste fort compromettant. — Les paroles de Jésus ne forment qu'un tout. Il ne veut pas être défendu par la violence puisqu'il est résigné à boire le calice. D'ailleurs Jo. ne dit rien qui soit un blâme pour Pierre.
18:12
Jo. raconte avec simplicité, sans prendre aucune précaution contre ceux qui voudraient lui chercher chicane. C’est ainsi qu'il a mis Judas à la tête des soldats (3), quoiqu'il n'ignorât pas qu'ils avaient alors leur chef naturel. Le χιλίαρχος (qui commande à mille hommes) est un véritable officier, sinon un officier supérieur ; ici c’est le commandant de la σπεῖρα, ce qui ne veut pas dire qu'il ait amené tout son monde. Les soldats passent les premiers avec leur chef, avant la police du Temple, qui est maintenant nommée : les agents des Juifs. Ge sont ces agents de la police qui paraïîtront désormais (48. 22; xrx, 6) jusqu'au moment où les soldats de Pilate entreront en scène (xx, 2). Il n’est point téméraire d'attribuer aux deux forces dans l'arrestation le rôle qui convient à chacune : pendant que les soldats font le service d'ordre et prêtent main forte, la police empoigne Jésus et le garotte. Ce dernier trait est propre à Jo. Le fait est très vraisemblable, et même normal.
18:13
Il est probable que les soldats ont servi d’escorte jusqu’au palais d'Anne. Après quoi leur rôle était terminé, et ils n'avaient plus qu’à regagner leurs cantonnements. Nous savons par Josèphe qu'Ananos, notre Anne, eut cinq fils grands prêtres, dont les noms sont connus : Éléazar, Jonathan, Théophile, Matthias, Ananos Le jeune (Scaürer, Gesch… Il, 971 s.). Gaïaphas, qui fut l’un de ses successeurs (environ 18 à 36 ap. J.-C.) n'était donc pas l’un d'eux, mais il est vraisemblable qu'il dut son élévation à l'influence de cet homme très heureux. Quoi qu'il en soit, Jo. tient à dire que si Jésus fut conduit chez Anne, ce fut parce que (γάρ) Anne était le beau-père du grand prêtre en fonctions, et non point parce qu'il était lui-même en charge. Sur l'expression « prêtre de cette année-là », cf. sur x1, 49. Qu'Anne ait conservé malgré sa déposition par Valerius Gratus (Ant. XVIII, nr, 2) vers l’an 45 une grande influence, précisément sous _Caïphe, c'est ce qui ressort de Le. πὶ, 2; Act. 1V, 6, mais Jo. ne dépend pas de ces textes; ils eussent pu lui faire croire qu'Anne agissait comme grand prêtre or c'est contre cette confusion possible qu'il proleste, alléguant une autre raison de l’ingérence d'Anne, l'alliance entre Caïphe et lui, raison dont il est impossible de prouver qu'elle soit fausse, et qui est très plausible, On comprend très bien que Caïphe ait tenu à donner une satisfaction d’amour-propre à son beau-père qui ne pouvait plus présider le Sanhédrin, ni par conséquent assister à la séance. IL dut s'écouler un certain temps avant l’arrivée des sanhédrites, même s'ils étaient du complot. Pendant ce temps Anne pourra satisfaire sa curiosité : rien de légal ne sortira de cette entrevue. On peut placer ici le v. 24, en lisant : Ἀπέστειλεν dé... Mais Anne, qui ne se souciait pas d’usurper l'autorité qu'il n'avait plus dans une si grave affaire, envoya Jésus à Caïphe, tout enchaîné. Le δεδεμένον après ἔδησαν (12) et quelle que soit la place du v. 24, ne peut signifier qu'il le fit enchaîner de nouveau, mais qu'il l’envoya tel qu'il était venu. Cela est plus naturel si Anne ne veut rien savoir, car, pour un interrogatoire, il eût convenu de délier l'accusé.
18:14
ἀποθανεῖν (THV) et non ἀπολεσθαι (8).
Nouvelle insistance de Jo., non pour insinuer qu'Anne avait jadis eu la première idée que s’attribua Caïphe (Beiser), mais au contraire pour laisser à Caïphe toute la responsabilité avec l'initiative du crime. — cf. x1, 50. Cette remarque ἃ bien l'air de marquer l’entrée en scène de Caïphe, auquel il faudrait attribuer ce qui va suivre. Si Gaïphe n'avait rien fait en ce moment, il eût fallu placer cette réflexion après le v. 24; c'est bien ce qui a eu lieu, mais quand 94 était avant 14. — Nous lisons ἀποθανεῖν avec RBCDWE®.
18:15
Ce v. et les suivanis (46-17) ont pour but d'expliquer comment Pierre, que son coup d'éclat avait dù mettre en évidence, a pu cependant pénétrer dans le — palais du grand prêtre. I1 suivait depuis le lieu de l'arrestation comme ont dit les synoptiques : Me. ἠκολούθησεν, Mt. et Le. ἠχολούθει, Avec Pierre un autre disciple, et non pas l’autre disciple (texte reçu) ce quine serait d’ailleurs pas plus clair. Les Pères, pour l'ordinaire, nomment Jean lui-même. L'évangéliste s’est ainsi désigné mystérieusement comme un témoin particulièrement bien informé de cette scène, et autorisé à la mettre au point. 511 n'a pas dit « le disciple que Jésus aimait », c'est que ce litre n’aurait rien changé à la situation, tandis qu'à la Cène il expliquait sa place auprès du Maître; d'ailleurs il ne soulève que par degrés le voile qui couvre sa personnalité comme écrivain. Mais elle est suffi samment suggérée par son rapport plus étroit avec Pierre (cf. Introd. p. Xvi). L'auteur de l'évangile avait donc des relations avec le sacerdoce de Jérusalem, ce qui suppose une certaine culture. On voit l'importance de ce point dans la question d'authenticité. ait inutile de chercher ailleurs (Zahn Si le disciple n'était pas Jean, il ser Aug, : Quisnam iste sit discipulus, nomme Jacques, fils de Zébédée, après Épiph.) non temere afirmandum est, quia tacetur. Il était connu du grand prêtre {ce qui ne veut pas dire son parent), et sans doute aussi de ses gens, comme familier de la maison; il entra done sans exciter de défiance. Mais quel grand prêtre? Si l’on tient compte du contexte général, c'est Caïphe, le seul des deux que Jo. a nommé grand prêtre, et très expressément le grand prêtre de l’année, Si l’on refuse d'avancer 16 v. 24, on peut à la rigueur songer à Anne. Jo. parle couramment des grands prètres au pluriel; plusieurs avaient donc droit à ce titre. Parmi eux, Anne au premier rang, comme ayant été en charge, de même que nous disons le Président un tel en parlant d’un ancien président de Fa République. Il est d’ailleurs demeuré connu sous ce nom : on disait plus tard « le tombeau du grand prêtre Anne » (Jos. Bell. V, χα, 2). D'après l’ordre recu, on était chez Anne; c'est donc lui le grand prêtre. Mais combien tout est plus limpide si ce grand prêtre est Caïphe, et si l’on est chez
18:16
L'autre disciple (cette fois naturellement avec l'article) pouvait bien passer, mais il n'a pas osé introduire Pierre sans prendre langue à l'intérieur, peut-être avec le Pantife lui-même, puisqu'on répète qu'il le connaissait. Cela a dù prendre un peu de temps, de sorte que syrsin. s'est cru autorisé à placer l'interrogatoire avant l'entrée de Pierre. Cet arrangement cest des plus ingénieux, car il explique comment on était hanté par le zèle de dépister les disciples de Jésus. Mais il serait étonnant que Jo. ait ainsi coupé son récit, et Ha tradition des mss. est contraire. L'autre disciple revient à la porte, muni d’une permission au moins verbale : d’après tous fes témoins (sauf un) il s'adresse à la portière. Il est assez étrange qu'une femme ait été chargée ofüciellement de garder la porte du palais, et ce soir-là. C’est sans doute ce qui a conduit le même syrsin. à écrire : « la servante du portier » (Texte Lewis). C'est encore très ingénieux el sûrement plus normal (Mc. xx, 34, Jo. x. 3). Maïs Jo. dit « la servante portière » parce que c'est elle qui a provoqué Pierre. Elle se tenait à la porte et le portier en chef a pu lui confier le soin d'ouvrir. — Aussi bien on trouve une femme portière dans IIRegn. 1v, 6 — Jos. Ant. VIE, π, 4,il est vrai, -dans une civilisation moins avancée, mais on sait avec quelle maestria les femmes des concierges de Paris gardent leurs immeubles. Rien n’empéchait de mettre des sentinelles à la porte ce soir-là, la portière gardant son poste. — Le sujet de εἰσήγαγεν doit être le même que celui de εἶπεν, l'autre disciple.
18:17
L'intervention de la portière (une servante dans les synoptiques) se comprend mieux dans Jo.; quoiqu’elle n’eût plus la responsabilité de l'entrée de Pierre, elle ne put retenir une expression de méfiance : « au moins tu n'es pas (μή) de ses disciples »? καί συ n'est pas dit en comparaison avec l’autre disciple, personnellement connu du grand prêtre, quoique non pas comme disciple (contre Schanz), mais par allusion à d'autres qui peut-être rôdaient aux environs. La même tournure est dans les synoptiques; on se demande avec inquiétude où sont les disciples, puisqu'aucun n'a été arrêté : on pose la question à loute personne suspecte ou même inconnue. Il faut reconnaitre que la servante des synoptiques emploie un langage plus familier et plus naturel. Pierre était-il « avec Jésus », ou « l’un d’entre eux », c'est-à-dire « de cette bande ». Dans 20. c’est toujours la même expression, ici, dans la bouche du grand prêtre (19) et plus tard (25). C’est la formule officielle de l'interrogatoire qui donne d'avance le ton. Cela est plus naturel dans l’ordre de syrsin. qui place l'interrogatoire avant les reniements. D'après le récit de Jo, la culpabilité de Pierre est plutôt diminuée qu'augmentée, et pour ce cas du moins se réduit presque à un petit mensonge nécessaire pour entrer. D'après les trois synoptiques, Pierre était déjà auprès du feu, et assis quand une servante l'interrogea.
18:18
Le plus-que-parfait εἱστήκεισαν et le parfait πεποιηκότες indiquent qu'un certain temps s'était écoulé depuis l'arrivée; car les serviteurs et les agents sont ceux qui avaient pris part à l'arrestation. — ἀνθραχιά (Sir. x1, 32; IV Macch. 1x, 20) ne paraît pas signifier un feu de charbon (en tout cas pas de charbon de terre), mais un feu de braise, du moins d'après les usages actuels fondés sur la nature des choses : on allume un grand feu de bois, et on continue à se chauffer quand le bois est devenu braise. Les nuits sont parfois très fraiches au commencement d'avril, surtout s’il ἃ plu; alors on ne peut s'asseoir on se tient debout, ce que tout le monde fit, et aussi Pierre. On ne peut vraiment pas voir une contradiction historique entre Jo. et Mt. (avec Le.) disant que Pierre était assis, autre façon d'envisager la situation dans la circonstance. Jo. dit lui aussi que Pierre se chauffait; il n’a donc pas voulu l'épargner, mais dire les faits : ils sont vraisemblables. On peut dire aussi que Pierre crut devoir faire exactement comme tout le monde, pour ne pas éveiller l'attention.
18:19
Le grand prêtre, ici encore, si c'est entre 13 et 24, ne peut être qu'Anne; mais comment serait-il nommé ainsi sans aucune préparation ἢ La question posée est double, et les deux préoccupations sont très naturelles. Si l'on voulait reprocher à Jésus un complot contre l'autorité romaine, il fallait 21. ἐρωτὰς (TH) et non ἐπερωτας (SV). savoir quels étaient ses complices et ses projets. Cela est exprimé de la façon qui convenait en fait à Jésus, lequel avait une doctrine et des disciples.
18:20
La réponse de Jésus ne se retrouve pas dans le procès conduit par Caïphe d’après les synoptiques, et de ce chef on pourrait expliquer pourquoi on aurait transporté le v. 24 à la place qu'il occupe aujourd’hui. Au contraire cette défense est pour le fond la mème que celle de Jésus lors de l'arrestation d’après les synoptiques, Mc. xiv, 49; Mt. xxvr, 55, et suriout Le. xxx, 52, qui la dit adressée aux grands prêtres. Elle ἃ donc un appui très étendu dans la tradition, et il se pourrait qué Jo. nous ait conservé plus exactement la situation dans laquelie elle ἃ été prononcée, tout en la colorant de ses propres expressions. Mais à tout prendre Jésus a sans doute exprimé deux fois ce douloureux étonnement. Le Maître ne répond pas directement au sujet de ses disciples, qu'il ἃ voulu tenir en dehors de toute responsabilité (8). C'est l'attitude de tout homme d'honneur. Quant à sa doctrine, ce n'est point une doctrine secrète, encore moins une conjuration. Et par là même il excuse implicitement ses disciples. N'ayant jamais rien caché, il n'avait donc pas de complices secrets: Il a parlé παρρησίᾳ (vu, 4. 26; x1, 54), τῷ χόσμῳ (vit, 4) et non pas ἐν χρυπτῷ c'est-à-dire en synagogue, en Galilée (vr, 59) et à Jérusalem, dans le Temple; le centre religieux des Juifs. Sans doute Jésus vient de s’entretenir avec ses disciples d'une façon plus confidentielle, mais surtout de lavenir. Quant à sa doctrine, même sur le point capital et dangereux de sa divinité, il avait parlé aux Juifs clairement, si clairement qu'ils avaient voulu le lapider en plein Temple (x, 30. 38).
18:21
On traite Jésus en coupable; qu'on appelle donc des témoins! ἃ quoi servirait son propre témoiænage. si on le soupeonne d’avoir dissimulé sa doctrine?
18:22
Un serviteur, de ceux qu'on appellerait un agent ou un appariteur, non pas un domestique, se montre d'autant plus violent que sans doute il jugeait le grand prêtre embarrassé. Il n’y avait rien d’incongru à plaider non-coupable et à demander une procédure selon les formes. L'homme crut sans doute faire ainsi sa cour : fortis percussor et mollis adorator (Rupert cilé par Schanz). — Sur ῥάπισμα, cf. Mc. xiv, 65. — L'intervention d'un simple appariteur ἃ suggéré à Schanz un interrogatoire libre plutôt qu'un procès régulier (mais cf. Act. xx, 2 ss.). L'agent parle du grand prêtre comme s’il était le seul (ef. Ex. xx, 28).
18:23
D'après Bauer (suivi par Loisy), καχῶς λαλεῖν signifierait parler d’une facon injurieuse (cf. Ex. xxu, 28; 1 Macch. vu, 42); mais, en opposition avec La Ge, χακῶς doit avoir un sens plus général. Manifestement le valet était incapable de justifier sa brutalité. La réponse de Jésus doit servir de garantie aux accusés : on doit leur laisser 16 droit de se défendre et de répondre librement,
18:25
Le second reniement de Pierre a eu lieu à la place où il étail d'abord. Or il n'était chez le grand prêtre que pour suivre Jésus : il devait s’y sentir mal à l'aise, et il serait parti si Jésus avait été emmené dans une autre maison. Il est vrai que Tatien a placé les deux derniers reniements au moment où Jésus sortait, mais il a dû pour cela ajouter au texte : « et lorsque Jésus sortit cf. Icho‘dad : « Et nous devons savoir que Jean dit que ce fut dans la maison d'Anne que Pierre renia quand Notre-Seigneur sortit pour aîler dans la maison de Caïaphas enchaîné; et il regarda, comme il est dit, Siméon », etc. Le regard est d'après: Le. — Or Jo. ne dit rien de semblable. Ἦν δέ ne marque pas que Pierre se tenait là quand Jésus sortit, mais rappelle simplement la situation de Pierre, déjà indiquée (18), sans doute parce qu'elle s'était prolongée. Les gens qui se trouvaient là forment un sujet sous-entendu très naturel pour εἶπον (ef. xur, 2 etc.). La question est en harmonie avec celle de la portière (ἢ, mais on dit αὐτοῦ au lieu de τοῦ ἀνθρώπον τούτου, Ce qui marque encore mieux qu'en ce moment Jésus était le sujet de l'attention générale et de toutes les conversations. Dans la réponse de Pierre, au lieu de λέγει il y ἃ ἠρνήσατο, qui est LA semble-t-il, au même moment qu'intervient un serviteur du ot prêtre, c’est-à-dire de Gaïphe, même si le v. 24 n'est pas changé, puisque 27. om. ο a. πετρος (THV) et non add. (5). Caïphe vient d'y être nommé le grand prêtre, étant ainsi domestique de la même personne que son parent, domestique du grand prêtre (10), c'est-à-dire de Caïphe. Celui-là est plus sûr de son affaire; il parle toujours de Jésus comme d'une personne qu'il n'est pas nécessaire de nommer (μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ), et comme pour appuyer l'insinuation des autres.
18:27
Gomme Mt. xxvr, 74b. Les trois reniements de Pierre. Même si la scène racontée par Jo. s’est passée chez Caïphe, il reste certaines divergences entre les évangélistes sur les circonstances des trois reniements. D'après Mc. et Mt. c'est le second reniement qui eut lieu près de la porte : on reconnaîtra que le récit de Jo. est plus naturel, surtout parce qu’on ne sait où placer le troisième reniement dans Mc. et Mt. Le. ne parle pas du vestibule, mais il suppose environ une heure entre le second et le troisième reniement. Cela ne cadre guère avec les termes de Jo., mais n’est pas tout à fait incompatible. On doit reconnaître que le parti pris de raconter à la suite les trois faits ἃ dû influer sur la physionomie des circonstances chez les synoptiques. IL semble que Jo. ait voulu mettre les choses au point en montrant comment Pierre a pu entrer, et comment les reniements ont coïncidé avec le début de l'instruction. Lui-même a pu, pour en finir, rapprocher le troisième sans tenir compte du temps précis marqué par Le. Ceux qui n’admettent dans les récits évangéliques que la précision la plus rigoureuse peuvent à leur gré admettre sept reniements. Nous nous contentons de l'accord substantiel des évangélistes sur trois. Car ce ne serait pas améliorer beaucoup la sûreté de la tradition que de dire avec Cajetan, Zahn, Simôn, qu'on ἃ compté de diverses manières parmi des reniements plus nombreux pour obtenir les trois reniements prophétisés. En effet les paroles de Jésus sont formelles : il a prédit trois reniements et c’est bien ce qu'ont compris les évangélistes puisqu'ils ont tous le nombre de trois. Il faudra donc — puisqu'on n'oserait mettre en doute la prophétie du Sauveur — que les évangélistes l’aient mal comprise. Je préfère admettre qu'ils ont raconté l’histoire avec l'approximakion qu'elle comporte lorsqu'il s’agit de détails minutieux, sans cesser pour cela d'être exacte. L'opinion des conservateurs ultra a été sévèrement jugée par Maldonat : quidam in eum errorem (sic enim audacter appello) inducti sunt, ut Petrum saepius quam ter Christum negasse dicerent, et nonnulli quidem septies. Satius erat ignorantiam confiteri suam, quam et Petro et quatuor evangelistis, et Christo etiam ipsi facere iniuriam (sur Mt. xxvwr, 71). Je ne sais si l'on peut citer un seul auteur ancien pour cette étrange opinion. D'ailleurs si Jo. place les trois reniements dans le palais de Caïphe, comme nous le pensons, les divergences ne sont plus guère que des variations dans l’ordre des faits comme les exégètes les plus conservateurs les admettent couramment.
18:28
Le sujet de ἄγουσιν c'est proprement l’escorte désignée par le sanhédrin, les agents de sa police, maïs aussi les chefs eux-mêmes qui viennent poursuivre devant Pilate l'exécution de la condamnation qu'ils ont prononcée, comme on le comprendra à xx, 1. — οὖν pourrait à la rigueur ne rien signifier de précis, mais se comprend beaucoup mieux si ce qui précède ἃ eu lieu dans la maison de Caïphe. Si ἀπὸ τοῦ Καιάφα était un renvoi au v. 24, les vv. 25-27 s'élant passés chez Anne, il y aurait eu lieu de reprendre le fil du récit et non de le continuer par un « donc ». — Le prétoire était la résidence du gouverneur quand il venait à Jérusalem, que les Pères Vincent et Abel inclinent à placer au palais d'Hérode (Jérusalem, t. I, p. 562 ss.); cf. Comm. Mc., p. 390 5. πρωὶ probablement au lever du jour, vers 6 heures du matin, ileùt été inconvenant de déranger le gouverneur plus tôt, mais les tribunaux romains ouvraient de bonne heure (prima luce, Sen. de ira, τι, 7; cf. Hor. ep. IL, 1, 103). Les Juifs ne veulent pas entrer pour ne pas 86 souiller. Et en effet, entrer dans la maison d’un païen c'était, non d'après la Loi, mais d’après la tradition consignée dans la Michna (Ohal. vin, 7), contracter une impureté de sept jours, comme si l'on avait touché un cadavre. Or, on devait manger la Pâque ce même soir. Ces derniers mots du v. soulèvent la question si dispulée du jour de la mort de Jésus. Le sens de Jo. est clair : les Juifs n’entrent pas afin de manger la Pâque, ce qu'ils n'auraient pu faire s'ils avaient contracté une impureté. Manger la Pâque, c'est manger l'agneau pascal : on était donc au matin du 14 nisan. Sur cette expression, cf. MC. xiv, 412.14; Mi. xxvi, 11; LC. xxn, 8.441.145; I Par. xxx, 18:11 Esdras vi, 21. C’est ainsi que l'entendait Tatien, du moins d’après le commentaire ou la citation libre d'Éphrem (Moes. 238) : ne contaminarentur, ut prius ederent agnum în sanctitate. De même Clém. d'Al. (De pasch. éd, Stählin, πὶ, 217, 8). L'intention de Jo. d'indiquer ce jour est confirmée par Quelques-uns cependant, dans le dessein de concilier Jo. avec les synoptiques où Jésus a déjà mangé la Pâque avec ses disciples, soutiennent que l'expression de Jo. peut s'entendre de manger les azymes, comme on faisait le 45 nisan et les jours suivants (encore Zahn, Till.). Ils peuvent alléguer : a) le texte de syrsin. qui est « manger les azymes — Mais ce ms. a toujours traduit πάσχα de la sorte dans Jo. lorsqu'il n’est pas lacuneux (xviu, 39; x1x, 14) et dans χι, 55 où rien ne représente le mot, pâque. Il est donc assuré qu'ici encore il lisait πάσχα, et sa traduction ne vaut que pour l'opinion du traducteur, qui n’a pas grande portée. La seule question est de savoir s'il a toujours mis azymes parce que la fête avait un double nom, ou si, voulant concilier Jo. avec les synoptiques, il a dès le début et consciemment choisi ce terme dans ce but : dans Me. σιν, 1 et Mt. xxvr, 2, il ἃ « la Pâque δ) On lit dans IT Chr. xxx, 22 : «ils mangèrent la fête durant sept jours donc à plus forte raison la Pâque. — Mais c’est là une absurdité du texte massorétique (12N% pour “bot, grec : συνετέλεσαν) absurdité telle que la pes. et la vg. toui en conservant « ils mangèrent » ont omis la fête. On ne peut donc arguer ni du texte, ni des versions, comme témoins d’une pareille facon de parler (contre l'instance de Zahn). c) On employait le mot pâque pour signifier les sept jours des azymes, comme le prouve la Michna (Pesakhim, 1x, 5), qui distingue la Pâque des Ésyptiens, c'est-à-dire le premier jour, et les autres jours, qu'on nommait la Pâque des générations, — I] est vrai, mais le texte ne dit pas qu'en mangeât Ja seconde! « La Pâque des Égyptiens fut... mangée en hâte en une nuit, et la Pâque des générations fut pratiquée (noheg) durant sept jours. » On a évité l'alliance des mots « manger la Pâque », aussitôt qu'ils ne pouvaient plus s'entendre de la manducation de l'agneau. D'ailleurs si les Juifs avaient seulement voulu manger les azymes, ils n'auraient pas tellement craint de se souiller, car on ne voit pas qu'il ait été interdit de manger les azymes en pareil cas (DALMAN, Jesus-Jeschua, p. 81). Le sens de Jo. n'est donc absolument pas douteux. Mais parmi ceux qui l’entendent comme nous, il en est beaucoup (Dalman, Bauer, récemment après tant d’autres) qui ne lui reconnaissent aucune valeur historique. Jo. aurait déplacé le jour marqué par les synoptiques pour obtenir un symbolisme déjà proposé par saint Paul ὁ πάσχα ἡμῶν ἐτόθη Χριατός (1 Cor. v, 7), et que Jo. avait sûrement en vue dans xx, 36. — Mais si Paul a pensé que la ressemblance était fondée sur la mort du Christ le 14 nisan, il est donc pour Jo. un appui décisif; s’il s'est contenté d’une approximation, pourquoi Jo. aurait-il été plus exigeant? Il ne dit nulle part que Jésus est mort ce jour-là pour accomplir une Écriture, mais simplement en passant il fait allusion à une circonstance qui compliqua la discussion entre Pilate et les Juifs. En fait le procès n’eùt même pu avoir lieu un jour férié, comme était le premier jour des Azymes. Si bien que plusieurs critiques (Wellhausen, Heitmüller, ele.) admeltent la parfaite véracilé mnéme relevé chez lee synoptiques des indices que Je jour de la pas Nérié : le port des armes, Simon Je Cyrénéen venant des des achals faits en vne de la sépulture. — M. Dalman (Jesys-Jeschus, .) à wéponse à tout, ét relève çà ct là dans La itiéralure rabbinique ions anslogues; de σα! facon, ajoute-1-il, nous devons aussi recon- des illégaliiés dans le procés; tout s'excusait par Ja raison d'état, que nomment - ce qu'exige l'heure Vaut cependant distinguer entre des iflégalilés connues des Juifs seuls, et - ne se seraient pas reprochées entre eux, puisque le très grand nombre jt d'accord, — οἱ une iHégalité Magrante, un renversement de toute conne un procès capital tenu le jour de Péque. Ainsi la Michna (Sonh. τὰ, 4) de faire un procés capital « la veille du sabbat ou féte », sans doute parce qu'on risquait de ne finir que le sabbaf étant commencé; à la rigueur 6n eût pu évier ce risque eu prenant ses jons, mais on voulait couper court. Car c'est un principe presque de naturel que les tribunaux restent fermés les jours fériés. Les Juifs qui ent pas de procès le jour du sabbal (Paisos, De rmigr. Abrah. 91; Μ. 1, ét avaient obtenu des Séleucides qu'on ne les poursuivit pas les jours de δι les sabbais A Macch. x, 34 5s.), avaient encore obtenu d'Augusie de point obligés à cormparaitre en justice Le jour du sabhaf, méme pour Aonuer caution (os. Ant, XVI, vi, 8), La féte de Péque était certainement benée (Ex. x, 44). Concoit-on que les chefs de la nation sient élalé devant qui les serrait de près, un pareil mépris de leur loi et de leurs privi- 9 Et si l’on laisse les textes de côlé, il faut peser l'effet produit parmi peuple, accouru de toutes les parties du monde, on peut dire, mais surtout la terre sainte, pour célébrer en paix ct en joie la féle de la délivrance. une pareille exécution devait étre renvoyée après Pâques (Act. ἀπ, 4) rapidement enlevée avant (ME. xx, 5;. Aucune argulic tirée des textes ne lenir contre une pareille impossibilité morale. Bauer alègue la part par les Juifs au mariyre de saint Polycarpe, un jour de grand sabbat 58 février 155. Mais on voit seulement (zur, 1) 485 80 joignirent avec ardeur la démonstration hostile de la foule, sans qu'on puisse dire d'ailleurs 60 > sigoifiait « le grand sabbat » de ce jour. Nous tenons donc les allusions de Jo. comme ua indice très certain de sa ür historique. La principale difficulté de Bauer ct des autres, c'est la “ivergence des synoptiques : epmment le tradition du repas pasral de Jésus gite née si elle n'était véridique? Mais 40. ne l'a pas non plus combattue. adrmettons la réalité du caractère pascal du repas des synopiiques; seurit ilne nous paraît pas impossible qu'un groupe donné ait célébré la Pâque veille da jour officiel. Pour les chefs de la nation, spécialement pour les isièns, {1 Hoportait beaucoup que tout se fasse strictement selon la Loi, ur leurs personnes élaient en jeu. Mais ne pouvaieni-ils tolérer un autre usare en faveur des Galiléens? Naturellement ils ne l'auraient jamais approuvé Comme légal, ei c'est pourquoi il n'y en ἃ pas de traces dans la jurisprudence, mais le grand nombre des assistants a pu le rendre nécessaire; cf, Comm Me. 20. om. κατὰ p. φέρετε ΤῊ plutôt que add. (SY1 81. o a. πίλατος (TSV plutôt que om. (H}: — οὖν p. εἶπον [TSV' plutôt que 0%. 29 Le lecteur est censé savoir que le prétaire est le siège ἄμ & Υ et que Île gouverneur se nomme Pilaie. Qui l'isnorait parmi les <hr surtout parmi les lecteurs des synopiiques? Pilate, à cette heure, devait ete au courant de la part prise à l'arrestation par des soldats romains, δὲ doute de la procédure qu'on avait déjà suivie. Il ἃ dû s'informer, ne ft qu'en apprenant Farrivée des Juits, au moment où ils l'ont envom prier ὅθ ne pas les obliger à entrer dans le prétoire. I me veut pas les v contraindre. Quoiqu'il ait eu personnellement la main assez dure dans tertains tas, l'esprit du gouvernement de Rome £tait de ne pes froisser les sentiments religieux es populations. Mais il n'était pas pour cela eblige d'obéir à toutes les fantaisies des Juifs. R devait d'abord poser la question juridique indispensable sur l'objet de la poursuite, question officielle qui ne &cèle rien de ce qu'il savait θὲ croyait savoir.
18:30
On interprète assez souvent Bmier, Eaisy) la réponse comme ne inselence. Si nous l'amenons, c'est qu'il est coupable! Mais Pilate n'avait pas dit qu'il en doutât, et une impolitesse eût tout gâté, ear les Juifs essaient d'abord de l'amener à leurs fins. D'autres Anaë,) voient là une quasi sommation à Pilate de faire exécuier leur condamnation : mais Je. s'en ἃ pas parlé, et ἐξ n'est pas de la benne méthode de faire violence à son texte pour Le mstire d'accord explicitement avec les synoptiques. Nous pensons que les Juifs. désireux de faire marcher Pilate, mais sans l'ofenser, affectent plutôt un ie paielin. Noter le παρεξώχαμεν, Ce n'était guère l'usage que les Juifs Éscent cos dammer un des leurs : il fallait qu'il füt bien coupable’ ls avaient da dempier leurs répugnances. Mais enfin c'était leur devoir.
18:31
On comprend ainsi très bien la riposte de Pilate, peut-être ur per goguenard à son our. En somme on ne l'a pas avisé que ce fût une cause capitale, Si ce n'est pas le cas, ils n'ont qu'à procéder eux-mêmes. « Très touché de voire scrupuie: mais je ne veux pas abuser de voire bonne volonté »! Si c'est la mort qu'ils veulent, et εἰ Pilate a appris la copdamne- __Hon déjà portée, sa réserve n'en ἃ que plus de saveur ironique. Le procurateur ne veut pas qu'on l'accuse d'attirer à son tibunal toutes les affaires surtout celle-ci dont il doit fairer le côté religieux. — Les Ris — enfin nommés — e'est-à-dire les chefs de la paiion, grands prêtres et Pharisiens, sont débusqués. ΠΞ ne veulent pas avouer qu'ils ont δέ fait le procès et à tout le moins instruit la cause, mais ils le laissent entendre car ils savaient du moins que le crime, s'il était sans trop se compromettre, prouvé, entraînait la peine capitale. Ils confessent donc qu'ils ont perdu le droit de vie et de mort. Jo. est le seul à le dire aussi clairement, mais les synoptiques le supposent, et le Talmud l'avoue (jer. Sanhedrin, τ, 1 et vi, 2). On ne voit pas comment ils l'auraient conservé, puisqu'il appartenait au procurateur (Jos. Bell. I, vin, 1; Ant. XX, 1x, 1). À tout le moins ne pouvaient-ils exécuter une sentence de mort sans son assentiment. Mommsen regarde ce point comme acquis (Rôm. Strafrecht, p. 240 et ZnT. W, 1902, p. 199), comme aussi Sckürer (I, p. 261). 1 faudrait done savoir gré à Jo. d’avoir fourni sur cette question la formule la plus nette. Cependant Loisy lui impute une confusion : « Cette parole ne signifie pas, comme on l'admet volontiers, que le sanhédrin n’a pas le droit de faire exécuter de sentences capitales sans la ratification du procurateur, mais qu’il n’a pas le droit d'en porter » (p. 467). C’est bien vite dit, car le texte parle de « mettre à mort». Mais au fond la nécessité de la ratification exeluait le droit de porter une sentence définitive, car le gouverneur n'était pas une machine à signer, donnant un simple visa sur le vu d'une sentence légale : « IL va de soi qu'il n'exerçait pas ce droit sans s'être mis au courant par lui-même de la question de culpabilité » (Mommsen 1. 1.) De sorte qu’en réalité le droit ou le prétendu droit de porter une condamnation était rendu d'avance inopérant. Il est simplement faux de dire que Jo. « parle conformément à l'état légal des temps postérieurs à la ruine de Jérusalem où les Juifs... n'ont pas de tribunaux civils dont les jugements aient une valeur quelconque » (Loisy, p. 467). Jo. sait très bien que les Juifs peuvent juger dans une certaine mesure, puisque pilate leur offre de le faire; mais ils s'adressent au gouverneur parce qu'ils veulent un arrêt de mort exécutable que seul il peut rendre. M. Juster n'ose rejeter tout à fait la nécessité d’une confirmation, mais il pose le dilemme (Les Juifs dans l'empire romain, t. Il, p. 137) : ou le crime était Sanhédrin seul compétent, l'exécution selon les formalités juives religieux, le n : ou bien le crime était politique, crime de sédition dont seul le de la lapidatio tre. — Cetle intransigeance juvénile oppose deux droits procurateur devait connai aits concrets. Les Juifs ne pouvaient intenter absolus sans tenir compte des f à fait. Pilate qui s'en doute les prie qu'un procès religieux, et c'est ce qu'ils on écution sans sa permission, et de s’en tirer seuls. Mais ils ne peuvent faire l'ex ssurer que Jésus est coupable. lui, cela va de soi, comme dit Mommsen, doit s’a Alors, très adroitement, et cela était nécessaire, les Juifs transforment leurs. propres griefs en une accusation qui obligera le Procurateur à condamner. C'est sur quoi sont d'accord les quatre évangélistes. Loisy dit encore : « Inutile 84. εἰπὸν σοι (Η) ou σοι εἰπὸν (TSV). 86. n βασιλεια ἡ eun 2° (THV) plutôt que ἡ ἐμὴ βασιλεία (8). de noter que, pour un cas réel, ni les autorités juives ni Pilate n'auraient eu besoin de se rappeler mutuellement l’objet de leur compétence » (p. 467). Sans doute, mais la compétence dépendait d'un fait, la gravité de l'accusation, et c'est sur quoi Pilate ne pouvait être fixé que par les Juifs. Et enfin n'arrive-t-il pas souvent qu'on plaide devant un tribunal sur sa compétence?
18:32
Les Romains, en privant la Palestine de son autonomie, avaient dà lui enlever ce qu'on nomma depuis le jus gladü. Même quand elle était autonome, Auguste n'avait pas permis à Hérode de mettre à mort ses enfants, et cela après des procédures en apparence régulières (Jos. Bell. I, xxvu, 1; Ané. XVI, χι, 1; XVII, v, 8; XVII, var, 1, Mom.). Sans doute le droit ne pouvait empêcher des explosions de fureur populaire, et Jo. le savait aussi, puisqu'il ἃ montré les Juifs se disposant à lapider Jésus (x, 31 ss.). Mais jamais jusqu'à présent Dieu n'avait permis qu'ils exécutassent leurs mauvais desseins. Le parti qu'ils prirent de suivre les voies légales leur réussit; il devait aboutir à la crucifixion. Mais en cela, ils ne faisaient qu'accomplir une propnélie de Jésus. Mourant de leur main, il eûtété lapidé comme Étienne (Act. vir, 58). Pilate le condamnant comme séditieux devait le crucifier. Or c'est bien ce que Jésus avait annoncé quoique en termes voilés, lorsqu'il parlait de son élévation (ur, 44; xu, 31 5). — Dans ἵνα le sens final est très atténué.
18:33
On trouve étrange (Buuer, Loisy) que Pilaie, en bon juge, n'ait pas fait une coufroutation entre l'accusé et ses accusateurs. I le leur présentera (xx, 4) en cffet, mais il lui est bien permis d'interroger Jésus seul, afin qu’il parle plus librement. Quoique les Juifs n'aient pas montré beaucoup d'entrain à répondre à sa première question sur leur grief, nous n'avons pas interprété cette réponse comme un refus, mais plutôt comme un gémissement hypocrite qui ne les empêchait pas de revenir à la charge. La question de Pilate à Jésus suppose “αἴθ. effet les Juifs ont donné au procès le motif qui devait exciter un Romain à sévir, la prétention énoncée par l'accusé de rétablir à son profit la royauté juive. Jo. se trouve ici en parfait accord avec les synoptiques, et suppose en particulier Le. xx, 2. — εἰσῆλθεν avec πάλιν ne veut pas dire que Pilate entre de nouveau, mais qu'il rentre. Cette particule, très usitée par Me. et par Jo. n’a pas toujours dans ce dernier un sens très précis; cf. σιν, 3; xvi, 28.
18:34
D'après les synoptiques, Jésus répond à la même question affirmativement,; puis il se tait. Ce silence est d'une grande beauté, et on le trouve aussi dans Jo. xix, 9. Il faut avouer cependant que la question, posée par un Romain, était que la réponse affirmative pouvait être mal interprétée, et l'on peut ambigué, estimer que, sans discuter avec le gouverneur sur l'origine de son droit, Jésus se devait à lui-même de ne pas se laisser regarder de son aveu comme un agitateur révolutionnaire. Pour cela, il fallait distinguer le roi des Juifs au sens romain, que Jésus n'était pas, et le roi-Messie envoyé par Dieu avec une mission spirituelle. Le premier pas vers celle distinction était de savoir de qui venait l'accusation et la question. C'est donc ce que Jésus demande à Pilate. Il ne se pose pas en « juge de son juge », mais il parle « comme un accusé qui voudrait s’instruire des faifs concernant sa cause ». Les deux expressions sont de. Loisy (p. 468) : la seconde corrige la première et atteint le sens de Jo. Ina pas prêté cette question à Jésus pour rejeter le tort sur les Juifs (Bauer), mais simplement Jésus prélude aux explications qu’il aura à donner.
18:35
Pilate ne trouve pas la question de son goût, car Jésus devait bien se douter que le grief venait des Juifs. Lui-même, les oreilles encore rebattues de ce qu'ils lui ont dit, leur en renvoie la responsabilité. Jésus se disait Roi-Messie. Pilate aurait-il de lui-même inventé ce grief? Est-il Juif pour être au courant? Qui, ce sont les grands prêtres et même toute la nation qui a livré Jésus. Le voilà instruit de ce qu'il voulait savoir. Peu importe la source de l'accusation au fait! « Le Christ. va, conformément aux habitudes des dialogues
18:36
Loisy re en considérations profondes sur sa royauté » (p. 469). johanniques, s'étend était dans la nature des choses; mais la défense Profondes, les pensées le sont, Ce que dit Jésus devait détruire aux yeux de a ses droits el même ses devoirs. Pilate l'idée d'une royauté révolutionnaire : sa royauté à lui n'est pas de ce. monde. On ne dira pas que Jo. insère ici une de ses idées favorites : le mot de βασιλεία ne se trouve dans l'évaugile qu'ici οἱ τὴ, 8.5; il n'est pas dans les épitres. Jésus ne dit pas que sa royauté ne doit pas s'exercer sur ce monde, mais qu'elle n'en vient pas; elle vient de plus haut : d’en haut. Il ne s’en vanle pas à Pilate, car ilne fait pas des « considérations » sur sa royauté; il se contente de se défendre. Aussi se borne-t-il à une constatation bien simple. S'il avait des prétentions à régner, il aurait des partisans qui auraient combaïtu pour lui. Le ἵγα μὴ παραδοθῶ τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις" νῦν δὲ ἡ βασιλεία ἡ ἐμὴ οὐχ ἔστιν ἐντεῦθεν. 8] εἶπεν οὖν αὐτῷ ὁ Πιλᾶτος Οὐχοῦν βασιλεὺς εἶ σύ; ἀπεχρίθη 39. ἀπολυσὼ uutv (THV) plutôt que u. α. (8). geste de Pierre pouvait paraître négligeable, d'autant que Jésus l'avait désavoué. Il est cependant étonnant qu'il nomme « les Juifs » comme ses adversaires, puisqu'il est accusé de s'être dit le roi des Juifs. Mais cela même montre l'inanité de l'accusation : un roi des Juifs, celui qui n'a pas même de partisans résolus à empêcher qu'on ne le livre aux Juifs, ses ennemis! — ὑπηρέται, nous l'avons vu (vu, 32. 45; xviu, 3. 10) n'est pas synonyme de δοῦλος « domestique », et désigne des agents, ordinairement d’un ordre inférieur, mais cependant aussi les aides de camp d'un général (XÉN. Cyr. IL, 1v, #). Il y ἃ là une simple comparaison avec l'ordre humain; Jésus ne fait pas allusion à des serviteurs célestes comme seraient les anges de Mt. xxvi, 53. — νῦν δέ sous-entendu : qu'ils n'ont
18:37
Pilate : « Enfin, tu es tout de même roi?» Le juge d'instruction s'aperçoit déjà que l'accusé est un rêveur peu redoutable. Pourquoi tient-il à son idée, qui pourrait lui causer du désagrément ? fronique, avec un peu de pitié et une plus forte dose de mépris, Pilate n'est pas fâché de montrer à l'accusé que sa question à lui n’était pas si mal posée, et qu'une distinction chimérique n'empêcherait pas les suites d'un aveu déplorable : il serait temps pour le prévenu d'y réfléchir. — οὐχοῦν avec l'interrogation dans une argumentation suivie (Épict. I, 7, 6, ete.) : « Est-ce qu'il n'en résulte pas? » Et non pas, sans interrogation « tu n'es donc pas roi », car Jésus a plutôt concédé que nié, et il va avouer. 810) Cette fois Jésus reconnait qu'il est roi, et même en lermes plus exprès que dans les synoptiques. Mais puisque Pilate n'a pas compris le sens de cette royauté, et en effet Jésus n’en avait donné qu'une notion négative, il dit en quoi elle consiste : dans la mission qu'il ἃ reçue de révéler la vérité. Il n'y avait rien là qui n’eût une amorce dans les prétentions des sages du temps. Les stoïciens avaient posé en principe que les sages étaient rois et même les seuls rois (n'Arvim, Stoic. vel. fragm., III, p. 158 ss]), et Philon n'avait pas manqué de retenir ces termes (de nom. mut. ἃ 152; de migr. Abrah. $ 197) Jésus était aussi venu pour donner la vie (x, 10); s’il met surtout ici en relief la vérité, c'est peut-être que cette idée, moins myslique, était plus accessible à un Romain. — Les termes sont johanniques, cela va sans dire. — « Je suis né », dans ce contexte, ne peut s'entendre que de la naissance humaine, de sorte que « je suis venu dans le monde » n’imposait pas la croyance à une origine divine, mais indique plutôt le ministère public. « Rendre témoignage à la vérité » comme v, 33, cf. πι, 32. — Révéler la vérité était encore une manière de se faire des partisans et de créer un royaume, composé des amis de la vérité. Jo. dit « qui sont de la vérité » à cause de l'influence divine qui agit sur eux : 515 vont à la vérité, c'est qu'ils en viennent (1 Jo. ur, 19). I y avait là moins une allusion à ses disciples, devenus ainsi ses sujets, qu’une invitation discrète à écouter des paroles de vérité.
18:38
C'est bien ce que comprend Pilate; ce n’est pas la première fois qu'il rencontre un de ces sages qui ont seuls le secret de la vérité. Il n'a pas eu confiance dans leurs recettes. Et il serait plaisant que ce Juif fût mieux informé qu'eux tous. Le scepticisme spéculatif du Romain qui n’est qu'administrateur at-il jamais trouvé une expression plus naturelle? Il n’en ἃ pas moins des devoirs de magistrat. Dans ce cas ils étaient clairs. Jésus était peut-être une sorle de philosophe, un juif semblable aux cyniques ambulants qui préchaient la bonne doctrine; il était peut-être un illuminé : dans les deux cas il ne relevait pas de son tribunal. Pour ce qui me concerne, dit-il, je ne trouve rien. 39-xix, 6. On a regardé comme une addition rédactionnelle xviux, 39-χιχ, 6 (Schwartz, Wellh., Loisy), parce qu’au v. 6 de xIx nous SOMMES au même point le rédacteur aurait voulu se rapprocher de la tradition synoptique. — Réponse il aurait donc mis les faits dans le même ordre, et il serait trop commode pour un greffier de retrancher d'un procès les incidents qui ramènent le magistrat à son point de départ : c'est un cas désagréable, mais très fréquent. Aussi bien les distingués critiqes ont-ils méconnu la péripélie suprême du drame, le point vers lequel tout converge. »
18:39
Le raisonnement de Pilate n'est pas très juridique. Si le prévenu ne Jui paraît pas coupable, il n'a qu’à le relàcher. Mai. il prend au sérieux, ou il feint de prendre au sérieux, le zèle des Juifs qui croient Jésus coupable, et se sont crus obligés de le lui livrer (30). Alors, pour qu'il ne soit plus question de rien, il suggère une solution qui arrangera tout. Sur cette coutume et son caractère juridique, ef. Comm. Me. xv, 6. D’après Mc. c’est la foule qui a pris les devants. Cela est très vraisemblable, et Pilate n'avait pas à faire connaître aux Juifs une coutume sans doute très populaire; mais Jo. lui a laissé la parole pour résumer plus rapidement un épisode sur lequel avaient insisté les synoptiques. Il ἃ peutêtre emprunté à Mc. « le roi des Juifs ». Ce titre n'était pas pour plaire à la hiérarchie, appliqué à un homme qu'elle avait dénoncé, mais enfin c'était le grief allégué; comme la foule était arrivée, Pilate a peut-être pensé lui faire plaisir à elle. Jo. de même que Mc. et Le. se garde bien de faire proposer par Pilate le choix entre Jésus et Barabbas (Mt.).
18:40
Ce sont les grands prêtres d’après Mc. qui détournent le eoup en proposant Barabbas. Jo. va au plus court. Le πάλιν se rapporte difficilement au v. 30. Il suppose que la foule a déjà crié, comme dans Me. xv, 13. Barabbas est désigné d'un mot, en harmonie avec Le. xxx, 18, où il est qualifié de meurtrier, 1. ελαθεν ο Πιλατος et καὶ p. Insouv (THV) et non o Πιλατὸς λαόων om. zut (85). 41-462 JÉSUS AU TRIBUNAL DE PILATE (deuxième partie); (cf. Me. xv, 15.16-20*; Mt. xxvur, 26.27-312; Le. xxm, 4-5; 18-16; 20-23). Tout ce passage est fort maltraité par certains critiques : « Qu'un tel procédé soit peu conforme aux habitudes de la justice romaine, au caractère de Pilate, aux vraisemblances du cas, il est à peine besoin de le remarquer » (Loisy, p. 473). « Tableau sans aucune vraisemblance » (p. 474). « La fiction ne tient pas debout » (475). — Nous aurions préféré quelques preuves tirées des usages antiques à cet appel au bon sens du lecteur, appuyé seulement sur les prétendus thèmes johanniques : « on ne se moque pas du Christ johannique » (p. 468) elc. La vraie et la seule difficulté pour l’exégète catholique, c'est que dans Mc. et Mt. l'ordre des faits n'est pas le même. On doit nécessairement opter. Nous dirons les raisons qui rendent l'ordre de Jo. vraisemblable dans ce cas particulier. C’est l'avis d'Augustin (De cons. III, 1x} : unde isti (Mc. et Mt.) quod praeterierant recoluerunt. En revanche on verra que Jo. se rapproche de Ec.
18:1
ỷ. 1. HÆC CUM DIXISSET JESUS. JESUS ayant dit ces choses, passa le torrent de Cédron. JESUS-CHRIST récita la prière que nous avons vûe au Chapitre précédent, étant en chemin pour aller au Jardin des Oliviers, qui étoit dans la montagne de même nom à l’orient de Jérusalem. Cette montagne étoit séparée de la ville, & du Temple par une vallée assez étroite, au milieu de laquelle passe le torrent de Cédron. JESUS donc passa ce torrent aussi-tôt qu’il eut achevé sa prière, & arriva bien-tôt au Jardin des Oliviers. Quant au torrent de Cédron, c’est un assez petit ruisseau, & qui n’a pas plus de six à sept pieds de large ; & encore n’a-t’il de l’eau qu’une partie de l’année, c’est-à-dire, pendant les pluyes, de même que les autres torrens de ce pays-là. Son nom se trouve dans l’ancien Testament ; & saint Jean semble avoir exprès marqué ici le nom de ce torrent, pour rappeller dans l’esprit de son Lecteur ce qui arriva à David, lorsqu’il fut chassé de Jérusalem par son fils Absalon, & obligé de passer à pied le torrent de Cédron, avec ceux qui le suivoient dans sa fuite. Ce qui étoit une figure très-expressé de ce qui devoit arriver à JESUS-CHRIST de la part d’un de ses Disciples qui le trahissoit. Les Critiques sont partagez ici à l’occasion du torrent de Cédron. Les uns soutiennent que ce nom lui vient des cèdres, qui étoient, disent-ils, plantez sur ses rivages. La manière dont le Texte Grec est construit, paroît favorable à cette opinion ; & quelques Rabbins enseignent qu’il y a une espèce de cèdre, appellée en Hébreu cedros. Mais d’autres en bien plus grand nombre, tiennent le mot Cedron, comme purement Hébreu, & qui signifie non des cèdres, mais l’obscurité; soit que ce nom ait été donné au torrent, à cause de la profondeur, ou de la noirceur de ses eaux. Il n’est nullement certain que les anciens Hébreux ayent donné le nom de cedros au cèdre; & il est encore plus douteux que le bord de ce torrent ait été planté de cèdres. Ni l’Histoire sacrée, ni la profane ne nous en disent pas un mot. Les Manuscrits Grecs ne sont pas entièrement uniformes. Les uns portent, le torrent des cèdres; & les autres, le torrent de Cédron. Saint Jérôme l’a entendu ainsi. Nous suivons ce dernier sentiment, n’étant pas probable que du tems de David, d’Asa, & de Josias, on eût connu les cèdres à Jérusalem sous le nom de cedros. L’Ecriture les nomme toujours arasim; & sous les Rois, nous trouvons déjà le torrent de Cédron. S’il étoit vrai que Cédron signifiât alors un cèdre, il auroit fallu dire, le torrent de Cédronim, & non pas de Cédron.
UBI ERAT HORTUS. Où il y avoit un jardin, dans lequel il entra. Saint Matthieu, & saint Marc disent qu’il vint à une métairie, nommée Gethsémani. Il y avoit-là un jardin, où il se retiroit souvent, lorsqu’il venoit à Jérusalem. Dans les grandes Solemnitez, où l’on arrivoit à Jérusalem de tous les endroits du pays, & même des Provinces voisines, il étoit mal-aisé que tout le monde couchât dans la ville : mais à cause de le température de l’air du pays, on pouvoit passer la nuit à la campagne, & aux environs de la ville. Le nom de Getbfemani en Hébreu, signifie la vallée grasse, ou la vallée huileuse, ou à cause des oliviers dont elle étoit plantée, ou à cause de sa fertilité. Le Jardin des Oliviers, où le sauveur se retira, faisoit partie de cette ferme, & étoit au pied de la montagne des Oliviers.
18:2
ỷ. 2. SCIEBAT AUTEM ET JUDAS LOCUM. Judas connoissoit ce lieu-là, parce que JESUS y avoit été souvent avec ses Disciples. Judas qui savoir que JESUS n’avoit pas accoutumé de coucher dans la ville, ne douta pas qu’il n’allât à son ordinaire dans ce Jardin, pour y passer la nuit en prières. Les autres nuits il alloit quelquefois coucher à Béthanie : mais cela ne lui arrivoit que quand il n’avoit pas soupé. Or cette nuit ayant soupé dans la ville, Judas en conclut sûrement, qu’il n’iroit pas plus loin que le Jardin, où il se retiroit ordinairement. Il en donna avis aux Prêtres, & aux Pharisiens, qui lui donnerent du monde pour l’arrêter.
18:3
ỷ. 3. CUM ACCEPISSET MINISTROS. Ayant pris avec lui des soldats, & des gens envoyez par les Princes des Prêtres. Il faut bien distinguer entre ces deux Compagnies. La première étoit de soldats Romains; & l’autre étoit des serviteurs du Temple, ou des Sergens sous les ordres du Sanhédrin. Le Gouverneur du païs de la part des Romains, avoit accoutumé de donner aux Prêtres, & aux Magistrats une Compagnie de troupes réglées, pour maintenir la paix, & prévenir les émotions populaires, qui n’étoient que trop fréquentes dans ces fortes déprécontres. Les Magistrats détachèrent une partie de cette Compagnie, & ils leur joignirent une troupe de serviteurs de la part des Prêtres, & des Pharisiens, pour leur servir de renfort. Ces serviteurs étoient des ministres de la Justice ; nous dirions des Sergens, ou des Huissiers, qui étoient sous l’obéissance du Sanhédrin, ou du Capitaine du Temple, dont le devoir étoit de faire arrêter ceux qui causoient quelque trouble parmi le peuple.
VENIT ILLUC CUM LATERNIS, ET FACIBUS, ET ARMIS. Il vint en ce lieu avec des lanternes, des flambeaux, & des armes. Quoiqu’il dût faire clair de lune, puisqu’il étoit le quatorze de la lune du mois de Nisan, ils prirent des flambeaux, pour plus grande sûreté, & pour pouvoir le chercher dans les cavernes, ou dans la maison de la ferme ; s’il eût voulu s’y sauver. Ils viennent avec des lanternes, pour cacher le feu, de peur qu’on ne les découvrit de loin, & apportant apparemment des flambeaux éteints ; mais à deflein de les allumer, lorsqu’il feroit tems. Ils sont en armes, pour faire violence, & pour frapper, si JESUS, & ses Apôtres avoient voulu faire résistance.
18:5
ỷ. 5. JESUM NAZARENUM. Ils répondirent : Nous cherchons JESUS de Nazareth. Ils ne dirent ceci qu’après que Judas se fut approché de JEsus, & qu’il lui eut donné le baiser, qui étoit le signe dont il étoit convenu avec les soldats, pour leur faire connoître celui qu’ils devoient arrêter. Il faut donc que ces gens ayent été frappéz d’une efpece d’aveuglement, puisqu’après toutes ces marques, & ayant en main des flambeaux, & des lanternes, & le Ciel n’étant nullement obscur, ils ne peuvent toutefois reconnoître JEsus, qui se présente à eux.
18:6
ỷ. 6. ABIERUNT RETRORSUM, ET CECIDERUNT IN TERRAM. Ils furent renversez, & tombèrent par terre. Le Sauveur voulut dans cette occasion faire voir sa puissance infinie. & que s’il n’avoit pas voulu se laisser arrêter, il lui étoit aisé de les dissiper, & de ruiner tous leurs efforts. Sa parole fut comme un coup de foudre, qui les renversa. Il vérifia cette parole d’un Prophète, que Dieu renverse l’impie par le souffle de sa bouche.
18:8
ỷ. 8. SINITE HOS ABIRE. Laissez aller ceux-ci. Il use de son autorité, & commande même à ses ennemis. Je veux bien me livrer; mais qu’on laisse aller mes Disciples. Je suis le bon Pasteur; je donne ma vie pour mes brebis. Je ne veux perdre aucun de ceux que mon Pere m’a donnée : Hæc est autem voluntas ejus qui misit me Patris, ut omne quod dedit mihi, non perdam ex eo. Je ne permettrai pas que le nombre des témoins, & Apôtres qu’il m’a donnée, foit diminué. Il y en a qui croyent que JEsus-CHRIST parle ici de la mort de l’ame de ses Disciples : Je ne les perdrai pas ; je ne permettrai pas qu’ils soient exposez à la tentation de se perdre, en me renonçant. D’autres l’expliquent de la mort du corps : Je ne les livrerai point aux Juifs, qui leur ôteroient la vie avec moi ; je veux les conserver, pour servir aux desseins de mon Pere Eternel, & à la prédication de mon Evangile. La plûpart joignent l’un, & l’autre, & croyent que le Sauveur vouloit les garantir du danger de la mort de l’ame, & de celle du corps : Mais ses paroles conduisent plûtôt à l’entendre de la vie corporelle, qu’il vouloit leur conserver.
18:10
ỷ. 10. ABSCIDIT AURICULAM. Simon Pierre coupa l’oreille droite à un des gens du Grand-Prêtre. Jésus un moment avant de sortir de la maison où il avoit soupé, avoit dit à ses Apôtres que celui d’entre eux qui n’avoit point d’épée, vendit son manteau pour en acheter. On lui dit : Seigneur, il y a ici deux épées. Jésus leur dit : C’est assez. C’est apparemment cette réponse du Sauveur qui les engagea à prendre ces armes, & à se mettre en disposition d’en frapper, lorsqu’ils virent leur Maître arrêté. Pierre plus ardent que les autres, tira son épée, & en frappa un serviteur du grand-Prêtre Caïphe. Saint Luc raconte que les Apôtres demandèrent au Sauveur : Seigneur, frapperons-nous de l’épée ? Mais saint Pierre n’attendit pas sa réponse ; il porta son coup, & abattit l’oreille de Malchus. Les autres Evangélistes n’avoient pas marqué ni le nom du serviteur, ni celui de saint Pierre; peut-être par un menagement de sagesse, parce qu’ils écrivoient dans un tems, où ces deux personnes vivoient encore. Mais saint Jean ayant écrit long-tems après la mort de saint Pierre, & de Malchus, n’avoit plus de mesures à garder à cet égard. Le nom de Malcb est Syrien, ou Hébreu. Il signifie le Roi. Ce nom étoit commun dans la Syrie, comme on le voit par Holstenius dans la Vie de Porphyre.
18:11
ỷ. 11. NON BIBAM ILLUM? Ne faut-il pas que je boive le calice que mon Pere m’a donné; que je souffre ce qu’il veut que je souffre. Ce nom de calice est fréquent en ce sens dans les Ecritures de l’ancien, & du nouveau Testament. Les Profanes se servent quelquefois de la même expression. Je lui ferai boire de la même coupe dont j’ai bu. Je lui ferai le même traitement qu’il m’a fait. Ce qui est pris de l’usage de ce tems-là, où l’on établissoit un Roi du festin, qui contraignoit les conviez à boire autant de coups qu’il vouloit; ou de la coutume des Juifs, qui dans leurs repas de cérémonie, faisoient passer à tous les conviez une coupe, dont le pere de famille avoit bu, & dont personne ne pouvoir se dispenser de goûter.
18:12
ỷ. 12. COHORS, ET TRIBUNUS. Les soldats & leur Capitaine prirent donc JESUS, & le lièrent, lorsqu’il jugea à propos de se laisser arrêter. Il leur donna assez de preuves de sa toute-puissance; 1°. en les renversant d’une seule parole ; & ensuite, en remettant l’oreille de Malchus, pour leur faire comprendre qu’ils ne l’arrêtoient, que parce que c’étoit son heure, & sa volonté. La cohorte, ou la Compagnie étoit de cinq, ou six cens hommes ; & le Tribun étoit ou le Chef d’une Légion entière, composée de six mille six cens hommes ; ou simplement le Capitaine d’une Cohorte, ou Compagnie. Mais il n’y a pas d’apparence qu’on ait amené pour prendre JESUS-CHRIST, une si grande troupe. On n’en prit apparemment qu’un détachement ; & le Tribun étoit le Capitaine qui commandoit la troupe.
18:13
ỷ. 13. AD ANNUM PRIMUM. Ils l’amenèrent premièrement à Anne, qui étoit beau-pere de Caïphe, & Maître de la maison où demeuroit son gendre, & où se tint l’assemblée des Prêtres, & des anciens contre JESUS. Anne comme Maître de la maison, se fit d’abord amener le prisonnier. On fait d’ailleurs qu’il avoit une très-grande autorité dans sa nation, ayant été long-tems Pontife, & ayant eu un autre avantage, qui n’étoit jamais arrivé à aucun homme de sa nation, ni de sa race, qui est qu’il avoit eu cinq fils, qui joüirent tous successivement de la Dignité de Grand-Prêtre; & il avoit actuellement son gendre qui occupoit cette grande Dignité. Il pouvoit être alors à la tête du Sandhédrin ; & en cette qualité, il pouvoit se faire amener le prisonnier. Quoi qu’il en soit, après avoir fait quelques questions à JESUS-CHRIST touchant la Doctrîne, & ses Disciples, il le renvoya à Caïphe, où plusieurs Prêtres étoient assemblés, attendant le succès de l’entreprise, & du voyage de ceux qu’ils avoient envoyez pour le prendre. Quelques-uns croyent que ce qui obligea Judas, & les autres d’amener JESUS d’abord à Anne, c’est que c’étoit lui qui avoit promis à Judas les trente pièces d’argent dont on étoit convenu avec lui, pour le prix de la trahison; & que ce traître ayant reçu son argent, ne suivit pas JESUS-CHRIST plus avant. Circonstance peu certaine, & assez peu vrai-semblable.
ERAT PONTIFEX ANNI ILLIUS. Caïphe étoit le Grand-Prêtre cette année-là. On a déja vû ailleurs, qu’en ce tems-là le Pontificat n’étoit pas à vie, comme anciennement; mais que les Gouverneurs déposoient les Grands-Prêtres à leur volonté.
18:14
ỷ. 14. ERAT AUTEM CAIPHAS. Caïphe étoit celui qui avoit donné ce conseil aux Juifs, qu’il étoit utile qu’un seul homme mourût pour le peuple, ci-devant Ch. XI. 49. 50. Par-là il étoit récusable comme juge dans l’affaire de JESUS-CHRIST; toutefois il préside au jugement, & ne feint pas de prononcer contre lui une sentence de mort. L’Evangéliste ne dit pas ici en termes exprès que JESUS-CHRIST ait été mené d’Anne à Caïphe ; mais la plûpart des Commentateurs croyent qu’aussi-tôt que le Sauveur eut comparu devant Anne, il fut conduit devant Caïphe, où arriva ce qui se lit dans les versets suivans. Quelques-uns même ont cru qu’il manquoit quelque chose au Texte en cet endroit, & ils y ont suppléé ces paroles qui se lisent dans saint Cyrille en cet endroit : Ils l’envoyèrent donc lié chez le Grand-Prêtre Caïphe. Mais d’autres ont soutenu que cette addition n’étoit ici ni nécessaire, ni assez autorisée par le seul Texte de saint Cyrille, pour être reçûe en cet endroit, contre le consentement de tous les autres Textes, & de toutes les Versions. D’ailleurs il n’y a nul inconvénient à dire qu’Anne fit à Jesus quelque interrogation sur sa doctrine, & ses Disciples, avant de l’envoyer à Caïphe.
18:15
ỷ. 15. ALIUS DISCIPULUS. Un autre Disciple, qui étoit connu du Grand-Prêtre. Saint Jérôme, fait Chrysostome, & après lui Théophylacte, & quelques autres ont cru que ce Disciple étoit saint Jean. Quelques nouveaux Commentateurs l’ont cru de même, fondez principalement sur ce que saint Jean seul rapporte cette circonstance, & qu’il parle souvent de lui-même en tierce personne ; enfin sur ce que le Texte Grec porte : Cet autre Disciple, comme pour marquer saint Jean, qui se trouve presque toujours ailleurs avec saint Pierre. Saint Jérôme veut qu’il ait été connu du Grand-Prêtre à cause de la noblesse de sa famille ; Nonnus, à cause de son métier de pêcheur. D’autres dans Lyran, à cause de sa capacité dans la science de la Loi. Vaines conjectures. La plûpart des meilleurs Commentateurs soutiennent que le Texte Grec doit être traduit, comme dans la Vulgate, un autre Disciple, & non pas cet autre Disciple ; & que quand saint Jean veut parler de lui-même, il le désigne pour l’ordinaire par l’épithète de celui que Jesus aimoit ; expression qu’il n’emploie point en cet endroit. Grotius conjecture que c’est l’homme chez qui le Sauveur avoit soupé, quelques heures auparavant. Saint Augustin dit qu’on ne doit pas témérairement prononcer sur une chose dont l’Ecriture ne dit rien. C’est ce qu’on peut dire de plus juste sur ces sortes de questions.
18:16
ỷ. 16. DIXIT OSTIARIAE. Il dit à la portière. Cette portière se trouve nommée Ballila dans Cæsarius. La coutume d’avoir quelquefois des femmes, sur tout des vieilles pour portières, est connuë dans l’antiquité. Les Septante donnent une servante pour portière à Isboeth. Aristophane les apelle Sēkis ; Homère, & Euripide en parlent aussi. Hécube dans ce dernier Poëte déplore son malheureux fort, de ce qu’après avoir été sur le trône, elle se voit réduite sur la fin de sa vie à devenir ou portière, ou nourrice. Et Plaute : Anus hic soles cubitare custos janitrix.
18:17
ỷ. 17. NUMQUID ET TU? N’êtes-vous pas aussi des Disciples de cet homme? Ceci est dit ici par anticipation. Il n’arriva que quelque tems après que Pierre fut entré, & que s’étant approché du feu, il se fit reconnoître par les assistans.
18:18
ỷ. 18. AD PRUNAS. Ils étoient auprès du feu. Le Grec à la lettre : Ils avoient fais un feu de charbons. Saint Marc lit : Ils se chauffoient à la lumière. Cequi marque un feu clair; & c’est ce qui est exprés dans saint Luc. Ceci se passa au milieu de la cour, où étoient les Archers ministres du Sanhédrin, & les serviteurs particuliers des Prêtres. Ces gens sont fort bien distinguéz dans le Texte. Il n’est plus parlé des soldats Romains. On les renvoya apparemment après qu’ils eurent livré Jésus à Anne.
QUIA FRIGUS ERAT. Parce qu’il faisoit froid. Comment cela, puisqu’en cette saison on faisoit la moisson des orges dans la Palestine, & que les fromens étoient fort avancez ? Biddulphe qui a voyagé dans ce pays-là, raconte qu’à la Fête de Pâque, il n’y ressentit pas plus de froid qu’on en ressent en Angleterre au milieu de l’été. Mais ce Voyageur expérimenta lui-même que l’on peut avoir assez froid, sur tout vers la fin de la nuit, pour avoir besoin de se chauffer, à cause des rosées qui y tombent en très-grande abondance, & qui rafraîchissent extrêmement l’air. Et Ligfoot montre par les Rabbins, que quelquefois il peut y avoir de la gelée, & de la neige durant la Fête de Pâque.
18:19
ỷ. 19. DE DISCIPULIS, ET DE DOCTRINA EJUS. Il l’interrogea touchant ses Disciples, & touchant sa Doctrine. Les Rabbins enseignent que généralement parlant, l’on n’exerce aucun acte judiciaire pendant la nuit. Les causes pécuniaires se plaident pendant le jour, & peuvent se juger la nuit. Les Jugemens criminels ne se peuvent ni commencer, ni achever que pendant le jour. Si la Sentence va à absoudre, on peut prononcer le jour même ; si elle va à condamner, on ne prononce que le lendemain : De forte qu’on ne peut exercer ces sortes de Jugemens ni la veille du Sabbat, ni la veille d’une Fête. Voilà les règles des Jugemens, selon le Talmud. Toutefois Jésus CHRIST est présenté devant le Grand-Prêtre, interrogé juridiquement, & condamné pendant la nuit, & pendant la nuit de la Fête de Pâque, selon la plûpart des Interprètes ; ou du moins la veille de cette Fête, & du grand jour du Sabbat. On voit par-là comme on observa les formalitez dans cette grande affaire. Quelques Anciens ont crû que ceci s’étoit passé chez Anne; & ce sentiment n’a rien que de très-conforme au Texte de saint Jean ; quoique la plûpart des Interprètes croyent que ce fut chez Caïphe, qui est marqué ici par sa seule qualité de Grand-Prêtre; qualité qui ne convient toutefois pas moins à Anne, qu’à Caïphe. On interrogea donc JESUS sur ses Disciples, & sur sa Doctrine: Quel droit il avoit d’assembler des Disciples, de faire une secte à part, de s’ériger en réformateur, & de semer une Doctrine nouvelle. Ces choses étoient du ressort du Grand-Prêtre. Il étoit Juge de la Doctrine, & des matières qui intéressoient la Religion.
18:20
ỷ. 20. PALAM LOCUTUS SUM MUNDO. J’ai parlé publiquement à tout le monde; à tous les Juifs; car il ne prêchoit pas aux Gentils: Mais il avoit parlé publiquement dans les Synagogues, dans le Temple, dans les places publiques, dans les villes, dans les villages, à la campagne, prenant occasion de tout ce qui se présentoit, pour annoncer le Royaume de Dieu. Ainsi s’il y avoit eu du mal dans sa Doctrine, il auroit eu autant de témoins qui auroient déposé contre lui, qu’il y avoit de Juifs dans tout le pays. Or personne jusques-là n’avoit pû trouver à redire à sa Doctrine, quoiqu’il fût toujours assiégé de Pharisiens, & de Docteurs de la Loi, qui lui tendoient des pièges de tous côtes. A l’égard de ses disciples, ils ne devoient point faire d’ombrage, puisqu’ils avoient vécu dans la paix, sans bruit, & sans donner la moindre marque de sédition, de division, de broüillerie dans l’Etat. Ils avoient prêché comme leur Maître, en faisant du bien à tout le monde. Fort différens des Chefs de secte, ou de parti, ou des faux Prophètes, qui prêchoient ou l’indépendance, ou la révolte, ou une mauvaise Doctrine, & qui n’assembloient les peuples que pour les séduire.
18:21
ỷ. 21. INTERROGAEOS QUI AUDIERUNT. Interrogez ceux qui m’ont entendu. Quand je rendrai témoignage en ma faveur, vous ne m’écouterez pas ; produisez des témoins, & qu’ils parlent ; qu’ils m’accusent, ou qu’ils me défendent ; qu’ils parlent pour ma charge, ou pour ma décharge. Suivez les régles ordinaires de la Justice ; commencez par oïr les témoins ; vous n’en manquez pas, puisque j’ai toujours enseigné parmi le peuple. Rien ne marque mieux l’innocence, & la confiance du Sauveur, que cette réponse.
18:22
ỷ. 22. UNUS MINISTRORUM. Un des Officiers qui étoient-là ; ou plutôt, un des Ministres de la Justice, un Sergent, un Huissier, donna un soufflet à Jésus, voulant signaler son zèle contre Jésus ; & son refpeét pour le Grand-Prêtre. Selden, & Marsham prétendent que cet Huissier ne fit rien en cela contre les Loix de sa nation, qui permettent à tout Israël de venger sur l’heure toute injure publique faite à Dieu, à son Temple, à son nation, au Grand-Prêtre ; & cela par la Loi du zèle.
18:23
ỷ. 23. SI MALE LOCUTUS SUM. Si j’ai mal parlé, fuites voir le mal que j’ai dit. Je fai qu’il est écrit : Vous ne parlez point mal du Prince de vôtre peuple ; & que je dois du reSpest au Grand-Prestre du Dieu vivant : mais montrez que j’ai violé ce respect, ou que je lui ai mal-parlé. Jésus ne lui présente pas l’autre jouë, comme il semble qu’il l’auroit dû faire, suivant ce qu’il ordonne à ses Disciples Lorsqu’on vous frappe sur une jouë, tendez l’autre jouë. Il le pratiqüa dans la préparation de son cœur, dit saint Augustin, puisqu’il présenta aux bourreaux non-seulement l’autre jouë, pour recevoir un fousset ; mais tout son Corps, pour être attaché à la Croix : Non solum alteram maxillam iterùm percuffuro ; sed totum Corpus figendum preparavis in ligno. S’il s’étoit tû dans cette occasion, son silence auroit été interprété comme un aveu d’une faute qu’il n’avoit point commise. Or son honneur, & celui de son Pere étoient intéressez à ce que son innocence fut toûjours à couvert. Un accusé, quelque criminel qu’il soit, est entre les mains de la Justice, comme dans un asile contre toute forte de violence étrangère.
18:24
ỷ. 24. ET MISIT EUM ANNAS. Or Anne l’avoit envoyé à Caïphe. C’est ainsi que traduisent la plûpart des Interprètes ; quoique le Texte à la lettre porte Anne l’envoya à Caïphe. Ou, selon d’autres Exemplaires : Or Anne l’envoya ; ou, Anne l’envoya donc. Et plusieurs ont crû, comme on l’a déja remarqué, que le premier interrogatoire que JESUS-CHRIST subit, se fit chez Anne, & qu’ensuite on l’envoya chez Caïphe. Mais presque tous les Commentateurs sont revenus à dire que ce fut chez Caïphe qu’arriva ce qui se lit dans les versets précédens ; & que ce verset est mis ici par récapitulation, ou en parenthêse. Nous suivons tou-tefois le sentiment contraire, comme plus conforme au Texte.
18:25
ỷ. 25. NEGAVIT. Ille nia. Voici la vraie place du premier, ou du second renoncement de saint Pierre; car ce qui est dit au ỷ. 17. est mis par anticipation. Voyez l’Harmonie des quatre Evangiles.
18:27
ỷ. 27. GALLUS CANTAVIT. Le coq chanta pour la dernière fois: car il avoit déjà chanté auparavant, comme on le voit dans saint Marc. Pour cette dernière fois, elle est marquée par les quatre Evangélistes, comme l’accomplissement de la prédiction du Sauveur.
18:28
ỷ. 28. ADDUCUNT JESUM A CAIPHA IN PRETORIUM. Ils amenèrent Jésus de chez Caïphe au palais du Gouverneur; dans la maison où logeoit Pilate. On donnoit à cette maison le nom de Prætorium, suivant l’usage des Romains, qui appelloient ainsi la maison des Gouverneurs de Province. Saint Jean a omis tout ce qui se passa dans la maison de Caïphe; les accusations, & les faux témoignages portez contre JESUS-CHRIST; la sentence de Caïphe; les outrages que le Sauveur souffrit dans la cour de ce Grand-Prêtre; la grande assemblée du Sanhédrin, qui se tint le matin, & où le Sauveur fut de nouveau déclaré digne de mort. L’Evangéliste a omis tout cela, comme ayant été assez expliqué par ceux qui avoient écrit avant lui. JESUS fut donc amené à Pilate par tout le Senat; c’est-à-dire, par ce qu’ils appelloient Sanhédrin, qui étoit la plus nombreuse, & la plus considérable Compagnie de Juges qui fût dans la nation. Ces Juges avoient bien pû déclarer JESUS digne de mort; mais ils ne pouvoient faire exécuter leur sentence. C’est ce qui les oblige à recourir à Pilate.
ERAT AUTEM MANE. C’étoit le matin. Ils s’étoient assemblés dès le matin, pour condamner JESUS. Leur assemblée ne dura pas long-tems; parce que le Sauveur ayant confessé nettement qu’il étoit Fils de Dieu, ils n’en demandèrent pas davantage; & sur l’heure, ils l’amenèrent à Pilate, résolus de poursuivre sa condamnation sans relâche.
UT NON CONTAMINARENTUR; SED UT MANDUCARENT PASCHA. Ils n’entrèrent point dans le Prétoire, de peur de se souiller, & afin de pouvoir manger la Pâque. Les Juifs considéroient les Gentils comme des gens souillés, & capables de communiquer leurs souillures à tout ce qu’ils touchoient. C’est sur cela qu’étoit fondée la coutume où étoient les Juifs de se purifier, lorsqu’ils venoient de la place publique, ou de quelqu’autre endroit, où ils pouvoient toucher un Payen, ou un homme souillé. Les Sages avoient décidé dès le tems des Asmonéens, ou même long-tems auparavant, que généralement parlant, tout Gentil, homme, ou femme, devoit être considéré comme une femme durant son impureté, ou comme un homme qui est souillé par une Gonorrhee perpetuelle. Les Sénateurs, & les Prêtres ne voulurent donc point entrer dans le Prétoire, de peur qu’ils ne touchassent quelque Gentil, garde, soldat, serviteur, Huissier, ou autre; ce qui leur auroit communiqué une souillure, qui auroit duré jusqu’au soir, & qui les auroit empêchés de manger l’agneau pascal, qui devoit être immolé l’après-midi de ce jour-là, depuis deux, ou trois heures après midi, & mangé au soir. On oppose à cette explication, que la Pâque dont il s’agit ici, n’est point l’agneau pascal; mais d’autres victimes, qu’on immoloit le jour de Pâque. Si l’Evangéliste vouloit parler de l’agneau pascal, il feroit inutile de dire que les Juifs n’osèrent entrer dans le Prétoire, de peur de se fouiller, & afin qu’ils pussent manger la Pâque; puisque l’agneau pascal ne se mangeoit qu’au soir, & que la souillure qu’ils auroient pû contracter le jour, se purifioit au soir par le bain; de manière que rien ne les empêchoit alors de manger la Pâque comme les autres Juifs. C’est ce que Maimonide marque assez clairement, lorsqu’il dit, que ceux qui se sont fouillez le 14. de Nisan par l’attouchement d’un reptile immonde, (qui est la même souillure que l’on contracte par l’attouchement d’un Payen,) se lavent au soir. On immole pour eux la Pâque, & ils la mangent après le coucher du soleil. Il faut donc que ce soit quelque autre victime, qu’ils n’auroient pû manger le jour même, s’ils avoient été fouillez. Or l’Ecriture donne le nom de Pâque à certaines hosties que l’on immoloit la veille, ou le jour de Pâque, ou même pendant toute l’ostave. C’est donc apparemment ces hosties dont il est parlé ici. Les Juifs appellent ces victimes Chagigab; & on en immoloit la veille, & le jour de Pâque; c’est-à-dire, le 14. & le 15. de Nisan. Moyse dit en effet expressément: Vous immolerez au Seigneur vôtre Dieu la Pâque, c’est-à-dire, des brebis, & des bœufs. Or il étoit défendu aux personnes fouillées de manger de ces fortes de sacrifices. C’est donc apparemment de ceux-là dont les Juifs vouloient manger, & pour lesquels ils se conservoient sans souillure. Mais à cela j’ai trois choses à dire. La première, que ces sacrifices n’étaient pas plus purs que celui de l’agneau pascal, on pouvoit se purifier le soir même, après avoir touché un Payen; & alors rien n’empêchoit qu’on n’en mangeât. La seconde, qu’il n’y avoit nulle obligation de manger de ces sacrifices, nommez Chagigah. Ils étoient de pure dévotion, & en immoloit qui vouloit. La troisiéme, que les victimes que Moyse appelle Pâque dans le Deutéronome, & qui font apparemment les mêmes dont il parle dans les nombres, & qu’on immoloit tous les jours de l’ostave de Pâque, étoient des holocaustes, dont il n’étoit pas permis de manger aux purs, non plus qu’aux impurs. Ainsi on n’en peut rien conclure en faveur de cet endroit. Je ne nie pas que pendant toute la Fête on n’immolât aussi des hosties pacifiques; on convient que tout le monde en pouvoit offrir tant qu’il vouloit : mais il n’y avoit ni jour, ni tems, ni nombre fixez pour cela. Chacun suivoit sa dévotion, & le mouvement de son cœur : Et il n’est nullement croyable que les Juifs aussi ardens qu’ils l’étoient à poursuivre J E S U S-C H R I S T, eussent voulu se contraindre, pour pouvoir manger ce jour-là des sacrifices, qu’ils pouvoient manger également un autre jour, ou ne manger point du tout. Je ne fais donc aucun doute que saint Jean ne parle ici de la victime pascalle, proprement dite, laquelle fut immolée dans le Temple ce jour-là même, dans le même tems que JESUS-CHRIST expira sur la Croix; & que sous ces termes : Afin qu’ils pussent manger la Pâque, il entend l’immolation, la préntation, & la manducation de l’agneau, laquelle ne se pouvoit faire que par des personnes pures. D’ailleurs comme il y avoit plusieurs Prêtres dans la Compagnie, ils avoient plus de raison que d’autres de s’abstenir d’entrer dans le Prétoire, à cause que ce jour même ils devoient faire solemnuellement leurs fonctions dans le Temple. Ainsi ce passage favorise visiblement nôtre opinion sur la dernière Pâque, que nous ne croyons pas que nôtre Seigneur ait faite l’année de sa mort.
18:29
ỷ. 29. EXIVIT PILATUS AD EOS FOR AS. Pilate vint les trouver dehors. Puisqu’ils ne pouvoient pas entrer dans le Prétoire, Pilate a la condescendance de sortir lui-même, pour leur parler. Les Romains avoient conservé aux Hébreux le libre usage de leurs Loix, & de leur Religion. Ils avoient pour eux des égards, pour ne les pas contraindre à agir contre leurs usages.
18:30
ỷ. 30. SI NON ESSET HIC MALEFACTOR. Si ce n’étoit point un méchant, un mal-faîteur, nous ne vous l’aurions pas livré entre les mains. Si nous n’étions pas affûrez qu’il est coupable, nous ne vous l’aurions pas livré. Ils veulent rendre Pilate non le Juge de sa cause, mais l’exécuteur de leur sentence : Executorem sententiæ, non arbitrum causæ, dit saint Léon.
18:31
ỷ. 31. ACCIPITE EUM VOS. Prenez-le vous-mêmes, & le jugez selon vôtre Loi. Quelques-uns prennent ceci dans le sens d’une ironie : Puisqu’il est si visiblement criminel, que c’est en quelque forte vous faire injure, que de vous demander de quoi il est accusé, prenez-le vous-mêmes, & le jugez ; condamnez-le, faites-le mourir. Mais on croit plus communément que c’est une déférence que Pilate rend aux Juifs. Ce Gouverneur croyant qu’il s’agissoit d’une matière concernant leurs Loix, voulut bien leur en déferer le Jugement. Il ne leur dit pas expressément : Jugez-le, condamnez-le, faites-le mourir : mais les Juifs l’entendirent ainsi, puisqu’ils répondirent : Il ne nous est pas permis de faire mourir personne. Et que craignoient-ils, si Pilate leur en donnoit la permission ? Ils ne vouloient pas apparemmment se charger devant le peuple de la haine de cette mort, ni s’attirer le reproche de la condamnation, & de la mort du Sauveur. On demande ici en quel sens il est vrai que les Juifs ayent alors perdu le droit de vie, & de mort ? La plûpart des Commentateurs fondent sur le témoignage, & sur l’aveu des Rabbins, croient que ce fut quarante ans avant la destruction de Jérusalem par les Romains, que ce droit leur fut ôté; c’est-à-dire, la même année de la Passion de notre Sauveur ; car Jérusalem fut ruinée quarante ans après sa mort. Scaliger s’est inscrit en faux contre cette datte des Hébreux. Il soutient que cela arriva soixante-un ans avant la ruine du Temple, lorsqu’Archélaüs Roi de Judée ayant été relégué à Vienne, la Judée fut réduite en Province : Et l’opinion de Scaliger a été suivie par plus d’un Savant. En effet ce qui rend suspecte l’opinion des Rabbins, c’est que si l’on leur demande la cause de ce défaut de pouvoir, qui les empêchoit alors de punir de mort les coupables, ils en rapportent une raison ridicule, qui est que le nombre des meurtres s’augmentant tous les jours, à cause de la licence des voleurs, & des affaires, & le Sanhédrin ne pouvant suffire à réprimer par son autorité tant de maux ; en étant d’ailleurs empêché par l’autorité des Gouverneurs, qui arrachoient souvent de ses mains les coupables, résolut de quitter le lieu où il s’assembloit dans le Temple, & de s’établir ailleurs, pour n’être plus exposé à voir les Loix violées, & à laisser le crime impuni. De-là Selden, & quelques autres ont conclu que les Juifs n’avoient pas véritablement perdu le droit de vie, & de mort, mais simplement qu’ils ne l’exerçoient plus comme autrefois, pour les raisons qu’on vient de marquer. Mais d’où vient donc qu’ils disent ici : Il ne nous est pas permis de faire mourir personne ? C’est qu’alors ils n’exerçoient plus ce pouvoir librement, ni avec la même autorité, & le même fuccés qu’autrefois, tant à cause de la puissance des Gouverneurs, que par la licence, & le grand nombre des méchans. Voilà ce que disent ces Auteurs, en supposant comme vrai le récit des Rabbins. D’autres limitent ainsi la réponse des Juifs : Il ne nous est pas permis de faire mourir personne par le supplice de la croix; car on prétend, quoique mal-à-propos, que ce genre de mort étoit inusité parmi les Juifs. Ou bien : Il ne nous est pas permis de faire mourir un jour comme aujourd’hui, le jour de Pâque ; car on suppose communément que ceci se fit le jour de cette Solemnité ; & on fait que dans les jours de Fête, on ne faisoit mourir personne, suivant les Lois, & la Police des Juifs. Enfin Bynæus croit simplement qu’ils ne pouvoient faire mourir JESUS-CHRIST, parce qu’il étoit criminel de Léze-Majesté ; crime réservé au Magistrat Romain. Que les Juifs ayent eu alors le droit de vie, & de mort, on croit en avoir une bonne preuve dans l’exemple de saint Etienne, qui fut mis à mort par les Juifs hors des portes de Jérusalem. Le Sauveur fut deux fois sur le point d’être lapidé dans le Temple. Saint Paul est obligé d’appeller à la juridiction des Juifs ses ennemis. Le Sénat des Juifs délibéra de faire mourir les Apôtres ; & ils auroient apparemment exécuté leur résolution, si Gamaliel ne s’y fut opposé. On fait que saint Paul, & les autres Apôtres ont souvent été battus de verges dans les Synagogues. Mais nous croyons avec de fort habiles gens, que ces exemples ne prouvent rien, parce qu’ils ne marquent où qu’une émotion populaire, ou un Jugement de zèle, comme l’appellent les auteurs Juifs, lorsque sans suivre les formalitez ordinaires de la Justice, le peuple tuoit sur le champ un violateur de la Loi. Dans ces cas, les Lois, ou la Coutume toléroient ces exécutions violentes. Ou ce font de simples résolutions de perdre un homme, en l’accusant, & en poursuivant sa condamnation devant les Juges légitimes. Ou enfin ce ne sont que des peines, qui ne passent pas la flagellation, ou la bastonade; châtiments que les Romains n’empêchoient pas qu’ils n’exerçassent dans leurs Synagogues envers ceux qui avoient commis quelques fautes contre la Loi. A l’égard de l’époque marquée par les Rabbins, de quarante ans avant la destruction du Temple, nous la croyons fausse, aussi-bien que la raison qu’ils en apportent. La vraie cause de la soustraction du pouvoir de faire mourir, vient sans doute de ce que les Romains ayant réduit la Judée en Province, les Gouverneurs attirèrent à leur Tribunal toutes les causes capitales, pour des motifs que tout le monde devine aisément. Joseph dit qu’Ananus fit mourir Jacques, frere, ou parent de JESUS-CHRIST, & quelques autres: mais Ananus prit pour cette exécution un tems où la Judée étoit sans Gouverneur. Ce fut l’intervalle qui s’écoula entre la mort de Festus, & l’arrivée d’Albinus Gouverneur de la Province. De plus Joseph remarque qu’on porta des plaintes de l’action d’Ananus, au Gouverneur, & au Roi Agrippa, parce qu’elle étoit contre les Loix, & l’usage du pays.
18:32
ỷ. 32. UT SERMO JESU IMPLETERETUR. Afin que la parole de JESUS fût accomplie. Afin que, peut être mis simplement pour, en sorte que. Il marque non la cause, mais l’événement. Dieu permit que les Juifs perdissent le droit de vie, & mort; afin que selon les Loix Romaines, qui punissoient la révolte par le supplice de la croix, JESUS-CHRIST fût crucifié, suivant la prédiction: Lorsque je serai élevé en haut, j’attirerai tout à moi. Et ailleurs: Le fils de l’homme sera livré aux Gentils, pour être outragé, fouetté, & crucifié.
18:33
ỷ. 33. INTROIVIT ERGO ITERUM IN PRÆTORIUM. Etant donc rentré dans le palais. Ce mot iterum, une seconde fois, ne veut pas dire ici que Pilate foit déjà entré une fois auparavant dans son palais ; mais seulement qu’il y entra, après en être sorti une fois, pour parler aux Juifs. Le Syriaque, & quelques Manuscrits Grecs omettent cette particule comme superflüe.
TU ES REX JUDEORUM? Etes-vous le Roi des Juifs? Saint Jean n’a pas dit qu’on ait accusé JESUS-CHRIST d’être Roi des Juifs : mais fait Luc marque expressément que l’ayant amené à Pilate, ils commencèrent à l’accuser comme un rébelle, qui désendoit de payer le tribut à César, & qui se disoit le CHRIST, Roi des Juifs. C’est en conséquence de cette accusation, que Pilate demande à JESUS-CHRIST s’il est vraiment le Roi des Juifs.
18:34
ỷ. 34. A TEMETIPS0 HOC D1CIS? Dites-vous cela de vous-même, ou d’autres vous l’ont-ils dit de moi ? Est-ce un simple soupçon, ou une simple curiosité, qui vous porte à me faire cette demande ; ou si c’est une accusation de la part de mes ennemis ? JESUS-CHRIST ne demande pas ceci comme s’il l’ignoroit : mais il étoit résolu d’une part de rendre témoignage à la vérité ; & de l’autre, de négliger les questions inutiles, ou de pure curiosité, qui lui seroient faites. Il veut conduire Pilate à la réponse qu’il a à lui faire ci-après.
18:35
ỷ. 35. NUMQUID EGO JUDEUS SUM? Ne savez-vous pas bien que je ne suis pas Juif? Qu’avez-vous fait ? Pilate s’offense de la liberté de JESUS-CHRIST : Suis-je Juif, & fai-je si vous vous dites Roi de vôtre nation ? Que fai-je si vous êtes descendu des anciens Rois ? En un mot fai-je en quel sens vous prétendez être Roi des Juifs ? Suis-je Juif moi ? Ce sont vos Prêtres qui vous accusent d’affeter la Royauté. Qu’avez-vous fait ? Quel est vôtre crime ? Qu’y a-t’il qui ait donné lieu à vos Prestres, & au Principaux de vôtre nation de vous accuser de ce crime ?
18:36
ỷ. 36. REGNUM MEUM NON EST DE HOC MUNDO. Mon Royaume n’est pas de ce monde. Je l’avouë, je suis Roi, & j’asse&e la Royauté : mais je ne suis pas pour cela coupable du crime de Léze-Majesté. Mon Royaume n’est pas de la nature des Royaumes de ce monde. Ni César, ni vous, ni les Principaux de ma nation ne doivent pas en prendre ombrage. Mes Etats, mes sujets, mon empire sont dans le Ciel ; & si j’exerce quelque autorité sur la terre, c’est sur les esprits, & sur les cœurs. Si mon Royaume étoit de ce monde, je me ferois mis à la tête de mes troupes, & j’aurois combattu pour soutenir mes Etats, ou pour en faire la conquête sur ceux qui les tiennent. Mais n’ayez point d’inquiétude sur cela ; je ne viens pas pour dépouiller les Romains de leur Empire. Les Prophètes avoient parlé du Messie, comme d’un grand Monarque. C’est ainsi que les Juifs l’attendoient. Ils espéroient qu’il rétabliroit le trône de David. Ils prénoient à la lettre, ce qui ne doit s’entendre que d’un Royaume spirituel. Les parens de JESUS-CHRIST selon la chair ayant été recherchez sous le regne de Domitien, sur leurs prétentions au Royaume des Juifs, répondirent que ce Royaume n’étoit ni de ce monde, ni terrestre ; mais qu’il étoit tout céleste, & angélique.
18:37
ỷ. 37. TU DICIS, QUIA REX SUM EGO. Vous le dites, que je suis Roi. Oüi je le suis ; vous dites vrai en cela : mais je le suis dans le sens que je vous ai dit. Je suis né Roi ; je suis venu en ce monde pour regner. Je dois ce témoignage à la vérité ; & quiconque aime la vérité, reconnoît que je ne dis rien que de certain. J’ai regné dans toute l’éternité dans le sein de mon Pere, & je suis venu dans le monde pour y exercer un empire tout spirituel, par la vérité que j’y enseigne. Les disciples, & les amateurs de la vérité (4), sont les sujets de mon Royaume : Omnis qui est ex veritate, audit vocem meam.
18:38
ỷ. 38. QUID EST VERITAS ? Qu’est-ce que la vérité ? Et sans attendre la réponse de JESUS-CHRIST, Pilate sortit. Ce n’est point dans un esprit d’amour pour la vérité, que le Gouverneur fait cette question à JESUS-CHRIST. La plûpart croyent qu’il la fit d’un stile moqueur, & méprisant; comme s’il disoit : Qu’est-ce donc que la vérité ? Est-ce une chose qui se rencontre parmi les hommes ? En effet dans ce tems-là parmi les Grecs, & les Romains, il y avoit une infinité de sentimens divers sur la vérité ; & la plûpart des Philosophes la regardoient comme fort éloignée de nous, & comme une chose presque au-dessus de nôtre portée. Ou peutêtre qu’il s’imagina que le Royaume de JESUS-CHRIST étoit de la nature de celui du Sage des Stoïciens ; Royaume imaginaire, & chymérique : Car ils prétendoient que leur prétendu Sage étoit seul heureux, seul Roi, seul Savant. D’où vient que Pilate n’insiste pas sur cela, parce que la chose lui parut toute étrangère, à la cause dont il s’agissoit.
NULLAM CAUSAM. Je ne trouve aucun crime en cet homme ; à la lettre, aucune cause. Voilà la justification de JESUS-CHRIST la plus expresse, & la plus absolue. Je ne trouve point que l’accusation d’affecter la Royauté, dont vous chargez cet homme, soit réelle. C’est un mal-entendu. En un mot, cela ne vous regarde point; & je suis sûr que l’Empereur ne craint rien de la part de tels concurrens.
18:39
ỷ. 39. EST AUTEM CONSUETUDO VOBIS. Comme c’est la coutume que je vous délivre un criminel à la Fête de Paque. On a déjà parlé de cette coutume, & de ce qui a pû lui donner naissance, sur S. Matthieu, Chap. xxvii. 15. Saint Luc insinuë qu’il y avoit obligation de la part du Gouverneur, de délivrer un criminel. Le Syriaque, l’Arabe, & quelques Interprètes croyent qu’on en délivroit un à chacune des trois grandes Solemnitez de Pâque, de la Pentecôte, & des Tabernacles. Mais l’opinion la plus commune, est que cette prérogative n’étoit que pour la Fête de Pâque. On conjecture que cela se faisoit principalement en mémoire de la délivrance de l’Egypte : & la coutume en étoit si bien établie, qu’elle formoit une forte de Loi : D’où vient l’expression de saint Luc, que nous avons remarquée : Necesse autem habebat dimittere eis per diem festum unum. On dispute favor si cette coûtume vient des Juifs, ou si elle fut introduite par les Romains. Grotius, suivi de quelques Savans, veut qu’elle tire son origine des Romains. Il montre que la Loi de Moyse étoit sans miséricorde ; qu’elle n’accorde ni au Roi, ni au Sénat, ni à tout le peuple le pouvoir de pardonner. Le Roi Sédécias reconnoit dans Jérémie, qu’il ne peut rien contre la sentence du Sénat. Les Romains avoient coûtume de mettre les prisonniers en liberté le jour que l’on ordonnoit des prières publiques. Les Empereurs avoient soin de faire exprimer dans leurs ordres aux Gouverneurs, les graces qu’ils pouvoient accorder ; car les Gouverneurs d’eux-mêmes n’en pouvoient donner aucune. Pour donc gratifier les Juifs, ils voulurent bien leur permettre de demander la vie, & la liberté d’un criminel, au jour de Pâque, qui étoit leur plus grande solemnité. Il est certain qu’on ne voit aucun vestige de cet usage dans l’Ecriture, ni dans l’Histoire des Juifs ; je ne fai pas même si on la remarque dans les Rabbins. Mais elle n’en est pas moins indubitable, étant bien marquée dans les quatre Evangélistes. D’autres soutiennent que cette liberté vient originai-rement des Juifs, qui y furent maintenus par les Romains, lorsqu’ils leur furent assujettis. Le Texte même de saint Jean nous fait pancher pour cette opinion. Vous avez la coûtume que je vous mette en liberté un des criminels qui sont dans les liens. On ne comprend pas quel motif auroit pû porter les Romains à accorder cette faveur aux Juifs, pendant qu’à Rome même, & dans les autres Provinces elle n’étoit point ordinaire. Car ce que dit Grotius des criminels mis en liberté aux jours des prières publiques, étoit une chose absolument casuelle, & nullement attachée à un certain jour. De plus, par qui cette grace a-t’elle pû être attachée au jour de Pâque, sinon par les Juifs. Ce que dit Grotius, que la Loi n’accordoit à personne le droit de dispenser des loix pénales, est vrai en un sens, puisqu’il n’y a aucun Texte formel qui parle de cette dispense: mais aussi il n’y en a aucune qui défende de donner graces à un criminel. L’exemple de Sédécias, ne prouve autre chose que la foiblesse du gouvernement de ce Prince, & l’excessive autorité du Sénat sous son regne. Si l’on ne trouve rien de cela dans l’Histoire, c’est apparemment que la chose n’a pas paru assez importante pour être marquée dans les monumens publics; & si l’occasion ne s’en fut pas présentée d’elle-même dans l’histoire de la Passion de notre Sauveur, les Evangélistes ne se feroient jamais avisé d’en parler.
18:40
ỷ. 40. ERAT AUTEM BARABBAS LATRO. Or Barabbas étoit un voleur. Saint Marc dit qu’il étoit en prison avec les compagnons de sa révolte, parce qu’ils avoient fait un meurtre dans une sédition. Barabbas signifie, le fils du pere; nom commun dans les Ecrits des Rabbins. Il étoit donc non seulement voleur, mais aussi séditieux, & homicide. Voilà l’homme qui fût préféré à JESUS-CHRIST. Grotius veut que voleur en cet endroit, soit le même que meurtrier, ou assassin. En effet en ce tems-là la Judée étoit pleine de voleurs, qui étoient autant de meurtriers, d’assassins, & de révoltez. Cela concilie les Evangélistes.
18:1
… David, weeping over the rebellion of Absalom, crossed it barefoot and with his head covered as a sign of mourning (II Sam. 15, 23-30). Christ, prefigured by David, crossed it at the beginning of the Passion to go to Gethsemane (Jn. 18, 1). Jewish, Christian and Muslim traditions, wrongly interpreting a passage of the prophet Joel (4, 2.12) that speaks of the valley of the "Judgment of God," called in Hebrew Jī-hōfāphat, …
Gethsemani (Hebrew Gath-Šēmānîm, "Oil Press")
GETHSEMANI (Hebrew Gath-Šēmānîm, "Oil Press"). - A place (Lk. 22:40), a garden (Jn. 18:1), a plot of land (Mk. 14:32; Mt. 26:36; Vulg. villa, praedium) in Jerusalem, beyond the brook Kidron, at the foot of the Mount of Olives (Lk. 22:39; Jn. 18:1-2) where Jesus …
… In Holy Scripture this valley is never called the "valley of I.," but the valley or torrent of the Cedron (II Sam. 15, 23; II Kings 2, 37; Jer. 31, 40; John 18, 1): it is little more than the bed of a torrent, and it agrees poorly with the text of Joel, which presupposes ('ēmeq, "broad valley") a spacious valley to receive the peoples. …
18:2
Gethsemani (Hebrew Gath-Šēmānîm, "Oil Press")
… Here Jesus, during his stays in Jerusalem, was accustomed to spend the nights (Lk. 22:39; Jn. 18:2) as the guest of the owner, a friend or relative; and on the evening of Holy Thursday, having left the eight disciples there to rest, he went further into the garden and, having also …
18:3
… Jesus is captured by a cohort, according to Jn 18:3: it is to be understood as a small detachment of the garrison (likewise in Mt 27:27; Mk 15:6). In Acts 10:1 the cohort of which the centurion Cornelius was a part is mentioned; …
those who went to seize the Redeemer (John 18:3; Acts 1:16); he betrayed the Master with a kiss (Matt. 26:49 and parallel texts); he too was struck down by Jesus with the words: "I am he" (John 18:5), and after his condemnation …
18:5
those who went to seize the Redeemer (John 18:3; Acts 1:16); he betrayed the Master with a kiss (Matt. 26:49 and parallel texts); he too was struck down by Jesus with the words: "I am he" (John 18:5), and after his condemnation he hanged himself (Matt. 27:3-5; Acts 1:18).
… Nazaraeus); 26:71; Lk. 18:37; Jn. 18:5, 7; 19:19; Acts 2:22; 3:6; 4:10; 6:14; 22:8; 26:9. In Acts 24:5 ff. Paul is accused as "ringleader of the sect of the Nazoreans." The title is connected with Nazareth (v.), where Jesus …
18:10
Malchus (Mellyoc, Malchus, from Semitic Malk = "King")
… Having gone to the garden of Olives to arrest Jesus, he received a slash from Peter, which wounded his right ear. Only Jn. 18:10 gives the name of the striker, Peter, and of the wounded man, M. The Synoptics (Mt. 26:51; Mk. 14:47; Lk. 22:50), perhaps because Peter was still alive when they wrote, omit …
18:13
Annas (Ānānō: corresponds to Heb. Hānan[jah])
… During the public life of Jesus he was still considered high priest, not only in honor but also in fact, perhaps because he was regarded as such by right. Lk. 3, 2, lists him together with Caiaphas; Jn. 18, 13, notes that Jesus, having been arrested, was brought "first to A." and implies that the first
9) The religious trial. - The order of events seems to be the following: J. is questioned in private form by the elder Annas, who could more easily have found the motive for a condemnation (Jn. 18:13-24); he is then led to Caiaphas, the high priest, and to the Sanhedrin, gathered in his house (Mt. 26:57-66),
18:14
… Under the pontificate of C., St. John the Baptist began his ministry (Lk. 3:2). After the raising of Lazarus, C. advised the Sanhedrin to kill Jesus (Jn. 11:47-54; 18:14). In noting, in the account of this episode, that C. "was the high priest of that year," the Fourth Gospel does not mean to say that the office of high priest lasted only one year, …
18:16
John, Apostle, Evangelist, Saint
That G. accompanied Peter (Jn. 18:16) was admitted by Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Jerome (PG 59, 449; 74, 596; PL 22, 1090). Augustine rightly doubts (PL 35, 1932) "fortasse ergo ipse hic est," since in Act. 4:13 …
18:19
Sanhedrin (Συνέδριον « Assembly »)
in office, those already possibly deposed and, in all likelihood, also the members of the families from which the highest religious office was customarily chosen (cf. Jn. 18:19; Acts 4:6; 19:14). The "elders" (οἱ πρεσβύτεροι) represented the lay aristocracy; they were the "most distinguished personages" (Flavius Josephus, Vita, 9). The "scribes" (οἱ …
18:22
… known from the preparation of the Old Testament and from the proofs adduced by J. that in making himself the Son of God he did not derogate from the holiness of the one God. The unjust condemnation, preceded by the blow with a rod on his face (ἀσπύμα Io. 18, 22), by Peter's threefold denial (on the agreement of the accounts cf. F. Prat, II, pp. 355-56), and followed by the insults of the sanhedrists and the servants (Mt. 26, 67-68) and by …
18:23
… rectified, qualifying it as blasphemy, the Pharisees' statement that had defined as a demonic work the miracle of the possessed man whom he himself had freed (Mt. 12:21 ff.); he publicly rebuked the servant of the high priest, who had struck him on the cheek (Jn. 18:23).
18:25
ble moat, it was a vast palace with porticoes and gardens, whose plan recent excavations have made it possible to recognize, and especially the great paved floor which is held to be the Lithostrotos (John 18, 25) in which Jesus was condemned by Pontius Pilate.
18:26
Malchus (Mellyoc, Malchus, from Semitic Malk = "King")
… This man asked Peter, who was denying: "Did I not see you with him (Jesus) in the garden?" (Jn. 18:26-27).
18:28
… blasphemy, tore his garments and cried out: "He has blasphemed! what further need have we of witnesses?" (Mt. 26:57-65; Mk. 14:53-64). Thus Jesus was condemned to death by the Sanhedrin, and then handed over to Pilate, to whom he was led from the house of C. (Jn. 18:28). When, after the healing of a lame man, Peter and John proclaimed Jesus to the people, they were brought before the Sanhedrin, of which C. was also a member (Acts 4:6), but no longer …
… has, however, the sense of paschal supper, as in Mt. 26:18 f.; Mc. 14:16; Lc. 22:8-9, 13. With the sense of paschal supper, or rather of paschal lamb, it is found in the expression: "To eat the P." (Mt. 26:17; Mc. 14:12-14; Lc. 22:11-15; Io. 18:28). Exclusive is the sense of paschal lamb in the expression "to immolate the P."; thus Mc. 14:12: "On the first day of unleavened bread, when they immolated the P." (cf. Lc. 22:7) …
His characteristic essays—diligent, learned, rich in erudition, but sometimes unbalanced and even false—can be read, for example, on Mt. 26:17 and Jn. 18:28, Lk. 2:1-5, etc. Raimondo Köbert
… whose immolation was to take place shortly thereafter (Jn. 2:13), and to the expiatory sacrifice of the "servant of Yahweh" (Is. 53:7; cf. Acts 8:32). The Evangelist gives the greatest prominence to Jesus' paschal rite (Jn. 13:1-3, 31-33; cf. 18:28) and then goes on to emphasize the realization in him of the type of the paschal lamb (Jn. 19:33-36). The figure, expressing moral purification from sin through immolation, applied …
… different parties to shift by one day the beginning of the lunar months (especially of nīśān); it seems that for this reason the accusers of Jesus (S.) had not yet eaten the paschal lamb, already consumed the previous evening by Jesus and the Pharisees (cf. Jn. 18, 28). Other liturgical differences concerned the rites to be performed on the feast of atonement, the hour of the immolation of the paschal lamb, which according to Ex. 12, 6 and the S. …
18:30
… They accuse him first in general as a malefactor (Io. 18, 30), then as a political agitator who has made himself king and has forbidden the payment of tribute (Lc. 23, 2-5). Pilate recognizes six times the innocence of J.:
18:31
… But above all many of these manuscripts are far less posterior to the original than all the manuscripts of the classical authors, without exception; and among these one, pap. 52 (P. Rylands 457) is almost contemporary with it: it is a leaf of a codex found in Egypt and bearing on the verso Io. 18, 31-33 and on the recto Io. 18, 37-38, dated by specialists to the 2nd century, more probably to the first half; it thus goes back almost to the era in which Catholic tradition places the …
… by death (Lev. 24:16). The Sanhedrin therefore pronounces the death sentence, because the right had been left to it, but being unable to execute the sentence, it was necessary to refer the case and have the sentence ratified by the Roman magistrate (Jn. 18:31; cf. U. Holzmeister, Historia aetatis Novi Testamenti, 2nd ed., Rome 1938, pp. 99-100).
John, Apostle, Evangelist, Saint
The argument is confirmed by the discovery of a very ancient mutilated leaf, from the time of Hadrian or of Antoninus Pius, certainly written before 150: the pap. Ryland gr. 457, which contains the account of Jn. 18, 31-34 and 37-38 in a form in some way already changed from the primitive one (H. Roberts, An unpublished fragment of the Fourth Gospel, Papyrus Ryland gr. 457, Manchester 1935; cf. A. …
18:33
… suspected that it was Jesus (Io. 4:29; 7:26 ff. 31, 41; 10:24; 12:34) and questioned him in the Sanhedrin (Mt. 26:63; Mc. 14:61; Lc. 22:67), then demanded his condemnation, accusing him of having proclaimed himself Ch. King (Lc. 23:2, 35, 39; Io. 18:33, 37; 19:14 ff. 19-21). In the Gospels, Jesus does not publicly insist on his title of Ch. before his Passion, but he warns against the antichrists (v.) who will usurp that name (Mt. …
18:34
… analogy concerning its nature, assimilating it as to genesis, form and government to the empires of the nations (cf. Lk. 17, 20 f.). The M. therefore was considered, in a prevalent if not exclusive way, as a warrior king and conqueror (cf. Jn. 6, 15; 18, 34 ff.). …
18:36
J. shows throughout the Passion the special protection that God grants him (Is. 50, 7); he reveals himself in his answers as king of a spiritual kingdom; he reaffirms his mission and his superhuman origin (Io. 18, 36-37); he affirms that he is in Pilate's hands by the will of the Father (ibid. 19, 11). The fulfillment of the prophecies and the manifestations of his nature, while the struggle of the …
… To accept his kingship and submit to it one must be men of truth (ibid. 18, 36-37).
Salvation consists, then, in receiving from Christ the messianic goods, constituted not by a terrestrial kingdom re-established according to Jewish hopes, which Jesus rejects, but by the kingdom of God which is spiritual and transcendent (Luke 17:21; John 18:36) and by eternal life, in which perfect happiness is realized, but which is already initially realized on earth in those who believe in Christ (John 3:36; 5:24; 6:47). Here is the crucial …
18:37
… original than all the manuscripts of the classical authors, without exception; and among these one, pap. 52 (P. Rylands 457) is almost contemporary with it: it is a leaf of a codex found in Egypt and bearing on the verso Io. 18, 31-33 and on the recto Io. 18, 37-38, dated by specialists to the 2nd century, more probably to the first half; it thus goes back almost to the era in which Catholic tradition places the composition of the Gospel of St. …
John, Apostle, Evangelist, Saint
… (and Gal. 4:19), τιθέναι ψυχὴν ἑαυτοῦ (I Jn. 3:16; Jn. 10:11, 17 f., 15:13). Other terms and phrases occur commonly: ποιεῖν τὴν ἀλήθειαν (I Jn. 1:6 = Jn. 8:44); οὐκ ἔστιν ἡ ἀλήθεια ἐν τινι (I Jn. 1:8; 2:4 = Jn. 8:44); ἐκ τῆς ἀληθείας εἶναι (I Jn. 2:21 = Jn. 18:37); ἐκ τοῦ διαβόλου εἶναι (I Jn. 3:8 = Jn. 8:44); ἐκ θεοῦ εἶναι (I Jn. 3:4, 1 = Jn. 7:17; 8:47); ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου εἶναι (I Jn. 4:5 = Jn. 3:23); ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου λαλεῖν (I Jn. 4:5 = Jn. 3:31); …
… Yes, you have said it: I am" (ibid. 18:37). What he meant by this, the Roman procurator was not able to understand; but the Apostles grasped its full meaning when they received their mission from Jesus. …
… The martyr's testimony presupposes the testimony of him who was "born and came into the world to bear witness to the truth" (Jn. 18:37). The disciple suffers as the Master did, or rather still with the Master, because he finds himself in the same eschatological situation, in which the word "truth" means the revelation …
18:38
the first after the interrogation about kingship (Io. 18, 38): Pilate sees that it is not a dangerous kingship; the second after the referral to Herod (Lc. 23, 14): Pilate has seen that not even Herod condemned him; the third after the failed …
… Toward Jesus Christ he showed himself respectful and almost favorable: he repeatedly declared his innocence (Mt. 27:23; Mk. 15:14; Lk. 23:4, 14, 22; Jn. 18:38; 19:4, 6), for which reason he long refused to receive the request for condemnation presented by the Sanhedrists, and even sought to free him: he sent him to Herod (Lk. 23:6-15); he …
18:39
Barabbas (in Aramaic means "son of the father"; spelling uncertain in the Greek text)
BARABBAS (in Aramaic it means "son of the father"; the spelling is uncertain in the Greek text). - A criminal whose release the Jews asked of Pilate, obtaining instead the crucifixion of Jesus (Mt. 27:15-26; Mk. 15:6-15; Lk. 23:13-25; Jn. 18:39-40). In a few Gospel codices of slight authority, and in the Armenian and Georgian versions, he is called "Jesus Barabbas": according to this variant, already known to Origen, "Barabbas" …
In the New Testament, wāqīx means for the most part the Jewish paschal feast: Mt. 26:2 and parallels Mc. 14:1; Lc. 22:1; cf. Lc. 2:41; Io. 2:13-23; 6:4; 11:55; 12:1; 18:39; 19:14; Act. 12:4; Hebr. 11:28). It sometimes has, however, the sense of paschal supper, as in Mt. 26:18 f.; Mc. 14:16; Lc. 22:8-9, 13. With the sense of paschal supper, …
… condemnation presented by the Sanhedrists, and even sought to free him: he sent him to Herod (Lk. 23:6-15); he proposed to inflict a punishment on him to appease the people (ibid. 23:16); he sought to use the right of pardon in his favor (Mt. 27:15-21; Jn. 18:39 ff.); he showed him to the people crowned with thorns, to move them to compassion (Jn. 19:4-6). Nevertheless, in addition to the scourging inflicted on him, in the end he pronounced the …
Douay-Rheims (Challoner) · Vulgata Clementina · original Douay-Rheims (Rheims 1582), transcription by EEBO-TCP (CC0) · La Sacra Bibbia, tradotta dalla Volgata da Antonio Martini (1769-1781) (LaParola (laparola.net), Martini OSIS text, Public domain (LaParola's electronic edition marks it 'Dominio pubblico')). Public domain.