|
Jesus' Death is Premeditated
(Mark 14:1-2 Matt 26:1-5 Luke 22:1-2) 1 Now the feast of the pasch, and of the Azymes was after two days; and the chief priests and the scribes sought how they might by some wile lay hold on him, and kill him. 2 But they said: Not on the festival day, lest there should be a tumult among the people. The Anointing in Bethany
3 And when he was in Bethania, in the house of Simon the leper, and was at meat, there came a woman having an alabaster box of ointment of precious spikenard: and breaking the alabaster box, she poured it out upon his head. 4 Now there were some that had indignation within themselves, and said: Why was this waste of the ointment made? 5 For this ointment might have been sold for more than three hundred pence, and given to the poor. And they murmured against her. 6 But Jesus said: Let her alone, why do you molest her? She hath wrought a good work upon me. 7 For the poor you have always with you: and whensoever you will, you may do them good: but me you have not always. 8 She hath done what she could: she is come beforehand to anoint my body for burial. 9 Amen, I say to you, wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, that also which she hath done, shall be told for a memorial of her. The Betrayal by Judas
(Mark 14:10-11 Matt 26:14-16 Luke 22:3-6) 10 And Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve, went to the chief priests, to betray him to them. 11 Who hearing it were glad; and they promised him they would give him money. And he sought how he might conveniently betray him. Preparation for the Passover
(Mark 14:12-17 Matt 26:17-20 Luke 22:7-14) 12 Now on the first day of the unleavened bread, when they sacrificed the pasch, the disciples say to him: Whither wilt thou that we go, and prepare for thee to eat the pasch? 13 And he sendeth two of his disciples, and saith to them: Go ye into the city; and there shall meet you a man carrying a pitcher of water, follow him; 14 And whithersoever he shall go in, say to the master of the house, The master saith, Where is my refectory, where I may eat the pasch with my disciples? 15 And he will shew you a large dining room furnished; and there prepare ye for us. 16 And his disciples went their way, and came into the city; and they found as he had told them, and they prepared the pasch. 17 And when evening was come, he cometh with the twelve. Jesus Foretells His Betrayal
18 And when they were at table and eating, Jesus saith: Amen I say to you, one of you that eateth with me shall betray me. 19 But they began to be sorrowful, and to say to him one by one: Is it I? 20 Who saith to them: One of the twelve, who dippeth with me his hand in the dish. 21 And the Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man shall be betrayed. It were better for him, if that man had not been born. The Last Supper
(Mark 14:22-25 Matt 26:26-29 Luke 22:15-20) 22 And whilst they were eating, Jesus took bread; and blessing, broke, and gave to them, and said: Take ye. This is my body. 23 And having taken the chalice, giving thanks, he gave it to them. And they all drank of it. 24 And he said to them: This is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many. 25 Amen I say to you, that I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day when I shall drink it new in the kingdom of God. Peter's Denial Predicted
26 And when they had said an hymn, they went forth to the mount of Olives. 27 And Jesus saith to them: You will all be scandalized in my regard this night; for it is written, I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep shall be dispersed. 28 But after I shall be risen again, I will go before you into Galilee. 29 But Peter saith to him: Although all shall be scandalized in thee, yet not I. 30 notesmar.html> And Jesus saith to him: Amen I say to thee, to day, even in this night, before the rooster crow twice, thou shall deny me thrice. 31 But he spoke the more vehemently: Although I should die together with thee, I will not deny thee. And in like manner also said they all. Jesus in Gethsemane
32 And they came to a farm called Gethsemani. And he saith to his disciples: Sit you here, while I pray. 33 And he taketh Peter and James and John with him; and he began to fear and to be heavy. 34 And he saith to them: My soul is sorrowful even unto death; stay you here, and watch. 35 And when he was gone forward a little, he fell flat on the ground; and he prayed, that if it might be, the hour might pass from him. 36 And he saith: Abba, Father, all things are possible to thee: remove this chalice from me; but not what I will, but what thou wilt. 37 And he cometh, and findeth them sleeping. And he saith to Peter: Simon, sleepest thou? couldst thou not watch one hour? 38 Watch ye, and pray that you enter not into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak. 39 A going away again, he prayed, saying the same words. 40 And when he returned, he found them again asleep, (for their eyes were heavy,) and they knew not what to answer him. 41 And he cometh the third time, and saith to them: Sleep ye now, and take your rest. It is enough: the hour is come: behold the Son of man shall be betrayed into the hands of sinners. 42 Rise up, let us go. Behold, he that will betray me is at hand. Jesus Arrested
43 And while he was yet speaking, cometh Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve: and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and the scribes and the ancients. 44 And he that betrayed him, had given them a sign, saying: Whomsoever I shall kiss, that is he; lay hold on him, and lead him away carefully. 45 And when he was come, immediately going up to him, he saith: Hail, Rabbi; and he kissed him. 46 But they laid hands on him, and held him. 47 An one of them that stood by, drawing a sword, struck a servant of the chief priest, and cut off his ear. 48 And Jesus answering, said to them: Are you come out as to a robber, with swords and staves to apprehend me? 49 I was daily with you in the temple teaching, and you did not lay hands on me. But that the scriptures may be fulfilled. 50 Then his disciples leaving him, all fled away. 51 And a certain young man followed him, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; and they laid hold on him. 52 But he, casting off the linen cloth, fled from them naked. Jesus before the Sanhedrin (Peter's Denial)
53 And they brought Jesus to the high priest; and all the priests and the scribes and the ancients assembled together. 54 And Peter followed him from afar off, even into the court of the high priest; and he sat with the servants at the fire, and warmed himself. 55 And the chief priests and all the council sought for evidence against Jesus, that they might put him to death, and found none. 56 For many bore false witness against him, and their evidences were not agreeing. 57 And some rising up, bore false witness against him, saying: 58 We heard him say, I will destroy this temple made with hands, and within three days I will build another not made with hands. 59 And their witness did not agree. 60 And the high priest rising up in the midst, asked Jesus, saying: Answerest thou nothing to the things that are laid to thy charge by these men? 61 But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said to him: Art thou the Christ the Son of the blessed God? 62 And Jesus said to him: I am. And you shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of the power of God, and coming with the clouds of heaven. 63 Then the high priest rending his garments, saith: What need we any further witnesses? 64 You have heard the blasphemy. What think you? Who all condemned him to be guilty of death. 65 And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to buffet him, and to say unto him: Prophesy: and the servants struck him with the palms of their hands. Peter's Denial
66 Now when Peter was in the court below, there cometh one of the maidservants of the high priest. 67 And when she had seen Peter warming himself, looking on him she saith: Thou also wast with Jesus of Nazareth. 68 But he denied, saying: I neither know nor understand what thou sayest. And he went forth before the court; and the rooster crew. 69 And again a maidservant seeing him, began to say to the standers by: This is one of them. 70 But he denied again. And after a while they that stood by said again to Peter: Surely thou art one of them; for thou art also a Galilean. 71 But he began to curse and to swear, saying; I know not this man of whom you speak. 72 And immediately the rooster crew again. And Peter remembered the word that Jesus had said unto him: Before the rooster crow twice, thou shalt thrice deny me. And he began to weep. Gospel Harmony on Mark 14
Jesus' Death is Premeditated
(Mark 14:1-2 Matt 26:1-5 Luke 22:1-2) Matthew continues thus: “And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished all these sayings, He said unto His disciples, Ye know that after two days will be the feast of the passover, and the Son of man shall be betrayed to be crucified.”(Mt 26:1-2) This is attested in like manner by the other two,—namely, Mc and Luke,—and that, too, with a thorough harmony on the subject of the order of narration.(Mark 14:1 Luke 22:1) They do not, however, introduce the sentence as one spoken by the Lord Himself. They make no statement to that effect. At the same time, Mark, speaking in his own person, does tell us that “after two days was the feast of the passover and of unleavened bread.” And Lc likewise gives this as his own affirmation: “Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the passover;” that is to say, it “drew nigh” in this sense, that it was to take place after two days’ space, as the other two are more apparently at one in expressing it. John, on the other hand, has mentioned in three several places the nearness of this same feast-day. In the two earlier instances the intimation is made when he is engaged in recording certain matters of another tenor. But on the third occasion his narrative appears clearly to deal with those very times, in connection with which the other three evangelists also notice the subject,—that is to say, the times when the Lord’s passion was actually imminent.(Jn 11:55, 12:1, 13:1) But to those who look into the matter without sufficient care, there may seem to be a contradiction involved in the fact that Matthew and Mark, after stating that the passover was to be after two days, have at once informed us how Jesus was in Bethany on that occasion, on which the account of the precious ointment comes before us; whereas John, when he is about to give us the same narrative concerning the ointment, begins by telling us that Jesus came to Bethany six days before the passover.(Jn 12:1) Now, the question is, how the passover could be spoken of by those two evangelists as about to be celebrated two days after, seeing that we find them, immediately after they have made this statement, in company with John, giving us an account of the scene with the ointment in Bethany; while in that connection the last-named writer informs us, that the feast of the passover was to take place six days after. Nevertheless, those who are perplexed by this difficulty simply fail to perceive that Matthew and Mc have brought in their account of the scene which was enacted in Bethany really in the form of a recapitulation, not as if the time of its occurrence was actually subsequent to the [time indicated in the] announcement made by them on the subject of the two days’ space, but as an event which had already taken place at a date when there was still a period of six days preceding the passover. For neither of them has appended his account of what took place at Bethany to his statement regarding the celebration of the passover after two days’ space in any such terms as these: “After these things, when He was in Bethany.” But Matthew’s phrase is this: “Now when Jesus was in Bethany.” And Mark’s version is simply this: “And being in Bethany,” etc.; which is a method of expression that may certainly be taken to refer to a period antecedent to the utterance of what was said two days before the passover. The case, therefore, stands thus: As we gather from the narrative of John, Jesus came to Bethany six days before the passover; there the supper took place, in connection with which we get the account of the precious ointment; leaving this place, He came next to Jerusalem, sitting upon an ass; and thereafter happened those things which they relate to have occurred after this arrival of His in Jerusalem. Consequently, even although the evangelists do not mention the fact, we understand that between the day on which He came to Bethany, and which witnessed the scene with the ointment, and the day to which all these deeds and words which are at present before us belonged, there elapsed a period of four days, so that at this point might come in the day which the two evangelists have defined by their statement as to the celebration of the passover two days after. Further, when Lc says, “Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh,” he does not indeed make any express mention of a two days’ space; but still, the nearness which he has instanced ought to be accepted as made good by this very space of two days. Again, when Jn makes the statement that “the Jews’ passover was nigh at hand,”(Jn 11:55) he does not intend a two days’ space to be understood thereby, but means that there was a period of six days before the passover. Thus it is that, on recording certain matters immediately after this affirmation, with the intention of specifying what measure of nearness he had in view when he spoke of the passover as nigh at hand, he next proceeds in the following strain: “Then Jesus, six days before the passover, came to Bethany, where Lazarus had died, whom Jesus raised from the dead; and there they made Him a supper.”(Jn 12:1-2) This is the incident which Matthew and Mc introduce in the form of a recapitulation, after the statement that after two days would be the passover. In their recapitulation they thus come back upon the day in Bethany, which was yet a six days’ space off from the passover, and give us the account which Jn also gives of the supper and the ointment. Subsequently to that scene, we are to suppose Him to come to Jerusalem, and then, after the occurrence of the other things recorded, to reach this day, which was still a two days’ space from the passover, and from which these evangelists have made this digression, with the object of giving a recapitulatory notice of the incident with the ointment in Bethany. And after the completion of that narrative, they return once more to the point from which they made the digression; that is to say, they now proceed to record the words spoken by the Lord two days before the passover. For if we remove the notice of the incident at Bethany, which they have introduced as a digression from the literal order, and have given in the form of a recollection and recapitulation inserted at a point subsequent to its actual historical position, and if we then set the narrative in its regular connection, the recital will go on as follows;—according to Matthew, the Lord’s words coming in thus: “Ye know that after two days shall be the feast of the passover, and the Son of man shall be betrayed to be crucified. Then assembled together the chief priests and the elders of the people unto the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas, and consulted that they might take Jesus by subtilty, and kill Him. But they said, Not on the feast-day, lest there be an uproar among the people. Then one of the twelve, called Judas Scarioth, went unto the chief priests,”(Mt 24:2-5,14) etc. For between the place where it is said, “lest there be an uproar among the people,” and the passage where we read, “then one of the disciples, called Judas, went,” etc., that notice of the scene at Bethany intervenes, which they have introduced by way of recapitulation. Consequently, by leaving it out, we have established such a connection in the narrative as may make our conclusion satisfactory, that there is no contradiction here in the matter of the order of times. Again, if we deal with Mark’s Gospel in like manner, and omit the account of the same supper at Bethany, which he also has brought in as a recapitulation, his narrative will proceed in the following order: “Now after two days was the feast of the passover, and of unleavened bread: and the chief priests and the scribes sought how they might take Him by craft, and put Him to death. For they said, Not on the feast-day, lest there be an uproar of the people. And Judas Scariothes, one of the twelve, went unto the chief priests, to betray Him.”(Mark 14:1-2,10) Here, again, the incident at Bethany which these evangelists have inserted, by way of recapitulation, is placed between the clause, “lest there be an uproar of the people,” and the verse which we have attached immediately to that, namely, “And Judas Scariothes, one of the twelve.” Luke, on the other hand, has simply omitted the said occurrence at Bethany. This is the explanation which we give in reference to the six days before the passover, which is the space mentioned by Jn when narrating what took place at Bethany, and in reference to the two days before the passover, which is the period specified by Matthew and Mark when presenting their account, in direct sequence upon the statement thus made, of that same scene in Bethany which has been recorded also by John. (St. Augustine Harmony of the Gospels 278) The Anointing in Bethany
(Mark 14:3-9 Matt 26:6-13 Luke 7:36-50 John 12:1-8) Matthew, then, continuing his narrative from the point up to which we had concluded its examination, proceeds in the following terms: “Then assembled together the chief priests and the elders of the people unto the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas, and consulted that they might take Jesus by subtilty and kill Him: but they said, Not on the feast-day, lest there be an uproar among the people. Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper, there came unto Him a woman having an alabaster box of precious ointment, and poured it on His head as He sat at meat;” and so on down to the words, “there shall also this that this woman hath done be told for a memorial of her.”(Mt 26:3-13) The scene with the woman and the costly ointment at Bethany we have now to consider, as it is thus detailed. For although Lc records an incident resembling this, and although the name which he assigns to the person in whose house the Lord was supping might also suggest an identity between the two narratives (for Lc likewise names the host “Simon”), still, since there is nothing either in nature or in the customs of men to make the case an incredible one, that as one man may have two names, two men may with all the greater likelihood have one and the same name, it is more reasonable to believe that the Simon in whose house [it is thus supposed, according to Luke’s version, that] this scene at Bethany took place, was a different person from the Simon [named by Matthew]. For Luke, again, does not specify Bethany as the place where the incident which he records happened. And although it is true that he in no way particularizes the town or village in which that occurrence took place, still his narrative does not seem to deal with the same locality. Consequently, my opinion is, that there is but one interpretation to be put upon the matter. That is not, however, to suppose that the woman who appears in Matthew was an entirely different person from the woman who approached the feet of Jesus on that occasion in the character of a sinner, and kissed them, and washed them with her tears, and wiped them with her hair, and anointed them with ointment, in reference to whose case Jesus also made use of the parable of the two debtors, and said that her sins, which were many, were forgiven her because she loved much. But my theory is, that it was the same Mary who did this deed on two separate occasions, the one being that which Lc has put on record, when she approached Him first of all in that remarkable humility, and with those tears, and obtained the forgiveness of her sins.(Luke 7:36-50) For John, too, although he has not given the kind of recital which Lc has left us of the circumstances connected with that incident, has at least mentioned the fact, in commending the same Mary to our notice, when he has just begun to tell the story of the raising of Lazarus, and before his narrative brings the Lord to Bethany itself. The history which he offers us of that transaction proceeds thus: “Now a certain man was sick, named Lazarus, of Bethany, the town of Mary; and her sister Martha. It was that Mary which anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped His feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick.”(Jn 11:1-2) By this statement Jn attests what Lc has told us when he records a scene of this nature in the house of a certain Pharisee, whose name was Simon. Here, then, we see that Mary had acted in this way before that time. And what she did a second time in Bethany is a different matter, which does not belong to Luke’s narrative, but is related by three of the evangelists in concert, namely, John, Matthew, and Mark.(Jn 12:1-8 Matt 26:3-13 Mark 14:3-9) Let us therefore notice how harmony is maintained here between these three evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and John, regarding whom there is no doubt that they record the self-same occurrence at Bethany, on occasion of which the disciples also, as all three mention, murmured against the woman, ostensibly on the ground of the waste of the very precious ointment. Now the further fact that Matthew and Mc tell us that it was the Lord’s head on which the ointment was poured, while Jn says it was His feet, can be shown to involve no contradiction, if we apply the principle which we have already expounded in dealing with the scene of the feeding of the multitudes with the five loaves. For as there was one writer who, in giving his account of that incident, did not fail to specify that the people sat down at once by fifties and by hundreds, although another spoke only of the fifties, no contradiction could be supposed to emerge. There might indeed have seemed to be some difficulty, if the one evangelist had referred only to the hundreds, and the other only to the fifties; and yet, even in that case, the correct finding should have been to the effect that they were seated both by fifties and by hundreds. And this example ought to have made it plain to us, as I pressed it upon my readers in discussing that section, that even where the several evangelists introduce only the one fact each, we should take the case to have been really, that both things were elements in the actual occurrence. In the same way, our conclusion with regard to the passage now before us should be, that the woman poured the ointment not only upon the Lord’s head, but also on His feet. It is true that some person may possibly be found absurd and artful enough to argue, that because Mc states that the ointment was poured out only after the alabaster vase was broken there could not have remained in the shattered vessel anything with which she could anoint His feet. But while a person of that character, in his endeavours to disprove the veracity of the Gospel, may contend that the vase was broken, in a manner making it impossible that any portion of the contents could have been left in it, how much better and more accordant with piety must the position of a very different individual appear, whose aim will be to uphold the truthfulness of the Gospel, and who may therefore contend that the vessel was not broken in a manner involving the total outpouring of the ointment! Moreover, if that calumniator is so persistently blinded as to attempt to shatter the harmony of the evangelists on this subject of the shattering of the vase, he should rather accept the alternative, that the [Lord’s] feet were anointed before the vessel itself was broken, and that it thus remained whole, and filled with ointment sufficient for the anointing also of the head, when, by the breakage referred to, the entire contents were discharged. For we allow that there is a due regard to the several parts of our nature when the act commences with the head, but [we may also say that] an equally natural order is preserved when we ascend from the feet to the head. The other matters belonging to this incident do not seem to me to raise any question really involving a difficulty. There is the circumstance that the other evangelists mention how the disciples murmured about the [wasteful] outpouring of the precious ointment, whereas Jn states that Judas was the person who thus expressed himself, and tells us, in explanation of the fact, that “he was a thief.” But I think it is evident that this same Judas was the person referred to under the [general] name of the disciples, the plural number being used here instead of the singular, in accordance with that mode of speech of which we have already introduced an explanation in the case of Philip and the miracle of the five loaves. It may also be understood in this way, that the other disciples either felt as Judas felt, or spoke as he did, or were brought over to that view of the matter by what Judas said, and that Matthew and Mc consequently have expressed in word what was really the mind of the whole company; but that Judas spoke as he did just because he was a thief, whereas what prompted the rest was their care for the poor; and further, that Jn has chosen to record the utterance of such sentiments only in the instance of that one [among the disciples] whose habit of acting the thief he believed it right to bring out in connection with this occasion). (St. Augustine Harmony of the Gospels 2.79) The Betrayal by Judas
(Mark 14:10-11 Matt 26:14-16 Luke 22:3-6) The order of the narrative is this. The Lord says, “Ye know that after two days will be the feast of the Passover; . . . then assembled together the Chief Priests and Scribes; . . . then went one of the twelve.” Thus the narrative of what took place at Bethany is inserted by way of digression, respecting an earlier time between that, “Lest there be an uproar,” and, “Then one of the twelve.” (St. Augustine Harmony of the Gospels 2.78) Preparation for the Passover
(Mark 14:12-17 Matt 26:17-20 Luke 22:7-14)
Matthew proceeds thus: “Then one of the twelve, who is called Judas [of] Scarioth, went unto the chief priests, and said unto them, What will ye give me, and I will deliver Him unto you? And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver;” and so on down to the words, “And the disciples did as Jesus had appointed them, and they made ready the passover.”(Mt 26:14-19) Nothing in this section can be supposed to stand in any contradiction with the versions of Mc and Luke, who record this same passage in a similar manner.(Mark 14:10-16 Luke 22:3-13) For as regards the statement given by Matthew in these terms, “Go into the city to such a man, and say unto him, The Master saith, My time is at hand: I will keep the passover at thy house with my disciples,”(Mt 26:18) it just indicates the person whom Mc and Lc name the “goodman of the house,” or the “master of the house,” in which the dining-room was shown them where they were to make ready the passover. And Matthew has expressed this by simply bringing in the phrase, “to such a man,” as a brief explanation introduced by himself with the view of succinctly giving us to understand who the person referred to was. For if he had said that the Lord addressed them in words like these: “Go into the city, and say unto him [or “it “], The Master saith, My time is at hand, I will keep the passover at thy house,” it might have been supposed that the terms were intended to be directed to the city itself. For this reason, therefore, Matthew has inserted the statement, that the Lord bade them go “to such a man,” not, however, as a statement made by the Lord, whose instructions he was recording, but simply as one volunteered by himself, with the view of avoiding the necessity of narrating the whole at length, when it seemed to him that this was all that required to be mentioned in order to bring out with sufficient accuracy what was really meant by the person who gave the order. For who can fail to see that no one naturally speaks to others in such an indefinite fashion as this, “Go ye to such a man”? If, again, the words had been, “Go ye to any one whatsoever,” or “to any one you please,” the mode of expression might have been correct enough, but the person to whom the disciples were sent would have been left uncertain: whereas Mc and Lc present him as a certain definitely indicated individual, although they pass over his name in silence. The Lord Himself, we may be sure, knew to what person it was that He despatched them. And in order that those also whom He was thus sending might be able to discover the individual meant, He gave them, before they set out, a particular sign which they were to follow,—namely, the appearance of a man bearing a pitcher or a vessel of water,—and told them, that if they went after him, they would reach the house which He intended. Hence, seeing that it was not competent here to employ the phraseology,” Go to any one you please,” which is indeed legitimate enough, so far as the demands of linguistic propriety are concerned, but which an accurate statement of the matter dealt with here renders inadmissible in this passage, with how much less warrant could an expression like this have been used here (by the speaker Himself), “Go to such a man,” which the usage of correct language can never admit at all? But it is manifest that the disciples were sent by the Lord, plainly, not to any man they pleased, but to “such a man,” that is to say, to a certain definite individual. And that is a thing which the evangelist, speaking in his own person, could quite rightly have related to us, by putting it in this way: “He sent them to such a man, in order to say to him, I will keep the passover at thy house.” He might also have expressed it thus: “He sent them to such a man, saying, Go, say to him, I will keep the passover at thy house.” And thus it is that, after giving us the words actually spoken by the Lord Himself, namely, “Go into the city,” he has introduced this addition of his own, “to such a man,” which he does, however, not as if the Lord had thus expressed Himself, but simply with the view of giving us to understand, although the name is left unrecorded, that there was a particular person in the city to whom the Lord’s disciples were sent, in order to make ready the passover. Thus, too, after the two [or three] words brought in that manner as an explanation of his own, he takes up again the order of the words as they were uttered by the Lord Himself, namely, “And say unto him, The Master saith.” And if you ask now “to whom” they were to say this, the correct reply is given [at once] in these terms, To that particular man to whom the evangelist has given us to understand that the Lord sent them, when, speaking in His own person, he introduced the clause, “to such a man.” The clause thus inserted may indeed contain a rather unusual mode of expression, but still it is a perfectly legitimate phraseology when it is thus understood. Or it may be, that in the Hebrew language, in which Matthew is reported to have written, there is some peculiar usage which might make it entirely accordant with the laws of correct expression, even were the whole taken to have been spoken by the Lord Himself. Whether that is the case, those who understand that tongue may decide. Even in the Latin language itself, indeed, this kind of expression might also be used, in terms like these: “Go into the city to such a man as may be indicated by a person who shall meet you carrying a pitcher of water.” If the instructions were conveyed in such words as these, they could be acted upon without any ambiguity. Or again, if the terms were anything like these, “Go into the city to such a man, who resides in this or the other place, in such and such a house,” then the note thus given of the place and the designation of the house would make it quite possible to understand the commission delivered, and to execute it. But when these instructions, and all others of a similar order, are left entirely untold, the person who in such circumstances uses this kind of address, “Go to such a man, and say unto him,” cannot possibly be listened to intelligently for this obvious reason, that when he employs the terms, “to such a man,” he intends a certain particular individual to be understood by them, and yet offers us no hint by which he may be identified. But if we are to suppose that the clause referred to is one introduced as an explanation by the evangelist himself, [we may find that] the requirements of brevity will render the expression somewhat obscure, without, however, making it incorrect. Moreover, as to the fact, that where Mc speaks of a pitcher of water, Lc mentions a vessel, the simple explanation is, that the one has used a word indicative of the kind of vessel, and the other a term indicative of its capacity, while both evangelists have nevertheless preserved the real meaning actually intended. 158. Matthew proceeds thus: “Now when the even was Come, He sat down with the twelve disciples; and as they did eat, He said, Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me. And they were exceeding sorrowful, and began every one of them to say, Lord, is it I?” and so on, down to where we read, “Then Judas, which betrayed Him, answered and said, Master, is it I? He said unto him, Thou hast said.”(Mt 26:20-25) In what we have now presented for consideration here, the other three evangelists,(Mark 14:17-21) who also record such matters, offer nothing calculated to raise any question of serious difficulty. (St. Augustine Harmony of the Gospels 2.80) The Last Supper
(Mark 14:22-25 Matt 26:26-29 Luke 22:15-20) Let us commence here, accordingly, with the notice presented by Matthew, [which runs thus]: “And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to His disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.”(Mt 26:26) Both Mark and Luke also gave this section.(Mark 14:22 Luke 22:19) It is true that Lc has made mention of the cup twice over: first before He gave the bread; and, secondly, after the bread has been given. But the fact is, that what is stated in that earlier connection has been introduced, according to this writer’s habit, by anticipation, while the words which he has inserted here in their proper order are left unrecorded in those previous verses, and the two passages when put together make up exactly what stands expressed by those other evangelists. John, on the other hand, has said nothing about the body and blood of the Lord in this context; but he plainly certifies that the Lord spake to that effect on another occasion,(Jn 6:32-64) with much greater fulness than here. At present, however, after recording how the Lord rose from supper and washed the disciples’ feet, and after telling us also the reason why the Lord dealt thus with them, in expressing which He had intimated, although still obscurely, and by the use of a testimony of Scripture, the fact that He was being betrayed by the man who was to eat of His bread, at this point Jn comes to the section in question, which the other three evangelists also unite in introducing. He presents it thus: “When Jesus had thus said, He was troubled in spirit, and testified, and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, That one of you shall betray me. Then the disciples looked (as the same Jn subjoins) one on another, doubting of whom He spake.”(Jn 13:21-22) “And (as Matthew and Mc tell us) they were exceeding sorrowful, and began every one of them to say unto Him, Is it I? And He answered and said (as Matthew proceeds to state), He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me.” Matthew also goes on to make the following addition to the preceding: “The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of Him; but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man shall be betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born.”(Mt 26:22-25) Mark, too, is at one with him here as regards both the words themselves and the order of narration.9 Then Matthew continues thus: “Then Judas, which betrayed Him, answered and said, Master, is it I? He said unto him, Thou hast said.” Even these words did not say explicitly whether he was himself the man. For the sentence still admits of being understood as if its point was this, “I am not the person who has said so.”(Mark 14:19-21) All this, too, may quite easily have been uttered by Judas and answered by the Lord without its being noticed by all the others. After this, Matthew proceeds to insert the mystery of His body and blood, as it was committed then by the Lord to the disciples. Here Mc and Lc act correspondingly. But after He had handed the cup to them, [we find that] He spoke again concerning His betrayer, in terms which Lc recounts, when he says, “But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table. And truly the Son of man goeth as it was determined: but woe unto that man by whom He shall be betrayed.”(Luke 22:21-22) At this point we must now suppose that to come in which is narrated by Jn while these others omit it, just as Jn has also passed by certain matters which they have detailed. In accordance with this, after the giving of the cup, and after the Lord’s subsequent saying which has been brought in by Luke,—namely, “But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table,” etc.,—the statement made by Jn is [to be taken as immediately] subjoined. It is to the following effect: “Now there was leaning on Jesus’ bosom one of His disciples, whom Jesus loved. Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, and said unto him, Who is he of whom He speaketh? He then, when he had laid himself on Jesus’ breast, saith unto Him, Lord, who is it? Jesus answered, He it is to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it. And when He had dipped the sop, He gave it to Judas, the son of Simon [of] Scarioth. And after the sop Satan then entered into him.”(Jn 13:23-27) Here we must take care not to let John underlie the appearance not only of standing in antagonism to Luke, who had stated before this, that Satan entered into the heart of Judas at the time when he made his bargain with the Jews to betray Him on receipt of a sum of money, but also of contradicting himself. For, at an earlier point, and previous to [his notice of] the receiving of this sop, he had made use of these terms: “And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas to betray Him.”(Jn 13:2) And how does he enter into the heart, but by putting unrighteous persuasions into the thoughts of unrighteous men? The explanation, however, is this. We ought to suppose Judas to have been more fully taken possession of by the devil now, just as on theother hand, in the instance of the good, those who had already received the Holy Spirit on that occasion, subsequently to His resurrection, when He breathed upon them and said, “Receive ye the Holy Ghost,”(Jn 20:22) also obtained a fuller gift of that Spirit at a later time, namely, when He was sent down from above on the day of Pentecost. In like manner, Satan then entered into this man after the sop. And (as Jn himself mentions in the immediate context) “Jesus saith unto him, What thou doest, do quickly. Now no man at the table knew for what intent He spake this unto him; for some of them thought, because Judas had the bag, that Jesus said unto him, Buy those things that we have need of against the feast; or, that he should give something to the poor. He then, having received the sop, went immediately out; and it was night. Therefore, when he was gone out, Jesus saith, Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in Him: and if God be glorified in Him, God shall also glorify Him in Himself, and shall straightway glorify Him.”(Jn 13:28-32) (St. Augustine Harmony of the Gospels 3.1) Peter's Denial Predicted
(Mark 14:26-31 Matt 26:30-35 Luke 22:31-34 John 13:36-38)
“Little children, yet a little while I am with you. Ye shall seek me: and, as I said unto the Jews, Whither I go, ye cannot come;so now I say unto you. A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. Simon Peter saith unto Him, Lord, whither goest thou? Jesus answered him, Whither I go, thou canst not follow me now, but thou shalt follow me afterwards. Peter saith unto Him, Lord, why cannot I follow Thee now? I will lay down my life for Thy sake. Jesus answered him, Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The rooster shall not crow, until thou deniest me thrice.”(Jn 13:33-38) John, from whose Gospel I have taken the passage introduced above, is not the only evangelist who details this incident of the prophetic announcement of his own denial to Peter. The other three also record the same thing.(Mt 26:30-35 Mark 14:26-31 Luke 22:31-34) They do not, however, take one and the same particular point in the discourses [of Christ] as their occasion for proceeding to this narration. For Matthew and Mc both introduce it in a completely parallel order, and at the same stage of their narrative, namely, after the Lord left the house in which they had eaten the passover; while Lc and John, on the other hand, bring it in before He left that scene. Still we might easily suppose, either that it has been inserted in the way of a recapitulation by the one couple of evangelists, or that it has been inserted in the way of an anticipation by the other; only such a supposition may be made more doubtful by the circumstance that there is so remarkable a diversity, not only in the Lord’s words, but even in those sentiments of His by which the incident in question is introduced, and by which Peter was moved to venture his presumptuous asseveration that he would die with the Lord or for the Lord. These considerations may constrain us rather to understand the narratives really to import that the man uttered his presumptuous declaration thrice over, as it was called forth by different occasions in the series of Christ’s discourses, and that also three several times the answer was returned him by the Lord, which intimated that before the rooster crew he would deny Him thrice.
And surely there is nothing incredible in supposing that Peter was moved to such an act of presumption on several occasions, separated from each other by certain intervals of time, as he was actually instigated to deny Him repeatedly. Neither should it seem unreasonable to fancy that the Lord gave him a reply in similar terms at three successive periods, especially when [we see that] in immediate connection with each other, and without the interposition of anything else either in fact or word, Christ addressed the question to him three several times whether he loved Him, and that, when Peter returned the same answer thrice over, He also gave him thrice over the self-same charge to feed His sheep.(Jn 21:15-17) That it is the more reasonable thing to suppose that Peter displayed his presumption on three different occasions, and that thrice over he received from the Lord a warning with respect to his triple denial, is further proved, as we may see, by the very terms employed by the evangelists, which record sayings uttered by the Lord in diverse form and of diverse import. Let us here call attention again to that passage which I introduced a little ago from the Gospel of John. There we certainly find that He had expressed Himself in this way “Little children, yet a little while I am with you. Ye shall seek me: and as I said unto the Jews, Whither I go, ye cannot come; so now I say to you. A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. Simon Peter saith unto Him, Lord, whither goest Thou?”(Jn 13:33-36) Now, surely it is evident here that what moved Peter to utter this question, “Lord, whither goest Thou?” was the words which the Lord Himself had spoken. For he had heard Him say, “Whither I go, ye cannot come.” Then Jesus made this reply to the said Peter: “Whither I go, thou canst not follow me now, but thou shall follow me afterwards.” Thereupon Peter expressed himself thus: “Lord, why cannot I follow Thee now? I will lay down my life for Thy sake.”(Jn 13:37) And to this presumptuous declaration the Lord responded by predicting his denial. Luke, again, first mentions how the Lord said, “Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat; but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not; and, when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren:” next he proceeds immediately to tell us how Peter replied to this effect: “Lord, I am ready to go with Thee, both unto prison and to death;” and then he continues thus: “And He said, I tell thee, Peter, the rooster shall not crow this day, before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me.”(Luke 22:31-33) Now, who can fail to perceive that this is an occasion by itself, and that the incident in connection with which Peter was incited to make the presumptuous declaration already referred to is an entirely different one? But, once more, Matthew presents us with the following passage: “And when they had sung an hymn,” he says, “they went out into the Mount of Olives. Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad. But after I am risen again, I will go before you into Galilee.”(Mt 26:30-32) The same passage is given in precisely the same form by Mark.(Mark 14:26-28) What similarity is there, however, in these words, or in the ideas expressed by them, either to the terms in which Jn represents Peter to have made his presumptuous declaration, or to those in which Lc exhibits him as uttering such an asseveration? And so we find that in Matthew’s narrative the connection proceeds immediately thus: “Peter answered and said unto Him, Though all men shall be offended because of Thee, yet will I never be offended. Jesus saith unto him, Verily, I say unto thee, that this night, before the rooster crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. Peter saith unto him, Though I should die with Thee, yet will I not deny Thee. Likewise also said all His disciples.”(Mt 26:33-35)
All this is recorded almost in the same language also by Mark, only that he has not put in so general a form what the Lord said with regard to the manner in which the event [of Peter’s failure] was to be brought about, but has given it a more particular turn. For his version is this: “Verily I say unto thee, That this day, even in this night, before the rooster crow twice; thou shalt deny me thrice.”(Mark 14:30) Thus it appears that all of them tell us how the Lord foretold that Peter would deny Him before the rooster crew, but that they do not all mention how often the rooster was to crow, and that Mc is the only one who has presented a more explicit notice of this incident in the narrative. Hence some are of opinion that Mark’s statement is not in harmony with those of the others. But this is simply because they do not give sufficient attention to the facts of the case, and, above all, because they approach the question under the cloud of a prejudiced mind, in consequence of their being possessed by a hostile disposition towards the gospel. The fact is, that Peter’s denial, when taken as a whole, is a threefold denial. For he remained in the same state of mental agitation, and harboured the same mendacious intention, until what had been foretold regarding him was brought to his mind, and healing came to him by bitter weeping and sorrow of heart. It is evident, however, that if this complete denial—that is to say, the threefold denial—is taken to have commenced only after the first crowing of the rooster, three of the evangelists will appear to have given an incorrect account of the matter. For Matthew’s version is this: “Verily I say unto thee, That this night, before the rooster crow, thou shalt deny me thrice;” and Lc puts it thus: “I tell thee, Peter, the rooster shall not crow this day, before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me;” and Jn presents it in this form: “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, the rooster shall not crow till thou hast denied me thrice.” And thus, in different terms and with words introduced in diverse successions, these three evangelists have expressed one and the same sense as conveyed by the words which the Lord spake—namely, the fact that, before the rooster should crow, Peter was to deny Him thrice. On the other hand, if [we suppose that] he went through the whole triple denial before the rooster began to crow at all, then Mc will be made to underlie the charge of having given a superfluous statement when he puts these words into the Lord’s mouth: “Verily I say unto thee, That this day, before the rooster crow twice, thou shall deny me thrice.” For to what purpose would it be to say, “before the rooster crow twice,” when, on the supposition that this entire threefold denial was gone through previous to the first crowing of the rooster, it is self-evident that a negation, which would thus be proved to have been completed before the first cockcrow, must also, as matter of course, be understood to have been fully uttered before the second cockcrow and before the third, and, in short, before all the cockcrowings which took place on that same night? But, inasmuch as this threefold denial was begun previous to the first crowing of the rooster, those three evangelists concerned themselves with noticing, not the time at which Peter was to complete it, but the extent to which it was to be carried, and the period at which it was to commence; that is to say, their object was to bring out the facts that it was to be thrice repeated, and that it was to begin previous to the cockcrowing. At the same time, so far as the man’s own mind is concerned, we might also quite well understand it to have been engaged in, as a whole, previous to the first cockcrow. For although it is true that, so far as regards the actual utterance of the individual who was guilty of the denial, that threefold negation was only entered upon previous to the first cockcrow, and really finished before the second cockcrow, still it is equally true that, in so far as the disposition of mind and the apprehensions indulged by Peter were concerned, it was conceived, as a whole, before the first cockcrow. Neither is it a matter of any consequence of what duration those intervals of delay were which elapsed between the several utterances of that thrice-recurring voice, if it is the case that the denial completely possessed his heart even previous to the first cockcrow,—in consequence, indeed, of his having imbibed a spirit of terror so abject as to make him capable of denying the Lord when he was questioned regarding Him, not only once, but a second time, and even a third time. Thus, a more correct and careful consideration of the matter might show us that, precisely as it is declared that the man who looketh on a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart,(Mt 5:28) so, in the present instance, inasmuch as in the words which he spoke, Peter merely expressed the apprehension which he had already conceived with such intensity in his mind as to make it capable of enduring even on to a third repetition of his denial of the Lord, this threefold negation is to be assigned as a whole to that particular period at which the fear that sufficed thus to carry him on to a threefold denial took possession of him. In this way, too, it may be made apparent that, even if the words in which the denial was couched began to break forth from him only after the first cockcrow, when his heart was smitten by the inquiries addressed to him, it would involve neither any absurdity nor any untruthfulness, although it were said that before the rooster crew he denied Him thrice, seeing that, in any case, previous to the crowing of the rooster, his mind had been assailed by an apprehension violent enough to be able to draw him on even to a third denial. All the less, therefore, ought we to feel any difficulty in the matter, if it appears that the threefold denial, as expressed also in the thrice-recurring utterances of the person who made the denial, was entered upon previous to the crowing of the rooster, although it was not completed before the first cockcrow. We may take a parallel case, and suppose an intimation to be made to the following effect to a person: “This night, before the rooster crow, you will write a letter to me, in which you will revile me thrice.” Well, surely in this instance, if the man began to write the letter] before the rooster had crowed at all, and finished it after the rooster had crowed for the first time,that would be no reason for alleging that the intimation previously made was false. The fact, therefore, is that, in putting these words into the Lord’s lips, “Before the rooster crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice,” Mc has given us a plainer indication of the intervals of time which separated the utterances themselves. And when we come to the said section of the evangelical narrative, we shall see that the circumstances are presented in a manner which exhibits, in that connection also, the harmony subsisting among the evangelists.
If, however, the demand is to get at the very words, literally and completely, which the Lord addressed to Peter, we answer that it is impossible to discover these; and further, that it is simply superfluous to ask them, inasmuch as the speaker’s meaning—to intimate which wasthe object He had in view in uttering the words—admits of being understood with the utmost plainness, even under the diverse terms employed by the evangelists. And whether, then, it be the case that Peter, instigated at different occasions in the course of the Lord’s sayings, made his presumptuous declaration three several times, and had his denial foretold him thrice over by the Lord, as is the more probable result to which our investigation points us; or whether it may appear that the accounts given by all the evangelists are capable of being reduced to a single statement, when a certain order of narration is adopted, so that it could be proved that it was only on one occasion that the Lord predicted to Peter, on the exhibition of his presumptuous spirit, the fact that he would deny Him;—in either case, any contradiction between the evangelists will fail to be detected, as nothing of that nature really exists. (St. Augustine Harmony of the Gospels 3.2)
ON TO THE TIME OF HIS LEAVING THE HOUSE IN WHICH THEY HAD SUPPED
At this point, therefore, we may now follow, as far as we can, the order of the narrative, as gathered from all the evangelists together. Thus, then, after the prediction in question had been made to Peter, according to John’s version, the same Jn proceeds with his statement, and introduces in this connection the Lord’s discourse, which was to the following effect: “Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. In my Father’s house are many mansions;”(Jn Jn 14:1-2) and so forth. He narrates at length the sayings, so memorable and so pre-eminently sublime, of which He delivered Himself in the course of that address, until, in due connection, he comes to the passage where the Lord speaks as follows: “O righteous Father, the world hath not known Thee: but I have known Thee, and these have known that Thou hast sent me. And I have declared unto them Thy name, and will declare it; that the love wherewith Thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.”(Jn 17:25-26) Again we find, according to the narrative given by Luke, that there arose “a strife among them which of them should be accounted the greatest. And He said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve. For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth. And ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations: and I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; that ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”(Luke 22:24-30) The said Lc also immediately subjoins to these words the following passage: “And the Lord said to Simon: Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren. And he said unto Him: Lord, I am ready to go with Thee, both into prison, and to death. And He said, I tell thee, Peter, the rooster shall not crow this day, before that thou shall thrice deny that thou knowest me. And He said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye anything? And they said, Nothing. Then said He unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. For I say unto you, this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And He was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end. And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And He said unto them, It is enough.”36 Next comes the passage, given both by Matthew and by Mark: “And when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the Mount of Olives. Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the Shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad. But after I am risen again, I will go before you into Galilee. Peter answered and said unto Him, Though all men shall be offended because of Thee, yet will I never be offended. Jesus saith unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this night, before the rooster crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. Peter saith unto Him, Though I should die with Thee, yet will I not deny Thee. Likewise also said all the disciples.”(Mt 26:30-35) We have introduced the preceding section as it is presented by Matthew. But Mc also records it almost in so many and the same words, with the exception of the apparent discrepancy, which we have already cleared up above, on the subject of the crowing of the rooster. (St. Augustine Harmony of the Gospels 3.3) Jesus in Gethsemane
(Mark 14:32-42 Matt 26:36-46 Luke 22:39-46 John 18:1, 12:27) Matthew then proceeds with his narrative in the same connection as follows: “Then cometh Jesus with them unto a place called Gethsemane.”(Mt 26:36-46) This is mentioned also by Mark.(Mark 14:32-42) Luke, too, refers to it, although he does not notice the piece of ground by name. For he says: “And He came out, and went, as was His wont, to the Mount of Olives; and His disciples also followed Him. And when He was at the place, He said unto them, Pray that ye enter not into temptation.”(Luke 22:39-46) That is the place which the other two have instanced under the name of Gethsemane. There, we understand, was the garden which Jn brings into notice when he gives the following narration: “When Jesus had spoken these words, He went forth with His disciples over the brook Cedron, where was a garden, into the which He entered, and His disciples.”(Jn 18:1) Then taking Matthew’s record, we get this statement next in order: “He said unto His disciples, Sit ye here, while I go and pray yonder. And He took with Him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to be sorrowful and very heavy. Then saith He unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me. And He went a little farther, and fell on His face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as Thou wilt. And He cometh unto the disciples, and findeth them asleep, and saith unto Peter, What! could ye not watch with me one hour? Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak. He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me except I drink it, Thy will be done. And He came and found them asleep again: for their eyes were heavy. And He left them, and went away again, and prayed the third time, saying the same words. Then cometh He to His disciples, and saith unto them, Sleep on now, and take your rest: behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of man shall be betrayed into the hands of sinners. Rise, let us be going: behold, he is at hand that shall betray me.”(Mt 26:36-46) Mark also records these passages, introducing them quite in the same method and succession. Some of the sentences, however, are given with greater brevity by him, and others are somewhat more fully explained. These sayings of our Lord, indeed, may seem in one portion to stand in some manner of contradiction to each other as they are presented in Matthew’s version. I refer to the fact that [it is stated there that] He came to His disciples after His third prayer, and said to them, “Sleep on now, and take your rest: behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of man shall be betrayed into the hands of sinners. Rise, let us be going: behold, he is at hand that shall betray me.” For what are we to make of the direction thus given above, “Sleep on now, and take your rest,” when there is immediately subjoined this other declaration, “Behold, the hour is at hand,” and thereafter also the instruction, “Arise, let us be going “? Those readers who perceive something like a contradiction here, seek to pronounce these words, “Sleep on now, and take your rest,” in a way betokening that they were spoken in reproach, and not in permission. And this is an expedient which might quite fairly be adopted were there any necessity for it. Mark, however, has reproduced these sayings in a manner which implies that after He had expressed himself in the terms, “Sleep on now, and take your rest,” He added the words, “It is enough,” and then appended to these the further statement, “The hour is come; behold, the Son of man shall be betrayed.”(Mark 14:41) Hence we may conclude that the case really stood thus: namely, that after addressing these words to them, “Sleep on now, and take your rest,” the Lord was silent for a space, so that what He had thus given them permission to do might be [seen to be] really acted upon; and that thereafter He made the other declaration” Behold the hour is come” Thus it is that in Mark’s Gospel we find those words [regarding the sleeping] followed immediately by the phrase, “It is enough;” that is to say,” the rest which you have had is enough now.” But as no distinct notice is introduced of this silence on the Lord’s part which intervened then, the passage comes to be understood in a forced manner, and it is supposed that a peculiar pronunciation must be given to these words. Luke, on the other hand, has omitted to mention the number of times that He prayed. He has told us, however, a fact which is not recorded by the others—namely, that when He prayed He was strengthened by an angel, and that, as He prayed more earnestly, He had a bloody sweat, with drops falling down to the ground. Thus it appears that when he makes the statement, “And when He rose up from prayer, and was come to His disciples,” he does not indicate how often He had prayed by that time. But still, in so doing, he does not stand in any kind of antagonism to the other two. Moreover, Jn does indeed mention how He entered into the garden along with His disciples. But he does not relate how He was occupied there up to the period when His betrayer came in along with the Jews to apprehend Him. These three evangelists, therefore, have in this manner narrated the same incident, just as, on the other hand, one man might give three several accounts of a single occurrence, with a certain measure of diversity in his statements, and yet without any real contradiction. Luke, for example, has specified the distance to which He went forward from the disciples—that is to say, when He withdrew from them in order to pray—more definitely than the others. For he tells us that it was “about a stone’s cast.” Mark, again, states first of all in his own words how the Lord prayed that, “If it were possible, the hour might pass from Him,” referring to the hour of His Passion, which be also expresses presently by the term “cup.” He then reproduces the Lord’s own words, in the following manner: “Abba, Father, all things are possible to Thee: take away this cup from me.” And if we connect with these terms the clause which is given by the other two evangelists, and for which Mc himself has also already introduced a clear parallel, presented as a statement made in his own person instead of the Lord’s, the whole sentence will be exhibited in this form: “Father, if it be possible, (for) all things are possible unto Thee, take away this cup from me.” And it will be so put just to prevent any one from supposing that He made the Father’s power less than it is when He said, “If it be possible.” For thus His words were not “If Thou canst do it” but “If it be possible. And anything is possible which He wills. Therefore, the expression, “If it be possible,” has here just the same force as, “If Thou wilt.” For Mark has made the sense in which the phrase, “If it be possible,” is to be taken quite plain, when he says, “All things are possible unto Thee.” And further, the fact that these writers have recorded how He said, “Nevertheless, not what I will, but what Thou wilt” (an expression which means precisely the same as this other form, “Nevertheless, not my will but Thine be done”), shows us clearly enough that it was with reference not to any absolute impossibility on the Father’s side, but only to His will, that these words, “If it be possible,” were spoken. This is made the more apparent by the plainer statement which Luke has presented to the same effect. For his version is not, “If it be possible,” but, “If Thou be willing.” And to this clearer declaration of what was really meant we may add, with the effect of still greater clearness, the clause which Mc has inserted, so that the whole will proceed thus: “If Thou be willing, (for) all things are possible unto Thee, take away this cup from me.” Again, as to Mark’s mentioning that the Lord said not only “Father,” but “Abba, Father,” the explanation simply is, that “Abba” is in Hebrew exactly what “Pater” is in Latin. And perhaps the Lord may have used both words with some kind of symbolical significance, intending to indicate thereby, that in sustaining this sorrow He bore the part of His body, which is the Church, of which He has been made the corner-stone, and which comes to Him [in the person of disciples gathered] partly out of the Hebrews, to whom He refers when He says “Abba,” and partly out of the Gentiles, to whom He refers when He says “Pater” [Father].(Eph 2:11-22) The Apostle Paul also makes use of the same significant expression. For he says, “In whom we cry, Abba, Father;”(Rom 8:13) and, in another passage, “God sent His Spirit into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.”(Gal 4:6) For it was meet that the good Master and true Saviour, by sharing in the sufferings of the more infirm, should in His own person illustrate the truth that His witnesses ought not to despair, although it might perchance happen that, through human frailty, sorrow might steal in upon their hearts at the time of suffering; seeing that they would overcome it if, mindful that God knows what is best for those whose well-being He regards, they gave His will the preference over their own. On this subject, however, as a whole, the present is not the time for entering on any more detailed discussion. For we have to deal simply with the question concerning the harmony of the evangelists, from whose varied modes of narration we gather the wholesome lesson that, in order to get at the truth, the one essential thing to aim at in dealing with the terms is simply the intention which the speaker had in view in using them. For the word “Father” means just the same as the phrase “Abba, Father.” But with a view to bring out the mystic significance, the expression, “Abba, Father,” is the clearer form; while, for indicating the unity, the word “Father” is sufficient. And that the Lord did indeed employ this method of address, “Abba, Father,” must be accepted as matter of fact. But still His intention would not appear very obvious were there not the means (since others use simply the term “Father”) to show that under such a form of expression those two Churches, which are constituted, the one out of the Jews, and the other out of the Gentiles, are presented as also really one. In this way, then, [we may suppose that] the phrase, “Abba, Father,” was adopted in order to convey the same idea as was indicated by the Lord on another occasion, when He said, “Other sheep I have which are not of this fold.”(Jn 10:16) In these words He certainly referred to the Gentiles, since He had sheep also among the people of Israel. But in that passage He goes on immediately to add the declaration, “Them also I must bring, that there may be one fold and one Shepherd.” And so we may say that, just as the phrase, “Abba, Father,” contains the idea of [the two races,] the Israelites and the Gentiles, the word “Father,” used alone, points to the one flock which these two constitute. (St. Augustine Harmony of the Gospels 3.4) Jesus Arrested
(Mark 14:43-52 Matt 26:47-56 Luke 22:47-53 John 18:2-12) When we follow the versions presented by Matthew and Mark, we find that the history now proceeds thus: “And while He yet spake, lo, Judas, one of the twelve, came, and with him a great multitude, with swords and staves, from the chief priests and elders of the people. Now he that betrayed Him, gave them a sign, saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, that same is He; hold Him fast. And forthwith he came to Jesus, and said, Hail, Master; and kissed Him.”(Mt 26:47-56) First of all, however, as we gather from Luke’s statement, He said to the traitor, “Judas, betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?”(Luke 12:48) Next, as we learn from Matthew, He spoke thus: “Friend, wherefore art thou come?” Thereafter He added certain words which are found in John’s narrative, which runs in the following strain: “Whom seek ye? They answered Him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am He. And Judas also, which betrayed Him, stood with them. As soon then as He had said unto them, I am He, they went backward, and fell to the ground. Then asked He them again, Whom seek ye? And they said, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus answered, I have told you that I am He: if therefore ye seek me, let these go their way; that the saying might be fulfilled which He spake, Of them which thou gavest me have I lost none.”(Jn 18:4-9) Next comes in a passage, which is given by Lc as follows: “When they which were about Him saw what would follow, they said unto Him, Lord, shall we smite with the sword? And one of them smote the servant of the high priest,” as is noticed by all the four historians, “and cut off his ear,” which, as we are informed by Luke and John, was his “right ear.” Moreover, we gather also from Jn that the person who smote the servant was Peter, and that the name of the man whom he thus struck was Malchus. Next we take what Luke mentions, namely, “Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye thus far;”(Luke 22:51) with which we must connect the words appended by Matthew, namely, “Put up thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and He shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?”(Mt 26:52-55) Along with these words we may also place the question to which John tells us He gave utterance on the same occasion, namely, “The cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?”(Jn 18:11) And then, as is recorded by Luke, He touched the ear of the person who had been struck, and healed him. Neither should we let the idea disturb us, that some contradiction may be found in the circumstance that Lc tells us how, when the disciples asked Him whether they should smite with the sword, the Lord replied in these words, “Suffer ye thus far,” in a manner which might seem to imply that He thus expressed Himself, after the blow had been struck, in terms bearing that He was satisfied with what had been done so far, but desired nothing further to be done; whereas the language which is employed by Matthew might give us rather to understand that this whole incident of the use which Peter made of the sword was displeasing to the Lord. For it is more correct to suppose that when they put the question to Him, “Lord, shall we smite with the sword?” He replied then, “Suffer ye thus far;” His meaning being this: “Let not what is about to take place agitate you. These men are to be suffered to go thus far; that is to say, so far as to apprehend me, and thus to effect the fulfilment of those things which are written of me.” We have further to suppose, however, that during the time which passed in the interchange of the question addressed by them to the Lord, and the reply returned by Him to them, Peter was borne on by his intense desire to appear as defender, and by his stronger excitement in the Lord’s behalf, to deal the blow. But while these two things might easily have happened at the same time, two different statements could not have been uttered by the same person in one breath. For the writer would not have used the expression, “And Jesus answered and said,” unless the words were a reply to the question which had been addressed by those who were about Him, and not a statement directed to Peter’s act. For Matthew is the only one who has recorded the judgment passed by Jesus on Peter’s act. And in that passage the phrase which Matthew has employed is also not in the form, “Jesus answered Peter thus, Put up thy sword;” but it runs in these terms: “Then said Jesus unto him, Put up thy sword;” from which it appears that it was after the deed that Jesus thus declared Himself. What is contained, again, in the phraseology used by Luke, namely, “And Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye thus far,” must be taken to have been the reply which was returned to the parties who had put the question to Him. But inasmuch as, according to our previous explanation, the single blow with which the servant was struck was delivered just during the time when the terms of the said question and answer were passing between these persons and the Lord, the writer has considered it right to record that act in the same particular order, so that it stands inserted between the words of the interrogation and those in which the response was couched. Consequently, there is nothing here in antagonism to the statement introduced by Matthew, namely, “For all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword,”—that is to say, those who may have used the sword. But there might appear to be some inconsistency here if the Lord’s answer were taken in a sense which would show Him to have expressed approval on this occasion of the voluntary use of the sword, even although it was only to the effect of a single wound, and that, too, not a fatal one. The words, however, which were addressed to Peter may be understood, as a whole, in an application quite in harmony with the rest; so that, bringing in also what Lc and Matthew have reported, as I have stated above, we obtain the following connection: “Suffer ye thus far. Put up thy sword into its place; for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword,” etc. In what way, moreover, this sentence, “Suffer ye thus far,” is to be understood, I have explained already. And if there is any better method of interpreting it, be it so. Only let the veracity of the evangelists be maintained in any case. After this, Matthew continues the narrative, and mentions that in that hour He addressed the multitude as follows: “Are ye come out as against a thief with swords and staves for to take me? I sat daily with you teaching in the temple, and ye laid no hold on me.”(Mt 26:53) Then He added also certain words, which Lc introduces thus: “But this is your hour, and the power of darkness.”(Luke 22:53) Next comes the sentence given by Matthew: “But all this was done that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then all the disciples forsook Him and fled.” This last fact is recorded also by Mark. The same evangelist makes also the following addition: “And there followed Him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; and when they laid hold on him, he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked.”(Mark 14:52) (St. Augustine Harmony of the Gospels 3.5) Jesus before the Sanhedrin (Peter's Denial)
(Mark 14:53-65 Matt 26:57-68 Luke 22:54-71 John 18:13-24) In the line of Matthew’s narrative we come next upon this statement: “And they that laid hold on Jesus led Him away to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were assembled.”(Mt 26:57) We learn, however, from Jn that He was conducted first to Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas.(Jn 18:13) On the other hand, Mc and Lc omit all mention of the name of the high priest.(Mark 14:53 Luke 22:54) Moreover [we find that] He was led away bound. For, as Jn informs us, there were at hand there, in the multitude, a tribune and a cohort, and the servants of the Jews.(Jn 18:12) Then in Matthew we have these words: “But Peter followed Him afar off unto the high priest’s palace, and went in and sat with the servants to see the end.”(Mt 26:58) To this passage in the narrative Mc makes this addition: “And he warmed himself at the fire.”(Mark 14:54) Lc also makes a statement which amounts to the same, thus: “Peter followed afar off: and when they had kindled a fire in the midst of the hall, and were sat down together, Peter sat down among them.”(Luke 22:54-55) And Jn proceeds in these terms: “And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple. That disciple (namely, that other) was known unto the high priest, and went in (as Jn also tells us) with Jesus into the palace of the high priest. But Peter (as the same Jn adds) stood at the door without. Then went out that other disciple, which was known unto the high priest, and spake unto her that kept the door, and brought in Peter.”(Jn 18:15-18) For , the last fact we are thus indebted to John’s narrative. And in this way we see how it came about that Peter also got inside, and was within the hall, as the other evangelists mention. Then Matthew’s report goes on thus: “Now the chief priests and elders and all the council sought false witness against Jesus, to put Him to death, but found none: yea, though many false witnesses came, yet found they none.”(Mt 26:59-60) Mc comes in here with the explanation, that “their witness agreed not together.”(Mark 14:56) But, as Matthew continues, “At the last came two false witnesses, and said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days.”(Mt 26:61) Mc states that there were also others who said, “We have heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands. And therefore (as Mc also observes in the same passage) their witness did not agree together.”(Mark 14:57-59) Then Matthew gives us the following relation: “And the high priest arose and said unto Him, Answerest thou nothing? What is it which these witness against thee? But Jesus held His peace. And the high priest answered and said unto Him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said.”(Mt 26:62-64) Mc reports the same passage in different terms, only he omits to mention the fact that the high priest adjured Him. He makes it plain, however, that the two expressions ascribed to Jesus as the reply to the high priest,—namely, “Thou hast said,” and, “I am,”(Mark 14:62) —really amount to the same. For, as the said Mc puts it, the narrative goes on thus: “And Jesus said, I am; and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.”(Mark 14:62) This is just as Matthew also presents the passage, with the solitary exception that he does not say that Jesus replied in the phrase “I am.” Again, Matthew goes on further in this strain: “Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? Behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy. What think ye? And they answered and said, He is guilty of death.”(Mt 26:65-66) Mark’s version of this is entirely to the same effect. So Matthew continues, “Then did they spit in His face, and buffeted Him, and others smote Him with the palms of their hands, saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, Who is he that smote thee?”(Mt 26:67-68) Mark reports these things in like manner. He also mentions a further fact, namely, that they covered His face.(Mark 14:65) On these incidents we have likewise the testimony of Luke. These things the Lord is understood to have passed through on to the early morning in the high priest’s house, to which He was first conducted, and in which Peter was also tempted. With respect, however, to this temptation of Peter, which took place during the time that the Lord was enduring these injuries, the several evangelists do not present the same order in the recital of the circumstances. For Matthew and Mc first narrate the injuries offered to the Lord, and then this temptation of Peter. Luke, again, first describes Peter’s temptation, and only after that the reproaches borne by the Lord; while John, on the other hand, first recounts part of Peter’s temptation, then introduces some verses recording what the Lord had to bear, next appends a statement to the effect that the Lord was sent away thence (i.e. from Annas) to Caiaphas the high priest, and then at this point resumes and sums up the relation which he had commenced of Peter’s temptation in the house to which he was first conducted, giving a full account of that incident, thereafter reverting to the succession of things befalling the Lord, and telling us how He was brought to Caiaphas. Accordingly, Matthew proceeds as follows: “Now Peter sat without in the palace; and a damsel came unto him, saying, Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee. But he denied before them all, saying, I know not what thou sayest.And as he went out into the porch, another maid saw him, and said unto them that were there, This fellow was also with Jesus of Nazareth. And again he denied with an oath, I do not know the man. And after a while came unto him they that stood by, and said to Peter, Surely thou also art one of them, for thy speech bewrayeth thee. Then began he to curse and to swear, saying that he knew not the man. And immediately the rooster crew.”Mt 26:69-74 Such is Matthew’s version. But we are also given to understand that after he had gone outside, and when he had now denied the Lord once, the first rooster crew,—a fact which Matthew does not specify, but which is intimated by Mark. But it was not when he was outside at the gate that he denied the Lord the second time. That took place after he had come back to the fire-place. There was no need, however, to mention the precise time at which he did thus return. Consequently Mc goes on with his narrative of the incident in these terms: “And he went out into the porch, and the rooster crew. And a maid saw him again, and began to say to them that stood by, This is one of them. And he denied it again.”(Mark 14:68-70) This is not the same maid, however, as the former one, but another, as Matthew tells us. Nay, we gather further that on the occasion of the second denial he was addressed by two parties, namely, by the maid who is mentioned by Matthew and Mark, and also by another person who is noticed by Luke. For Luke’s account runs in this style: “And Peter followed afar off. And when they had kindled a fire in the midst of the hall, and were sat down together, Peter sat down among them. But a certain maid beheld him as he sat by the fire, and earnestly looked upon him, and said, This man was also with him. And he denied Him, saying, Woman, I know Him not. And after a little while, another saw him, and said, “Thou art also of them.”(Luke 22:54-58) Now the clause, “And after a little while,” which Lc introduces, covers the period during which [we may suppose that] Peter went out and the first rooster crew. By this time, however, he had come in again; and thus we can understand the consistency of John’s narrative, which informs us that he denied the Lord the second time as he stood by the fire. For in his version of Peter’s first denial, Jn not only says nothing about the first crowing of the rooster (which holds good of the other evangelists, too, with the exception of Mark), but also leaves unnoticed the fact that it was as he sat by the fire that the maid recognised him. For all that Jn says there is this, “Then saith the damsel that kept the door unto Peter, Art not thou also one of this man’s disciples? He saith, I am not.”(Jn 18:17) Then he brings in the statement which he deemed it right to make on the subject of what took place with Jesus in that same house. His record of this is to the following effect: “And the servants and officers stood there, who had made a fire of coals, for it was cold. And they warmed themselves; and Peter stood with them, and warmed himself.”(Jn 18:18) Here, therefore, we may suppose Peter to have gone out, and by this time to have come in again. For at first he was sitting by the fire; and after a space, as we gather, he had returned, and commenced to stand [by the hearth]. It may be, however, that some one will say to us: Peter had not actually gone out as yet, but had only risen with the purpose of going out. This may be the allegation of one who is of opinion that the second interrogation and denial took place when Peter was outside at the door. Let us therefore look at what follows in John’s narrative. It is to this effect: “The high priest then asked Jesus of His disciples, and of His doctrine. Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in thesynagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing. Why askest thou me? ask them which heard me what I have said unto them: behold, they know what I said. And when He had thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, Answerest thou the high priest so? Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if well, why smitest thou me? And Annas sent Him bound to Caiaphas the high priest.”(Jn 18:19-24) This certainly shows us that Annas was high priest. For Jesus had not been sent to Caiaphas as yet, when the question was thus put to Him, “Answerest thou the high priest so?” Mention is also made of Annas and Caiaphas as high priests by Lc at the beginning of his Gospel.(Luke 3:2) After these statements, Jn reverts to the account which he had previously begun of Peter’s denial. Thus he brings us back to the house in which the incidents took place which he has recorded, and from which Jesus was sent away to Caiaphas, to whom He was being conducted at the commencement of this scene, as Matthew has informed us.(Mt 26:57) Moreover, it is in the way of a recapitulation that Jn records the matters regarding Peter which he has introduced at this point. Falling back upon his narration of that incident with the view of making up a complete account of the threefold denial, he proceeds thus: “And Simon stood and warmed himself. They said therefore unto him, Art not thou also one of his disciples? He denied it, and said, I am not.”(Jn 18:25) Here, therefore, we find that Peter’s second denial occurred, not when he was at the door,but as he was standing by the fire. This, however, could not have been the case, had he notreturned by this time after having gone outside.For it is not that by this second occasion he had actually gone out, and that the other maid who is referred to saw him there outside; but the matter is put as if it was on his going out that she saw him; or, in other words, it was when he rose to go out that she observed him, and said to those who were there,—that is, to those who were gathered by the fire inside, within the court,—“This fellow was also with Jesus of Nazareth.” Then we are to suppose that the man who had thus gone outside, on hearing thisassertion, came in again, and swore to those whowere now inimically disposed, “I do not know the man.”(Mt 26:71) In like manner, Mark also says of this same maid, that “she began to say to them that stood by, This is one of them.”(Mark 14:69) For this damsel was speaking not to Peter, but to those who had remained there when he went out. At the same time, she spoke in such a manner that he heard her words; whereupon he came back and stood again by the fire, and met their words with a negative. Then we have the statement made by Jn in these terms: “They said, Art not thou also one of his disciples?” We understand this question to have been addressed to him on his return as he stood there; and we also recognise the harmony in which this stands with the position that on this occasion Peter had to do not only with that other maid who is mentioned by Matthew and Mc in connection with this second denial, but also with that other person who is introduced by Luke. This is the reason why Jn uses the plural, “They said.” The explanation then may be, that when the maid said to those who were with her in the court as he went out, “This is one of them,” he heard her words and returned with the purpose of clearing himself, as it were, by a denial. Or, in accordance with the more probable theory, we may suppose that he did not catch what was said about him as he went out, and that on his return the maid and the other person who is introduced by Lc addressed him thus, “Art not thou also one of his disciples?” that he met them with a denial, “and said, I am not;” and further, that when this other person of whom Lc speaks insisted more pertinaciously, and said, “Surely thou art one of them,” Peter answered thus, “Man, I am not.” Still, when we compare together all the statements made by the several evangelists on this subject, we come clearly to the conclusion, that Peter’s second denial took place, not when he was at the door, but when he was within, by the fire in the court. It becomes evident, therefore, that Matthew and Mark, who have told us how he went without, have left the fact of his return unnoticed simply with a view to brevity. Accordingly, let us next examine into the consistency of the evangelists so far as the third denial is concerned, which we have previously instanced in the statement given by Matthew only. Mc then goes on with his version in these terms: “And a little after, they that stood by said again to Peter, Surely thou art one of them; for thou art a Galilaean. But he began to curse and to swear, saying, I know not this man of whom ye speak. And immediately the second time the rooster crew.”(Mark 14:70-72) Luke, again, continues his narrative, relating the same incident in this fashion: “And about the space of one hour after, another confidently affirmed, Of a truth this fellow also was with him; for he is a Galilaean. And Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. And immediately while he yet spake the rooster crew.”(Luke 22:59-60) John follows with his account of Peter’s third denial, which is thus given: “One of the servants of the high priest, being his kinsman whose ear Peter cut off, saith, Did not I see thee in the garden with him? Peter then denied again; and immediately the rooster crew.”(Jn 18:26-27) Now what precise period of time is meant under the phrase, “a little after,” which is employed by Matthew and Mark, is made clear by Luke, when he says, “And about the space of one hour after.” John, however, conveys no intimation of this space of time. Again, with respect to the circumstance that Matthew and Mc use the plural number instead of the singular, and speak of the persons who were engaged with Peter, while Lc mentions only a single individual, and John, too, specifies but one, particularizing him further as kinsman to him whose ear Peter cut off; we may easily explain it either by understanding Matthew and Mc to have adopted a familiar method of speech here in employing the plural number simply instead of the singular, or by supposing that one of the persons present—one who knew Peter and had seen him—took the lead in making the declaration, and that the rest, imitating his confidence, joined him in pressing the assertion upon Peter. If this is the case, then two of the evangelists have given the general statement, using simply the plural number; while the other two have preferred to particularize only the one special individual who played the chief part in the transaction. But, once more, Matthew affirms that the words, “Surely thou also art one of them, for thy speech bewrayeth thee,” were spoken to Peter himself. In like manner, John tells us that the question, “Did not I see thee in the garden with him?” was addressed directly to Peter. But Mark, on the other hand, gives us to understand that the sentence, “Surely he is one of them, for he is also a Galilaean,” was what those who stood by said to each other about Peter. And, in the same way, Lc indicates that the declaration uttered by the other person, who said, “Of a truth, this fellow also was with him, for he is a Galilaean,” was not addressed to Peter, but was made regarding Peter. These variations, however, may be explained either by understanding the evangelists, who speak of Peter as the person directly addressed, to have fairly reproduced the general sense, inasmuch as what was spoken about the man in his own presence was much the same as if it had been spoken immediately to him; or by supposing that both these methods of address were actually practised, and that the one has been noticed by the former evangelists, and the other by the latter. Moreover, we take the second cockcrowing to have occurred after the third denial, as Mc has expressly informed us. Matthew then proceeds with his narrative in these terms: “And Peter remembered the word of Jesus which He had said unto him, Before the rooster crow thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out and wept bitterly.”(Mt 26:75) Mark, again, gives it thus: “And Peter called to mind the word that Jesus had said unto him, Before the rooster crow twice thou shall deny me thrice. And he began to weep.”(Mark 14:72) Luke’s version is as follows: “And the Lord turned and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how He had said unto him, Before the rooster crow thou shalt deny me thrice. And Peter went out and wept bitterly.”(Luke 22:61-62) Jn says nothing about Peter’s recollection and weeping. Now, the statement made here by Luke, to the effect that “the Lord turned and looked upon Peter,” is one which requires more careful consideration, with a view to its correct acceptance. For although there are also inner halls (or courts), so named, it was in the outer court (or hall) that Peter appeared on this occasion among the servants, who were warming themselves along with him at the fire. And it is not a credible supposition that Jesus was heard by the Jews in this place, so that we might also understand the look referred to have been a look with the bodily eye. For Matthew presents us first with this narrative: “Then did they spit in His face and buffeted Him; and others smote Him with the palms of their hands, saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, who is he that smote thee?”(Mt 26:67-68) And then he follows this up immediately with the paragraph about Peter: “Now Peter sat without in the palace.” He would not, however, have used this latter expression, had it not been the case that the things previously alluded to were done to the Lord inside the house. And, indeed, as we gather from Mark’s version, these things took place not simply in the interior, but also in the upper parts of the house. For, after recording the said circumstances, Mc goes on thus: “And as Peter was beneath in the palace.”(Mark 14:66) Thus, as Matthew’s words, “Now Peter sat without in the palace,” show us that the things previously mentioned took place inside the house, so Mark’s words, “And as Peter was beneath in the palace,” indicate that they were done not only in the interior, but in the upper parts of the house. But if this is the case, how could the Lord have looked on Peter with the actual glance of the bodily eye? These considerations bring me to the conclusion, that the look in question was one cast upon Peter from Heaven, the effect of which was to bring up before his mind the number of times he had now denied [his Master], and the declaration which the Lord had made to him prophetically, and in this way (the Lord thus looking mercifully upon him), to lead him to repent, and to weep salutary tears. The expression, therefore, will be a parallel to other modes of speech which we employ daily, as when we thus pray, “Lord, look upon me;” or as when, in reference to one who has been delivered by the divine mercy from some danger or trouble, we say that the “Lord looked upon him.” In the Scriptures, also, we find such words as these: “Look upon me and hear me;(Ps 13:3) and “Return, O Lord, and deliver my soul.”(Ps 6:4) And, according to my judgment, a similar view is to be taken of the expression adopted here, when it is said that “the Lord turned and looked upon Peter; and Peter remembered the word of the Lord.” Finally, we have to notice how, while it is the more usual practice with the evangelists to employ the name “Jesus” in preference to the word “Lord” in their narratives, Lc has used the latter term exclusively in the said sentence, saying expressly, “The ‘Lord’ turned and looked upon Peter; and Peter remembered the word of the ‘Lord:’“ whereas Matthew and Mc have passed over this “look” in silence, and consequently have said that Peter remembered not the word of the “Lord,” but the word of “Jesus.” From this, therefore, we may gather that the “look” thus proceeding from Jesus was not one with the eyes of the human body, but a look cast from Heaven. (St. Augustine Harmony of the Gospels 3.6) Peter's Denial
(Mark 14:66-72 Matt 26:69-75 Luke 22:56-62 John 18:25-27) Among the other insults offered to our Lord was the threefold denial of Peter, which the several Evangelists relate in different order. Luke puts Peter’s trial first, and the ill-usage of the Lord after that; Matthew and Mark reverse the order. The second denial was not outside the door, but after he had returned to the fire; for the second maid did not see him after he had gone out, but as he was going out; his getting up to go out drew her attention, and she said to them that were there, that is, to those that were standing round the fire in the hall, “The fellow also was with Jesus of Nazareth.” He who had gone out, having heard this returned, that he might by denial vindicate himself. Or, as is more likely, he did not hear what was said of him as he went out, but it was after he came back that the maid, and the other man whom Luke mentions, said to him, “And thou also art one of them.” Let us now come to the third denial; “And after a while came they that stood by, and said to Peter, Surely thou also art one of them,” (Luke’s words are, “About the space of one hour after, [Luke 22:59]) for thy speech bewrayeth thee.” (St. Augustine Harmony of the Gospels 3.6) |
Home > Mark Gospel Harmony > Mk 1 > Mk 2 > Mk 3 > Mk 4 > Mk 5 > Mk 6 > Mk 7 > Mk 8 > Mk 9 > Mk 10 > Mk 11 > Mk 12 > Mk 13 >