Commentary on the Gospel of John

Above, before the Passion, the Lord prepared his disciples, instructing them in many ways by examples, comforting them by words, and advancing them by pledges; here the Evangelist proceeds to narrate his Passion, and first sets forth the mystery of the Passion, and second the glory of the resurrection, in chapter 20, where it says "Now on the first day of the week," etc. The Passion of Christ, moreover, was accomplished partly through the Jews, partly through the gentiles. First, therefore, he describes the Passion of Christ as to those things which he suffered through the Jews; second, as to those things which he suffered through the gentiles, in chapter 19, where it says "Then Pilate took Jesus," etc. Concerning the first he does three things. First he shows how the Lord is betrayed by a disciple; second how he is presented by the ministers of the chief priests, where it says "the cohort, and the tribune, and the ministers of the Jews took Jesus"; third how he is accused by the chief priests before the governor, where it says "then they led Jesus," etc. Concerning the betrayal by the disciple the Evangelist touches on three things. First indeed the place; second the equipment, where it says "Judas therefore, having received the cohort, ... came there with lanterns," etc.; third Christ's ready disposition to undergo the betrayal, where it says "Jesus therefore, knowing all things that were to come upon him, went forth," etc.

The place is shown to be fitting for the betrayal on three counts: because it was removed from the city, in itself hidden and enclosed, and known to the betrayer. It was indeed removed from the city, whence Judas could more easily do what he intended; hence he says "when he had said these things," namely, the things said above. But since the things he had said pertained to Christ's prayer, the Evangelist would have spoken more fittingly if he had said "when he had prayed these things." But the Evangelist did this to show that he made this prayer not on account of his own need, since he himself was the one who prayed as man, and heard as God; but this was for our instruction. Whence it was, as it were, a certain teaching. "He went forth with his disciples," not indeed immediately, according to Augustine, after his prayer, since certain other things intervened which are narrated by the other Evangelists but omitted by this one — namely, that a dispute arose among the disciples as to which of them seemed to be greater, Luke 22:24. Meanwhile also Jesus said to Peter: "Behold, Satan has sought to have you, that he might sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail," as Luke narrates in the same place, verse 31. The disciples also sang a hymn with the Lord, as Matthew and Mark narrate. Thus, then, it is not to be understood that as soon as he had said this, he went forth immediately; but rather that he did not go forth before he had said it. "He went forth," I say, "beyond the torrent Cedron." But Matthew and Mark say that they went forth to the Mount of Olives, and then he came with them to the village which is called Gethsemane. In this there is no contradiction, since it is the same place which John records and Matthew, for the torrent Cedron is at the foot of the Mount of Olives, where also is the village called Gethsemane. Cedron, moreover, in Greek is a genitive plural, as if to say: beyond the torrent of the cedars. Perhaps there were many cedar plants there. It is fitting to the mystery that he crossed the torrent, since by it his Passion is signified; Psalm 109:7: "He shall drink of the torrent in the way; therefore shall he lift up his head." It is also fitting that it was beyond the torrent Cedron. For Cedron is interpreted "overshadowing," and Christ by his Passion took away the shadow of sin and of the law, and with hands outstretched on the cross protected us under the shadow of his hand; Psalm 16:9: "Protect me under the shadow of thy wings."

The place was, moreover, a fitting one for the betrayal; hence he says "where there was a garden, into which he entered, himself and his disciples." And this fittingly, because he was making satisfaction for the sin of the first man committed in a garden. For Paradise is interpreted "garden of delights." Likewise because through the Passion he brings us in to be crowned in a garden and in Paradise; Luke 23:43: "Today thou shalt be with me in Paradise." It was also a fitting place, because known to the betrayer; hence he says "and Judas also, who betrayed him, knew the place"; and the reason for this is that Jesus had often come there with his disciples, among whom Judas had been like a wolf among sheep; above, John 6:71: "Have I not chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?" A wolf covered with sheep's clothing, and tolerated among the sheep by the deep counsel of the father of the household, learned where he might for a short time scatter the flock of sheep. But since Judas had gone out from the supper long before in order to accomplish the betrayal, it is asked how he knew that Christ would go out to that place at that hour. To which it must be said, according to Chrysostom, that it was Christ's custom, and especially on great feasts, after supper to lead his disciples apart, and to teach certain lofty things concerning the feast, which it was not lawful for others to hear; and therefore, because it was then the chief feast, Judas supposed that after supper he would have gone out there. He did this, moreover, so that in the mountains and in gardens he might teach his disciples lofty things, seeking above all a place pure of tumults, lest their mind be hindered; Hosea 2:14: "I will lead her into solitude, and I will speak to her heart."

Here the equipment of the betrayer is set down. And note that, as is said in Luke 22:3 and following, Judas, after he had negotiated the betrayal with the chief priests, sought an opportunity for how he might betray him without a tumult of crowds; and therefore he wished to find him in secret, and at night, since in the day he was always occupied about the instruction of the crowds. But because at night he could be hindered either by a sudden gathering of crowds, or by the darkness, by which Christ might be snatched away or escape from their hands, therefore against the crowds he fortified himself with arms, against the darkness with lanterns and torches. But because some among the crowd might resist him by the power of the people, therefore against these he took a cohort, not of Jews, but of soldiers from the governor, so that with the order of legitimate power thus observed, no one would dare to resist him. Likewise some among the Jews, led by zeal for the law, especially since he was being seized by gentiles, might perhaps have wished to resist them; and therefore he also took ministers from the chief priests and Pharisees, and came there. Job 15:26: "He hath run against God with his neck raised up"; Luke 22:52: "You are come out as against a thief, with swords and clubs."

Here the Evangelist sets down Christ's ready disposition to undergo the betrayal willingly, in two ways. First by offering himself willingly; second by restraining the disciple who resisted, where it says "Simon Peter therefore, having a sword, drew it." And concerning the first the Evangelist does two things. First he narrates that Christ showed himself, in order to show his power; second in order to demonstrate his patience, where it says "again therefore he asked them, whom do you seek?" Concerning the first he does three things. First he sets down Christ's questioning; second his own manifestation of himself, where it says "Jesus said to them, I am he"; third the effect of the manifestation, where it says "as soon therefore as he had said to them, I am he, they went backward."

Concerning the first he does three things. First he commends Christ's knowledge and cognition: because "Jesus, knowing all things that were to come upon him, went forth," etc.; above, chapter 13:1: "Jesus knowing that his hour was come," etc. The Evangelist interposed this for two reasons. First, lest the questioning which Christ was about to put to them should seem to have been made out of ignorance; second, lest it should seem that he offered himself unwillingly and out of ignorance, when they came to kill him. Hence "all things that were to come upon him" he knew. Second he sets down Christ's questioning, who, although he knew these things, nevertheless went forth, and said to them, "whom do you seek?" — not out of ignorance, as has been said. Third he adds their response: "Jesus of Nazareth," namely, we seek — not indeed to imitate him, but to deal maliciously with him and to kill him. Whence above, chapter 8:11: "You seek me, and you shall die in your sin."

Here is set down the manifestation of himself, by which he presented himself to them to be seized; hence he says "I am he," namely Jesus of Nazareth whom you seek. The Evangelist adds, moreover, the presence of Judas: because he had said above that Judas had gone out from him. Now it might be believed that it would be no wonder if Christ were not recognized by them by face on account of the darkness; but that someone should not be recognized by voice, especially by one very familiar with him, this cannot be ascribed to the darkness. He shows, therefore, by this that he says "I am he," that he was not recognized even by Judas, familiar to him, who stood with them — which is especially demonstrative of the power of Christ's divinity. "Judas therefore, who betrayed him, stood with them" — that is, he persevered in evil, so as to point him out by the sign of a kiss; Isaiah 33: "His mouth shall be," etc.

Here is set down the effect of the manifestation: that "they went backward, and fell to the ground." And, as Gregory says, it is read at times of the saints that they fall to the ground; Daniel 2:46: "He fell upon his face, and adored Daniel," etc.; Ezekiel 2:1: "I fell upon my face." But of the wicked it is read that they fall; Isaiah 3:25: "Thy most beautiful men shall fall." But this is the difference: that of the wicked it is said that they fall backward, 1 Kings 4:18: "He fell from his seat backward"; but of the saints, that they fall upon their face. The reason for which is assigned in Proverbs 4:18: "because the path of the just, as a shining light, goeth forwards, and increaseth even to perfect day." And "the way of the wicked is darksome; they know not where they fall." For everyone who falls backward, falls there where he does not see. The wicked, therefore, because they fall among things invisible, are said to fall backward — because they run there where they cannot then see what follows them. But he who falls forward, falls there where he sees; and therefore the saints, who of their own accord cast themselves down among these visible things, in order to be raised up among the invisible, are said to fall upon their face, because, struck with fear, seeing, they are humbled. Mystically, moreover, by this — that they fell backward — it is given to be understood that the people of the Jews, who was the peculiar people, not hearing the voice of Christ in his preaching, went backward, shut out from the kingdom.

Here is set down the second questioning. And first he sets down the repeated questioning; second Christ's manifestation, and third his offering of himself. He asked, moreover, a second time, according to Chrysostom, for two reasons: so that, namely, while he had indicated his power — that his enemies, coming against him, fell backward to the ground before him — the faithful might be instructed that he was seized by his own will; Isaiah 53:7: "He was offered because it was his own will." Second, so that also, as far as was in him, he might give the Jews occasion for conversion, having seen the miracle of his power; Isaiah 5:4: "What more ought I to do?" And therefore, since they were not immediately converted at the showing of his power, he offered himself of his own accord to be seized. Whence when again he asked them: "whom do you seek?" And they said: "Jesus of Nazareth," he, manifesting himself again, answered: "I have told you that I am he." In which it is clear that they were blind, so that they could not recognize him.

The offering of himself is set down when he says "if therefore you seek me" — namely, to seize — "do what you intend, yet so that you let these" — namely, my disciples — "go their way"; because it was not yet the time that they should be taken from the world through the Passion; above, chapter 17:15: "I do not ask that thou take them out of the world." In which it is clear that he himself gave them the power of seizing him; for just as by his own power he preserved his disciples, so much more could he have preserved himself; above, chapter 10:18: "No one taketh my life from me, but I lay it down of myself." And that the ministers did not let the apostles go on account of Christ's persuasion, but on account of his power, the Evangelist shows, saying "that the word might be fulfilled which he said" — as though the ministers let the apostles go because they were not able to hold them, since he himself had said, above, chapter 17:12: "of them whom thou hast given me, I have not lost any one."

But on the other hand: above the Lord said this concerning the loss of the soul; how does the Evangelist adapt this to the loss of the body? Response. It must be said, according to Chrysostom, that the Lord spoke above of the loss both of soul and of body. And if he spoke only of the loss of the soul, it must be said that the Evangelist here refers it by a certain extension to the loss of the body. Or, according to Augustine, it must be said that what is said is to be understood also as to the loss of the soul; because the apostles did not yet believe in such a way as those believe who do not perish. And therefore, if they had at that time gone out of this world, they would have been among those who perish.

After the Evangelist showed Christ's readiness to undergo betrayal, by offering himself voluntarily to the betrayer, here he shows him to be ready for the same thing, by forbidding the disciple's resistance; and first the manifestation of the resisting disciple is set forth, second his restraint, at the place, "Jesus said to Peter," etc. Concerning the first he does two things. First he sets forth the zeal of the disciple in the striking of the servant; second the Evangelist inserts the naming of the servant, at the place, "now the servant's name was Malchus."

He speaks thus: the attendants seized Jesus, but Simon Peter, more ardent than the other disciples, having a sword, drew it, and struck the high priest's servant, who was among the attendants, and cut off his right ear: not from his principal intention, since he intended to kill him, but the blow which he directed at the head glanced off onto the ear. For he directed the blow at the head, so that it might more easily be noted that he was doing this out of zeal for his Lord; 3 Kings 19:10: "With zeal have I been zealous for the Lord God of hosts."

But here a twofold question arises; for since the Lord commanded the disciples, Matthew 10:10, that they should not even have two tunics, how did Peter even have a sword? I respond. It must be said that Christ gave them that precept when he sent them to preach, and it was to last until the time of the passion: hence Christ revoked it at the passion; Luke 22:35: "When I sent you without purse and scrip, did you lack anything?" And further on: "But now he who has a purse, let him take it, and likewise a scrip; and he who has not, let him sell his tunic and buy a sword." From this concession Peter had understood that it was lawful for him to carry a sword. But how could he have had a sword so quickly, since the Lord had spoken the aforesaid words only a little before? It must be said, according to Chrysostom, that Peter, a long time before, hearing that the Jews were going to hand Christ over to the chief priests to be crucified, out of fear had prepared a sword for himself. Or it must be said, according to the Interlinear Gloss, that "sword" is taken here for the knife which he perhaps had had at the table for eating the lamb, and which, rising from the supper, he had taken with him.

Second it is asked: since the Lord had told them not to resist evil, Matthew 5:39, why is it that Peter struck the servant of the prince? To which it must be said that the Lord forbade them to resist anyone in order to defend themselves, but not in order to defend their Lord. Or it must be said that they were not yet confirmed by the power coming from on high; Luke, last chapter, 49: "Sit in the city, until you be clothed with power from on high." Therefore they were not yet perfect enough to not resist evil at all.

Here the name of the servant is set down: and this is described specially by John for this reason, that, as is said further on, he himself was known to the high priest, and therefore he also had knowledge of his attendants. Hence, knowing his name, he did not keep it silent, for the certainty of the fact. But Luke adds that the Lord healed his ear; Luke 22:51. And this is fitting mystically. For by this servant is signified the people of the Jews, who were oppressed by the chief priests; Ezekiel 34:3: "That which was fat you did eat." Peter, therefore, the prince of the apostles, cut off the hearing of this servant: because he heard the words of the law badly, that is, carnally; but the Lord restored a new hearing; Psalm 17:45: "At the hearing of the ear he obeyed me." And according to this he is fittingly called Malchus, that is, king, because through Christ, in newness of life, we are made kings; Revelation 5:10: "You have made us a kingdom and priests to our God, and we shall reign upon the earth."

Here the restraint of Peter's zeal is set forth, and first the restraint of Peter is set down; second the reason for the restraint, at the place: "The cup which my Father has given me, will you not have me drink it?" He says, then, that Peter had thus drawn the sword, but the Lord said to him, "Put your sword into its sheath," as though there were no need of defense, but of patience, nor was the use of the material sword lawful for him: Jeremiah 47:6: "How long will you be cutting? O sword of the Lord, how long will you not be quiet?" Mystically, however, it is signified by this that the sword of the word of God was to be put into the sheath, that is, into the faith of the Gentiles.

And the reason for the restraint is set down when he says, "The cup which my Father has given me, will you not have me drink it?" For one ought not to resist those things which are disposed by divine providence; Job 9:4: "Who has resisted him, and had peace?" Now the passion is called a cup, because from the charity of the one suffering it has sweetness, but from its own nature bitterness; just as a healing medicine, on account of the hope of health, is sweet, but bitter on account of its taste; Psalm 114:13: "I will take the cup of salvation, and call upon the name of the Lord." This cup, then, the Father gave him, because he willingly took up the passion by his own will and the Father's will; below, John 19:11: "You would have no power over me, unless it were given you from above."

Here it is set forth how the Lord, having been seized by the officers, is presented to the chief priests: first, how he is led to one chief priest, namely Annas; second, how he is led to the other, namely Caiaphas, at the place "and Annas sent him bound to Caiaphas." Concerning the first he does two things. First he tells how he is presented to Annas; second, how he is examined by Annas, at the place "the high priest therefore questioned Jesus." Concerning the first he does two things. First he sets forth how he is led to the house of Annas; second, how the disciples follow him, at the place "and Simon Peter followed Jesus, and another disciple." Concerning the first, first it is shown what was done regarding Jesus; second, the high priest himself, to whom he is led, is described, at the place "now he was the father-in-law of Caiaphas."

Now concerning Christ three things were done. For first he is seized; hence he says, "the cohort therefore" — that is, of soldiers — "and their tribune, and the officers of the Jews, seized Jesus," who is incomprehensible; Jeremiah 32:19: "great in counsel, and incomprehensible in thought." For perhaps they were thinking of that saying, Psalm 70:11: "God has forsaken him: pursue and seize him, for there is none to deliver him"; Lamentations 4:20: "the breath of our mouth, Christ the Lord, was taken in our sins," that is, on account of our sins, namely that he might set us free; Isaiah 49:25: "indeed, the captivity shall be taken away from the strong."

Second, he is bound; hence he says, "and they bound him" — he who came to loose the bound and to burst their bonds; Psalm 115:17: "you have burst my bonds," and so on. Third, he is led away; hence he says, "and they led him to Annas," that they might destroy him who came to lead all men into the way of salvation; Psalm 60:4: "you have led me, because you have become my hope."

A twofold reason can be assigned why he was led to Annas first. One is the command of Caiaphas, the high priest of that year, who sent Jesus to Annas for this reason: that he might be the more excusable if he himself afterward condemned one already condemned by Annas. The other reason is the nearness of the house of Annas, which, being situated along the way, was closer. And so, fearing lest, if a tumult of the people should be stirred up, Jesus be snatched from their hands, they turned aside there.

Here first the high priest is described from his relation to Caiaphas, because he was his father-in-law; second, Caiaphas himself is described, because he was the high priest of that year. For it must be known that, according to the law, the high priest held the office for his whole life, and after his death his son succeeded him. But afterward, as the envy and ambition of the leading men grew, not only did the son not succeed the father, but no one held the office of the high-priesthood beyond a year, and this very thing was procured by money, as Josephus says. And therefore it is no wonder if, in the year of a high-priesthood acquired so wickedly, he carried out so heinous a deed.

He is also described by his counsel; hence he said, "now Caiaphas was he who had given counsel to the Jews" — above, John 11:50 — namely this, that it is expedient that one man die for the people. The Evangelist recalled this in order to remove scandal from the hearts of the faithful, showing, even through the prophecies of his adversaries, that he was not seized and put to death on account of his own weakness or powerlessness, but for the salvation of the people, namely that the whole nation should not perish. For the testimony of an adversary is more effective; and truth is of such a nature that even an adversary cannot keep silent about it.

Here it is set forth how the disciples accompanied Christ: first it is set forth how Peter, with another disciple, followed Christ; second, how they entered into the place where Christ was; third, how he denied him. He says, then, as to the first, "now Simon Peter followed Jesus" — out of devotion, although from afar on account of fear — "and another disciple," namely John, whose name he himself conceals for humility's sake. And by this it is given to be understood that the rest of the disciples had fled, having abandoned Jesus, as is said in Matthew 26:56.

Mystically, however, by these two disciples two lives are understood, which follow Christ: namely, the active life, which is signified by Peter, and the contemplative life, which is signified by John. And the active life indeed follows Christ by obeying — above, John 10:27: "my sheep hear my voice" — the contemplative, however, by knowing and contemplating, Hosea 6:3: "we shall know, and we shall follow you."

Now these two disciples followed because they loved Christ more than the rest — hence they were the first to come to the tomb, below, John 20:2 — and because a greater force of love united them to one another; hence they are often joined together in the Gospel; and in the Acts of the Apostles it is said that they sent to them Peter and John. And again: Peter and John went up into the temple at the ninth hour of prayer.

Here it is set forth how Peter entered, as to the order: first, how John went in before him; second, how he brought Peter in, at the place "the other disciple therefore went out," and so on. Now the order was this: that John entered first with Jesus. And the reason for this was that he was known to the high priest, while Peter stood at the door of the court outside. And although John had been a fisherman, and a young man called by Christ, he was nevertheless known to the high priest — either because John's father was a servant to him, or because some one of his kinsmen was.

Nor did John set this down out of boastfulness of himself, but out of humility, lest the fact that he entered before Peter with Jesus into the court of the high priest, and not Peter, be ascribed rather to his own virtue and higher standing than to acquaintance. And therefore he says, "that disciple" — namely John — "was known to the high priest": and therefore he entered with Jesus into the court of the high priest, where Christ had been led. But Peter stood outside — as it were presaging his future denial; Psalm 30:13: "they who saw me fled outside from me."

Mystically, however, John enters with Jesus, because the contemplative life is familiar to him; Wisdom 8:16: "entering into my house, I shall repose with her." But Peter stands outside, because the active life is occupied with exterior things; Luke 10:39: "Mary, sitting beside the Lord's feet, was listening to his word. But Martha was busied about much serving."

Here it is shown how Peter was brought in through John's intervention: because that other disciple, namely John, was known to the high priest, and spoke to the doorkeeper, that she might bring him in, and brought Peter in. By which it is mystically given to be understood that the active life is brought in to Christ through the contemplative: for just as the lower reason is directed by the higher, so the active life is directed through the contemplative; Psalm 42:3: "send forth your light and your truth: they have led me and brought me unto your holy mountain, and into your tabernacles."

Here Peter's denial is set forth: first the motive of the denial, or the occasion, is set forth; second the denial itself is set forth, at the place "he says: I am not"; third the confirmation of the denial, at the place "now the servants and officers stood at the coals." Now the occasion and motive of the denial for Peter was the maidservant's question; hence he says, "the maidservant, the doorkeeper, said to Peter: are you not also one of his disciples?" Now she says "you also," because she knew John to be a disciple of Christ, and yet, on account of familiarity, says nothing to him.

Now Peter's weakness for that time appears in this, that he was moved to deny from a feeble occasion; and this on two counts. First, from the very person questioning: for it was not an armed soldier, not an awe-inspiring high priest, but a woman, a maidservant and doorkeeper, who questioned him. Second, from the form of the question: for she does not say, "are you not one of the disciples of this traitor?" By which she seemed rather to speak out of compassion.

Hence, from this too, it is perceived that "by the word of the Lord the heavens were established, and all their power by the breath of his mouth," Psalm 32:6 — because he who denied Christ at the voice of a maidservant afterward confesses and preaches the name of Christ before the chief priests; Acts 4:8 and following.

Peter's denial is set forth when he says, "he says: I am not." In which we ought to note, according to Augustine, that Christ is denied not only by him who says that he is the Christ, but also by him who denies that he himself is a Christian. Now Peter, in this manner, denied nothing else than that he was a Christian.

Now the Lord permitted Peter to deny him for this reason: because he willed that he himself, who was to be set over the whole Church, should have greater compassion on the weak and on those who sin, having experienced in himself the weakness of sin; Hebrews 4:15: "we do not have a high priest who cannot have compassion on our infirmities, tempted in all things, yet without sin" — this is true of Christ, but of Peter it can be said even with sin.

Some, however, attributing a certain vain grace to Peter, say that he denied not out of fear, but out of love, wishing always to be with Christ and to follow continually; for he knew that if he confessed himself to be one of Christ's disciples, he would have been separated from Christ and driven away. But this does not agree with the Lord's own words: for he did not deny for the reason that he did not wish to be separated from Christ, but because he did not wish to lay down his life for Christ. For above, when he had said, "I will lay down my life for you," Jesus answered: "will you lay down your life for me? Amen, amen I say to you: the cock shall not crow before you deny me three times."

The confirmation of the denial is set forth at the place "now the servants and the officers stood at the coals... and Peter also was with them" — as it were, so that he might seem all the more not to be his disciple. For Peter, so that he might not seem to be one of the disciples, placed himself among the officers and servants standing at the coals, because it was cold — as sometimes happens at the winter equinox in March; in which Peter did not well consider what is said in Psalm 17:26: "with the holy you shall be holy... and with the perverse you shall be perverted."

Even the season itself agrees with the condition of his mind, in which charity had grown cold; Matthew 24:12: "the charity of many shall grow cold, because iniquity has abounded."

"The high priest therefore questioned Jesus" — where first the examination is set forth; second, Christ's response, at the place "Jesus answered him"; third, the reproof of the response, at the place "now when he had said these things," and so on. Now two things were imputed to Christ by the Jews: namely, false doctrine, and new doctrine; Mark 1:27: "what is this new doctrine?" Second, sedition, and the drawing of men to himself; Luke 23:5: "he has stirred up the people throughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee even to this place." And therefore he examines him concerning these two things: first indeed concerning his disciples, whom he saw he had seduced; second concerning his doctrine, as it were marking it with falsity.

Here the Lord's response is set forth: first he sets forth the manner of his doctrine; second he requires the testimony of others, at the place "why do you question me?" Concerning the first he does two things: first he proposes the manifestness of his doctrine; second he explains it. He says therefore: "I have spoken openly to the world."

But against this: above, John 16:25, he says: "the hour comes when I will announce to you concerning the Father, not in proverbs, but openly." If then he had not yet spoken openly to the disciples, how did he speak openly to the world? Response: it must be said that he was not yet speaking openly to the disciples, because he was proposing surpassing teachings; but he spoke openly to the world, because he was preaching publicly. Hence he explains this, saying: "I have always taught in the temple and in the synagogues."

But against this: it is said in Matthew 16 that he proposed many things to the disciples apart, without parables. But to this there is a threefold response. One, that what he was saying to the twelve disciples was not reckoned as being said in secret. The other is that he did not propose these things to the disciples with the intention of concealing them. Third, if weight is placed on the word, because the Lord here speaks of the doctrine which he handed down to the people, which he did not set forth to them in private gatherings, but in public places; Psalm 39:10: "I have announced your justice in the great church"; Isaiah 45:19: "I have not spoken in secret, in a place of the dark land."

And to this he requires the testimony of others, saying: "why do you question me? Ask those who have heard what I have spoken to them": and first he refers them to the testimony of others; second he shows whose testimony he requires; third he assigns the reason for these. As to the first he says, "why do you question me?" — as if he were to say: through others you can know this. And therefore, as to the second, he adds, "ask those who have heard." For, as is said in Matthew 22:15, the Pharisees sent to Jesus, that they might catch him in speech; who nevertheless were able to find nothing against him. And therefore he refers him to them. And he adds the reason for this: "behold, these know what I have said" — of whom testimony can be given.

The Lord's response having been set forth, here the rebuke of that response is set forth, and first the rebuke by the servant is set forth; second, the Lord's satisfaction, where it says "Jesus answered him," etc. Now the servant rebukes the Lord's response, first indeed by deed, because he gave him a blow as a reproach; hence it says "when he had said these things," namely Jesus, "one of the servants standing by," namely of the high priest, "gave him a blow." This indeed did not happen by chance, but had been prophesied long before and in many ways; Isaiah 50:6: "I have given my body to those who strike, and my cheeks to those who pluck them"; Lamentations 3:30: "He will give his cheek to the one striking him, he will be filled with reproaches"; Micah 5:1: "With a rod they shall strike the cheek of the judge of Israel." Second, he rebukes by word, saying, "Do you answer the high priest thus?" In which it is given to understand that Annas was high priest and had not yet sent him to Caiaphas; hence Luke 3:2 mentions these two high priests: "under the high priests," he says, "Annas and Caiaphas." But they are called two high priests because they claimed the high priesthood for themselves in alternating turns; but in that year Annas was the chief of the priests.

Now the servant was moved to strike Jesus from this, namely because he had appealed to the testimony of those who heard him — above, John 7:32: "when the high priests had sent servants to seize him, they themselves, captivated by the words of Jesus, returned saying, 'never has a man spoken thus, as this man.'" Wishing therefore to excuse himself here, that he was not one of them, he struck him. But he conjectured that Christ had answered the high priest badly from this, because by what he said, "Why do you question me? Ask those who have heard," he seemed to have marked the high priest as guilty of an imprudent question, whereas nevertheless it is written, Exodus 22:28: "You shall not curse the ruler of your people."

Consequently Jesus reasonably excuses himself when he says, "If I have spoken evil" — answering the high priest — "bear witness of the evil," as if to say: if you have, from those things that were brought forth by me, something from which you could rebuke me, show that I have spoken evil; for "every word stands by the mouth of two or three witnesses," Deuteronomy 19:15. "But if well" — that is, if you cannot show this — "why do you strike me?" That is, why do you rage against me? Or this can be referred back to what he said above, "ask those who heard what I said to them," so that the sense is: if I have spoken evil, in the synagogue and in the temple, what I ought not to have, bear witness of the evil that I spoke before the chief of the priests. But this the servant could not have shown. But if well — namely, if I taught rightly — why do you strike me? As if to say, it is unjust; Jeremiah 18:20: "Shall evil be repaid for good, since they have dug a pit for my soul?"

But here there is a question, because at Matthew 5:39 the Lord commands his disciples: "If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, offer him the other also." But of Christ it is said, Acts 1:1: "Jesus began to do and to teach." He ought therefore to have done what he taught. But he did not do this; rather — what seems the contrary — he excused himself.

Response. It must be said, according to Augustine, that the sayings and precepts of sacred Scripture can be interpreted and are understood from the deeds of the saints, since the same Holy Spirit who inspired the prophets and the other authors of sacred Scripture also moved the saints to action. For, just as it is said at 2 Peter 1:21, "inspired by the Holy Spirit, the holy men of God spoke"; so at Romans 8:14 it is said: "those who are led by the Spirit of God, these are the sons of God." Thus sacred Scripture is to be understood according to what Christ and the other saints observed. But Christ did not offer this man the other cheek; nor did Paul, Acts 16:22ff. Hence it is not to be understood that Christ had commanded that they offer, according to the letter, the other bodily cheek to him who strikes one; but this ought to be understood as to the preparation of the mind, namely that if it should be necessary, one ought to be so disposed that he not be disturbed in mind against the one striking him, but be prepared to endure the like, and even more. And this the Lord observed, who offered his own body to be slain. Thus therefore the Lord's excusing of himself was useful for our instruction.

Here it is shown how he is sent from the high priest to another high priest, and first Jesus' sending is set forth; second, Peter's denial is completed, where it says "Now Simon Peter was standing and warming himself." It says therefore, "and Annas sent him bound to Caiaphas the high priest," to whom he was being led from the beginning; but the reason why he had first turned aside there was expressed above. But note the wickedness of Annas: because although he ought to have released him, as being without fault, he nevertheless sent him bound.

Here the second and third denials of Peter are treated, and first the occasion of the denial is set forth; second, Peter's twofold denial, where it says "they said therefore to him," etc.; third, the fulfillment of the sign of Christ's words is set forth, where it says "and immediately the cock crowed," etc. Now the occasion of Peter's second denial was his lingering with the servants of the high priest standing at the fire. For Chrysostom says: when Christ withdrew to Caiaphas, Peter still remained with the servants. For he was so absorbed by sin after his denial that he who before was fervent now no longer seemed to care about Christ; Jeremiah 8:6: "There is no one who does penance for his sin, saying, 'What have I done?'" And therefore it says, "Now Simon Peter was still standing and warming himself"; although Christ had withdrawn from there, forgetful of what is said in Psalm 1: "Blessed is the man who has not gone in the counsel of the wicked."

But this exposition cannot stand: because thus it would follow that the second and third denial had been made in Christ's absence; which is against what is said at Luke 22:61, that after Peter's third denial the Lord turned and looked upon Peter. And therefore Augustine, expounding otherwise, says that the Evangelist speaks by recapitulation, according to his custom, in order to show the continuity and order of the matter. For he had said above that the servants and attendants were standing at the coals, because it was cold, and were warming themselves, and Peter was standing with them, and warming himself; and afterward he inserted the account of Christ's examination by the high priest; and subsequently, in order to continue the series, he resumes, as it were, the same words, saying "Now Simon Peter was standing" — namely, before Christ was sent to Caiaphas.

Then Peter's twofold denial is set forth, when it says, "They said therefore to him: Are you not also one of his disciples?" And concerning each, two things are set forth, namely the occasion of the denial, that is, the questioning, and the denial itself. But here a twofold literal question arises. For Matthew 26:71, speaking of the second denial, says: "But as he was going out the gate, another maidservant saw him, and said to those who were there: This man also was with Jesus of Nazareth. And again he denied with an oath." And thus there seems here a twofold contrariety. Because John said that Peter denied while standing at the fire, but Matthew, while he was going out of the house. The other contrariety is: because according to Matthew he is questioned by another maidservant, but according to John by others, namely by many, whence it says, "They said therefore to him: Are you not also one of his disciples?" Likewise also, according to Luke, he is questioned by only one, whence at Luke 22:59 it is said: "And an interval having elapsed of about one hour, a certain other man affirmed, saying: Truly this man also was with him."

Response. It must be said that when Peter denied the first time, he rose and went out the gate, and as he was going out another maidservant questioned him. Or she said to others that he was one of them, as Matthew relates. And thus he denied the second time. And afterward Peter returned in order to excuse himself of this also, and sat with the others; and while he was sitting there, others who had heard from the maidservant again questioned him, as Matthew says. Or one first, as is said here, and afterward many others. And thus he denied the third time.

Hence it is added concerning the third denial: "One of the servants of the high priest, a kinsman of him whose ear Peter had cut off, said." This third one bore witness, because from having seen him, whence he says: "Did I not see you in the garden with him?" Again therefore Peter, an interval of about one hour having elapsed, denied, the third time. Nor does it matter if the other Evangelists say the third questioning was made by several, while John says it was made by one. For it could happen that this one, who was more certain, questioned, and incited the others to question. For many things were said around these words by the bystanders, of which one Evangelist records one thing, and another another, since their principal intention was not directed to this, but to recording the words of Peter, and to showing the truth of what the Lord had said to Peter; hence in Peter's words all agree; Numbers 24:13: "Whatever the Lord shall say, this I will speak."

Consequently he treats of the sign of Christ's remembrance: hence it says, "and immediately the cock crowed," moved by divine power, so that the prediction of the physician might be fulfilled, and the presumption of the sick man convicted.

Here the handing over of Christ to the Gentiles is treated, and first the Evangelist tells how he is handed over to the governor; second, the charge against him is examined by the governor, at the place, "And he said: What accusation do you bring against this man?" Third, how his innocence is declared, at the place, "And when he had said this, he went out again." Concerning the first, he does three things. First he describes the place of the handing-over; second, the time; third, the manner.

As to the place indeed, because into the praetorium: hence he says, "They lead Jesus therefore to Caiaphas into the praetorium," which is the place of judgment. Hence also in the army, where the tent of the commander was, it was customarily called the praetorium; hence here the house of the governor is called the praetorium. But how is he led to Caiaphas into the praetorium? To this it must be said that it can be said that Caiaphas had gone ahead into the house of Pilate, in order to inform him of the fact of Jesus being presented to him; hence, as he went out with Pilate into the praetorium, Jesus was assigned to him. Or it can be said that, since Caiaphas was the prince of priests, he had spacious houses, such that the governor also lodged in some part of them; and thus the sense is: they lead Jesus to Caiaphas, namely to his house, and this in the praetorium. Or it must be said that it is better as found in the Greek: they lead Jesus from Caiaphas into the praetorium; and thus every doubt is removed.

The time is described: "Now it was morning"; for so great was their wickedness that no delay was interposed before they handed him over to Pilate to be killed. Micah 2:1: "Woe to you who devise what is useless, and work evil in your beds. In the morning light they do it, because their hand is against God"; Job 24:14: "At the very break of dawn the murderer rises, he kills the needy and the poor."

But from this a grave question arises. For the three other Evangelists say that around the beginning of the night the Lord was scourged in the house of Caiaphas, and examined by him, when he said, "Tell us if you are the Christ"; and at earliest dawn he was led to Pilate. John, however, says that he was led to Caiaphas. To this it must be said that, if we wish to preserve our text, Caiaphas first saw him while he was in the house of Annas by night, and then he could have been examined by him. But still a doubt remains concerning what they say, that he was scourged in the house of Caiaphas. This whole matter is resolved according to what is found in the Greek, namely that they lead him from Caiaphas into the praetorium; because according to this, from the house of Annas he was led by night to the house of Caiaphas, where he was scourged and examined, and in the morning he was led by Caiaphas into the praetorium.

"That they might not be defiled, but that they might eat the Passover." Here first their vain superstition is designated, because they did not enter into the praetorium; second, the reverence of Pilate toward them, because he went out to meet them. But what he says as to the first point, that they did not enter in so as not to be defiled, involves a difficulty. For the other Evangelists say that Christ was captured in the evening on the day of the supper; and at that time it was the Passover, Luke 22:15: "With desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you." And in the morning, on the following day, he was led to the praetorium. How then could it be "that they might eat the Passover," when it was already the day after the Passover?

But to this certain modern Greeks say that this took place on the fourteenth day of the moon, and that he was crucified on the day on which the Jews celebrated the Passover, saying that Christ anticipated the Passover by one day, knowing that his own killing was imminent at the Passover of the Jews; hence he celebrated the Passover on the thirteenth day of the moon, in the evening. And they say this because it is commanded in the law that from the fourteenth day of the moon of the first month until the twenty-first day of the month, no leavened thing should be found among the Jews. Hence they say that Christ consecrated his body from leavened bread. But this cannot stand, for two reasons. First, because it is nowhere found in the Old Testament that it was lawful for anyone to anticipate the celebration of the Passover; but if someone had an impediment, it was lawful to defer it until another month. Numbers 9:10: "A man who is unclean by reason of a soul, or is far off on a journey among your nation, shall keep the phase to the Lord, in the second month, on the fourteenth day of the month, in the evening." Since therefore Christ omitted nothing of the observances of the law, they speak falsely in saying that he anticipated the Passover. Second, because in Mark 14:12 it is expressly stated that Christ came on the day of unleavened bread, when it was necessary that the Passover be killed; and Matthew says that on the first day of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying, "Where do you wish that we prepare for you to eat the Passover?" It must not therefore be said that Christ anticipated the Passover.

And therefore Chrysostom says otherwise, namely that Christ, fulfilling the law in all things, celebrated the Passover at its proper time, that is, on the fourteenth day of the moon, in the evening; but the Jews were so intent on the killing of Christ that they did not celebrate the Passover on its own day, but on the following day, namely the fifteenth day of the moon. Hence concerning this he says, "that they might not be defiled, but that they might eat the Passover," which they had omitted on the preceding day. But neither can this stand, because in Numbers 9:10 and following it is said that if anyone, on account of impediments, cannot celebrate the Passover on the fourteenth day of the moon of the first month, he celebrates it not on the following day, but on the fourteenth day of the moon of the second month.

And therefore it must be said, according to Jerome and Augustine and other Latin doctors, that the fourteenth day of the moon is the beginning of the solemnity; but the Passover is called not only the evening, but the whole span of seven days, during which they ate unleavened bread, which had to be eaten by the clean. Hence, because the Jews contracted uncleanness from the praetorium of a foreign judge, they therefore did not enter into the praetorium, "that they might not be defiled, but that they might eat the Passover," that is, the loaves of unleavened bread. But note their impious blindness, for they feared to be defiled by a Gentile man, yet they did not fear to shed the blood of God and man. Isaiah 49:17: "Your builders have come; those who destroy you and lay you waste shall go forth from you."

Consequently the reverence of Pilate toward them is set down, when he says, "Pilate therefore went out to them," and then received Christ, offered to him by them, and said, "What accusation do you bring against this man?" Here the examination of Christ is set forth, and first how he is examined by Pilate in the presence of his accusers; second, how by himself, at the place, "He entered therefore," and so on. Concerning the first he does two things. First he sets down Pilate's examination; second, his generous concession, at the place, "Take him yourselves," and so on. Concerning the first, first his examination is set down; second, the malicious answer of the Jews.

Pilate therefore, seeing him bound, and led by so many to be condemned, says, "What accusation do you bring against this man?" They answered and said to him, "If he were not an evildoer, we would not have handed him over to you"; as if they were saying: we have examined him, and having already condemned him we hand him over to you now to be punished — as if their judgment ought to be sufficient for Pilate. But they speak falsely in saying that he is an evildoer, because, as it is said in Acts 10:38, "he went about doing good, and healing all who were oppressed by the devil." But they act according to that saying of Psalm 34:12, "They repaid me evil for good." But against this is what is said in Luke 23:5, that they imposed many crimes on Christ, whence they said, "He stirred up the people throughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee even to this place"; but here, none. I respond. It must be said that the Jews then spoke many words to Pilate, as Augustine says, but it could be that first there was this which John shows here, and afterward there was what Luke relates.

Consequently the generous concession of Pilate is set down, when he says, "Take him yourselves"; and first Pilate's concession is set down; second, the refusal of the Jews, at the place, "The Jews therefore said to him"; third, the reason for the refusal, at the place, "that the word of Jesus might be fulfilled." He says therefore, "Take him yourselves," wishing to grant them a favor. So too Felix said to Paul, "if you are willing to be judged before the Jews," Acts 24. Or he said this reproaching them: for they themselves had examined and condemned him; hence he wished that those who had condemned him as an evildoer should pronounce the sentence, because, as it is said in Acts 25:16, "it is not the custom of the Romans to condemn any man before the accused has his accusers present, and receives opportunity to defend himself so as to clear away the charges." And thus the sense is: you seek our judgment; but you take him and condemn him according to your law — for I, however, will by no means become such a judge.

But the refusal of the Jews is set down next, at the place, "The Jews therefore said to him, It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death." But against this: in Exodus 22:18 it is said, "You shall not suffer sorcerers to live." But they reckoned Jesus to be an evildoer. But, according to Augustine, they say, "It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death," on a feast day — though at another time it would be lawful. Or, according to Chrysostom, the Jews had lost much of their power: for judgment concerning an offense against the commonwealth did not pertain to them, whereas they themselves chiefly intended to condemn him on the ground that he was acting against the commonwealth; below, John 19:12: "Whoever makes himself a king speaks against Caesar." Hence they say, "It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death," namely one who acts against the commonwealth; although it would be lawful for some sin against the law, judgment of which was reserved to them. Or it must be said otherwise, that something is not lawful for someone either because it is forbidden by divine law — and in this way it was not forbidden to them — or because it was forbidden to them by human law; and in this way it was not lawful for them to put anyone to death, because this power now resided with the governor.

But then a question remains: for they stoned Stephen, Acts 7:58. But to this Chrysostom responds that it had been granted to the Jews by the Romans that they might make use of their own laws; hence, because the penalty of stoning was inflicted by the law, it was therefore granted to them by the Romans. But death by the cross was reproachful under the law; Deuteronomy 21:23: "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree." And therefore this kind of death was not reserved to them. But the Jews, out of their malice, were not content merely to stone Christ; rather they wished to condemn him to the most shameful death, as it is said in Wisdom 2:20. And therefore now they say, "It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death," namely by death of the cross. Or it must be said that Stephen was stoned during a change of magistracy; and at such a time many unlawful things are usurped which would not be done in the ordinary course of time.

The reason for the refusal is subjoined when he says, "that the word of Jesus might be fulfilled": so that the word "that" is referred not to the intention of the Jews, but to the disposition of divine providence. For Jesus had said, Matthew 20:19, that he was to be killed by the Gentiles, and crucified, yet handed over by the Jews. And therefore, that this might be fulfilled, they themselves refused to judge and kill him.

Above was set forth the examination by which Pilate examined Christ in the presence of his accusers; but here the Evangelist sets forth how Pilate examined Christ by himself. And first the Evangelist treats of Pilate's interrogation as he examined him; second, of the response of Christ as he was examined, at the place, "Jesus answered: My kingdom is not of this world." As to the first, he does two things. First he sets forth Pilate's interrogation; second, the cause of the interrogation, or the examination, at the place, "Jesus answered: Do you say this of yourself?"

As to the first, it must be known that Pilate, as a just judge, and treating everything with exactness, did not straightway acquiesce in the accusation of the high priest. Exodus 23:2: "You shall not follow the crowd to do evil, nor shall you yield to the judgment of the many in a case, so as to turn aside from the truth." But he entered again into the praetorium and called Jesus, namely apart by himself, because he had a great suspicion concerning him. He called Christ to himself for this reason: that he might more exactly search out everything, and that Christ might answer more quietly, the tumult of the Jews having been removed. Job 29:16: "The cause which I knew not, I searched out most diligently." And then he said to him, "Are you the king of the Jews?" From which it is clear, as Luke relates in chapter 23:2, that the Jews laid this charge against him; although John says only, "If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up to you," and they brought many other charges against him. But this one touched Pilate's heart the more, and therefore he questions him about this alone. Matthew 12:34: "Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks."

Consequently, when he says, "Jesus answered," etc., the examination by questioning is set forth, and first Christ's questioning is set forth; second, Pilate's answer, at the place, "Am I a Jew?" He says therefore, "Jesus answered," questioning in his turn, "Do you say this of yourself?" Here it must be known that a man questions for a twofold cause. Sometimes in order to know a thing which he did not know before, and thus a disciple questions a master; sometimes he questions about a thing already known, in order that he may know the answer of him whom he questions, and thus a master questions a disciple. But the Lord knew both that about which he himself was questioning and that which was to be answered; and therefore he did not question as one ignorant, since "all things are naked and open to his eyes" (Hebrews 4:13), but he questions so that we might know what opinion the Jews and the Gentiles held, and at the same time that we might be instructed concerning that kingdom.

Consequently, when he says, "Pilate answered," etc., Pilate's response is set forth. But why does he answer thus? Namely because the Lord had asked him whether he had said this of himself. And so Pilate shows that it did not pertain to him to inquire whether he was king of the Jews, but rather to the Jews, whose king he called himself; giving one to understand by this that this had been told him by others. And therefore he adds, "Your own nation and the chief priests have delivered you to me," namely, making this accusation against you. And he says "your own nation," because he had been born of the Jews, according to his humanity. Jeremiah 20:10: "For I heard the reproaches of many, and terror on every side: Persecute him, from all the men that were my familiar friends"; Micah 7:6: "A man's enemies are they of his own household." And he says "chief priests," because the greater they were in power, the more guilty in the crime. 1 Esdras 9:2: "The hand of the princes and of the magistrates has been first in this transgression"; Jeremiah 5:5: "I will go to the great men, and I will speak to them; for they have known the way of the Lord, the judgment of their God: and behold, these have altogether broken the yoke, they have burst the bonds." "If therefore they have delivered you to me, what have you done?" As if he were to say: it is not to be believed that they would have delivered you to me except for a great cause.

Here Christ's response is set forth, and first he removes the falsity of the suspicion about his kingdom; second, he establishes the truth, at the place, "Pilate therefore said to him: Are you a king then?" As to the first he does two things. First he excludes the false suspicion; second, he brings forward the proof by a sign, at the place, "If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would certainly strive that I should not be delivered to the Jews." He removes the false suspicion, saying, "My kingdom is not of this world." Understanding this wrongly, the Manichaeans said that there are two gods and two kingdoms: namely a good God, who has his kingdom in the region of light, and an evil God, who has his kingdom in the region of darkness; and they said that this present world is that latter region, because they said all bodily things are darkness. And according to this the sense would be: "My kingdom is not of this world," as if he were to say: the Lord my Father, who is good, and I, do not have our kingdom in the region of darkness. But against this is what is said in Psalm 46:8: "For God is king of all the earth." And again: "Whatsoever the Lord pleased, he has done, in heaven and in earth." And therefore it must be said that Christ said this on account of Pilate, who believed that Christ aspired to an earthly kingdom, by which he would reign bodily, as earthly men do; and that on this account he would be liable to death, because he had illicitly aspired to a kingdom.

Now it must be known that "kingdom" is sometimes said of that people which reigns, sometimes of the royal power itself. Taking "kingdom" in the first way, Augustine expounds it, and says "my kingdom," that is, my faithful ones — Revelation 5:10: "You have made us a kingdom to our God" — "is not of this world." He does not say: is not in this world; above, John 17:11: "and these are in the world," but it "is not of this world," by affection and imitation, having indeed been snatched away by the election of grace. For thus God rescued us from the power of darkness, and transferred us into the kingdom of his charity. But Chrysostom expounds it taking "kingdom" in the second way, and says: "my kingdom," that is, my power and authority by which I am king, "is not of this world," that is, it does not have its origin from worldly causes and the choice of men, but from elsewhere, namely from the Father himself. Daniel 7:14: "His power is an everlasting power that shall not be taken away, and his kingdom that shall not be corrupted."

Here he brings forward evident signs to prove that his kingdom is not of this world, and first he sets forth the sign; second he concludes what he intends, at the place, "but now my kingdom is not from here." As to the first, it must be known that whoever has an earthly kingdom, whether justly or by violence, must have companions and servants, by whom he is upheld in his power. The reason for this is that he is not powerful of himself, but through his servants. 2 Kings 3:1: "There was a long war between the house of Saul and the house of David: David prospering and growing always stronger and stronger, but the house of Saul decaying daily." But the King on high, since he is powerful of himself, bestows power upon his servants; therefore he does not need servants for his kingdom. And therefore he says that his kingdom is not of this world: "for if my kingdom were of this world, my servants would certainly strive that I should not be delivered to the Jews." Whence also Peter, wishing to fight for Christ, did not perceive that he himself was not of this world — see above, at the same place. Yet the Lord did have other servants, namely the Angels, who could have snatched him from the hands of the Jews; but the Lord did not wish to be snatched away. Matthew 26:53: "Can I not ask my Father, and he will give me more than twelve legions of angels?" "But now my kingdom is not from here." That is, since he does not seek such servants, he concludes that his kingdom is not from here, that is, it does not have its beginning from this world; yet it is here, because it is everywhere: for "it reaches from end to end mightily, and orders all things sweetly" (Wisdom 8:1); Psalm 2:8: "Ask of me, and I will give you the nations for your inheritance, and the utmost parts of the earth for your possession"; Daniel 7:14: "He gave him power and glory and a kingdom: and all peoples, tribes, and languages shall serve him."

Here the Lord manifests the truth about his kingdom, that it exists, and first the occasion of the manifestation is set forth; second, the manifestation itself, at the place, "Jesus answered him," etc.; third, the effect of the manifestation, at the place, "Pilate said to him, What is truth?" As to the first, it must be known that Pilate, understanding from the Lord's aforesaid words that the kingdom was, as it were, carnal and yet removed from those regions — as in 1 Corinthians 2:14: "The sensual man does not perceive the things that are of the Spirit of God" — nonetheless longed to know the truth; and therefore he says, saying, "Are you a king then?" Namely, even the Lord.

Consequently, answering, he says, "You say that I am a king," where first he confesses himself to be a king; second, he shows the ground of his kingship, at the place, "For this I was born... that I should give testimony to the truth"; third, he intimates over whom he reigns, at the place, "Everyone that is of the truth hears my voice." As to the first, it must be known that the Lord, answering the question about the kingdom, so tempered his answer that he neither openly confessed himself to be a king — since he was not a king in the way Pilate understood — nor denied it, since he was spiritually King of kings. He says therefore, "You say that I am a king," namely, carnally, in which manner I am not a king, but in another manner I am a king. Isaiah 32:1: "Behold a king shall reign in justice, and princes shall rule in judgment."

But he shows the manner and ground of his kingdom, saying, "For this I was born, and for this I came into the world, that I should give testimony to the truth"; which is expounded in two ways. In one way, according to Augustine, so that the kingdom of Christ consists of the faithful, as was said above; and thus Christ reigns over the faithful, and he came into the world for this, that by gathering the faithful to himself he might acquire a kingdom for himself. Luke 19:12: "A certain nobleman went into a far country, to receive for himself a kingdom." And thus the sense is: "For this," that is, unto this, "I was born," namely by carnal birth. And he expounds this, saying, "and for this I came into the world," by being born carnally; for thus he came into the world — Galatians 4:4: "God sent his Son into the world" — "that I should give testimony to the truth," namely to myself, who am the truth (above, John 14:6). "And if I bear witness of myself, my witness is true" (above, John 8:14). And insofar as I manifest myself as the truth, so far do I acquire a kingdom for myself. For this cannot come about except through the manifestation of the truth, and it was not fitting that this manifestation should be made except through me, who am the light. Above, John 1:18: "The only-begotten, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him." Hebrews 2:3: "Which, having begun to be declared by the Lord, was confirmed unto us by them that heard him, God also bearing witness by signs and wonders, and divers miracles, and distributions of the Holy Spirit."

In another way Chrysostom expounds it thus: you ask if I am a king, and I say that I am; but by divine power, because "for this I was born," by an eternal birth from the Father, so that as God from God, so King from King; Psalm 2:6: "But I am appointed king," and he adds, "This day have I begotten you." But as for what he adds, "and for this I came into the world," this is not put expositively, but is understood of the temporal birth; as if he were to say: although I am an eternal king, nevertheless I came into the world for this, that I should give testimony to the truth — namely, to myself, that I am king from God the Father.

Here he shows over whom he reigns. Where it must be noted that above, John 10:1, he called himself a shepherd, and called his subjects sheep, which is the same as what he here calls himself a king and his subjects a kingdom: because the proportion of a king to his subjects is the same as that of a shepherd to his sheep; and just as a shepherd feeds his sheep — Ezekiel 34:2: "Should not the flocks be fed by the shepherds?" — so too a king sustains his subjects. And especially, among other things, he said, "My sheep hear my voice"; whence here too he says, "Everyone that is of the truth hears my voice," not only outwardly, but by believing inwardly and by loving and by fulfilling in deed. Above, John 6:45: "Everyone that has heard from the Father and has learned comes to me." But whence does a man have this, that he should hear my voice? From this, namely, that he is of the truth, which is God. But since all are from God, all are of the truth and hear his voice. I answer. It must be said that some are from God by creation, and thus all are from God. Some are also said to be from God by affection and imitation; whence above, John 8:47, it is said: "You are not of God," namely according to affection, though you are of him by creation. He, therefore, hears the voice by believing and loving, who, namely, is of the truth, that is, who has received this gift, that he should love the truth. But note that he does not say: everyone who hears the voice is of the truth, because it would follow that we would be of the truth because we believe; whereas rather we believe because we are of the truth, inasmuch, namely, as we have received the gift of God by which we believe and love the truth. Ephesians 2:8: "By grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves: for it is the gift of God"; Philippians 1:29: "To you it is given, not only to believe in him, but also to suffer for him."

He sets forth the effect of the response, in which it is given to be understood that Pilate, the suspicion of an earthly kingdom having been driven off, and understanding Christ to be a king in the doctrine of truth, desires to know the truth, and to become part of his kingdom; whence he says, "What is truth?" Not asking what the definition of truth might be, but what truth was, by whose power he might become part of his kingdom: giving one to understand by this that truth was unknown to the world, and had almost vanished from all, since they were unbelieving. Isaiah 59:14: "Truth has fallen down in the street, and equity could not come in"; Psalm 11:2: "Truths are decayed from among the children of men." But Pilate did not wait for the answer.

And therefore, as regards this question, it must be known that we find a twofold truth in the Gospel: one uncreated and making; and this is Christ — above, John 14:6: "I am the way, the truth, and the life" — the other made, above, John 1:17: "Grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." For truth, by its very nature, imports a commensuration of the thing to the intellect. Now the intellect is compared to things in two ways. For a certain intellect exists as the measure of things, namely that which is the cause of things; while another is measured by the thing, namely that whose knowledge is caused by the thing. Truth, therefore, is not in the divine intellect because it itself is made equal to things, but because things are made equal to the divine intellect itself. But in our intellect there is truth for this reason, that it understands things as things are. And thus the uncreated truth, the divine intellect, is a truth not measured nor made, but a truth measuring and making a twofold truth: one, namely, in things themselves, insofar as it makes them according as they are in the divine intellect; and another which it makes in our souls, which is a truth only measured and not measuring. And hence it is that the uncreated truth of the divine intellect is appropriated to the Son, who is the very conception of the divine intellect and the Word of God. For truth follows upon the conception of the intellect.

Then, when he says, "And when he had said this, he went out again to the Jews," he treats of Pilate's judgment concerning Christ, and first he declares his innocence; second he intends to extend mercy, at the place, "Now there was a custom that I should release one to you at the Passover." As to the first, it must be known that Pilate, as Augustine says, gladly wished to free Christ, and when he had asked Christ, "What is truth?" it suddenly came into his mind how, by a certain custom, he could free Christ — the custom by which it was usual for one to be released to them at the Passover; and so, not waiting entirely for the answer, he betook himself to procuring this, and therefore he says, "And when he had said this." He heard the tumult of the Jews, and believing that he could restrain it and afterward more quietly hear the answer to the difficult question, he went out again to the Jews, and setting forth Christ's innocence, said to them, "I find no cause in him," namely, of death. 1 Peter 2:22: "Who did no sin." And yet, if there were some cause in him, I, in whom the power resides, and especially the power of judging those things which are done against the king, wish to free and absolve him. Whence he says, "Now there is a custom that I should release one to you at the Passover." Where first he offers Christ's release; second the Evangelist sets forth the Jews' response. Now it must be known that this custom was introduced by Pilate, or by other Roman governors, for the favor of the people. And so, according to this custom, wishing to release him, he says, "Will you, therefore, that I release to you the king of the Jews?" He does not say this as though he had found him guilty concerning the kingdom of the Jews, but in order to aggravate their malice; as if he were to say: even if he is king of the Jews — which it does not pertain to you to judge, but to me — nevertheless, if you wish, I will release him to you. But the Jews themselves cried out again, all saying, "Not this man, but Barabbas." And in order to show the malice of the Jews, he immediately adds the crime of him whom they were asking to be freed, saying, "Now Barabbas was a robber." Isaiah 1:23: "Your princes are faithless, companions of thieves." In this is fulfilled that saying of Jeremiah 12:8: "My inheritance has become to me as a lion in the forest"; Acts 3:14: "You denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be given to you."