Ambrose of Milan

O Lord, why do you command me to buy a sword, which you forbid me to strike with? Why do you tell me to have what you forbid me to draw? Unless perhaps it is for the purpose of defense, not necessary vengeance; and I may seem able to be avenged, but unwilling. However, the law does not forbid retaliation, and therefore perhaps you offer two swords to Peter: 'It is enough,' you say, as if it were allowed until the Gospel; so that there may be instruction in the law of equity, and perfection in the Gospel of goodness.

Many consider this unfair: but the Lord is not unfair, who, when He could avenge Himself, preferred to be sacrificed. For it is a spiritual sword, to sell your property, to buy the word by which the naked innermost thoughts are clothed. There is also the sword of passion, to divest the body, and with the stripped-off garments of the slaughtered flesh, a sacred crown of martyrdom is bought for you: which you can gather from the blessings of the Lord, who preached the highest crown of all, if anyone suffers persecution for righteousness. Finally, to let you know that he was talking about his passion, so as not to disturb the minds of the disciples, he gave an example of himself, saying: Because this that is written must be fulfilled in me, that is, he was reckoned among the transgressors.

However, it still moves me that the disciples have brought two swords; lest perhaps one is new, the other of the old Testament, with which we arm ourselves against the snares of the devil? Finally, the Lord says: It is enough, as if nothing is lacking to him whom the teaching of both Testaments has fortified.

But He who forbids to strike, why does He order them to buy a sword? unless perchance that there may be a defence prepared, but no necessary retaliation; a seeming ability to be revenged, without the will. Hence it follows, And he who has not, (that is, a purse,) let him sell his garment, and buy a sword.

Or, because the law does not forbid to return a blow, perhaps He says to Peter, as he is offering the two swords, It is enough, as though it were lawful until the Gospel; in order that there may be in the law, the knowledge of justice; in the Gospel, perfection of goodness. There is also a spiritual sword, that you may sell your patrimony, and buy the word, by which the nakedness of the soul is clothed. There is also a sword of suffering, so that you may strip your body, and with the spoils of your sacrificed flesh purchase for yourself the sacred crown of martyrdom. Again it moves, seeing that the disciples put forward two swords, whether perhaps one is not of the Old Testament, the other of the New, whereby we are armed against the wiles of the devil. Therefore the Lord says, It is enough, because he wanted nothing who is fortified by the teaching of both Testaments.

Most people cling to this argument in this place, who are inclined to sadness at the evidence of unfamiliar salvation rather than at the time of their own weakness, and desire to twist the natural meaning of the statement. However, I not only do not think that he should be excused, but I also admire his piety and majesty nowhere more so; for he did not confer less on me, unless he had undertaken my feeling. Therefore, he grieved for me, who had nothing to grieve about for himself; and removed from the delight of eternal divinity, he is afflicted by the weariness of my weakness. For He took on my sadness, so that He could give me His joy: and He descended to the suffering of death in our footsteps, so that He could call us back to life in His footsteps. Therefore, I confidently name sadness, because I proclaim the cross; for He did not assume the appearance of the Incarnation, but the truth. Therefore, He had to also take on sorrow, so that He could overcome sadness, not exclude it. For those who endure the astonishment of wounds more than the pain do not have the praise of strength: for indeed, the Man on the wound, and knowing, says, 'Surely He has borne our infirmities.'

Many are shocked at this place who turn the sorrows of the Saviour to an argument of inherent weakness from the beginning, rather than taken upon Him for the time. But I am so far from considering it a thing to be excused, that I never more admire His mercy and majesty; for He would have conferred less upon me had He not taken upon Him my feelings. For He took upon Him my sorrow, that upon me He might bestow His joy. With confidence therefore I name His sadness, because I preach His cross. He must needs then have undergone affliction, that He might conquer. For they have no praise of fortitude whose wounds have produced stupor rather than pain. He wished therefore to instruct us how we should conquer death, and what is far greater, the anguish of coming death. Thou smartedst then, O Lord, not from thy own but my wounds; for he was wounded for our transgressions. And perhaps He is sad, because that after Adam's fall the passage by which we must depart from this world was such that death was necessary. Nor is it far from the truth that He was sad for His persecutors, who He knew would suffer punishment for their wicked sacrilege.

The great significance of divine power, the great discipline of virtue. And the plan of betrayal is revealed, and yet patience is not denied. You have shown, Lord, who would betray, while you reveal hidden things. You have also shown whom he would deliver, while you say: Son of man; because flesh, not divinity, can be understood. However, the fact that he handed him over contradicts even more the ungrateful, that he, although being the Son of God, yet wanted to be the Son of man for our sake. As if to say: Because of my kindness, ungrateful one, you betray me. Behold the hypocrisy. Therefore, I think it should be pronounced as a question, as if a loving person rebukes a traitor: Judas, do you hand over the Son of Man with a kiss? This means, you inflict a wound as a pledge of love, and you shed blood in the duty of charity, and you inflict death with an instrument of peace? The servant betrays the master, the disciple betrays the teacher, the chosen one betrays the author? This is that which is said: The wounds of a friend are more valuable than the kisses of an enemy. What does this traitor say? Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth.

And he kissed him, he said. Not that he teaches us to pretend, but so that he does not seem to avoid betrayal and to affect the traitor more, to whom he would not deny acts of love; for it is written: I was peaceful with those who hated peace.

It must be used I think by way of question, as if he arrests the traitor with a lover's affection.

He says, Betrayest thou with a kiss? that is, dost thou inflict a wound with the pledge of love? with the instruments of peace dost thou impose death? a slave, dost thou betray thy Lord; a disciple, thy master; one chosen, Him who chose thee?

O great manifestation of Divine power, great discipline of virtue! Both the design of thy traitor is detected, and yet forbearance is not withheld. He shows whom it is Judas betrays, by manifesting things hidden; He declares whom he delivers up, by saying, the Son of man, for the human flesh, not the Divine nature, is seized. That however which most confounds the ungrateful, is the thought that he had delivered up Him, who though He was the Son of God, yet for our sakes wished to be the Son of man; as if He said, "For thee did I undertake, O ungrateful man, that which thou betrayest in hypocrisy.

Our Lord kissed him, not that He would teach us to dissemble, but both that He might not seem to shrink from the traitor, and that He might the more move him by not denying him the offices of love.

The wretched men understood not the mystery, nor had reverence unto an outpouring of compassion so merciful, that even His enemies He suffered not to be wounded. For it is said, Then look they him, &c. When we read of Jesus being holden, let us guard against thinking that He is holden with respect to His divine nature, and unwilling through weakness, for He is held captive and bound according to the truth of His bodily nature.

Rightly he followed afar off, soon about to deny, for he could never have denied if he had clung close to Christ. But herein must he be revered, that he forsook not our Lord, even though he was afraid. Fear is the effect of nature, solicitude of tender affection.

And by this time there was a fire burning in the house of the High Priest; as it follows, And when they had kindled a fire, &c. Peter came to warm himself, because his Lord being taken prisoner, the heart of his soul had been chilled in him.

What meaneth it, that a maid is the first to betray Peter, whereas surely men ought the more easily to have recognised him, save that that sex should be plainly implicated in our Lord's murder, in order that it might also be redeemed by His Passion? But Peter when discovered denies, for better that Peter should have denied, than our Lord's word should have failed. Hence it follows, And he denied, saying, Woman, I know him not.

Peter denied, because he promised rashly. He does not deny on the mount, nor in the temple, nor in his own house, but in the judgment-hall of the Jews. There he denies where Jesus was bound, where truth is not. And denying Him he says, I know him not. It were presumptuous to say that he knew Him whom the human mind can not grasp. For no one knoweth the Son but the Father. (Matt. 11:17). Again, a second time he denies Christ; for it follows, And after a little while another saw him, and said, Thou wert also one of them.

For he preferred to deny himself rather than Christ, or because he seemed to deny being of the company of Christ, he truly denied himself.

He is also asked a third time; for it follows, And about the space of one hour after, another confidently affirmed, saying, Of a truth this fellow also was with him.

That is, I know not your blasphemies. But we make excuse for him. He did not excuse himself. For an involved answer is not sufficient for our confessing Jesus, but an open confession is required. And therefore Peter is not represented to have answered this deliberately, for he afterwards recollected himself, and wept.

Lastly, those whom Jesus looks upon weep for their sins. Hence it follows, And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said to him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly. Why did he weep? Because he sinned as man. I read of his tears, I do not read of his confession. Tears wash away an offence which it is shame to confess in words. The first and second time he denied and wept not, for as yet our Lord had not looked upon him. He denied the third time, Jesus looked upon him, and he wept bitterly. So then if thou wilt obtain pardon, wash away thy guilt in tears.