Letters & Polemics (CSEL) 30 part 10/14

The rest of this event seems to me to present no problem. For as to the fact that some say the disciples murmured about the pouring out of the precious ointment, whereas John names Judas—and, because he was a thief, I think it plain that under the name of the disciples this same Judas is signified, by that manner of speech which we pointed out in the case of Philip at the five loaves, the plural number being used for the singular.

It can also be understood that other disciples too either felt this, or said it, or were persuaded of it when Judas said it, and that Matthew and Mark expressed in words the will of all; but that Judas said it because he was a thief, while the rest said it out of care for the poor; and that John wished to record it of him alone, whose habit of thieving on this occasion he believed ought to be made known. Matthew continues: the twelve, who is called Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests... he forewarned them what sign they should follow, concerning a man carrying a jar or a pitcher of water, that following him they might come to the house which he desired.

Since, then, it could not here be said 'to just anyone,' which the propriety of the expression indeed admits, but which in this passage the truth of the matter being conveyed does not admit, how much less could it here be said 'to a certain one'—which by correct speech can never at all be said! But it is plain that the disciples were sent by the Lord not to just anyone, but to a certain man, that is, to some definite person. This the evangelist could rightly narrate in his own person, so as to say, 'he sent them to a certain one, that they might say to him: with you I keep the Passover.' He could also say thus: 'he sent them to a certain one, saying: Go, tell him: with you I keep the Passover.' And by this, when he had set down the Lord's words saying, 'Go into the city,' he himself interposed:

'to a certain one'—not because the Lord said this, but so that he himself might convey to us that there was in the city, his name being unspoken, a certain one to whom the Lord's disciples were sent to prepare the Passover. And thus, after this interposition of two words in his own person, there follows the order of the Lord's words as he says: 'and tell him: the Master says...' For now if you ask, 'to whom?', it is rightly answered: to that certain man to whom the evangelist conveyed that he sent them, when in his own person he had interposed, 'to a certain one.' It is indeed a less usual manner of speech, but nevertheless, understood thus, it is entirely sound;

or if the Hebrew tongue, in which Matthew is said to have written, has some peculiarity such that even the whole may be spoken in the Lord's person without lacking soundness of expression, let those who know it see to it. Certainly it could also be said in Latin thus, if one were to say: 'Go into the city to a certain one whom a man will point out to you, who will meet you carrying a jar of water.' In this way one bidden could obey without ambiguity; just as also, if he said, 'Go into the city to a certain one who lodges in such and such a place, in such and such a house,' with the specifying of the place and the designating of the house it could be understood, it could be done.

But when these and other such silent tokens are wanting, whoever says 'Go to a certain one and tell him' cannot be heeded, because he wishes some definite person to be understood when he says 'to a certain one,' and does not express how he is to be recognized. But if we take that phrase as interposed in the evangelist's own person, the expression will indeed be somewhat obscure by the necessity of brevity, but nevertheless sound. As for the fact that Mark says a jar which Luke calls a pitcher—the one signified the kind of vessel, the other its measure; each preserved the truth of the meaning. Matthew continues: the matters we have now proposed for consideration bring no problem, nor do the other evangelists who record such things.

Now, since the narrative of all four is occupied in that place where it is necessary that they walk together right up to the end and not diverge much from one another—if perhaps here and there one records something which another omits—it seems to me that we can more expeditiously demonstrate the agreement of all the evangelists if from this point on we weave together all things of all of them and arrange them into a single narrative and countenance. Thus, then, I judge that what we have undertaken will be more conveniently and easily unfolded, if we set about the narration, recording all things with the attestation of those evangelists who, out of all these, each recorded what he could or what he wished, yet in such a way that all these things were said by all of them—things which it must be shown to be in no respect contradictory to one another.

Hence, then, let us begin according to Matthew: 'And as they were eating, Jesus took bread and blessed it and broke it and gave it to his disciples and said: Take and eat, this is my body.' This Mark and Luke also record. For as to the fact that Luke mentioned the cup twice, first before he gave the bread, then after he had given the bread, he anticipated what he stated earlier, as is his custom, whereas what he set down in its own order he had not mentioned earlier; but both joined together make this meaning, which is theirs also. John, however, said nothing in this place about the body and blood of the Lord, but plainly testifies that the Lord spoke of this elsewhere much more fully.

Now indeed, when he had recorded that the Lord rose from supper and washed the disciples' feet, and had also given the reason why he did this for them—in which the Lord had still darkly signified, through the testimony of Scripture, that he was to be betrayed by one who ate his bread—John comes to this passage which the other three alike convey: Judas, who betrayed him, said: 'Is it I, Rabbi?' He said to him: 'You have said it.' Here too it is not expressly stated whether it was he. For it can still be understood as though 'I did not say it'; and it could also have been said thus by Judas and answered by the Lord in such a way that not all took notice. Then Matthew continues and inserts the mystery of the body and blood given by the Lord to the disciples, just as Mark and Luke do.

But when he had handed over the cup, he again spoke of his betrayer, which Luke pursues, saying... Here it must be seen lest John seem to contradict not only Luke, who had already said that Satan entered into the heart of Judas when he bargained then with the Jews to betray him for money received, but also John himself; for he had already said above, before Judas received that morsel: 'And supper being ended, when the devil had put it into his heart that Judas should betray him.' For how does he enter into the heart, except by putting wicked persuasions into the thoughts of the wicked?

But now we must understand that Judas was more fully possessed by the devil—just as, on the contrary, in the good, those who had already received the Holy Spirit when he breathed upon them after the resurrection, saying, 'Receive the Holy Spirit,' afterward, when he was sent from above on the day of Pentecost, received him assuredly more fully. After the morsel, then, Satan entered into him. ...of man, and God was glorified in him. And God will glorify him in himself, and will straightway glorify him. II.

...to understand either that those two placed it by recapitulation, or that these placed it by anticipation—unless it moved us more that they set before it words, and indeed sentiments of the Lord, so diverse, provoked by which Peter uttered that presumption of dying either with the Lord or for the Lord—so that they rather compel us to understand that he expressed his presumption three times at different points of Christ's discourse, and that it was answered him three times by the Lord that he would deny him three times before the cock crowed.

For it is not incredible that Peter, at somewhat separated intervals of time, was moved both to presume and to deny, or that the Lord responded something to him three times in like manner—seeing that even continuously, with no other things or words interposed, after the resurrection he asks him three times whether he loves him, and to him answering this same thing three times he also enjoins one and the same charge of feeding his sheep three times. And that this is more credible—that Peter showed his presumption three times and heard from the Lord three times about his threefold denial—is thus proved from the very words of the evangelists, which they record as spoken by the Lord diversely and as different things. Behold, let us remember what I have just now interposed from the Gospel of John.

This certainly he had said: 'You are my disciples, if you have love toward one another.' ...the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered. The three would seem [to differ], of whom Matthew said: 'Amen I say to you, that this night, before the cock crows, you will deny me three times'; Luke, however: 'I say to you, Peter, the cock will not crow today until you three times deny that you know me'; and John: 'Amen, amen I say to you, the cock will not crow until you deny me three times'—for with different words and different order of words they unfolded the same meaning: that the Lord said Peter would deny him before the cock crowed. Again, if he had accomplished the whole threefold denial before the cock began to crow, Mark would be found to have said superfluously, in the Lord's person:

'Amen I say to you, that you today, on this very night, before the cock crows twice, will deny me three times.' For what point was there in saying 'before twice,' when, if the whole threefold denial were completed before the first cockcrow, it would at once be found completed both before the second and before the third and before all cockcrows of that same night—since it would be proved completed before that very first one? But because that threefold denial was begun before the first cockcrow, those three attended not to when Peter would complete it, but to how great it would be and when it would begin—that is, that it was threefold and that it was before cockcrow—although in his mind the whole may be understood as being even before the first cockcrow.

For although in the words of the one denying it was begun before the first cockcrow, and that whole threefold denial was accomplished before the second cockcrow, nevertheless in the affection of his mind and in Peter's fear it was wholly conceived before the first. Nor does it matter with how great intervals of delay it was uttered in threefold voice, when his heart possessed the whole even before the first cockcrow—imbibed, that is, with so great a dread that, though questioned, he could deny the Lord not only once, but again and a third time; so that those attend more correctly and more carefully who consider how one has already committed adultery with a woman in his heart who looks upon her to lust after her.

Thus Peter, whenever he uttered in words the fear which he had conceived in his mind so vehemently that it could persist right up to the third denial of the Lord, the whole threefold denial is to be reckoned to that time when a fear sufficient for the threefold denial invaded him. Hence, even if after the first cockcrow those words of denial began to burst forth, his breast being struck by the questions, not even so would it be said absurdly and falsely that he denied three times before the cockcrow, since before the cockcrow so great a fear had besieged his mind—a fear that could carry it right up to the third denial. Much less, therefore, ought it to trouble anyone that the threefold denial, begun even with the threefold voices of the one denying before cockcrow, was not accomplished before the first cockcrow.

As if it were said to someone, 'This night, before the cock crows, you will write me a letter in which you will revile me three times'—surely, if he began to write it before any cockcrow and finished it after the first cockcrow, the prediction would not therefore have to be said to have been false. Mark, then, spoke more plainly about the intervals of the voices themselves, who said in the Lord's person: 'Before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times.' That it happened thus will appear when we come to that same place in the Gospel narrative, so that there too the evangelists may be shown to agree with one another.

But if the exact words are sought which the Lord said to Peter, they can neither be found and are sought in vain, since his meaning—for the sake of knowing which the words are brought forth—can be most well known even in the diverse words of the evangelists. Whether, therefore, Peter, moved at different points of the Lord's discourses, uttered his presumption three times one by one, and the Lord three times foretold his denial to him—as is more probably investigated—or whether by some order of narration the records of all the evangelists can be reduced into one, by which it is shown that the Lord once foretold to the presuming Peter that he would deny him: no contradiction of the evangelists can here be detected, as indeed there is none. III.

Now, then, as far as we can, let us follow the very order out of them all. When, therefore, according to John this had been foretold to Peter, the same John continues and connects the Lord's discourse as he says... to sift as wheat; the words are just as many, except that there differs what we have already unraveled above concerning the cockcrow. Matthew, then, weaves the narrative together and says: 'Could you not watch one hour with me?'—as though it were spoken by one reproaching, not by one permitting. Which would rightly be done, if it were necessary. But since Mark has recorded this in such a way that, when he had said, 'Sleep now and take your rest,' he added 'it is enough,' and then brought in, 'the hour has come, behold the Son of Man will be betrayed,' it is certainly understood that after that which was said to them:

'Sleep and take your rest,' the Lord was silent for a while, so that what he had permitted might come to pass, and then brought in: 'Behold, the hour has drawn near.' Therefore, after those words, according to Mark, is placed 'it is enough,' that is, 'that you have now rested is enough.' But because the interposition of the Lord's silence itself is not recorded, it thereby constrains the understanding, so that in those words another manner of pronouncing is required. Luke, however, mentioned first how often he prayed; he indeed stated what those others passed over in silence—both that as he prayed he was strengthened by an angel, and that his sweat as he prayed at greater length was bloody, and that the drops ran down onto the earth. When, then, he says, 'And when he had risen from prayer and come to his disciples,' he did not express from which prayer;

yet it in no way contradicts those two. John, however, after he says that he entered the garden with his disciples, does not record what he did there, until his betrayer came to him with the Jews to seize him. These three, then, narrated the same event just as even one man could three times, with some variety, yet with no discrepancy. Luke, moreover, more clearly disclosed how far he advanced—that is, was torn away—from them in order to pray, saying: 'about a stone's throw.' Furthermore, Mark first, in his own words, narrated that the Lord prayed the same thing: that, if it could be, that hour—that is, of the passion, which he soon signified by the name of the cup—might pass from him. Then he set forth the Lord's very words thus:

'Abba, Father, all things are possible to you, take this cup from me.' If to these words you join what those two said, and what Mark himself also set down above in his own person, the meaning is thus made manifest: 'Father, if it is possible—for all things are possible to you—take this cup from me,' lest anyone should think he diminished the Father's power when he said 'if it is possible'; for he did not say 'if you are able to do it,' but 'if it is possible'; and possible is whatever he shall have willed. Thus, then, 'if it is possible' was said as if it were said 'if you will.' For Mark made manifest in what sense 'if it is possible' is to be taken, when he said 'all things are possible to you.' And as to their recording that he said:

'But not what I will, but what you will'—which is exactly equivalent to saying, 'nevertheless not my will, but yours be done'—this sufficiently shows that 'if it is possible' was said not from possibility, but from the will of the Father; especially since Luke intimated this very thing more plainly; for he did not say, 'if it can be done,' but 'if you will.' To which plainer statement there is more plainly joined what Mark set down, so that it may be said thus: 'if you will, for all things are possible to you, take this cup from me.' But as to the fact that Mark himself records that he said not only 'Father' but 'Abba, Father'—this is 'Abba' in Hebrew, which in Latin is 'Father.'

And perhaps the Lord said both on account of some sacrament, wishing to show that he had taken up that sorrow in the person of his body, that is, of the Church, for whom he was made the cornerstone—the Church coming to him partly from the Hebrews, to whom belongs what he says 'Abba,' partly from the Gentiles, to whom belongs what he says 'Father.' The apostle Paul too, not passing over this sacrament, says: 'in whom we cry, Abba, Father,' and again he says: 'God has sent his Spirit into our hearts crying, Abba, Father.'

For it was fitting that, as a good teacher and true Saviour compassionate to the weaker, he should demonstrate in himself that his martyrs ought not to despair if perchance in the hour of the passion some sorrow from human frailty should creep into their hearts, provided they conquered it by preferring the will of God to their own will—because he knows what is expedient for those whom he counsels. But of this whole matter it is not now the time to discourse more fully; for the concern at present is with the agreement of the evangelists, in whose diversity of words we learn savingly that nothing else is to be sought in words, for the hearing of the truth, than the meaning of the speaker.

For 'Father' is the same as 'Abba, Father'; but for intimating the sacrament 'Abba, Father' is plainer, while for signifying unity 'Father' suffices. And it is indeed to be believed that the Lord said 'Abba, Father'; yet the meaning would not shine forth unless, by others saying 'Father,' it were demonstrated that those two Churches, from Jews and Greeks, are so [distinct] that they are also one. In that understanding, then, was 'Abba, Father' said, in which the same Lord elsewhere says: 'I have other sheep which are not of this fold'—signifying the Gentiles, of course, when he had sheep also among the people of Israel. But because he went on to add: 'I must bring them also, that there may be one flock and one shepherd,' as much as 'Abba, Father' avails for Israelites and Gentiles, so much does 'Father' alone avail for the one flock. V.

So he asked them: 'Whom do you seek?' And they said: 'Jesus the Nazarene.' ...shall I drink it? Then, as Luke says, he touched the ear of him who had been struck and healed him. Nor let it disturb anyone as though it were contradictory that Luke said, when the disciples asked whether they should strike with the sword, that the Lord answered: 'Suffer thus far'—as though it were said after that striking, so that what had been done thus far pleased him, but he did not wish more to be done—whereas in the words which Matthew set down it is rather understood that the whole deed, in which Peter used the sword, displeased the Lord. For this is the truer view, that when they had asked him, saying: 'Lord, shall we strike with the sword?' he then answered:

'Suffer thus far,' that is, 'let not what is about to happen move you; they are to be permitted to advance this far'—that is, to lay hold of me and that the things written of me may be fulfilled. But amid the delays of the words of those questioning the Lord and of him answering, Peter, out of eagerness for defense and greater agitation on the Lord's behalf, struck; but things which could have happened at once could not also be told at once. For he would not say 'But Jesus answering' unless he were replying to their question, not to Peter's deed. For as to what he judged concerning Peter's deed, Matthew alone tells. Where also Matthew did not say 'Jesus replied to Peter: put back your sword,' but said: 'Then Jesus said to him: put back your sword,' which appears to have been said by the Lord after the deed.

But that which Luke set down: 'But Jesus answering said: Suffer thus far'—is to be taken as the answer given to those who had asked; but because, as we said, between the words of those questioning and of the answering Lord a striking was done with a single blow, he judged that it should be narrated in this order, so that he inserted it even between the words of the question and of the answer. This, then, is not contradictory to what Matthew said: 'For all who take the sword shall perish by the sword'—that is, those who shall have used the sword. But it could seem contradictory if, from that answer, the Lord were demonstrated to have approved the voluntary use of the sword, at least as far as one wound, and that not a lethal one.

And yet the whole may fittingly be understood as spoken to Peter as well, so that what Luke and what Matthew reported are joined together in the manner I set out above: 'Let it be thus far,' and 'Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword shall perish by the sword,' and the rest. But how the words 'Let it be thus far' are to be understood I have already explained; and if it can be understood better otherwise, let it be so, provided only that the truthfulness of the evangelists stands firm. Afterward Matthew goes on and records that at that hour He said to the crowds — as Mark also records — 'And when they had seized Him'; and from there he recapitulates, in order to unfold the trial of Peter which he had begun in the house to which He was first led, and he returns to the sequence where he shows how the Lord was led to Caiaphas.

Thus then Matthew continues — Matthew and Mark — and also by another whom Luke records; for Luke narrates it thus. But perhaps someone will say: he had not yet gone out, but had risen intending to go out. This can be said by one who thinks that Peter was questioned a second time outside before the door and denied. Let us therefore look at what John reports next: 'The high priest then,' he says, 'questioned Jesus about His disciples and about His teaching. Art thou one of His disciples? He denied it and said, I am not.' In this passage, therefore, we find that Peter made his second denial not before the door, but while standing at the fire — which could not have happened unless he had already returned after going outside.

For it was not that he had already gone out and that the other maidservant saw him outside; rather, as he was going out she saw him — that is, as he was rising to go out she noticed him and said to those who were there, that is, to those who were together at the fire inside in the courtyard: 'This man too was with Jesus of Nazareth.' But he who was going out, having heard this, returned and swore to them, as they pressed him, that he did not know the man. For Mark too speaks thus of the same maidservant: 'And she began to say to the bystanders that this man is one of them.' She was saying it not to him, but to those who had remained there when he was going out, yet in such a way that he could hear; whereupon, returning and standing again at the fire, he resisted by denying their words. Then comes what John says: they said, 'Art thou not also one of His disciples?'

Since we understand this to have been said to him as he returned and stood there, this too is confirmed: that it was not only that other maidservant whom Matthew and Mark record in this second denial, but also another person whom Luke records, who did this to Peter. Hence John says, 'They therefore said to him.' Wherefore, whether — after the maidservant said, as he was going out, to those who were with her in the courtyard, 'This man is one of them' — he, having heard this, turned back in order to clear himself, as it were, by denying; or, what is more credible, he did not hear what had been said about him as he was going outside, and after he had returned the maidservant and that other whom Luke records said to him, 'Art thou not also one of His disciples?' and he said:

'I am not' — while that man of whom Luke speaks pressed on more insistently, saying, 'You too are one of them,' to whom Peter said, 'Man, I am not.' Yet it is clearly gathered, when all the evangelists' testimonies on this matter are compared, that Peter made his second denial not before the door, but inside the courtyard at the fire; and that Matthew and Mark, who recorded that he had gone outside, passed over his return in silence for the sake of brevity. Now let us examine the agreement of the accounts concerning the third denial, which we recall that Matthew alone has already unfolded. Mark therefore follows and says — he unfolds it thus: 'And this man too was with Him;'

'for he too is a Galilean.' Either we understand that they held the view of those who say that Peter was directly addressed — for it amounted to as much that this was said about him in his presence as if it had been said to him — or that it happened in both ways, and that some recorded the one manner and some the other. But we understand the crowing of the cock after the third denial to be the second crowing, as Mark expressed it. Matthew therefore continues, saying thus: 'They spat in His face and struck Him with their fists, and others slapped His face with the palms of their hands.' As for the word of the Lord — Matthew and Mark, who were silent about that look of His, said that Peter remembered not the word of the Lord, but the word of Jesus.

So that from this too we may understand that that look came from Jesus not with human eyes, but was wrought divinely. Matthew therefore continues and says: 'When morning had come, all the chief priests and elders of the people took counsel against Jesus, to put Him to death. And they bound Him and led Him away and delivered Him to Pontius Pilate the governor.' Mark similarly: 'And immediately in the morning,' he says, 'the chief priests, holding a consultation with the elders and scribes and the whole council, bound Him, led Him away, and delivered Him to Pilate.' But Luke, after he had completed the narrative of Peter's denial, recapitulated the things done with the Lord — evidently already around morning — and so wove his narrative together:

'If I ask you, you will not answer me, nor will you release me.' John too, when he had recorded — as far as seemed good — the things done with the Lord, and Peter's whole denial, says: 'They therefore led Jesus to Caiaphas into the praetorium; and it was morning.' Here we understand either that there was some reason which compelled Caiaphas to be in the praetorium and not to be present while the other chief priests were conducting the inquiry concerning the Lord, or that the praetorium was in his house. Nevertheless He was from the beginning being led to that very one to whom at the last He was brought. But since they were now bringing Him as one already convicted, and since it had already before seemed good to Caiaphas that Jesus should die, no delay was interposed before He was handed over to Pilate to be put to death.