Dicit ergo dixit illi Iesus: tu dixisti, potest exponi ut Christus non asserat, sed relinquat in dubio; supra VII, 6: nolite sanctum dare canibus. Vel potest assertive legi: tu dixisti, idest verum est; et patet, quia dicitur in Mc. XIV, 62: ego sum.
It says therefore, Jesus said to him: you have said it. It can be explained such that Christ does not assert anything, but leaves it in doubt; above, do not give that which is holy to dogs (Matt 7:6). Or, it can be read assertively: you have said it, i.e., it is true; and it is clear, because it says, I am (Mark 14:26).
Tunc evidentiam ostendit verumtamen dico vobis: amodo videbitis Filium hominis sedentem a dextris virtutis Dei. Et vult evidenter ostendere quod ipse sit Filius Dei, secundum duas auctoritates. Una est in Ps. CIX, 1: dixit Dominus Domino meo: sede a dextris meis. Et per hanc ostenderat supra XXII, 42–46 quod Christus erat Filius Dei. Alia est Daniel VII, 7: aspiciebam in visione noctis; et ecce cum nubibus caeli quasi Filius hominis veniebat et cetera. Ita, dico, dicit, scilicet tu dixisti; sed non nosti veritatem. Attende, quia veritas manifestabitur, quia videbitis Filium hominis sedentem a dextris virtutis Dei.
Then he offers evidence: nevertheless I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of the power of God. And he wishes to show plainly that he is the Son of God, according to two authorities. One is, the Lord said to my Lord: sit at my right hand (Ps 109:1). And by this he had shown above (Matt 22:42–46), that Christ was the Son of God. The other is, I beheld therefore in the vision of the night, and lo, one like the son of man came with the clouds of heaven (Dan 7:13). Thus, I say, he says, namely you have said it; but you have not known the truth. Pay attention, because the truth will be manifested, for you will see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of the power of God.
2283. Quia dixit sedentem a dextris, exponit Chrysostomus quod sessio a dextris signat dignitatem regiam; Is. IX, 7: super solium David, et super regnum eius sedebit. Vel sedere a dextris est esse in plena beatitudine virtutis, vel in bonis potioribus: dextera enim nobilior pars est; ideo maiorem dignitatem significat, non quia maiorem habeat potestatem, sed aequalem; infra ult., v. 18: data est mihi omnis potestas in caelo et in terra. Item de eius potestate dicit: venientem in nubibus caeli.
2283. Because he said, sitting on the right hand, Chrysostom explains that to sit at the right hand signifies kingly dignity; he will sit upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom (Isa 9:7). Or, to sit at the right hand is to be in the full beatitude of power, or in the more powerful goods: for the right hand is the nobler part, so it signifies a greater dignity, not because he has a greater power, but an equal one; below, all power is given to me in heaven and in earth (Matt 28:18). He also says about his power: coming in the clouds of heaven.
2284. Sed quid est quod dicit amodo videbitis? et cetera. Notandum quod id quod dicit in nubibus, potest referri ad adventum ultimum, vel quotidianum. Adventus ultimus erit in nube; Act. I, 11: quemadmodum vidistis eum euntem in caelum; et supra XXIV dicitur quod veniet in nubibus. Alio modo potest exponi de adventu quotidiano, de quo Iob c. IX, 11: si venerit ad me, non videbo eum. Et iste adventus est in nubibus, idest in apostolis et sacris doctoribus. De istis dicitur Is. c. LX, 8: qui sunt isti, qui ut nubes volant? Isti dicuntur nubes, quia in altum ascendunt. Item nubes foecundae sunt. Primum pertinet ad altitudinem vitae, secundum ad foecunditatem doctrinae. Et sunt nubes caeli, idest caelestes, quia portaverunt imaginem caelestem.
2284. But why does he say, hereafter you will see? Note that when he says, in the clouds, it can be referred to the last coming, or to the daily coming. The last coming will be on a cloud; this Jesus who is taken up from you into heaven, will so come, as you have seen him going into heaven (Acts 1:11); and above (Matt 24), it says that he will come in clouds. In another way, it can be explained as about the daily coming, about which it says, if he come to me, I will not see him (Job 9:11). And this coming is in the clouds, i.e., in the apostles and holy doctors. It says about this, who are these, that fly as clouds? (Isa 60:8). They are called clouds because they go up on the heights. Likewise, clouds are fruitful. The first pertains to loftiness of life, the second to fruitfulness of doctrine. And they are the clouds of heaven, i.e., heavenly, because they bear the heavenly image.
2285. Sed quid est amodo videbitis? Idest statim post passionem aliquos convertit ad fidem, alios per operum evidentiam. Unde aliqui conversi sunt propter eorum fidem, quidam propter bonam operationem. Item si referatur ad ultimum adventum, dicit Origenes: totum tempus mundi comparatum ad aeternitatem nihil est, sicut unum momentum. Ps. LXXXIX, 4: mille anni ante oculos tuos sicut dies hesterna, quae praeteriit. Ideo dicit amodo, quia nihil est tempus usque ad iudicium respectu aeternitatis. Verumtamen postquam a me recideritis, non restat nisi quod manifeste me cognoscetis, quia veniam in nubibus caeli. Et tunc cognoscetis me esse Filium hominis. Similis modus loquendi habetur supra c. XXIII, 39: non me videbitis amodo, donec dicatis: benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini.
2285. But what is hereafter you will see? That is, immediately after the passion he converted some to the faith, others through the evidence of works. Hence some were converted owing to their faith, some owing to a good work. Also, if it is referred to the last coming, Origen says: the whole time of the world, compared to eternity, is nothing, is as one moment. For it is written, for a thousand years in your sight are as yesterday, which is past (Ps 89:4). This is why he says, hereafter, because the time until the judgment is nothing with regard to eternity. Nevertheless, after you have fallen away from me, there is nothing left but that you know me manifestly, because I will come on the clouds of heaven. And then you will know that I am the Son of man. A similar way of speaking is found above, you will not see me from now on, till you say: blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord (Matt 23:39).
2286. Tunc princeps sacerdotum scidit vestimenta tua. Hic ponitur condemnatio. Et
2286. Then the high priest rent his garments. Here the condemnation is set down. And
primo ponitur quomodo condemnatur;
first, how he is condemned is set down;
secundo quomodo a discipulo negatur.
second, how he is denied by a disciple.
primo agit de condemnatione;
first, he treats of the condemnation;
secundo de delusione.
second, of the ridiculing.
Circa primum duo facit. Quia
Concerning the first, he does two things:
primo princeps eum condemnat;
first, the chief priest condemns him;
secundo exquirit sententiam.
second, he seeks a judgment.
2287. Condemnans autem ostendit culpam et facto, et verbo: facto, quia scidit vestimenta sua. Eodem furore scidit vestimenta sua, quo paulo ante surrexit de sede sua: consuetum enim erat quod qui audiebant blasphemiam scindebant vestimenta sua in signum quod non poterant audire. Verum quod haec duo fecit, aliquid significabatur: quod surrexit de solio, ostendebat quod amitteret sacerdotium; et quod scidit vestimenta sua, significabat quod transferri debebat; ad Hebr. VII, 12: translato sacerdotio, necesse est quod translatio legis fiat. Vestis Christi non fuit scissa; Io. XIX, 24: non dividamus eam, sed sortiamur de illa, cuius sit. Unde significabat abolitionem. Et hoc signatur I Reg. XV, 28: scidit dominus regnum Israel a te hodie. Sic scissum est a Iudaeis, et datum est membris Christi.
2287. However, the one condemning expressed Christ’s guilt both by deed and by word: by deed, because he rent his garments. He tore his garments in the same fury in which a little while before he rose from his seat, for it was customary that one who heard blasphemy tore his garments as a sign that he could not bear to hear it. The fact that he did these two things signified something: that he rose from the throne showed that he lost the priesthood; and that he tore his garments signified that it had to be passed on. For the priesthood being translated, it is necessary that a translation also be made of the law (Heb 7:12). Christ’s garments were not torn; let us not cut it, but let us cast lots for it, whose it shall be (John 19:24). Hence it signified abolition. And this is indicated: the Lord has rent the kingdom of Israel from you this day (1 Sam 15:28). Thus it was cut off from the Jews, and was given to the members of Christ.
Tunc imponit culpam blasphemavit, quia hoc dixerat, reputabat eum blasphemum; unde Io. X, 33: de bono opere non lapidamus te, sed de blasphemia, quia homo cum sis, filium Dei te facis; et tali debebatur mors.
Then he imputes guilt: he has blasphemed. Because he had said this, he considered him a blasphemer; hence, for a good work we do not stone you, but for blasphemy; and because you, being a man, make yourself God (John 10:33); and such a man deserves to die.
Tunc manifestat culpam quid adhuc indigemus testibus?
Then he manifests the guilt: what further need have we of witnesses?
2288. Tunc exquirit sententiam quid vobis videtur? At illi respondentes dixerunt: reus est mortis, secundum iudicium legis. Et hoc esset verum, si esset blasphemus; sed non erat, ideo male iudicant, quia auctorem vitae morti condemnant; I Cor. XV, 22: sicut enim mors per Adam in omnes homines, sic et vita per Iesum.
2288. Then he seeks a judgment: what do you think? But answering, they said: he is guilty of death, according to the judgment of the law. And this would be true, if he were a blasphemer; but he was not, so they judge badly, for they condemn to death the author of life; and as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive (1 Cor 15:22).
2289. Tunc expuerunt in faciem eius et cetera. Post condemnationem Christi agitur de illusione. Et satis convenienter, quia Christus peccata nostra tulit, ut Is. LXII. Homo autem per peccatum in mortem est traditus, quando dictum est ei, Gen. II, 17: quacumque hora comederitis, morte moriemini. Item proprium honorem amisit, quia homo cum in honore esset, non intellexit, comparatus est iumentis insipientibus, Ps. XLVIII, 13.
2289. Then they spat in his face. After the condemnation of Christ, he treats of the ridiculing. And fittingly enough, for Christ bore our sins (Isa 53). Moreover, through sin man was handed over to death, when it was said to him, for in whatever day you eat of it, you will die the death (Gen 2:17). Likewise, he lost honor, for man when he was in honor did not understand; he is compared to senseless beasts, and is become like to them (Ps 48:13).
Et ideo Christus redemptor mortem et opprobria primo facto sustinuit; secundo verbo, ibi prophetiza nobis, Christe.
And this is why Christ the redeemer endured death and reproach, first by deed; second by word, at prophesy to us, O Christ.
In prima conspuitur, et colaphis caeditur; in secunda in facie percutitur.
In the first he is spat upon, and struck with blows; in the second, he is struck in the face.
2290. Quantum ad primum dicitur tunc expuerunt in faciem eius, et colaphis eum ceciderunt; secundum quod habetur ex verbis, istud fiebat in signum mandati Dei contempti, unde habetur Deut. XXV, 5 ss. si aliquis nolebat accipere uxorem fratris, quod conspuebant in faciem suam. Item propter contemptum mandati paterni: sic de Maria sorore Moysi. Unde expuebant in faciem eius, quia blasphemum reputabant; Is. c. l, 6: faciem meam non averti ab increpantibus et conspuentibus in me. Item colaphis caedebant, ad modum ebrii vel stulti; Is. c. LIII, 3: vidimus eum novissimum virorum, idest ita despectus videbatur ac si esset novissimus omnium virorum. Alii autem palmas in faciem dederunt, in irreverentiam; Thren. III, v. 30: dabit percutienti se maxillam. Mystice, secundum Augustinum, adhuc hoc aliqui faciunt: quia spuere in faciem nihil aliud est quam contemnere praesentiam gratiae Christi; ad Hebr. X, 29: quanto magis putatis maiora mereri supplicia, qui Filium Dei conculcaverit, et sanguinem testamenti pollutum duxerit, in quo sanctificatus est, et Spiritui gratiae contumeliam fecerit? Sed proprie colaphizat, qui caput manui supponit: et tales sunt qui magis dignitatem suam inquirunt, quam Christi honorem. De talibus dicitur quod dilexerunt homines magis tenebras quam lucem. Illi autem qui faciem percutiunt, sunt illi qui quodammodo praesentiam eius demoliri contendunt, ut sunt Iudaei. De his Is. XXX, 11: cesset a facie nostra Sanctus Israel.
2290. With regard to the first, it says, then they spat in his face, and buffeted him; according to what is had from the words, this was done as a sign of contempt of God’s commandment, for it says that if anyone would not receive the wife of a brother, they spat in his face (Deut 25:5). Also, owing to contempt of the commandment of a father: so it was said about Mary the sister of Moses (Num 12:14). Hence they spat in his face because they considered him a blasphemer; I have not turned away my face from those who rebuked me, and spit upon me (Isa 50:6). Likewise, they hit him, in the manner of a man drunk or foolish; the most abject of men (Isa 53:3), i.e., he seemed despised as though he were the most abject of all men. And others struck his face with the palms of their hands, in irreverence; he will give his cheek to him who strikes him (Lam 3:30). Mystically, according to Augustine, some do this even now: for to spit in his face is nothing other than to despise the presence of Christ’s grace; how much more, do you think he deserves worse punishments, who has trodden under foot the Son of God, and has esteemed the blood of the testament unclean, by which he was sanctified, and has offered an affront to the Spirit of grace? (Heb 10:29). But he properly strikes a blow who subjects the head to the hand: and such are those who seek their own dignity more than Christ’s honor. About such men it is said, that men loved darkness rather than the light (John 3:19). And the ones who strike his face are those who in a certain way strive to remove his presence, as are the Jews. Of these Isaiah says, let the Holy One of Israel cease from before us (Isa 30:11).
2291. Tunc improperia ingerunt verbo prophetiza nobis, Christe: quis est qui te percussit? Et hoc dicebant illudendo, quia nullus eorum pro propheta eum habebat; et non erat necessarium: infamia enim eorum manifesta erat. Unde hoc noluit dicere; Iob XVI, v. 11: et exprobrantes percusserunt maxillam meam.
2291. Then they inflict taunts by word: prophesy to us, O Christ, who is he that struck you? And they said this by way of ridicule, because none of them took him for a prophet; and it was not necessary for Christ to prophesy, for their irreverent speech was plain. So he did not wish to speak; reproaching me they have struck me on the cheek (Job 16:11).
2292. Petrus autem sedebat foris. Hic agitur de negatione Petri. Lucas XXII, 55 autem alio ordine refert, quia primo ponit negationem Petri, quam illusionem Christi; Matthaeus autem e contrario. Et non est contrarietas, quia dum illuderetur, simul factum est; ideo non refert si ante vel post ponatur.
2292. But Peter sat without in the court. Here he treats of Peter’s denial. Luke reports another order, for he puts Peter’s denial before the mockery of Christ (Luke 22:25), but Matthew the other way around. And there is no conflict, because while he was being mocked this was done at the same time; so it makes no difference whether it be placed before or after.
Et notandum quod cum ducebatur, non negat; sed quando illuditur, negat, ad significandum quod quidam magis timent opprobria quam verbera, contra illud Is. LI, 7: nolite timere opprobria hominum et blasphemias eorum nolite metuere.
And one should notice that when Christ was led away, he did not deny him; but when he is mocked, he denies him, to signify that some fear reproach more than lashes, contrary to: fear not the reproach of men, and be not afraid of their blasphemies (Isa 51:7).
Et circa hoc
And concerning this,
primo ponitur negatio;
first, the denial is set down;
secundo poenitentia Petri et continuo gallus cantavit; et recordatus est Petrus verbi Iesu.
second, Peter’s repentance, at and immediately the cock crowed. And Peter remembered the word of Jesus.
Prima dividitur in tres, secundum tres negationes.
The first is divided into three parts, according to the three denials.
Secunda ibi exeunte autem illo ianuam etc.; tertia ibi et post pusillum accesserunt qui stabant et cetera.
The second is at and as he went out of the gate; the third, at and after a little while those came who stood by.
2293. Et primo ponitur locus, secundo occasio, tertio negatio.
2293. And first, the place is set down; second, the occasion; third, the denial.
Dicit ergo Petrus autem sedebat foris, scilicet extra locum ubi Christus patiebatur: illi enim qui a Christo se elongant, cito confunduntur; Ier. XVII, 13: domine, omnes qui te derelinquunt, confundentur. E contrario in Ps. XXXIII, 6: accedite ad eum, et illuminamini et facies vestrae non confundentur. Qui enim est extra passionem Christi, de facili labitur.
It says therefore, but Peter sat without in the court, namely outside the place where Christ was suffering: for those who distance themselves from Christ are quickly confounded. All who forsake you will be confounded (Jer 17:13). On the contrary, come to him and be enlightened: and your faces will not be confounded (Ps 33:6). For the one who is outside of Christ’s passion easily slips and falls.
Tunc ponitur excitativum ad denegandum et accessit ad eum una ancilla dicens: et tu cum Iesu Galilaeo eras. Et convenit casus Petri casui primi hominis; Eccli. XXV, 33: a muliere initium peccati. Sic Petrus ad vocem mulieris Christum negavit; in quo Dominus praesumptionem eius humiliare voluit, quia non ad vocem viri, sed mulieris. Et tu cum Iesu Nazareno eras. Hoc solebat ei esse gloriosum, sed modo est ei terribile, et ideo negavit at ille negavit coram omnibus dicens: nescio quid dicis.
Then the provocation to denial is set down: and there came to him a servant maid, saying: you also were with Jesus the Galilean. And Peter’s fall lines up with the fall of the first man; from the woman came the beginning of sin (Sir 25:33). In the same way, Peter denied Christ at the words of a woman, by which the Lord wished to humiliate his presumption, because it was not at the words of a man, but of a woman. You also were with Jesus the Galilean. This used to be a glorious thing to him, but now it is terrible to him, and so he denies it: but he denied before them all, saying: I do not know what you are saying.
Si volumus aggravare culpam Petri, possumus aggravare ex tribus. Aggravatur, quia statim ad modicum terrorem negavit; Lev. XXVI, v. 36: terrebit eos sonitus folii volantis. Item quia non erubuit coram omnibus. Item ex mendacio, quia dixit nescio quid dicis, et non novi hominem; contra illud Eccli. IV, 24: ne confundaris dicere verum.
If we wish to make Peter’s guilt worse, we can make it worse in three ways. It is made worse because right away, at a small fright, he denied Christ; the sound of a flying leaf will terrify them (Lev 26:36). Likewise, because he was not ashamed to do it before all. Likewise, by lying, because he said, I do not know what you are saying, and I do not know the man; contrary to: for your soul be not ashamed to say the truth (Sir 4:24).
2294. Exeunte autem illo ianuam, vidit eum alia ancilla et ait his qui erant ibi: et hic erat cum Iesu Nazareno. Et iterum negavit. Hic ponitur secunda negatio. Et primo tangitur locus; secundo incitativum; tertio negatio.
2294. And as he went out of the gate, another maid saw him, and she said to those who were there: this man also was with Jesus of Nazareth. And again he denied. Here the second denial is set down. And first, he touches on the place; second, the provocation; third, the denial.
Quantum ad historiam, secundum Marcum c. XIV, 66 post primam negationem gallus cantavit, et tunc exivit ianuam, et vidit eum ancilla, et negavit. Sed videtur contrarius aliis, quia videntur alii dicere quod sedentes dixerunt; et Lucas XXII, 55 dicit quod unus de sedentibus. Quid ergo hic dicitur quod ancilla? Notandum, secundum Augustinum, quod quando negaverat, exivit: et dum esset in exeundo, dixit ei ancilla etc.; et tunc negavit; quod audiens Petrus reversus est intus. Tunc illi qui audierant ab ancilla, petierunt idem. Et potest esse quod unus, qui cognoscebat eum, magis urgebat eum. Et iterum cum iuramento negavit, quia non novi hominem; contra illud Eccli. XXIII, 9: iurationi ne assuescat os tuum.
As regards history, according to Mark, the cock crowed after the first denial, and then he went out the door and another maid saw him, and he denied him again (Mark 14:66). But this seems contrary to the others, because the others seem to say that those who were sitting spoke; and Luke says that it was one of those sitting (Luke 22:55). What then is said here about a maid? One should note, according to Augustine, that when he had denied him, he went out, and while he was in the process of going out, a maid spoke to him, and then he denied him again; hearing, Peter turned back inside. Then those who had heard what the maid said asked the same thing. And it can be that one who knew him was pressing him more. And again he denied with an oath, I do not know the man; contrary to: do not let your mouth be accustomed to swearing (Sir 23:9).