TRV
Jerome
Nicene & Post-Nicene · AD 325–500 · 5,299 passages across 63 books
Commentary
Matthew 26:59-68
Now the chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death;
He went in, either out of the attachment of a disciple, or natural curiosity, seeking to know what sentence the High Priest would pass, whether death, or scourging. At last came two false witnesses. How are they false witnesses, when they repeat only what we read that the Lord spoke? A false witness is one who takes what is said in a different sense from that in which it was said. Now this the Lord had spoken of the temple of His Body, and they cavil at His expressions, and by a slight change and addition produce a plausible charge. The Lord's words were, Destroy this temple; (John 2:19.) this they make into, I can destroy the Temple of God. He said, Destroy, not 'I will destroy,' because it is unlawful to lay hands on ourselves. Also they phrased it, And build it again, making it apply to the temple of the Jews; but the Lord had said, And I will raise it up again, thus clearly pointing out a living and breathing temple. For to build again, and to raise again, are two different things. Headlong and uncontrolled rage, unable to find even a false accusation, moves the High Priest fro…
He went in, either out of the attachment of a disciple, or natural curiosity, seeking to know what sentence the High Priest would pass, whether death, or scourging.
At last came two false witnesses. How are they false witnesses, when they repeat only what we read that the Lord spoke? A false witness is one who takes what is said in a different sense from that in which it was said. Now this the Lord had spoken of the temple of His Body, and they cavil at His expressions, and by a slight change and addition produce a plausible charge. The Lord's words were, Destroy this temple; (John 2:19.) this they make into, I can destroy the Temple of God. He said, Destroy, not 'I will destroy,' because it is unlawful to lay hands on ourselves. Also they phrased it, And build it again, making it apply to the temple of the Jews; but the Lord had said, And I will raise it up again, thus clearly pointing out a living and breathing temple. For to build again, and to raise again, are two different things.
Headlong and uncontrolled rage, unable to find even a false accusation, moves the High Priest from his throne, the motion of his body showing the emotion of his mind. And the High Priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing to the things which these witness against Thee?
For as God, He knew that whatever He said would be twisted into an accusation against Him. But at this His silence before false witnesses and ungodly Priests, the High Priest was exasperated, and summons Him to answer, that from anything He says he may raise a charge against Him.
The same fury which drew the High Priest from his seat, impels him now to rend his clothes; for so it was customary with the Jews to do whenever they heard any blasphemy, or any thing against God.
And by this rending his garments, he shows that the Jews have lost the priestly glory, and that their High Priest's throne was vacant. For by rending his garment he rent the veil of the Law which covered him.
They spit in his face, and buffeted him, to fulfil the prophecy of Esaias, I gave my cheek to the smiters, and turned not away my face from shame and spitting. (Isa. 50:6.)
But it would have been foolish to have answered them that smote Him, and to have declared the smiter, seeing that in their madness they seem to have struck Him openly.
At last came two false witnesses. How are they false witnesses, when they repeat only what we read that the Lord spoke? A false witness is one who takes what is said in a different sense from that in which it was said. Now this the Lord had spoken of the temple of His Body, and they cavil at His expressions, and by a slight change and addition produce a plausible charge. The Lord's words were, Destroy this temple; (John 2:19.) this they make into, I can destroy the Temple of God. He said, Destroy, not 'I will destroy,' because it is unlawful to lay hands on ourselves. Also they phrased it, And build it again, making it apply to the temple of the Jews; but the Lord had said, And I will raise it up again, thus clearly pointing out a living and breathing temple. For to build again, and to raise again, are two different things.
Headlong and uncontrolled rage, unable to find even a false accusation, moves the High Priest from his throne, the motion of his body showing the emotion of his mind. And the High Priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing to the things which these witness against Thee?
For as God, He knew that whatever He said would be twisted into an accusation against Him. But at this His silence before false witnesses and ungodly Priests, the High Priest was exasperated, and summons Him to answer, that from anything He says he may raise a charge against Him.
The same fury which drew the High Priest from his seat, impels him now to rend his clothes; for so it was customary with the Jews to do whenever they heard any blasphemy, or any thing against God.
And by this rending his garments, he shows that the Jews have lost the priestly glory, and that their High Priest's throne was vacant. For by rending his garment he rent the veil of the Law which covered him.
They spit in his face, and buffeted him, to fulfil the prophecy of Esaias, I gave my cheek to the smiters, and turned not away my face from shame and spitting. (Isa. 50:6.)
But it would have been foolish to have answered them that smote Him, and to have declared the smiter, seeing that in their madness they seem to have struck Him openly.
Matthew 26:61
And said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days.
(Verse 61.) But finally came two false witnesses, and said: He said: I can destroy the temple of God, and after three days rebuild it. How are they false witnesses if they say the things that we read the Lord said? But a false witness is one who does not understand the words in the same sense in which they are spoken. For the Lord had spoken about the temple of his body. But even in the words themselves, they slander, and by adding or changing a few things, they make it seem like a just accusation. The Savior had said: Destroy this temple; those men change it and say: I can destroy the temple of God. You, he said, destroy it, not me, because it is unlawful for us to lay hands on ourselves. Then they turn it: and after three days rebuild it; so that it may seem he had spoken properly about the Jewish temple. But the Lord, in order to show that an animal and breathing temple, had said: And in three days I will raise it up. To build is one thing, to raise is another.
Matthew 26:62
And the high priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee?
(Verse 62) And the high priest stood up and said to Him, 'Do You answer nothing? What is it that these men testify against You?' But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest became furious and impatient, unable to find a place for false accusations, he threw the high priest off his seat, in order to demonstrate his madness of mind through the movement of his body. The more Jesus remained silent in response to unworthy individuals, false witnesses, and wicked priests, the more the high priest, overcome with rage, provoked Him to respond, so that he could find an opportunity in any occasion of conversation to accuse Him. Nevertheless, Jesus remained silent. For he knew, as if God, whatever response he gave would be twisted into a false accusation.
Matthew 26:63
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.
(Verse 63.) And the high priest said to him, I adjure you by the living God that you tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God. Why do you swear, most wicked of priests, to accuse rather than to believe? If to accuse, others argue: condemn the silent one. If to believe, why did you not want to believe the one confessing?
Matthew 26:64
Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
(Verse 64.) Jesus said to him: You have said it. Nevertheless, I tell you: from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the power of God, and coming on the clouds of heaven. And against Pilate, and against Caiaphas, a similar response, so that they are condemned by their own sentence.
Matthew 26:65-66
· 3 passages
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.
(Vers. 65, 66.) Then the high priest tore his garments, saying: He has blasphemed. What further need do we have of witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy. What do you think? And they answered, saying: He is deserving of death. The same fury that had driven him from the priestly throne now provokes him to tear his garments. He tore his garments to show that the Jews had lost the glory of priesthood and that the high priests had an empty seat. But it is also a Jewish custom, when they hear something blasphemous and seemingly against God, to tear their garments. We read that Paul and Barnabas did the same when they were esteemed as gods in Lycaonia. However, Herod, because he did not give honor to God but acquiesced to the excessive favor of the people, was immediately struck by an angel.
Blind anger and impatience, bereft of grounds for a false accusation, dislodged the high priest from his seat, and he displayed the rabid state of his mind with a vehement bodily gesture. The more Jesus kept silent over the false witnesses and dishonorable priests indignant at his response, all the more did the high priest, overcome with rage, provoke him to give an incriminating reply. Still Jesus kept quiet, because as God he knew that whatever he replied would be twisted into grounds for accusation.
The one whom fury had lifted out of his priestly throne was impelled by that same fury to tear his garments. When Caiaphas tore his robes, he demonstrated that the Jews had lost the glory of the priesthood and that the seat of the high priest was now vacant. But it is the custom of the Jews to tear their clothes when they hear any blasphemy against God. We read that Paul and Barnabas did this when they were honored and worshiped as gods in Lycaonia.
Matthew 26:67
Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands,
(Verse 67.) Then they spat in his face and struck him with their fists. As it was foretold: I have given my cheeks to those who struck me; I have not turned my face from disgrace and spitting. (Lamentations 3:30)
Matthew 26:68
Saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, Who is he that smote thee?
(Verse 68.) But others slapped his face and said: Prophesy to us, Christ, who is it that struck you? It would have been foolish to respond to those who were beating him and to prophesy about the one who was striking him, since it would seem like madness to openly predict someone who was already striking. But just as he did not prophesy this to you, so he prophesied very clearly that Jerusalem would be surrounded by an army and not a single stone would be left upon another in the temple.
Matthew 26:69-75
· 3 passages
Now Peter sat without in the palace: and a damsel came unto him, saying, Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee.
Peter sat without, that he might see the event, and not excite suspicion by any approach to Jesus. And again he denied with an oath, I do not know the man. I know that some out of a feeling of piety towards the Apostle Peter have interpreted this place to signify that Peter denied the Man and not the God, as though he meant, 'I do not know the Man, because I know the God.'x But the intelligent reader will see that this is trifling, for if he denied not, the Lord spoke falsely when He said, Thou shalt deny me thrice. Not that Peter was of a different speech or nation, but a Hebrew as his accusers were; but every province and every district has its peculiarities, and he could not disguise his native pronunciation. In another Gospel we read, that after Peter's denial and the cock-crow, the Saviour looked upon Peter, (Luke 22:61.) and by His look called forth those bitter tears; for it might not be that he on whom the Light of the world had looked should continue in the darkness of denial, wherefore, he went out, and wept bitterly. For he could not do penitence sitting in Caiaphas' ha…
Peter sat without, that he might see the event, and not excite suspicion by any approach to Jesus.
And again he denied with an oath, I do not know the man. I know that some out of a feeling of piety towards the Apostle Peter have interpreted this place to signify that Peter denied the Man and not the God, as though he meant, 'I do not know the Man, because I know the God.'x But the intelligent reader will see that this is trifling, for if he denied not, the Lord spoke falsely when He said, Thou shalt deny me thrice.
Not that Peter was of a different speech or nation, but a Hebrew as his accusers were; but every province and every district has its peculiarities, and he could not disguise his native pronunciation.
In another Gospel we read, that after Peter's denial and the cock-crow, the Saviour looked upon Peter, (Luke 22:61.) and by His look called forth those bitter tears; for it might not be that he on whom the Light of the world had looked should continue in the darkness of denial, wherefore, he went out, and wept bitterly. For he could not do penitence sitting in Caiaphas' hall, but went forth from the assembly of the wicked, that he might wash away in bitter tears the pollution of his timid denial.
And again he denied with an oath, I do not know the man. I know that some out of a feeling of piety towards the Apostle Peter have interpreted this place to signify that Peter denied the Man and not the God, as though he meant, 'I do not know the Man, because I know the God.'x But the intelligent reader will see that this is trifling, for if he denied not, the Lord spoke falsely when He said, Thou shalt deny me thrice.
Not that Peter was of a different speech or nation, but a Hebrew as his accusers were; but every province and every district has its peculiarities, and he could not disguise his native pronunciation.
In another Gospel we read, that after Peter's denial and the cock-crow, the Saviour looked upon Peter, (Luke 22:61.) and by His look called forth those bitter tears; for it might not be that he on whom the Light of the world had looked should continue in the darkness of denial, wherefore, he went out, and wept bitterly. For he could not do penitence sitting in Caiaphas' hall, but went forth from the assembly of the wicked, that he might wash away in bitter tears the pollution of his timid denial.
“And again he denied it with an oath, ‘I do not know the man.’ ” I know that some people with a soft spot in their hearts for the apostle Peter have interpreted this passage to the effect that Peter did not deny God but man, and what he meant was “I do not know the man, because I know God.” The wise reader realizes how frivolous this interpretation is, for those who thus defend the apostle make the Lord guilty of a lie. If Peter did not deny him, then the Lord lied in saying, “Truly, I say to you, this very night, before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times.” Notice what he says: “You will deny me”—not “the man.”“Certainly you are also one of them, for your accent betrays you.” Not that Peter spoke a different language or belonged to a foreign nation … but since each province and region had their own characteristics and vernacular, one could not help having a certain sound to his speech. For instance, the Ephrathites in the book of Judges cannot pronounce the word synthema. “Then he began to invoke a curse on himself and to swear that he did not know the man. And immedi…
“And again he denied it with an oath, ‘I do not know the man.’ ” I know that some people with a soft spot in their hearts for the apostle Peter have interpreted this passage to the effect that Peter did not deny God but man, and what he meant was “I do not know the man, because I know God.” The wise reader realizes how frivolous this interpretation is, for those who thus defend the apostle make the Lord guilty of a lie. If Peter did not deny him, then the Lord lied in saying, “Truly, I say to you, this very night, before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times.” Notice what he says: “You will deny me”—not “the man.”“Certainly you are also one of them, for your accent betrays you.” Not that Peter spoke a different language or belonged to a foreign nation … but since each province and region had their own characteristics and vernacular, one could not help having a certain sound to his speech. For instance, the Ephrathites in the book of Judges cannot pronounce the word synthema.
“Then he began to invoke a curse on himself and to swear that he did not know the man. And immediately the cock crowed.” In the other Gospel we read that after Peter’s denial and the crowing of the cock, the Savior looked at Peter and, by his very gaze, aroused bitter tears in him. It could not be that Peter, on whom the light of the world had gazed, should remain in the darkness of denial.
“Then he began to invoke a curse on himself and to swear that he did not know the man. And immediately the cock crowed.” In the other Gospel we read that after Peter’s denial and the crowing of the cock, the Savior looked at Peter and, by his very gaze, aroused bitter tears in him. It could not be that Peter, on whom the light of the world had gazed, should remain in the darkness of denial.
(Verse 69.) But Peter was sitting outside in the courtyard. He was sitting outside to see the outcome. And he did not come near Jesus, so that no suspicion would arise among the servants.
Matthew 26:72
And again he denied with an oath, I do not know the man.
(Verse 72.) And again he denied it with an oath, 'I do not know the man.' And after a little while those standing there came up and said to Peter, 'Surely you also are one of them, for your accent betrays you.' Then he began to invoke a curse on himself and to swear, 'I do not know the man.' And immediately the rooster crowed. And Peter remembered the saying of Jesus, 'Before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times.' And he went out and wept bitterly. Some pious people have interpreted this passage in such a way that they say Peter did not deny God but only a man, and the meaning is: 'I do not know the man, for I know God.' A discerning reader understands how frivolous this interpretation is; they defend Peter in such a way as to make God guilty of lying. For if he did not deny, then the Lord lied, who said, 'Truly I tell you, this very night, before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times.' See what he says, you will deny me, not a man.
Matthew 26:73
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.
(Verse 73.) Truly, you are also one of them: for even your speech gives you away. Not that Peter spoke a different language or came from a foreign nation. For all of them were Hebrews, both those who accused and those who were accused. But each province and region has its own peculiarities, and cannot avoid the sound of their native language. Hence, even the Ephraimites in the Book of Judges (chapter 12) could not pronounce the word σύνθημα.
Matthew 26:74-75
Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man. And immediately the cock crew.
(Verse 74, 75.) Then he began to curse and swear, saying that he did not know the man. And immediately the rooster crowed. And Peter remembered the word of Jesus that he had said: Before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times. In another Gospel, we read that after Peter's denial and the rooster's crowing, the Savior looked at Peter and with his gaze, he caused him to burst into bitter tears. It was not possible for him to remain in the darkness of denial, whom the light of the world had looked upon.
And going out, he wept bitterly. Sitting in the courtyard of Caiaphas, he could not do penance. He goes out from the wicked council to wash the fearful filth of his denials with bitter tears.
And going out, he wept bitterly. Sitting in the courtyard of Caiaphas, he could not do penance. He goes out from the wicked council to wash the fearful filth of his denials with bitter tears.
Matthew 27:1-4
· 3 passages
When the morning was come, all the chief priests and elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death:
(Chapter 27, verses 1 onwards) Now when morning came, all the chief priests and elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death. And they bound him, and led him away, and delivered him to Pontius Pilate the governor. He was not only taken to Pilate, but also to Herod, so that both of them might mock the Lord. And see the eagerness of the priests for evil. They stayed awake all night in order to commit murder. And they handed him over bound to Pilate. For they had this custom, that whoever they had condemned to death, they would hand over to the judge bound. Then seeing Judas, who had betrayed Him, that He was condemned, being moved by repentance, he returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, saying: I have sinned in betraying innocent blood. He cast away the weight of impiety from the greatness of his greed. Seeing that the Lord was condemned to death, Judas returned the price to the priests, as if he had the power to change the sentence of those who persecuted. Therefore, although he changed his will, he did not change the outcome of h…
(Chapter 27, verses 1 onwards) Now when morning came, all the chief priests and elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death. And they bound him, and led him away, and delivered him to Pontius Pilate the governor. He was not only taken to Pilate, but also to Herod, so that both of them might mock the Lord. And see the eagerness of the priests for evil. They stayed awake all night in order to commit murder. And they handed him over bound to Pilate. For they had this custom, that whoever they had condemned to death, they would hand over to the judge bound.
Then seeing Judas, who had betrayed Him, that He was condemned, being moved by repentance, he returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, saying: I have sinned in betraying innocent blood. He cast away the weight of impiety from the greatness of his greed. Seeing that the Lord was condemned to death, Judas returned the price to the priests, as if he had the power to change the sentence of those who persecuted. Therefore, although he changed his will, he did not change the outcome of his first intention. But if he who handed over the innocent blood sinned, how much more did the Jews sin, who bought the innocent blood, and by offering a price, provoked the betrayal of the disciple? Let those who attempt to introduce different natures and say that Judas, the traitor, had an evil nature, and could not be saved by election, answer how an evil nature could have repented.
Then seeing Judas, who had betrayed Him, that He was condemned, being moved by repentance, he returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, saying: I have sinned in betraying innocent blood. He cast away the weight of impiety from the greatness of his greed. Seeing that the Lord was condemned to death, Judas returned the price to the priests, as if he had the power to change the sentence of those who persecuted. Therefore, although he changed his will, he did not change the outcome of his first intention. But if he who handed over the innocent blood sinned, how much more did the Jews sin, who bought the innocent blood, and by offering a price, provoked the betrayal of the disciple? Let those who attempt to introduce different natures and say that Judas, the traitor, had an evil nature, and could not be saved by election, answer how an evil nature could have repented.
The Lord was led not only to Pilate but also to Herod so that he could be mocked by both. Notice the solicitude with which the priests carried out their evil doing; they remained vigilant throughout the night in preparation for committing murder. “And they delivered him bound to Pilate.” It was their customary practice to bind a man who had been condemned to death and to hand him over to his judge.
Observe the evil zeal of the Chief Priests; they watched the whole night with a view to this murder. And they gave Him up to Pilate bound, for such was their practice to send bound to the judge any whom they had sentenced to death.
Judas, when he saw that the Lord was condemned to death, returned the money to the Priests, as though it had been in his power to change the minds of His persecutors.
Judas, when he saw that the Lord was condemned to death, returned the money to the Priests, as though it had been in his power to change the minds of His persecutors.
Matthew 27:3-5
Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders,
It profits nothing to do an act of penance which is incapable of correcting the sin. If a man sins against his brother in such a way that the wrong he committed can be amended, it is possible for him to be forgiven. If the consequences of his sin remain in force, however, in vain does he attempt to do penance. The psalmist applies this truth to our most miserable Judas when he says, “Let his prayer be counted as sin.” Not only was Judas unable to repair the damage of his sinful betrayal, but he even continued to compound the evil of that initial crime by committing suicide. Of such things the apostle speaks in his second epistle to the Corinthians: “Let not a brother be overwhelmed by greater sorrow.”