Lecture 4 — Peter denies Christ

^18:22^ And when he had said these things, one of the servants standing by, gave Jesus a blow, saying: do you answer the high priest so? [n. 2318]

^18:23^ Jesus answered him: if I have spoken evil, give testimony of the evil; but if well, why do you strike me? [n. 2320]

^18:24^ And Annas sent him bound to Caiphas the high priest. [n. 2323]

^18:25^ And Simon Peter was standing, and warming himself. They said therefore to him: are not you also one of his disciples? He denied it, and said: I am not. [n. 2324]

^18:26^ One of the servants of the high priest (a kinsman of him whose ear Peter had cut off) said to him: did I not see you in the garden with him? [n. 2326]

^18:27^ Again therefore Peter denied it; and immediately the cock crowed. [n. 2326]

2317. After telling us of our Lord’s answer, the Evangelist now shows how it was rebuked:

first, we see the rebuke given by an officer;

second, our Lord’s defense of his answer: Jesus answered him: if I have spoken evil, give testimony of the evil; but if well, why do you strike me?

2318. An officer reproached our Lord’s answer, first of all, by an action. He delivered a reproving blow; for the Evangelist says, when he, that is, Jesus, had said these things, one of the servants of the high priest, standing by, gave Jesus a blow. This did not happen by chance; it had been predicted long before and many times: I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to those who pulled out the beard (Isa 50:6); let him give his cheek to the smiter, and be filled with insults (Lam 3:30); with a rod they strike upon the cheek the ruler of Israel (Mic 5:1).

Second, the officer reproached Christ with words, saying, do you answer the high priest so? We can see from this that Annas was a high priest, and that Jesus had not yet been sent to Caiphas. This is why Luke mentions two high priests: in the high-priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas (Luke 3:2). Two high priests are mentioned because they alternated as high priests, but that year Annas was the high priest.

2319. Earlier, when the testimony of those who had heard Jesus was being sought, and the chief priests had sent their officers to arrest him (John 7:32), they themselves were captivated by the words of Jesus and returned saying, never has a man spoken like this man (John 7:46). The officer who now struck Christ was incited to do so in order to show that he had not been one of those in the prior group. He thought that Christ had shown a lack of respect because in saying, why do you ask me? Ask those who have heard what I have spoken (John 18:21), he seemed to be finding fault with the high priest for asking a thoughtless question, and it is written: you will not speak evil of a ruler of your people (Exod 23:28).

2320. Jesus justified himself, saying, if I have spoken evil in my answer to the high priest, give testimony of the evil. That is, if you have reason to reproach me for what I have just said, show that I have spoken badly, because only on the evidence of two witnesses, or of three witnesses, will a charge be sustained (Deut 19:18). But if well, if you cannot show I have spoken badly, why do you strike me? Why flare up against me?

Or, this reply of Christ could be referred to what he had said before this time: ask those who have heard me, what I have spoken to them (John 18:21). Then the meaning is: if I have spoken evil in the synagogue and in the temple, which I should not have done, then give testimony of the evil; report what I have said to the high priest. But the officer was unable to do this. But if well that is, taught rightly, why do you strike me? In other words, this is unjust: is evil a recompense for good? Yet they have dug a pit for my life (Jer 18:20).

2321. A difficulty arises here for in Matthew our Lord commanded his disciples, if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also (Matt 5:39). And we also read about Christ that Jesus began to do and teach (Acts 1:1). So, Christ ought to have done himself what he had taught others to do. But he did not do this. Indeed, he did the contrary and defended himself.

I say to this, with Augustine, that the statements and commands found in Sacred Scripture can be interpreted and understood from the actions of the saints, since it is the same Holy Spirit who inspired the prophets and the other sacred authors and who inspires the actions of the saints. As we read: moved by the Holy Spirit, holy men of God spoke (2 Pet 1:21); and for all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God (Rom 8:14). Thus, Sacred Scripture should be understood according to the way Christ and other holy persons followed it. Now, Christ did not turn his other cheek here; and Paul did not do so either (Acts 16:22). Accordingly, we should not think that Christ has commanded us to actually turn our physical cheek to one who has struck the other. We should understand it to mean that we should be ready to do this if it turned out to be necessary to do so. That is, our attitude should be such that we would not be inwardly stirred up against the one striking us but be ready or disposed to endure the same or even more. This is how our Lord observed it, for he offered his body to be killed. So, our Lord’s defense is useful for our instruction.

2322. Now there is mention that he was sent from one high priest to the other.

First, it is mentioned that Jesus was sent to the other high priest;

second, the narration of Peter’s denial is completed, at and Simon Peter was standing, and warming himself.

2323. He says, Annas sent him bound to Caiphas the high priest, to whom he was originally being led. We saw before why he had been first brought to Annas. Note the wickedness of Annas; although he ought to have released Christ, since he was without fault, he yet sent him tied to Caiphas.

2324. Now the second and third denials of Peter are presented:

first, the circumstances of the denials;

second, the two denial: **they said therefore to him: are not you also one of his disciples? **

and third, the fulfillment of Christ’s prediction: and immediately the cock crowed.

2325. The circumstance of Peter’s second denial was his staying with the officers of the high priest who were standing near the fire. Chrysostom says that although Christ was on his way to Caiphas, Peter still remained with the officers. Peter had become so preoccupied with his sin after his denial that he, who before was so ardent, now seemed not to care what happened to Christ: no man repents of his wickedness, saying: what have I done? (Jer 8:6) For Chrysostom, although Christ had already left, Simon Peter was, still, standing and warming himself, unmindful of the saying: blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked (Ps 1:1).

But this interpretation is not acceptable because it would follow that Peter’s second and third denials were made in the absence of Christ. This is contrary to Luke, who says that after the third denial of Peter, our Lord turned and looked at him (Luke 22:61).

For this reason Augustine explains it another way and says that the Evangelist is giving a general view in his own way to show the connection and order of the denials. The Evangelist had said above that the servants and ministers stood at a fire of coals, because it was cold, and warmed themselves. And **Peter also was with them, standing and warming himself **(John 18:18). The Evangelist then interposes the examination of Christ by the high priest, and immediately returns to continue the series of Peter’s denials, using about the same words, saying, and Simon Peter was standing and warming himself, that is, referring to the time before Christ was sent to Caiphas.

2326. Then the Evangelist mentions the next two denials of Peter: **and Simon Peter was standing, and warming himself. They said therefore to him: are you also one of his disciples? **Two things are stated about each, the circumstance of the denial, that is, the question, and the denial itself.

There are two questions about the literal meaning. When Matthew speaks of the second denial, he says, and when he went out to the porch, another maid saw him, and she said to the bystanders: this man was with Jesus of Nazareth. And again he denied it with an oath (Matt 26:7–12). There seems to be two disagreements here. John says that Peter denied Christ by the fire: and Simon Peter was standing, and warming himself. They said therefore to him: are not you also one of his disciples? And Matthew says this happened as Peter was going out to the porch.

Again, in Matthew, Peter is questioned by another maid, but John has him questioned by others, that is, a number of others, for he says that they said therefore to him: are not you also one of his disciples? (John 18:25). Luke also says that Christ was questioned by one person, and after an interval of about an hour still another insisted, saying: certainly this man also was with him (Luke 22:59).

I say to these points that after Peter first denied Christ, he got up and as he was going out the door another maid questioned him. Or, this maid told others that Peter was one of them, as Matthew says (Matt 26:71). Thus Peter denied Christ a second time. After this, Peter returned so as to avoid seeming to be a follower of Christ and sat with the others. As he was sitting there, bystanders, who had heard it from the maid, questioned him again (Matt 26:73). Or, one of the servants asked first, as John has it here, and then other bystanders joined in. This was Peter’s third denial.

About this third denial, John says, one of the servants of the high priest, (a kinsman of the man whose ear Peter had cut off). This person testified to what he had seen, **did I not see you in the garden with him? **And so after an interval of an hour again therefore, Peter denied it, the third time.

It is not important if other Evangelists say that the third question was asked by several persons, while John has it asked by one. For it is possible that this man, being more certain, asked first, and that incited the others to ask also. Those who were standing about said many things about this matter, and one Evangelist speaks of one of these, and another of something else. This happened because their main intention was not to note these details, but to show the statement Peter made and to show that what our Lord had said to Peter came true. Accordingly, all agree on what Peter said: what the Lord speaks, that will I speak (Num 24:13).

2327. Now he mentions the sign given by Christ which Peter recalled. And immediately the cock crowed, moved by God’s power, so that the prediction of the physician would be fulfilled, and to demonstrate the presumption of the one who was sick.