John 18

John 18:1

Alcuin of York ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): Over the brook Cedron, i. e. of cedars. It is the genitive in the Greek. He goes over the brook, i. e. drinks of the brook of His Passion. Where there was a garden, that the sin which was committed in a garden, He might blot out in a garden. Paradise signifies garden of delights. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Apostolic Constitutions: And when he had delivered to us the representative mysteries of his precious body and blood, Judas not being present with us, he went out to the Mount of Olives, near the brook Kidron, where there was a garden. — CONSTITUTIONS OF THE HOLY APOSTLES 5.3.14

Augustine of Hippo: Matthew proceeds with his narrative … as follows: “Then Jesus came with them to a place called Gethsemane.” This is mentioned also by Mark. Luke, too, refers to it, although he does not mention the piece of ground by name.… There, we understand, was also the garden that John brings into notice when he gives his narrative. — HARMONY OF THE GOSPELS 3.4.10

Augustine of Hippo ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Tr. cxii) The discourse, which our Lord had with His disciples after supper, and the prayer which followed, being now ended, the Evangelist begins the account of His Passion. When Jesus had spoken these words, He came forth with His disciples over the brook Cedron, where was a garden, into which He entered, and His disciples. But this did not take place immediately after the prayer was ended; there was an interval containing some things, which John omits, but which are mentioned by the other Evangelists.

(de Con. Ev. iii. c. 3.) A contention took place between them, which of them was the greater, as Luke relates. He also said to Peter, as Luke adds in the same place, Behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he might sift you as wheat, &c. (Luke 22:31) And according to Matthew and Mark, they sang a hymn, and then went to Mount Olivet. (Mat. 26:30. Mark 14:26) Matthew lastly brings the two narratives together: Then went Jesus with His disciples to a place which is called Gethsemane. That is the place which John mentions here, Where there was a garden, into the which He entered, and His disciples.

(Tr. cxii) When Jesus had spoken these words, shows that He did not enter before He had finished speaking. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Augustine of Hippo: When the grand and lengthened discourse was concluded which the Lord delivered after supper, and on the eve of shedding His blood for us, to the disciples who were then with Him, and had added the prayer addressed to His Father, the evangelist John began thereafter the narrative of His passion in these words: “When Jesus had so spoken, He went forth with His disciples over the brook Cedron, where was a garden, into the which He entered, and His disciples. And Judas also, who betrayed Him, knew the place; for Jesus oft-times resorted thither with His disciples.” What he here relates of the Lord entering the garden with His disciples did not take place immediately after He had brought the prayer to a close, of which he says, “When Jesus had spoken these words:” but certain other incidents were interposed, which are passed over by the present evangelist and found in the others; just as in this one are found many things on which the others are similarly silent in their own narratives.

Let us, therefore, not take His words, “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,” as if it were immediately after the utterance of these words that He entered the garden; but let the clause, “When Jesus had spoken these words,” bear this meaning, that we are not to suppose Him entering the garden before He had brought these words to a close. — Tractates on John 112

Cyril of Alexandria: The place was a garden, typifying the paradise of old. For in this place, as it were, all places were recapitulated and our return to humanity’s ancient condition was consummated. For the troubles of humanity began in paradise, while Christ’s suffering, which brought us deliverance from all the evil that happened to us in times past, began in [this] garden. — COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF John 11.12

John Chrysostom ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Hom. lxxxiii) But why does not John say, When He had prayed, He entered? Because His prayer was a speaking for His disciples’ sake. It is now night time; He goes and crosses the brook, and hastens to the place which was known to the traitor; thus giving no trouble to those who were lying in wait for Him, and showing His disciples that He went voluntarily to die.

(Hom. lxxxii) That it might not be thought that He went into a garden to hide Himself, it is added, But Judas who betrayed Him knew the place: for Jesus often resorted thither with His disciples.

(Hom. lxxxiii) Jesus had often met and talked alone with His disciples there, on essential doctrines, such as it was lawful for others to hear. He does this on mountains, and in gardens, to be out of reach of noise and tumult. Judas however went there, because Christ had often passed the night there in the open air. He would have gone to His house, if he had thought he should find Him sleeping there. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

John Chrysostom: An awful thing is death, and very full of terror, but not to those who have learnt the true wisdom which is above. For he that knows nothing certain concerning things to come, but deems it to be a certain dissolution and end of life, with reason shudders and is afraid, as though he were passing into non-existence. But we who, by the grace of God, have learnt the hidden and secret things of His wisdom, and deem the action to be a departure to another place, should have no reason to tremble, but rather to rejoice and be glad, that leaving this perishable life we go to one far better and brighter, and which hath no end. Which Christ teaching by His actions, goeth to His Passion, not by constraint and necessity, but willingly. “These things,” it saith, “Jesus spake, and departed beyond the brook Cedron, where was a garden, into the which He entered, and His disciples.”

He journeyeth at midnight, and crosseth a river, and hasteth to come to a place known to the traitor, lessening the labor to those who plotted against Him, and freeing them from all trouble; and showeth to the disciples that He came willingly to the action, (a thing which was most of all sufficient to comfort them,) and placeth Himself in the garden as in a prison. — Homily on the Gospel of John 83

John Chrysostom: But how came Judas there, or whence had he gained his information when he came? It is evident from this circumstance, that Jesus generally passed the night out of doors. For had He been in the habit of spending it at home, Judas would not have come to the desert, but to the house, expecting there to find Him asleep. And lest, hearing of a “garden,” thou shouldest think that Jesus hid Himself, it addeth, that “Judas knew the place”; and not simply so, but that He “often resorted thither with His disciples.” For ofttimes He was with them apart, conversing on necessary matters, and such as it was not permitted to others to hear. And He did this especially in mountains and gardens, seeking a place free from disturbance, that their attention might not be distracted from listening. — Homily on the Gospel of John 83

John 18:2

Augustine of Hippo ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Tr. cxii) There the wolf in sheep’s clothing, permitted by the deep counsel of the Master of the flock to go among the sheep, learned in what way to disperse the flock, and ensnare the Shepherd. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Augustine of Hippo: “Judas also,” he says, “who betrayed Him, knew the place; for Jesus oft-times resorted thither with His disciples.” There, accordingly, the wolf, clad in a sheep’s skin, and tolerated among the sheep by the profound counsel of the Father of the family, learned where he might opportunely scatter the slender flock, and lay his coveted snares for the Shepherd. — Tractates on John 112

Theophylact of Ohrid ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): Judas knew that at the feast time our Lord was wont to teach His disciples high and mysterious doctrines, and that He taught in places like this. And as it was then a solemn season, he thought He would be found there, teaching His disciples things relating to the feast. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

John 18:3

Augustine of Hippo ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Tr. cxii) It was a band not of Jews, but of soldiers, granted, we must understand, by the Governor, with legal authority to take the criminal, as He was considered, and crush any opposition that might be made. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Augustine of Hippo: “Judas then,” he adds, “having received a cohort, and officers from the chief men and the Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns, and torches, and weapons.” It was a cohort, not of Jews, but of soldiers. We are therefore to understand it as having been received from the governor, as if for the purpose of securing the person of a criminal, and by preserving the forms of legal power, to deter any from venturing to resist his captors: although at the same time so great a band had been assembled, and came armed in such a way as either to terrify or even attack any one who should dare to make a stand in Christ’s defense. For only in so far was His power concealed and prominence given to His weakness, that these very measures were deemed necessary by His enemies to be taken against Him, for whose hurt nothing would have sufficed but what was pleasing to Himself; in His own goodness making a good use of the wicked, and doing what was good in regard to the wicked, that He might transform the evil into the good, and distinguish between the good and the evil. — Tractates on John 112

Cyril of Alexandria: Judas then, having received the band of soldiers and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither, with lanterns, and torches, and weapons.

Very appropriately, then, the inspired Evangelist says that Jesus was in the garden, when no number of men, nor any crowd, were congregating together, or contemplated coming to His succour; and that He was alone with His disciples, that He might display, in all its nakedness, the great folly of the thoughts the traitor harboured in his heart. For our conscience is very apt to create alarms in us, and torment us with the pangs of cowardice, whenever we are bent on any unholy deed. Such, I think, was the state of the traitor’s mind, when he brought in his train the cohort, armed with weapons of war, together with the officers of the Jews, as though to capture a notorious malefactor. For in all likelihood he knew that he could never take Him, unless He chose to suffer, and encountered death by His own Will. But he had his understanding perverted by his unholy enterprise, and was, as it were, intoxicated by his own excessive audacity; and so he did not see whither he was tending, nor perceive that he was attempting what it was beyond his power to perform. For he thought, that by the multitude of his followers, and by the hand of man, he could prevail over the Divine power of Christ. And be not amazed that the miserable man should be afflicted with such madness, and be convicted of conceiving so ridiculous an idea. For when he gave up the rudder of his mind into another’s hand, and sold to the devil the power over his desires, he was wholly possessed by his madness; for the devil leapt upon him once for all, and nestled in his bosom like a poisonous snake. Surely, one may well wonder at the traitor’s fall, and find in it cause for ceaseless weeping. He that had just been supping with Christ, and shared His food, and partaken at the Holy Table, and, equally with the rest, had had the benefit of His words exhorting unto righteousness, and had heard Him declare plainly that one of you shall betray Me, so to say, leapt up from his seat at that very Table, and straightway, after reclining with Him at the Board, hurried off to the Jews to earn the reward of his treachery. He gave no thought to Christ’s inspiring words, entertained not the desire of future glory, and paid no heed to the honour given unto him; in short, preferred before the perfect blessedness, which has no end, a mean and paltry sum of money, and proved himself the net and snare wherewith the devil entrapped Christ, the prime mover and fellow-worker with the Jews in their iniquity against God.

The following thought, too, moves my scorn in no small degree. The crowd that attended the traitor, when they made their attack upon Christ, carried lanterns and torches. They would seem to have guarded against stumbling in the dark, and falling into pitfalls unawares, for such accidents often happen in darkness. But, alas for their blindness! The miserable men, in their gross ignorance, did not perceive that they were stumbling on the stone concerning which God the Father says: Behold, I lay in Sion a Stone of stumbling and a Rock of offence. They who were on occasion seized with fear of a small pitfall, saw not that they were rushing into the depths of the abyss, and the very bowels of the earth; and they, who were suspicious of the twilight of evening, took no account of perpetual and endless night. For they who impiously plotted against the Light of God, that is, Christ, were doomed to walk in darkness and the dead of night, as the prophet says; and not only so, but also to vanish away into outer darkness, there to give an account of their impiety against Christ, and to be consigned to bitter and endless punishment. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 11

Cyril of Alexandria: The crowd that attended the traitor, when they made their attack upon Christ, carried lanterns and torches. They would seem to have guarded against stumbling in the dark, and falling into pitfalls unawares, for such accidents often happen in darkness. But, alas for their blindness! The miserable men, in their gross ignorance, did not perceive that they were stumbling on the stone concerning which God the Father says: Behold, I lay in Sion a Stone of stumbling and a Rock of offence. They who were on occasion seized with fear of a small pitfall, saw not that they were rushing into the depths of the abyss, and the very bowels of the earth; and they, who were suspicious of the twilight of evening, took no account of perpetual and endless night. For they who impiously plotted against the Light of God, that is, Christ, were doomed to walk in darkness and the dead of night, as the prophet says; and not only so, but also to vanish away into outer darkness, there to give an account of their impiety against Christ, and to be consigned to bitter and endless punishment. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 11

Cyril of Jerusalem: Take the cross first, therefore, as an indestructible foundation, and build on it the other articles of the faith. Do not deny the crucified. For if you deny him, you have many to arraign you. Judas the traitor will arraign you first. For he who betrayed him knows that Jesus was condemned to death by the chief priests and elders. The thirty pieces of silver bear witness. Gethsemane bears witness, where the betrayal occurred. I am not even speaking yet of the Mount of Olives on which they were with him at night, praying. The moon in the night bears witness; the day bears witness, and the sun, which was darkened. For it endured not to look on the crime of the conspirators. The fire will arraign you by which Peter stood and warmed himself. If you deny the cross, the eternal fire awaits you. I speak harsh words so that you may not experience harsh pains. Remember the swords that came against him in Gethsemane so that you do not feel the eternal sword. — Catechetical Lecture 13:38

Glossa Ordinaria ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Nihil tale in G.) The Evangelist had shown how Judas had found out the place where Christ was, now he relates how he went there. Judas then, having received a band of men and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

John Chrysostom ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Hom. lxxxiii) But how could they persuade the band? By hiring them; for being soldiers, they were ready to do any thing for money. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

John Chrysostom: And these men had often at other times sent to seize Him, but had not been able; whence it is plain, that at this time He voluntarily surrendered Himself. And how did they persuade the band? They were soldiers, who had made it their practice to do anything for money. — Homily on the Gospel of John 83

Theophylact of Ohrid ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): Judas knew that at the feast time our Lord was wont to teach His disciples high and mysterious doctrines, and that He taught in places like this. And as it was then a solemn season, he thought He would be found there, teaching His disciples things relating to the feast.

They carry torches and lanterns, to guard against Christ escaping in the dark. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

John 18:4

Cyril of Alexandria: During the night the traitor appeared, bringing with him the servants of the Jews together with the band of soldiers. For, as we said just now, he thought that he would take Him even against His will, trusting in the number of his followers, and believing that he would find Him lingering in the spot whither He was wont to resort, and that day had not yet dawned to allow of His going forth elsewhere, but that night would be still detaining the Lord in the place of His lying down. Christ, then, in order to show that Judas, in holding either view, had been regarding Him as a mere Man, and that his plans were vain, anticipates their attack and goes out readily to meet them; showing thereby that He well knew what Judas presumed to attempt, and that, though it were easy for Him, through His foreknowledge, to escape unawares, He went of His own Will to meet His sufferings, and was not, by the malice of any man, involved in peril; to the intent that the scorn of philosophers among the Greeks might not be moved thereby, who, in their levity, make the Cross a stumblingblock and a charge against Him, and that Judas, the murderer of his Lord, might not be highly exalted against Christ, thinking that he had prevailed over Him against His Will. He inquires of those who come to capture Him, Whom they have come in search of, not because He did not know (for how could that be?), but that He might thereby prove, that those who were for that very reason come, and were gazing upon Him, were not able so much as to recognise Him of Whom they were in search, and so confirm us in the true conviction that He would never have been taken, if He had not of His own Will gone to those who sought Him. For observe, that when He openly asks, Whom seek ye? they did not at once rejoin, We are here to take Thee Who thus speakest; but they reply, as though He were not yet present or before their eyes, and say, Jesus of Nazareth. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 11

Cyril of Alexandria: Jesus inquires of those who come to capture him. He asks them whom they have come in search of, not because he did not know (for how could that be?) but that he might prove that those who had come to capture him and were gazing on him were not even able to recognize the very person they were searching for, and thus confirming in us the true conviction that he would never have been taken if he had not of his own will gone to those who sought him. For observe, when he openly asks, “Whom do you seek?” they did not at once reply, “We are here to take you who have just spoken.” But rather, they reply, as though he was not present or before their very eyes, saying, “Jesus of Nazareth.” — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 11

John Chrysostom ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Hom. lxxxiii) They had often sent elsewhere to take Him, but had not been able. Whence it is evident that He gave Himself up voluntarily; as it follows, Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon Him, went forth, and said unto them, Whom seek ye? — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

John Chrysostom: But wherefore doth He say this? Because often when seized by them He had gone out through the midst, without their knowing it. Nevertheless, then also this would have been done, if it had not been His own will that He should be taken. It was at least with a view to teach them this, that He then blinded their eyes, and Himself asked, “Whom seek ye?” And they knew Him not, though being with lanterns and torches, and having Judas with them. Afterwards, as they had said, “Jesus;” He saith, “I am He” whom ye seek. — Homily on the Gospel of Matthew 83

John Chrysostom: “Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon Him, went forth, and said, Whom seek ye?” That is, He did not wait to learn this from their coming, but spake and acted without confusion, as knowing all these things. “But why come they with weapons, when about to seize Him?” They feared His followers, and for this reason they came upon Him late at night. — Homily on the Gospel of John 83

Theophylact of Ohrid ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): He asks not because He needed to know, for He knew all things that should come upon Him; but because He wished to show, that though present, they could not see or distinguish Him: Jesus saith unto them, I am He. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

John 18:5

Cyril of Alexandria: But perhaps some may reply: The Roman soldier perhaps knew not Jesus, and the servants of the Jews shared their ignorance. We answer that any such suggestion is groundless. For how could they who were selected to the priesthood fail to know Him, Who was in their power continually when He was teaching daily in the temple, as our Saviour Himself says? But that no one should trust in arguments of this sort, and miss apprehending the truth, the inspired Evangelist, foreseeing this, is impelled to add, that with the soldiers and the servants was standing Judas also, which betrayed Him. Then how could the traitor fail to recognise the Lord? You may answer that it was night, and dark, and therefore not easy to see Him of Whom they were in search. How worthy our admiration is the writer of the book, in that not even so small a point as this has escaped his notice! For he has said that, when they came into the garden, they had lanterns and torches in their hands. A solution, therefore, is found to this curious inquiry, and the Divine dignity of Christ is seen, Who brought Himself to those who were seeking Him, though they could no longer of themselves recognise Him. In order to prove that they were so blinded as not to be able to recognise Him, He says plainly, I am He. And that He might show the fruitlessness of numbers, and the utter incapacity of all human power to affect anything against the ineffable power of God, by merely addressing them in mild and courteous language He bows down to the earth the multitude of those who sought Him, that they might be taught how powerless to endure His threatenings is the nature of created beings, unable as it is to bear one word of God, and that spoken in kindness; according to the word of the Psalmist: Terrible art Thou, and who shall withstand Thy wrath? That which happened to a portion, and befell those who came to take Him, is, as it were, symbolical of the humbling of the entire race; yea, the prophet Jeremiah laments for the Jews, saying: The house of Israel is fallen: there is none to raise it up. That which here happened is a type of what inevitably comes to pass in a similar case; for it teaches us, that he is altogether doomed to fall who practises iniquity against Christ. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 11

John Chrysostom ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Hom. lxxxiii) He Himself had blinded their eyes. For that darkness was not the reason is clear, because the Evangelist says that they had lanterns. Though they had not lanterns, however, they should at least have recognised Him by His voice. And if they did not know Him, yet how was it that Judas, who had been with Him constantly also, did not know Him? And Judas also which betrayed Him stood with them. Jesus did all this to show that they could not have taken Him, or even seen Him when He was in the midst of them, had He not permitted it. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

John Chrysostom: Seest thou His invincible power, how being in the midst of them He disabled their eyes? for that the darkness was not the cause of their not knowing Him, the Evangelist hath shown, by saying, that they had torches also. And even had there been no torches, they ought at least to have known Him by His voice; or if they did not know it, how could Judas be ignorant, who had been so continually with Him? for he too stood with them, and knew Him no more than they, but with them fell backward. And Jesus did this to show, that not only they could not seize Him, but could not even see Him when in the midst, unless He gave permission. — Homily on the Gospel of John 83

Quodvultdeus: They come with their torches, lanterns and weapons. The many seek the one, and the sons of darkness come, bearing in their hands light, through which they would reveal the true Light to others, the true Light that they themselves, blinded, were not able to hold in their heart.… Behold, the true Light, who lies hidden here under the cloud of flesh, looks at the darkness, and it fell to the ground.… In order that the Light might accomplish what it came for, however, the darkness gets back up. He gives [the darkness] power over himself. Darkness seizes the Light, not to follow but to kill it. The Light permits himself to be seized by darkness, to be led away, to be hung, to be killed, in order that, stripped of the cloud of flesh, he might restore the splendor of his majesty. — THIRD HOMILY ON THE CREED 5.14-17

John 18:6

Augustine of Hippo ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Tr. cxiii) As soon then as He said unto them, I am He, they went backtward. Where now is the band of soldiers, where the terror and defence of arms? Without a blow, one word struck, drove back, prostrated a crowd fierce with hatred, terrible with arms. For God was hid in the flesh, and the eternal day was so obscured by His human body, that He was sought for with lanterns and torches, to be slain in the darkness. What shall He do when He cometh to judge, Who did thus when He was going to be judged? And now even at the present time Christ saith by the Gospel, I am He, and an Antichrist is expected by the Jews: to the end that they may go backward, and fall to the ground; because that forsaking heavenly, they desire earthly things.

(Tr. cxii) They had heard at the first, I am He, but had not understood it; because He who could do whatever He would, willed not that they should. But had He never permitted Himself to be taken by them, they would not have done indeed what they came to do; but neither would He what He came to do. So now having shown His power to them when they wished to take Him and could not, He lets them seize Him, that they might be unconscious agents of His will; If ye seek Me, let these go their way. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Augustine of Hippo: “Jesus, therefore,” as the evangelist proceeds to say, “knowing all things that should come upon Him, went forth and saith unto them, Whom seek ye? They answered Him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am [He]. And Judas also, who 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.” Where now were the military cohort, and the servants of the chief men and the Pharisees? where the terror and protection of weapons? His own single voice uttering the words, “I am [He],” without any weapon, smote, repelled, prostrated that great crowd, with all the ferocity of their hatred and terror of their arms. For God lay hid in that human flesh; and eternal day was so obscured in those human limbs, that with lanterns and torches He was sought for to be slain by the darkness. “I am [He],” He says; and He casteth the wicked to the ground. What will He do when He cometh as judge, who did this when giving Himself up to be judged? What will be His power when He cometh to reign, who had this power when He came to die? And now everywhere through the gospel Christ is still saying, “I am [He];” and the Jews are looking for antichrist, that they may go backward and fall to the ground, as those who have abandoned what is heavenly, and are hankering after the earthly. It was for the very purpose of apprehending Jesus that His persecutors accompanied the traitor: they found the One they were seeking, for they heard, “I am [He].” Why, then, did they not seize Him, but went backward and fell, but just because so He pleased, who could do whatever He pleased? But had He never permitted them to apprehend Him, they would certainly not have done what they came to do, but no more would He be doing what He came to do. They, verily, in their mad rage, sought for Him to put Him to death; but He, too, in giving Himself to death, was seeking for us. Accordingly, having thus shown His power to those who had the will, but not the power, to hold Him; let them now hold Him that He may work His own will with those who know it not. — Tractates on John 112

Gregory the Dialogist ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Ezech. Hom. ix.) Why is this, that the Elect fall on their faces, the reprobate backward? Because every one who falls back, sees not where he falls, whereas he who falls forward, sees where he falls. The wicked when they suffer loss in invisible things, are said to fall backward, because they do not see what is behind them: but the righteous, who of their own accord cast themselves down in temporal things, in order that they may rise in spiritual, fall as it were upon their faces, when with fear and repentance they humble themselves with their eyes open. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

John 18:7

John Chrysostom ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Hom. lxxxiii) Lastly, lest any should say that He had encouraged the Jews to kill Him, in delivering Himself into their hands, He says every thing that is possible to reclaim them. But when they persisted in their malice, and showed themselves inexcusable, then He gave Himself up into their hands: Then asked He them again, Whom seek ye? And they said, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus answered, I have told you that I am He.

(Hom. lxxxiv) As if to say, Though ye seek Me, ye have nothing to do with these: lo, I give Myself up: thus even to the last hour does He show His love for His own. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

John Chrysostom: “He saith again, Whom seek ye?” What madness! His word threw them backward, yet not even so did they turn, when they had learnt that His power was so great, but again set themselves to the same attempt. When therefore He had fulfilled all that was His, then He gave Himself up. — Homily on the Gospel of John 83

John Chrysostom: See the forbearance of the Evangelist, how he doth not insult over the traitor, but relates what took place, only desiring to prove one thing, that the whole took place with His own consent. Then, lest any one should say that He Himself brought them to this, by having placed Himself into their hands, and revealed Himself to them; after having shown to them all things which should have been sufficient to repulse them, when they persevered in their wickedness, and had no excuse, He put Himself in their hands, saying, “If therefore ye seek Me, let these go their Way.”

Manifesting until the last hour His lovingkindness towards them. “If,” He saith, “ye want Me, have nothing to do with these, for, behold, I give Myself up.” — Homily on the Gospel of John 83

John 18:8

Augustine of Hippo ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Tr. cxii) He commands His enemies, and they do what He commands; they permit them to go away, whom He would not have perish. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Augustine of Hippo: “If ye seek me,” He says, “let these go their way.” He sees His enemies, and they do what He bids them: they let those go their way, whom He would not have perish. — Tractates on John 112

Cyril of Alexandria: He asks them again a second time, of set purpose, that He might show the extent of the blindness He had put in their minds. For they were robbed of their right judgment, and had their minds, as it were, deranged by their impiety, and knew not that they were speaking to Him Whom they sought. Christ, indeed, proved by His actions the truth of what He professed: I am, He says, the Good Shepherd: the good shepherd layeth down his life for the sheep. Christ, then, saves the Apostles as with a shield; and, bearing the brunt of the danger Himself, advances to those who were come to lead Him to death, sent thereunto, that is, by the high priests and Pharisees. When they answered, Jesus of Nazareth, to His question, Whom have ye come to take and bind in the bonds of death? He pointed to Himself, and, well-nigh accusing them of delay, bade them take Him away and let the rest go free; for it was necessary that One should die for all, Whose life was an equivalent for the lives of all men, that He might be Lord of both the dead and the living.

For other reasons, too, it were wholly impossible to accept the opinion of some that the deaths of the holy Apostles themselves also resulted in the overthrow of death and corruption, when they must themselves be reckoned among those who have been delivered from death and corruption; and with great reason, for their nature is one with ours, and over us death had dominion. It was necessary, then, that alone, and first of all, the Son of the living Father should give over His own Body to death as a ransom for the lives of all men, that by connection with the Life of the Word, Which was united with Itself, It might so prepare the way, that our mortal bodies might be enabled henceforth also to triumph over the bondage of death. For the Lord is the Firstfruits of them that are asleep, and the Firstborn from the dead; and so, by His own Resurrection, makes smooth for those who come after Him the way to incorruption. He therefore withdraws the disciples from the peril of the moment, as well knowing that the conflict was in special meet for Himself; and showing thereby that our redemption was the work of none other, save only that Nature Which is supreme over the universe. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 11

John 18:9

Augustine of Hippo: Will any one dare to say that God did not foreknow those to whom he would give faith? Or [would anyone dare to say] that God did not foreknow those whom he would give to his Son—those of whom he should lose none? And certainly, if he foreknew these things, he just as certainly foreknew his own kindnesses with which he condescends to deliver us. This is the predestination of the saints—nothing else. In other words, this is the foreknowledge and the preparation of God’s kindnesses whereby they are most certainly delivered—whoever they are that are delivered. — ON THE GIFT OF PERSEVERANCE 14.35

Augustine of Hippo ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Tr. cxii. 4) But were the disciples never to die? Why then would He lose them, even if they died then? Because they did not yet believe in Him in a saving way. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Augustine of Hippo: But were they not afterwards to die? How then, if they died now, should He lose them, were it not that as yet they did not believe in Him, as all believe who perish not? — Tractates on John 112

Cyril of Alexandria: The wise Evangelist turns to a clear proof of the general and universal mercy, which will be shown to all who come to Him through faith, this partial and special care here manifested to those who were with Him. For, he says, He procured that His disciples should be suffered to go their way, that the word might be fulfilled which He spake, Of those whom Thou gavest Me I lost not one. For how can there be any question that He will show mercy on them that come after the disciples? For where care is shown in small things, how can there be neglect in greater? And is it likely that He, Who showed mercy to a mere handful, will pay no heed to a multitude whom no man can number? For the multitude of believers is exceeding great. You must receive, then, the partial as a type of the universal; and you can easily perceive, by His refusal to put His disciples in any danger at all, what and how great will be His wrath against His murderers. For does He not altogether hate whatever opposes His Will? Can there be any further doubt that severe and endless punishment awaits those who do the things which are hateful to Him? — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 11

John Chrysostom ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Hom. lxxxiii) The Evangelist, to show that it was not their design to do this, but that His power did it, adds, That the saying might be fulfilled which He spoke, Of them which Thou hast given Me, have I lost none. He had said this with reference not to temporal, but to eternal death: the Evangelist however understands the word of temporal death also. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

John Chrysostom: “That the saying might be fulfilled which He spake, Of those which Thou gavest Me have I lost none.” By “loss” He doth not here mean that which is of death, but that which is eternal; though the Evangelist in the present case includes the former also. — Homily on the Gospel of John 83

John 18:10

Augustine of Hippo ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Tr. cxii) The servant’s name was Malchus; John is the only Evangelist who mentions the servant’s name; as Luke is the only one who mentions that our Lord touched the ear and healed him.

(Tr. cxii. 5) The name Malchus signifies, about to reign. What then does the ear cut off for our Lord, and healed by our Lord, denote, but the abolition of the old, and the creating of a new, hearing in the newness of the Spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter? To whomsoever this is given, who can doubt that he will reign with Christ? But he was a servant too, hath reference to that oldness, which generated to bondage: the cure figures liberty.

(Tr. cxii) Our Lord condemned Peter’s act, and forbad him proceeding further: Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath. He was to be admonished to have patience: and this was written for our learning.

(Tr. cxii) The cup being given Him by the Father, is the same with what the Apostle saith, Who spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all. (Rom. 8:32) But the Giver of this cup and the Drinker of it are the same; as the same Apostle saith, Christ loved us, and gave Himself for us. (Eph. 5:2) — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Augustine of Hippo: “Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it, and smote the high priest’s servant, and cut off his right ear. And the servant’s name was Malchus.” This is the only evangelist who has given us the very name of this servant, as Luke is the only one who tells us that the Lord touched his ear and healed him. The interpretation of Malchus is, one who is destined to reign. What, then, is signified by the ear that was cut off in the Lord’s behalf, and healed by the Lord, but the renewed hearing that has been pruned of its oldness, that it may henceforth be in the newness of the spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter? Who can doubt that he, who had such a thing done for him by Christ, was yet destined to reign with Christ? And his being found as a servant, pertains also to that oldness that gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. But when healing came, liberty also was shadowed forth. Peter’s deed, however, was disapproved of by the Lord, and He prevented Him from proceeding further by the words: “Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?” For in such a deed that disciple only sought to defend his Master, without any thought of what it was intended to signify. And he had therefore to be exhorted to the exercise of patience, and the event itself to be recorded as an exercise of understanding. But when He says that the cup of suffering was given Him by the Father, we have precisely the same truth as that which was uttered by the apostle: “If God be for us, who can be against us? He that spared not His own Son, but gave Him up for us all.” But the originator of this cup is also one with Him who drank it; and hence the same apostle likewise says, “Christ loved us, and gave Himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God of a sweet-smelling savor.” — Tractates on John 112

Cyril of Alexandria: What was it, someone may say, that induced the inspired Evangelist to make mention of this, and point out to us the disciple using a sword, contrary to his wont, against those who came to take Christ, and stirred to a |573 hotter and more precipitate fit of wrath than was meet, and Christ thereupon rebuking him? This narrative may, perhaps, seem superfluous; but it is not so. For he has here given us a pattern expressly for our learning; for we shall know, from what took place here, to what lengths our zeal in piety towards Christ may proceed without reproach, and what we may choose to do in conflicts such as this, without stumbling on something displeasing to God. For this typical instance forbids us to draw a sword, or lift up stones, against any man, or to strike our adversaries with a stick, when, through our piety towards Christ, we are in conflict with them: for our weapons are not of the flesh, as Paul saith; but we ought rather to treat even our murderers with kindness when occasion precludes our escape. For it is far better for other men to be corrected for their sins against us by Him That judgeth righteously, than that we ourselves should make excuses for our blood-guiltiness, making piety our plea. Besides, we may call it most irrational to honour by the death of our persecutors Him Who, to set men free from death, Himself cheerfully suffered death. And herein we must surely follow Christ Himself; for if He had been called to die perforce and of necessity, as unable by His own power to repel the assault of His foes, who were invincible through the number of the servants of the Jews, there might perhaps have been nothing unreasonable in those who chose to love Him succouring Him with all their might, and showing the utmost courage in order to rescue Him from the peril, into which He had been brought by the impiety of His foes, against His Will. But since, being truly God, He was able to destroy His adversaries, root and branch, and at the very outset of the conflict, so to say, had given them such a token of His might, as by a single word, and that spoken in courtesy, to lay them low on the earth, for they all fell backward; how could it be right for us, in unbridled and inordinate wrath, to wilfully and recklessly proceed to lengths that He did not, though He might have done so with the utmost ease? We find also traces of the same spirit elsewhere recorded by the holy Evangelists. For our Saviour once came to a village bordering on Judaea, to lodge there. It belonged to the Samaritans; and when He was drawing nigh unto it they roughly drove Him away. The disciples were enraged thereat, and came to Him, and said: Lord, wilt Thou that we bid fire to come down from heaven, and consume them? And the Saviour answered them: Let them alone; know ye not that I can beseech My Father, and He shall even now send Me twelve legions of angels? For He came not as God to use His own innate power against those who vented their fury upon Him; but rather to school us to patient forbearance under every affliction, and to be Himself a type of the most perfect and passionless tranquillity. Therefore also He said: Learn of Me; for I am meek and lowly in heart.

The purpose of Peter in drawing his sword against the adversaries does not trespass outside the commandment of the Law; for the Law bade us requite unreproved evildoers—-foot for foot, hand for hand, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. For with what other object did they come armed with swords and staves, equipped with armour, and banded together in numbers, than to wage such a conflict as they thought the disciples would wage in their extremity? For that they brought swords and staves, the Saviour tells us plainly, when He says elsewhere to them: Are ye come out as against a robber with swords and staves to seize Me? I sat daily in the temple teaching, and ye took Me not. The passion of Peter, therefore, was lawful, and accorded with the old enactments; but our Lord Jesus Christ, when He came to give us teaching superior to the Law, and to reform us to His meekness of heart, rebukes those passions which are in accordance with the Law, as incompatible with the perfect accomplishment of true virtue. For perfect virtue consists not in requital of like for like, but is rather seen in perfect forbearance.

Someone may now, perhaps, raise the question, and ask himself. Why did Peter carry a sword? We reply, that the duty of repelling the assaults of evil-doers, according to the Law, brought the need of a sword. For if one of the disciples had chosen to strike the innocent with a sword, how could the same issue have been tried? It is likely, too, that the holy disciples, as they were hurrying at midnight from their place of rest, and expected to find woods and gardens in their way, were suspicious of the attacks of wild beasts; for of these Judaea was very fertile. Perhaps you may rejoin: “But what need had the disciples of a sword? Was not Christ sufficient for them in time of peril; and could not He scare away wild beasts, and release them from all fear on that account?” If you say this, you say well; for Christ can do all things. But we shall find that, though Christ might have effected it otherwise, the disciples continued to live after the manner usual to men. For must we not suppose that Christ was able to turn stones into bread, and out of nothing to create money sufficient to defray their expenses? Still they fetched loaves and carried a purse, taking alms of those who brought them. And when Christ wished to cross the sea in their company, they entered into a ship, though He might have walked over the billows, if He had been so minded. It is fruitless, then, to cavil at the disciples, for following the ordinary usages of mankind.

Peter strikes off the right ear of the servant, and his action points, as in a figure, to the inability of the Jews to hear aright. For they would not hearken to Christ’s words. They rather, so to say, honoured the left ear, obeying simply the dictates of their own misguided prejudice, deceiving and being deceived, according to the Scripture; for even when walking in the Law ordained them of old, they turned to doctrines the precepts of men. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 11

Cyril of Alexandria: Peter’s violence was lawful according to the Old Testament, but our Lord Jesus Christ, when he came to give us teaching superior to the Law and to reform us to his meekness of heart, rebukes those passions that are in accordance with the Law as being incompatible with the perfect accomplishment of true virtue. For perfect virtue consists not in retaliation of like for like but is rather seen in perfect forbearance. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 11

Gregory of Nazianzus: We think it is an important matter to obtain penalties from those who have wronged us: an important matter, I say.… But it is far greater and more godlike to put up with injuries. For the former course of action curbs wickedness, but the latter makes people good, which is much better and more perfect than merely not being wicked. Let us consider that the great pursuit of mercifulness is set before us, and let us forgive the wrongs done to us that we also may obtain forgiveness, and let us by kindness lay up a store of kindness. — LETTER 77

Gregory of Nazianzus: Is Jesus suddenly arrested? He reproaches indeed, but follows. And if through zeal you cut off the ear of Malchus with the sword, he will be angry and will restore it.… And if you ask for the fire of Sodom on his captors, he will not pour it forth. And if he takes a thief hanging on the cross for his crime, he will bring him into paradise through his goodness. — AGAINST THE ARIANS AND ON HIMSELF, ORATION 33.14

John Chrysostom ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Hom. lxxxiii) Peter trusting to these last words of our Lord’s, and to what He had just done, assaults those who came to take Him: Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest’s servant. But how, commanded as he had been to have neither scrip, nor two garments, had he a sword? Perhaps he had foreseen this occasion, and provided one.

(Hom. lxxxiii. 2) But how could he, who had been forbidden ever to strike on the cheek, be a murderer? Because what he had been forbidden to do was to avenge himself, but here he was not avenging himself, but his Master. They were not however yet perfect: afterwards ye shall see Peter beaten with stripes, and bearing it humbly. And cut off his right ear: this seems to show the impetuosity of the Apostle; that he struck at the head itself.

(Hom. lxxxiii) He wrought this miracle both to teach us, that we ought to do good to those who suffer, and to manifest His power. The Evangelist gives the name, that those who then read it might have the opportunity of enquiring into the truth of the account. And he mentions that he was the servant of the high priest, because in addition to the miracle of the cure itself, this shows that it was performed upon one of those who came to take Him, and who shortly after struck Him on the face.

(Hom. lxxxiii. 2) He not only restrained Him however by threats, but consoled him also at the same time: The cup that My Father giveth Me, shall I not drink it? Whereby He shows that it was not by their power, but by His permission, that this had been done, and that He did not oppose God, but was obedient even unto death. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

John Chrysostom: And one might wonder why they did not seize them with Him, and cut them to pieces, especially when Peter had exasperated them by what he did to the servant. Who then restrained them? No other than that Power which cast them backward. And so the Evangelist, to show that it did not come to pass through their intention, but by the power and decree of Him whom they had seized, has added, “That the saying might be fulfilled which He spake,” that “not one,” etc.

Peter, therefore, taking courage from His voice, and from what had already happened, arms himself against the assailants, “And how,” saith some one, “doth he who was bidden not to have a scrip, not to have two coats, possess a sword?” Methinks he had prepared it long before, as fearing this very thing which came to pass. But if thou sayest, “How doth he, who was forbidden even to strike a blow with the hand, become a manslayer?” He certainly had been commanded not to defend himself, but here he did not defend himself, but his Master. And besides, they were not as yet perfect or complete. But if thou desirest to see Peter endued with heavenly wisdom, thou shalt after this behold him wounded, and bearing it meekly, suffering ten thousand dreadful things, and not moved to anger. — Homily on the Gospel of John 83

John Chrysostom: But Jesus here also worketh a miracle, both showing that we ought to do good to those who do evil to us, and revealing His own power. He therefore restored the servant’s ear, and said to Peter, that “All they that take the sword shall perish by the sword”; and as He did in the case of the basin, when He relaxed his vehemence by a threat, so also here. The Evangelist adds the name of the servant, because the thing done was very great, not only because He healed him, but because He healed one who had come against Him, and who shortly after would buffet Him, and because He stayed the war which was like to have been kindled from this circumstance against the disciples. For this cause the Evangelist hath put the name, so that the men of that time might search and enquire diligently whether these things had really come to pass. And not without a cause doth he mention the “right ear,” but as I think desiring to show the impetuosity of the Apostle, that he almost aimed at the head itself. Yet Jesus not only restraineth him by a threat, but also calmeth him by other words, saying, “The cup which My Father hath given Me, shall I not drink it?” Showing, that what was done proceeded not from their power, but from His consent, and declaring that He was not one opposed to God but obedient to the Father even unto death. — Homily on the Gospel of John 83

Tertullian: While Jesus was betrayed, he nonetheless did not approve of the avenging sword of even one disciple. And this is someone who, if he wanted to, had legions of angels who would at one word have presented themselves from the heavens. The patience of the Lord was wounded in [the wound of] Malchus. And so, too, he cursed for the time to come the works of the sword. And, by the restoration of health, made satisfaction to him whom himself had not hurt, through patience, the mother of mercy. — ON PATIENCE 3

Theophylact of Ohrid ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): Or, he had got one for sacrificing the lamb, and carried it away with him from the Supper.

Or, the cutting off of the high priest’s servant’s right ear is a type of the people’s deafness, of which the chief priests partook most strongly: the restoration of the ear, of ultimate reenlightenment of the understanding of the Jews, at the coming of Elias. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

John 18:11

Cyril of Alexandria: Christ’s bidding is fraught with the enactment of life according to the Gospel, and the spirit, not of the Mosaic Law revealed to the men of old time, but of the dispensation of Christ; which so dissuades us from using the sword, or offering resistance, that if a man choose to smite us on one cheek, and then to demand the other to be smitten, we ought to turn to him the other also; cutting out, as it were, by the roots the human weakness of our hearts. But, He says, in effect, even if no law had been laid down by Me concerning forbearance under evil, thy mind, Peter, has failed to reason aright, and thou hast made an attempt altogether un-suited to the occasion. For when it was the decree and pleasure of God the Father, that I should drink this cup, that is, willingly undergo, as it were, the deep sleep of death, in order to overthrow death and corruption, how then can I shrink from it, when so great blessings are certain to result to the race of man through My drinking it? The foregoing words well explain the drift of the passage before us. There is another passage also of a similar purport. Our Lord Jesus Christ, wishing to confirm the disciples in the faith, and to remove, in anticipation, the stumblingblock of His precious Cross, said once to them in His discourse, as they were halting on the way: Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of Man is betrayed unto the hands of sinners: and they shall crucify Him, and shall hill Him, and the third day He shall be raised up. And the inspired Peter, not considering the benefits of His death, but only regarding the ignominy of the Cross, said: Be it far from Thee, Lord; this shall never be unto Thee. What answered Christ? Get thee behind Me, Satan; thou art a stumblingblock unto Me: for thou mindest not the things of God, but the things of men. For he that savourest the things that be of God, makes it his end and object to set at naught worldly honours, and to account as nothing the loss of reputation among men, so long as the good of his fellow-men is achieved thereby; for love, the Apostle says, seeketh not its own. But he who is absorbed in the contemplation of the things of men, deems the loss of the paltry honours of earth intolerable, and looks only to his own advantage, and feels no sympathy with the losses of others. Just as, in that passage, Christ called Peter an offence unto Him, though he was not wont so to be, and though he spoke out of love, which yet could not escape blame, because he looked only at the death on the Cross, and not at the benefits to result therefrom; Peter tried, so far as in him lay, to prevent that which had been resolved and determined for the salvation of all men. So also here we see him doing the same, by his passion and impetuous act with his sword. He is once more rebuked, not merely by the words: Put up thy sword into its sheath; but, according to another Evangelist, Christ added: For all they that take the sword, shall perish with the sword. And, to repeat once more what we said before, seeing that His capture was effected by His own Will, and did not merely result from the malice of the Jews, how could it be right to repel or thwart, in any way, and with a sword, too, the bold attack of His combined foes and the impious conspiracy of the Jews? He says, that God the Father gave unto Him the cup, that is, death, though it was prepared for Him by the obstinate hatred of the Jews; because it would never have come to pass if He had not suffered it for our sakes. Therefore also Christ said to boasting Pilate: Thou wouldest have no power against Me, except it were given thee from above. When Christ says that power was given Pilate from above, He refers to His own willingness to suffer death, and the consent of His Father in heaven. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 11

Cyril of Alexandria: Someone may now, perhaps, raise the question and ask himself: Why did Peter carry a sword? We reply that the duty of repelling the assaults of evildoers, according to the Law, brought the need of a sword. For if one of the disciples had chosen to strike the innocent with a sword, how could the same issue have been tried? It is likely, too, that the holy disciples, as they were hurrying at midnight from their place of rest and expected to find woods and gardens in their way, were suspicious of the attacks of wild beasts. Judea had many of these. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 11

Dionysius of Alexandria: Now, to drink the cup was to discharge the ministry and the whole divine plan of trial with fortitude. It meant to follow and fulfill the Father’s determination and to surmount any apprehension. And the exclamation “Why have you forsaken me?” fits in with the requests he had previously made. In other words, Why is it that death has been with me all along up until now, but I have not yet borne the cup? This I judge to have been the Savior’s meaning in this concise utterance. — On Luke XXII. 42, Etc.

Leo the Great: It is not to be thought that the Lord Jesus wished to escape the passion and the death, the sacraments of which he had already committed to his disciples’ keeping. This is obvious, seeing that he himself forbids Peter, when he was burning with devoted faith and love, to use the sword. He says, “The cup that the Father has given me, shall I not drink it?” The Lord also most certainly says, according to John’s Gospel, “For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that everyone who believes in him may not perish but have eternal life.” Similarly, the apostle Paul says, “Christ loved us and gave himself for us, a victim to God for a sweet-smelling savor.” For the saving of all through the cross of Christ was the common will and the common plan of the Father and the Son. Nor could that by any means be disturbed that before eternal ages had been mercifully determined and unchangeably foreordained. Therefore in assuming true and entire manhood Jesus took the true sensations of the body and the true feelings of the mind. And it does not follow because everything in him was full of sacraments, full of miracles, that therefore he either shed false tears or took food from pretended hunger or feigned slumber. It was in our humility that he was despised, with our grief that he was saddened, with our pain that he was racked on the cross. For his compassion underwent the sufferings of our mortality with the purpose of healing them, and his power encountered them with the purpose of conquering them. And this Isaiah has most plainly prophesied, saying, “He carries our sins and is pained for us, and we thought him to be in pain and in stripes and in affliction. But he was wounded for our sins and was stricken for our offenses, and with his stripes we are healed.” — SERMON 58.4

Origen of Alexandria: Jesus at once speaks to him who had used the sword and cut off the servant’s right ear. He does not, however, say “withdraw your sword” but “return the sword into its place.” There is therefore some place for the sword from which it may be taken by one who does not want to perish, especially by the sword. For Jesus wants his disciples to be peaceful so that, laying aside this warlike sword, they may take another peaceful sword that Scripture calls “the sword of the Spirit.” — COMMENTARY ON Matthew 102

Peter of Alexandria: Those Christians who deliver themselves up to persecution forget that the Savior taught us to pray not to enter into temptation. They forget his many retreats from those who sought to plot against him … and how when the time of his passion was at hand he did not give himself up but waited until they came upon him with swords and spears. — CANONICAL EPISTLE 9

Theodore of Mopsuestia: The [sword] is not necessary, he says. I must suffer my passion because the Father wants this for the redemption of the whole of the human race. Therefore the words “am I not to drink the cup” must accurately be read in a declarative sense, that is, it is necessary that I drink it. — COMMENTARY ON John 7.18.11

Theophylact of Ohrid ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): In that He calls it a cup, He shows how pleasing and acceptable death for the salvation of men was to Him. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

John 18:12

Augustine of Hippo ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Tr. cxii) They took Him Whom they did not draw nigh to; nor understood that which is written in the Psalms, Draw nigh unto Him, and be ye lightened. (Ps. 34:5. accedite ad eum, Vulg.) For had they thus drawn nigh to Him, they would have taken Him, not to kill Him, but to be in their hearts. But now that they take Him in the way they do, they go backward. It follows, and bound Him, Him by Whom they ought to have wished to be loosed. And perhaps there were among them some who, afterwards delivered by Him, exclaimed, Thou hast broken My chains asunder. (Ps. 116) — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Augustine of Hippo: “Then the cohort, and the tribune, and the officers of the Jews, took Jesus, and bound Him.” They took Him to whom they had never found access: for He continued the day, while they remained as darkness; neither had they given heed to the words, “Come unto Him, and be enlightened.” For had they so approached Him, they would have taken Him, not with their hands for the purpose of murder, but with their hearts for the purpose of a welcome reception. Now, however, when they laid hold of Him in this way, their distance from Him was vastly increased: and they bound Him by whom they themselves ought rather to have been loosed. And perhaps there were those among them who then fastened their fetters on Christ, and yet were afterwards delivered by Him, and could say, “Thou hast loosed my bonds.” — Tractates on John 112

Cyril of Alexandria: Now that all obstacles had been overcome and Peter had put away his sword, and Christ had, as it were, surrendered himself to the hand of the Jews (though he did not have to die) and it was easier for him to escape, the soldiers and servants together with their guide give way to cruel rage and are transported with the ardor of victory. They took the Lord, who gave himself up wholly to their will, and put chains upon him, even though he came to us to release us from the bondage of the devil and to loose us from the chains of sin. — COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF John 11.13

John Chrysostom ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Hom. lxxxiii. 2) In exultation, to show what they had done, as if they were raising a trophy. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

John Chrysostom: “Then Jesus was taken; and they bound Him, and led Him away to Annas.” Why to Annas? In their pleasure they made a show of what had been done, as though forsooth they had set up a trophy. “And he was father-in-law to Caiaphas.” — Homily on the Gospel of John 83

Theophylact of Ohrid ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): Every thing having been done that could be to dissuade the Jews, and they refusing to take warning, He suffered Himself to be delivered into their hands: Then the band and the captain and officers of the Jews took Jesus. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

John 18:13

Augustine of Hippo ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): But after that they had bound Jesus, it then appears most clearly that Judas had betrayed Him not for a good, but a most wicked purpose: And led Him away to Annas first.

(Tr. cxiii) Why they did so, he tells us immediately after: For he was father in law to Caiaphas, which was the high priest that same year. Matthew, in order to shorten the narrative, says that He was led to Caiaphas; because He was led to Annas first, as being the father in law of Caiaphas. So that we must understand that Annas wished to act Caiaphas’s part. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Augustine of Hippo: After that His persecutors had, through the treason of Judas, taken and bound the Lord, who loved us, and gave Himself for us, and whom the Father spared not, but gave Him up for us all: that we may understand that there was no praise due to Judas for the usefulness of his treachery, but damnation for the willfulness of his wickedness: “They led Him,” as John the evangelist tells us, “to Annas first.” Nor does he withhold the reason for so doing: “For he was father-in-law to Caiaphas, who was the high priest that same year. Now Caiaphas was he,” he says, “who gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people.” And properly enough Matthew, when wishing to say the same in fewer words, tells us that He was led to Caiaphas; for He was also taken in the first place to Annas, simply because he was his father-in-law; and where we have only to understand that such was the very thing that Caiaphas wished to be done. — Tractates on John 113

Bede ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): In order that, while our Lord was condemned by his colleague, he might not be guiltless, though his crime was less. Or perhaps his house lay in the way, and they were obliged to pass by it. Or it was the design of Providence, that they who were allied in blood, should be associated in guilt. That Caiaphas however was high priest for that year sounds contrary to the law, which ordained that there be only one high priest, and made the office hereditary. But the pontificate had now been abandoned to ambitious men. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Cyril of Alexandria: They bring Jesus to Annas, who was the father-in-law of Caiaphas. From this we may conclude that he was the prime mover and planner of the iniquity against Christ. Jesus is, therefore, taken away to him first of all. — COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF John 11.13

Eusebius of Caesarea: The divine Scripture says that he completed the entire time of his teaching while Annas and Caiaphas were high priest, showing that the entire time of his teaching was included within the years of their administration. Since he began in the high priesthood of Annas and continued until the reign of Caiaphas, the entire intervening time does not amount to four years. For, since the regulations of the law of that time were already being destroyed, somehow, there was a relaxation of the rule by which the duties of the service of God were for life and by hereditary descent, and different men at different times were entrusted with the high priesthood by the Roman governors and continued in this office for no more than one year. Josephus relates that four high priests intervened in succession from Annas to Caiaphas, speaking as follows in the same text of the Antiquities: “Valerius Gratus put an end to the priesthood of Annas and appointed Ishmael the son of Phabi as high priest, and after a short time he removed this one and named as high priest Eliezer, the son of Annas the high priest. And after a year had passed he removed this one also and passed over the high priesthood to Simon, the son of Kamithus. But no more than a year passed with him in office when Josephus, known also as Caiaphas, became his successor.” So, the entire period of our Savior’s teaching is shown to be not even a complete period of four years, since four high priests from Annas to the appointment of Caiaphas fulfilled an annual service over a period of four years. The Gospel, therefore, has rightly indicated Caiaphas as the high priest of the year in which the events of the Savior’s passion were fulfilled, and from this we also can see that the time of Christ’s ministry does not disagree with the foregoing investigation. — ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY 1.10.2-7

Josephus: But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed. — Antiquities of the Jews - Book XX, Chapter 9, Section 1

John 18:14

Alcuin of York ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): Josephus relates that this Caiaphas bought the high priesthood for this year. No wonder then if a wicked high priest judged wickedly. A man who was advanced to the priesthood by avarice, would keep himself there by injustice. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Cyril of Alexandria: They sent Him bound to Caiaphas, the high priest. Now Caiaphas was he which gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people. The sacred and holy Victim, then, that is, Christ, was captured by the malice of Annas and the services of his hirelings; and, ensnared within the net, was led to him that compassed and instigated the slaughter of the innocent. This was Caiaphas, and he was adorned with the office of the priesthood. And by his questions he seems to have begun the shedding of blood, as he also is convicted of having originated the impious enterprise. He receives Jesus bound, and, as the fruit of his counsel and impious designs, the miserable man committed the most impious act that has ever been committed. For what can be more grievous than impiety against Christ? — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 11

Cyril of Alexandria: Having been captured by the malice of Annas and the services of his hirelings and ensnared within the net, Jesus was then led to the one who encompassed and instigated the slaughter of the innocent. This was Caiaphas, and he was adorned with the office of the priesthood. This miserable man committed the most impious act ever committed. For what can be worse than impiety against Christ? — COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF John 11.13

John Chrysostom ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Hom. lxxxiii) That no one however might be disturbed at the sound of the chains, the Evangelist reminds them of the prophecy that His death would be the salvation of the world: Now Caiaphas was he which gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people. Such is the overpowering force of truth, that even its enemies echo it. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

John Chrysostom: “Now Caiaphas was he which gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people.” Why doth the Evangelist again remind us of his prophecy? To show that these things were done for our salvation. And such is the exceeding force of truth, that even enemies proclaimed these things beforehand. For lest the listener, hearing of bonds, should be confounded, he reminds him of that prophecy, that the death of Jesus was the salvation of the world. — Homily on the Gospel of John 83

John 18:15

Alcuin of York ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): He followed his Master out of devotion, though afar off, on account of fear. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Augustine of Hippo: The temptation of Peter, which took place during the time that the Lord was enduring these injuries, is not placed by all Evangelists in the same order. Matthew and Mark first narrate the injuries inflicted on the Lord and then this temptation of Peter. Luke first describes Peter’s temptation, and only after this does he record the reproaches borne by the Lord. John begins with Peter’s temptation but then introduces some verses that record what the Lord had to bear, appending the statement that the Lord was sent away from Annas to Caiaphas the high priest, and then at this point he resumes and sums up what he had been relating about Peter’s temptation in the house to which Jesus was first conducted. He then gives a full account of that incident and thereafter reverts to the succession of events that happened to the Lord, telling us how Jesus was brought to Caiaphas. — HARMONY OF THE GOSPELS 3.6.21

Cyril of Alexandria: Now that disciple was known unto the high priest, and entered in with Jesus into the court of the high priest.

The Apostle shows great forethought in condescending to mention this fact, and does not scruple to enter into detail where it is profitable for us. For, as he was about to set down in order in his book what was done and said in the palace of the high priest, he was, as it were, compelled to show us how he was able to enter there with Christ; for, he says, he was known unto the high priest. He enters, therefore, without hindrance, his knowledge of the leader of the people—-for he has not thought proper to say friendship—-allowing him free entrance within the doors. In order, then, that he might convince us that he did not compile his account of what took place in the palace from information drawn from others, but that he himself saw and heard what passed, he has given us this most useful explanation of his knowledge of the high priest. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 11

Cyril of Alexandria: And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did the other disciple.

While the other disciples, it seems, were panic-stricken, and fled from the present wrath of the murderers, Peter, who was always moved thereto by more fervent passion, clings to his love for Christ, and follows Him at the peril of his life, and watches the issue of events; the other disciple accompanying him, and, with like courage, sustaining a similar resolution. This was John, the truly pious writer of this Divine work. For he calls himself that other disciple, without giving himself a definite name, fearing to seem boastful, and abhorring the appearance of being better than the rest. For the crowning achievements of virtue, if manifested by any of the righteous, yet are never blazoned forth to the world by their own mouth. For it very ill beseems a man to win praise rather out of his own mouth than the conversation of other men. In the Book of Proverbs it is written: Let another man praise thee, and not thine own mouth; a stranger, and not thine own lips. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 11

Douglas Wilson: Let’s begin with some things that we ought to know about John, but which we usually don’t. John was very likely the Lord’s first cousin on their mothers’ side. John was a son of Zebedee, and his mother’s name was Salome, which we can find out by comparing Mark 16:1 and Matt.27:56. Mark says that the third woman who went to the tomb was Salome and Matthew said it was the mother of Zebedee’s children. And then in John 19:25, it says that four women were present at the crucifixion—two Marys from Mark and Matthew, the Lord’s mother, and the Lord’s aunt. This helps make sense of how the Lord would entrust the care of His mother to John, which on this reading would be her nephew. It also helps explain the particular closeness of Jesus and John (John 21:7).

John was also from a well-to-do family with respectable connections. His father had hired servants (Mark 1:20), and Salome was one of the women who was a financial patroness of the Lord’s ministry (Luke 8:3; Mark 15:40). John was known to the high priest (John 18:15-16), and was able to get Peter into the place where the Lord was being tried.

We also know a great deal about John’s giftedness and related challenges. Jesus named him, together with his brother, a son of thunder (Mark 3:17). He was a fire-eater, and sometimes succumbed to the temptations that come with that—which would be misdirected zeal and ambition. He was one of the disciples who wanted Jesus to torch a Samaritan village (Luke 9:54), and it was Salome who made the request for James and John to sit at Christ’s left and right hand (Matt. 20:20; Mark 10:37). John was not formally trained (Acts 4:13), but was nonetheless a staggering genius. He was a tender and humble man as revealed by all his writings, but it is very plain that this was the result of the Spirit taming a lot of horsepower.

He remained in Jerusalem for a number of years—at least 14 (Gal. 2:9), but then moved to Ephesus, where he wrote his gospel (according to Irenaeus. That was the time during which he was exiled to Patmos. According to early reports, he lived until the reign of Trajan (which started in 98 A.D.) — Surveying the Text: John

John Chrysostom ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Hom. lxxxiii) That no one however might be disturbed at the sound of the chains, the Evangelist reminds them of the prophecy that His death would be the salvation of the world: Now Caiaphas was he which gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people. Such is the overpowering force of truth, that even its enemies echo it.

He omits his own name out of humility: though he is relating an act of great virtue, how that he followed when the rest fled. He puts Peter before himself, and then mentions himself, in order to show that he was inside the hall, and therefore related what took place there with more certainty than the other Evangelists could. That disciple was known unto the high priest, and went in with Jesus into the palace of the high priest. This he mentions not as a boast, but in order to diminish his own merit, in having been the only one who entered with Jesus. It is accounting for the act in another way, than merely by greatness of mind. Peter’s love took him as far as the palace, but his fear prevented him entering in: But Peter stood at the door without.

(Hom. lxxxiii) But that Peter would have entered the palace, if he had been permitted, appears by what immediately follows: Then went out that other disciple who was known to the high priest, and spake unto her who kept the doors, and brought in Peter. He did not bring him in himself, because he kept near Christ. It follows: 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. What sayest thou, O Peter? Didst thou not say before, I will lay down my life for thy sake? (Mat. 26:35) What then had happened, that thou givest way even when the damsel asks thee? It was not a soldier who asked thee, but a mean porteress. Nor said she, Art thou this Deceiver’s disciple, but, this Man’s: an expression of pity. Art not thou also, she says, because John was inside.

(Serm. de Petro et Elia.) Therefore did Divine Providence permit Peter first to fall, in order that he might be less severe to sinners from the remembrance of his own fall. Peter, the teacher and master of the whole world, sinned, and obtained pardon, that judges might thereafter have that rule to go by in dispensing pardon. For this reason I suppose the priesthood was not given to Angels; because, being without sin themselves, they would punish sinners without pity. Passible man is placed over man, in order that remembering his own weakness, he may be merciful to others. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

John Chrysostom: “And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and so did another disciple.” Who is that other disciple? It is the writer himself. “And wherefore doth he not name himself? When he lay on the bosom of Jesus, he with reason concealed his name; but now why doth he this?” For the same reason, for here too he mentions a great good deed, that when all had started away, he followed. Therefore he conceals himself, and puts Peter before him. He was obliged to mention himself, that thou mightest understand that he narrates more exactly than the rest what took place in the hall, as having been himself within. But observe how he detracts from his own praise; for, lest any one should ask, “How, when all had retreated, did this man enter in farther than Simon?” he saith, that he “was known to the high priest.” So that no one should wonder that he followed, or cry him up for his manliness. But the wonder was that matter of Peter, that being in such fear, he came even as far as the hall, when the others had retreated. — Homily on the Gospel of John 83

John Chrysostom: His coming thither was caused by love, his not entering within by distress and fear. For the Evangelist hath recorded these things, to clear a way for excusing his denial; with regard to himself, he doth not set it down as any great matter that he was known to the high priest, but since he had said that he alone with Jesus went in, lest thou shouldest suppose that the action proceeded from any exalted feelings, he puts also the cause. And that Peter would have also entered had he been permitted, he shows by the sequel; for when he went out, and bade the damsel who kept the door bring in Peter, he straightway came in. But why did he not bring him in himself? He clung to Christ, and followed Him; on this account he bade the woman bring him in. — Homily on the Gospel of John 83

John 18:16

Alcuin of York ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): He stood without, as being about to deny his Lord. He was not in Christ, who dared not confess Christ. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Cyril of Alexandria: But Peter was standing at the door without. So the other disciple, which was known unto the high priest, went out, and spake unto her that kept the door, and brought in Peter.

Peter did not lag behind from any lack of fervour of heart, but only because the vigilance of the damsel at the gate made entrance perilous for those with whom she had no previous acquaintance. And though it might not have been difficult for a man to push a woman aside, yet it might have involved a charge of unruly behaviour. The disciple, therefore, though in great distress of mind, was compelled to stay without, till the other, seeing that he was much grieved thereat, brought him in with himself by speaking to the maiden presiding at the door, and asking as a favour that his companion in jealous fervour might accompany him. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 11

Theodore of Mopsuestia: After he had showed his power through these things, our Lord surrendered voluntarily and was bound. First they took him to Annas, who was the father-in-law of Caiaphas the high priest. His disciples Simon Peter and John, who wrote this Gospel, followed him. John, who was known to the high priest, went into the courtyard without fear. Simon … stayed alone outside the gate because he lacked the courage to go in alone and knew no one on the inside. John, when he saw that Simon did not get in, went out and told the woman guarding the gate to let him in. Actually, John’s frankness allowed him to be familiar with the high priest. — COMMENTARY ON John 7.18.16

John 18:17

Cyril of Alexandria: The maid, therefore, that kept the door, saith unto Peter, Art thou also one of this Man’s disciples? He saith, I am not.

As Christ had already foretold to Peter that he would thrice deny our Saviour Christ, and that before the cock crew his faith would fail, the inspired Evangelist relates in detail where, and how, the prophecy was fulfilled. The maid, seated at the door, then, inquires of him whether he was not one of the number of the disciples of Him Who was undergoing the unjust trial. Peter denies it, and parries the question as though it were a charge, saying, “I am not;” not fearing at all to be taken, or shrinking from proclaiming the truth, but disregarding and making light of enduring any kind of evil against his will in comparison with being with Christ. His transgression, then, proceeds from love, and his denial has its root in the love of God; not indeed proceeding from any just reasoning, but, at any rate, testifying to the fervour of his desire to be with Christ. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 11

Origen of Alexandria: Peter had once almost been lost and taken away from the consecration of the apostolic number by the instigation of the devil through the mouth of the maidservant of the high priest. But when Jesus simply looked on him and turned toward him the lines of his gentle face, he immediately came to himself and, recovering his footing, wept bitterly. Peter, looked on by God in this way, recovered by weeping his place that he had lost by denying. — HOMILIES ON Leviticus 16.7.3

Romanos the Melodist: O Good Shepherd, you who have placed his Spirit among the flocks, Hurry, save your sheep, O Holy One. Forgetful of the fearful waves And transformed by the remark of the maiden, Peter said, “Christ, God, when I was sinking into the depths of the surging wave, I was deservedly frightened. And yet, when asked a simple question, In my denial, I begin to sink. But in my tears, I cry to you: ‘Hurry, save your Sheep, O Holy One.’ ” There is another kind of deep here on land —the maidservant; But at last, finding my captain, I flee for refuge to your safe harbor. O Lord, my tears I will pour out to you for your advocacy, And I will cry out to you because of this: “Hurry, save your sheep, O Holy One.” — KONTAKION ON PETER’S DENIAL 34, PROOIMION 1-3

Theophylact of Ohrid ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): Some however foolishly favour Peter, so far as to say that he denied Christ, because he did not wish to be away from Christ, and he knew, they say, that if he confessed that he was one of Christ’s disciples, he would be separated from Him, and would no longer have the liberty of following and seeing his beloved Lord; and therefore pretended to be one of the servants, that his sad countenance might not be perceived, and so exclude him: And the servants and officers stood there, who had made a fire of coals, and warmed themselves; and Peter stood with them, and warmed himself. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

John 18:18

Ambrose of Milan: Let us also consider in what state he denied. “It was cold,” he says. If we consider the temperature, it could not have been cold: but it was cold where Jesus was not recognized, where there was no one to see the light, where the consuming fire was denied. Therefore, it was cold of the mind, not of the body. In the end, Peter was standing by the coals, because he was chilled by emotion. The Jewish flame is wicked: it burns, not warms. It is an evil hearth, which sprinkles a certain soot of error even on the minds of the saints, by which Peter’s inner eyes were also darkened. — Exposition on the Gospel of Luke 10.76

Augustine of Hippo ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Tr. cxiii) It was not winter, and yet it was cold, as it often is at the vernal equinox. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Augustine of Hippo: “And the servants and officers stood beside the fire of burning coals, for it was cold, and warmed themselves.” Though it was not winter, it was cold: which is sometimes wont to be the case even at the vernal equinox. “And Peter was standing with them, and warming himself.” — Tractates on John 113

Cyril of Alexandria: Now the servants and the officers were standing there, having made a fire of coals; for it was cold, and they were warming themselves: and Peter also was with them, standing and warming himself.

Peter, having passed inside the door, and finding himself encircled by the servants, affects to do what they do (though bowed down with grief and with an intolerable burden of agony at heart), that he might not be convicted by his despondent and sorrowful countenance of feeling sympathy with the Man Who was on trial, and be cast out from the doors which contained all he loved. For it is quite incredible that the disciple should have been so carnally minded as to seek out a means of appeasing the chill of winter, when he was thus heavy with grief. For if he might have enjoyed greater luxuries than this, he could not have borne to do so while Christ was thus afflicted. He intentionally models his behaviour on the apathy of the attendants, and, as though he had no inducement to despondency, shakes off the chill of winter, in order that he might create the belief that he was one of the inmates of the house, and might thus for the future escape answering any further questions with a denial. But the word of the Saviour could not be falsified; for He foretold to the disciple what He, as God, knew would certainly happen. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 11

Eusebius of Caesarea: See how clearly this description of the day of our Savior’s passion, a day in which “there shall be no light,” was fulfilled, since “from the sixth hour to the ninth hour there was darkness over all the earth.” And also the “frost and cold,” since according to Luke: “They led Jesus to the palace of the high priest. And Peter followed afar off. And while they kindled a fire in the midst of the hall, he sat down,” according to Mark, with the others to warm himself. And John, too, especially mentions the cold, saying, “The servants and the ministers stood, having made a fire of coals, for it was cold, and they warmed themselves.” And this day, he says, was known to the Lord and was not night. It was not day, because, as has been said already, “there shall be no light.” This was fulfilled when “from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour.” Nor was it night, because “at eventide it shall be light” was added, which also was fulfilled when the day regained its natural light after the ninth hour. — PROOF OF THE GOSPEL 6.18

Gregory the Dialogist: Hence it is that it is beforehand remarked of Peter, when on the point of denying our Lord, that it was cold, and Peter stood with them, and warmed himself. For he was now inwardly unenlivened by the warmth of Divine love, but to the love of this present life he was warming up, as though his weakness were set boiling by the persecutors’ coals. — Morals on the Book of Job, Book 2.2.2

Gregory the Dialogist ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (ii. Mor. c. 11) The fire of love was smothered in Peter’s breast, and he was warming himself before the coals of the persecutors, i. e. with the love of this present life, whereby his weakness was increased. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

John 18:19

Alcuin of York ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): He does not ask in order to know the truth, but to find out some charge against Him, on which to deliver Him to the Roman Governor to be condemned. But our Lord so tempers His answer, as neither to conceal the truth, nor yet to appear to defend Himself: Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Cyril of Alexandria: The high priest therefore asked Jesus of His disciples, and of His teaching.

A teacher of the people, learned in the Law, one of those on whom the Divine bidding lays the duty, “Judge ye righteous judgment,” after having taken the Lord, as though He had been a notorious robber, by a band of armed soldiers and a number of impious officers, asks Him of His disciples and of His doctrine, showing thereby that he was in want of charges to bring against Him. For the Man Who was now on trial knew no sin. He asks Him about His doctrine, to elicit from Him whether it accorded with the Mosaic Law, or coincided and concurred with the old dispensation; and what purpose His disciples had implanted in their hearts, whether to submit to be guided by ancient customs, or to practise any strange and novel kind of worship. He did this in malice, for he supposed that Christ would make an outspoken attack on the Law, and that, by pleading for the rejection of the Mosaic dispensation, He would excite the Jews to embittered and furious revilings against Himself, so that He might in the future appear to be paying a just penalty for deliberately fighting against God. For to enter the lists against the Divine commandments, if any mere human being were convicted of any word or deed with that intent, were to declare oneself an open enemy of God. And they were treating Christ as a mere man, and thought that they were doing well to chastise the Lord of the Law for the transgression of the Law, not remembering him that said: Impious is he that saith unto a king, Thou art a law-breaker. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 11

John Chrysostom ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Hom. lxxxiii. 3) As they could bring no charge against Christ, they asked Him of His disciples: The high priest then asked Jesus of His disciples; perhaps where they were, and on what account He had collected them, he wished to prove that he was a seditious and factious person whom no one attended to, except His own disciples.

(Hom. lxxxiii) Or, He spoke in secret, but not, as these thought, from fear, or to excite sedition; but only when what He said was above the understanding of the many. To establish the matter, however, upon superabundant evidence, He adds, Why askest thou Me? ask them which heard Me what I said unto them; behold, they know what I said unto them: as if He said, Thou askest Me of My disciples; ask My enemies, who lie in wait for Me. These are the words of one who was confident of the truth of what He said: for it is incontrovertible evidence, when enemies are called in as witnesses. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

John Chrysostom: “The high priest then asked Jesus of His disciples, and of His doctrine.” O the wickedness! Though he had continually heard Him speaking in the temple and teaching openly, he now desires to be informed. For since they had no charge to bring, they enquired concerning His disciples, perhaps where they were, and why He had collected them, and with what intention, and on what terms. And this he said, as desiring to prove Him to be a seditious person and an innovator, since no one gave heed to Him, except them alone, as though His were some factory of wickedness. What then saith Christ? To overthrow this, He saith, “I spake openly to the world, (not to the disciples privately,) I taught openly in the temple.” “What then, said He nothing in secret?” He did, but not, as they thought, from fear, and to make conspiracies, but if at any time His sayings were too high for the hearing of the many.

“Why askest thou Me? Ask them which heard Me.” These are not the words of one speaking arrogantly, but of one confiding in the truth of what He had said. What therefore He said at the beginning, “If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not true,” this He now implieth, desiring to render His testimony abundantly credible. For when Annas mentioned the disciples, what saith He? “Dost thou ask Me concerning Mine? Ask Mine enemies, ask those who have plotted against Me, who have bound Me; let them speak.” This is an unquestionable proof of truth, when one calls his enemies to be witnesses to what he saith. — Homily on the Gospel of John 83

Theophylact of Ohrid ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): He asks Him moreover of His doctrine, what it was, whether opposed to Moses and the law, that he might take occasion thereby to put Him to death as an enemy of God. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

John 18:20

Augustine of Hippo: “The high priest then asked Jesus of His disciples, and of His doctrine. Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I always taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither all the Jews resort, and in secret have I said nothing. Why askest thou me? ask those who heard me, what I have said unto them: behold, they know what I said.” A question occurs that ought not to be passed over, how it is that the Lord Jesus said, “I spake openly to the world;” and in particular that which He afterwards added, “In secret have I said nothing.” Did He not, even in that latest discourse which He delivered to the disciples after supper, say to them, “These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs; but the hour cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall show you plainly of my Father”? If, then, He spake not openly even to the more intimate company of His disciples, but gave the promise of a time when He would speak openly, how was it that He spake openly to the world? And still further, as is also testified on the authority of the other evangelists, to those who were truly His own, in comparison with others who were not His disciples, He certainly spake with much greater plainness when He was alone with them at a distance from the multitudes; for then He unfolded to them the parables, which He had uttered in obscure terms to others. What then is the meaning of the words, “In secret have I said nothing”? It is in this way we are to understand His saying, “I spake openly to the world;” as if He had said, There were many that heard me. And that word “openly” was in a certain sense openly and in another sense not openly. It was openly, because many heard Him; and again it was not openly, because they did not understand Him. And even what He spake to His disciples apart, He certainly spake not in secret. For who speaketh in secret, that speaketh before so many persons; as it is written, “At the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established:” especially if that be spoken to a few which he wisheth to become known to many through them; as the Lord Himself said to the few whom He had as yet, “What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light; and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the house-tops”? And accordingly the very thing that seemed to be spoken by Himself in secret, was in a certain sense not spoken in secret; for it was not so spoken to remain unuttered by those to whom it was spoken; but rather so in order to be preached in every possible direction. A thing therefore may be uttered at once openly, and not openly; or at the same time in secret, and yet not in secret, as it is said, “That seeing, they may see, and not see.” For how “may they see,” save only because it is openly, and not in secret; and again, how is it that the same parties “may not see,” save that it is not openly, but in secret? Howbeit the very things which they had heard without understanding, were such as could not with justice or truth be turned into a criminal charge against Him: and as often as they tried by their questions to find something whereof to accuse Him, He gave them such replies as utterly discomfited all their plots, and left no ground for the calumnies they devised. Therefore He said, “Why askest thou me? ask those who heard me, what I have said unto them: behold, they know what I said.” — Tractates on John 113

Augustine of Hippo ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Tr. cxiii) There is a difficulty here not to be passed over: if He did not speak openly even to His disciples, but only promised that He would do so at some time, how was it that He spoke openly to the world? He spoke more openly to His disciples afterwards, when they had withdrawn from the crowd; for He then explained His parables, the meaning of which He concealed from the others. When He says then, I spake openly to the world, He must be understood to mean, within the hearing of many. So in one sense He spoke openly, i. e. in that many heard Him; in another sense not openly, i. e. in that they did not understand Him. His speaking apart with His disciples was not speaking in secret; for how could He speak in secret before the multitude, especially when that small number of His disciples were to make known what He said to a much larger? — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Cyril of Alexandria: Jesus answered him, I have spoken openly to the world; I ever taught in synagogues, and in the temple, where all the Jews come together; and in secret spake I nothing.

It were fruitless labour, Christ says, to search out as obscure what is universally known; and how can it be seemly, where full knowledge is present, to set up a pretence of ignorance? This is what Christ seems to us to say, with the object of releasing Himself from the charges that had been fabricated and maliciously devised against Him by the malice of the leaders of the people. But I think, also, that there is a suggestion of another meaning. For He says: I have spoken openly to the world; that is to say, the utterances given to you by the mediation of Moses come in types and shadows, and do not teach expressly the Will of God, but rather create a vision of the actual truth beyond themselves, and, wrapped up in the obscurity of the letter, do not completely reveal the knowledge of those things which are needful for us. I have spoken openly to the world; and, apart from riddles, and the shadow, as it were, of the form of that which is good, I set before you the right, and pointed out the straight path of piety towards God without any tortuous turnings. I spake to the world—-not, He says, to the one nation of the Israelites; for if the things that are of Me are not yet known throughout the whole world, they will be so in due season. I ever taught in synagogues. We can scarcely fail to see what He means here. He reminds those of the Jews who were in His Presence, methinks, however reluctant, of prophecy which thus spoke concerning Him. For what said the Divine Isaiah, putting the words in Christ’s mouth? I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth; and again: I have spread out My hands all the day unto a disobedient and rebellious people. For what else can “not speaking in secret, in a dark place” mean, but giving discourses openly, and speaking in places where there is no small concourse of hearers? Very well and appropriately He brings to their recollection the saying of the prophet, that they might learn that they are judging impiously that Messiah, Who was the due fulfilment of their hopes. For to the Jews belonged the promise, as Paul says. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 11

Cyril of Alexandria: It would be fruitless, Christ says, to consider as obscure something universally known. And how can it be right to set up a pretence of ignorance when something is fully known? This is what Christ seems to us to be saying, with the object of releasing himself from the charges that had been fabricated and maliciously devised against him by the malice of the leaders of the people. But I think, also, that there is a suggestion of another meaning. For he says, “I have spoken openly to the world,” that is to say, the words given to you by the mediation of Moses come in types and shadows and do not teach expressly the will of God but rather create a vision of the actual truth beyond themselves. And, wrapped up in the obscurity of the letter, they do not completely reveal the knowledge of those things that we need. “I have spoken openly to the world.” And, apart from riddles and the shadow of the form of that which is good, I set before you the right way and pointed out the straight path of a life directed toward God without any tortuous turnings. I spoke to the world—not, he says, to the one nation of the Israelites. If the whole world does not yet know me, it will know in due time. “I always taught in the synagogues.” We can scarcely fail to see what he means here. He reminds those of the Jews who were in his presence, I think—however reluctant they were—of the prophecies that spoke about him. For what did the divine Isaiah say, putting the words in Christ’s mouth? “I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth.” And again: “I have spread out my hands all the day unto a disobedient and rebellious people.” For what else can “not speaking in secret, in a dark place” mean, but teaching openly and speaking in places where there is no small gathering of hearers? — COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF John 11.13

Tertullian: " Openly did the Lord speak, without any intimation of a hidden mystery. — The Prescription Against Heretics

Theophylact of Ohrid ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): He refers here to the prophecy of Esaias; I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth. (Isa. 45:19) — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

John 18:21

Augustine of Hippo ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Tr. cxiii. 3) For what they had heard and not understood, was not of such a kind, as that they could justly turn it against Him. And as often as they tried by questioning to find out some charge against Him, He so replied as to blunt all their stratagems, and refute their calumnies. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Cyril of Alexandria: Why askest thou Me? Ask them that have heard Me, what I spake unto them: behold, these know the things which I said.

He rebukes those learned in the Law, for that they themselves sinned against the Law in which they took pride. For before He had been condemned, they passed premature sentence upon Him, and yet busied themselves in seeking for errors on His part. Why, then, He says, dost thou question Me, and call on Me to answer, Who have already endured your attack, and had punishment allotted Me before conviction? Or you may put another construction on what He said: Those who already hate Me, and receive with such extreme dishonour whatever I tell them of the things that are Mine, would not, perhaps, shrink from proclaiming what is false. Learn, then, from the lips of others. The search for witnesses would not be at all difficult, for these heard My words. Someone may, perhaps, imagine that He That knoweth the hearts and reins indicated some of the bystanders as having chanced to hear His words. But it is not so. For He referred to certain of the officers who once marvelled at His doctrine; and perhaps, to make our meaning clear, we ought to explain the time and occasion when this occurred. This same inspired Evangelist has told us, that once, when our Saviour Christ was preaching, and unfolding the doctrine concerning the Kingdom of Heaven to the assembled Jews, the teachers of the Jewish ordinances were sore enraged, and full of bitter envy of Him. and strove to remove Him from their midst. In the words of the Evangelist: And the chief priests and the Pharisees sent officers to take Him. But as our Saviour was continuing His long and full discourse, those which were sent by the Jews were convinced along with all the rest, and were more amazed than any one else among the multitude of His hearers. Thus speaks the Evangelist: The officers, therefore, came to the chief priests and Pharisees; and they said unto them, Why did ye not bring Him? The officers answered, Never man so spake. The Pharisees, therefore, answered them, Are ye also led astray? Observe how distressed at heart the Pharisees were, when they found that the officers had been at length convinced and sore amazed. The Saviour, then, knowing this, says: Ask them that have heard Me: behold, these know the things which I said. Either, then, He says, these know, looking at those who were then standing by, or else referring to the fact, that even they who ministered to the impiety of the chief priests themselves marvelled at the beauty of His teaching. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 11

John 18:22

Alcuin of York ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): Here is fulfilled the prophecy, I gave my cheek to the smiters. Jesus, though struck unjustly, replied gently: Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou Me? — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Augustine of Hippo ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Tr. cxiii) What can be truer, gentler, kinder, than this answer? He Who received the blow on the face neither wished for him who struck it that fire from heaven should consume him, or the earth open its mouth and swallow him; or a devil seize him; or any other yet more horrible kind of punishment. Yet had not He, by Whom the world was made, power to cause any one of these things to take place, but that He preferred teaching us that patience by which the world is overcome? Some one will ask here, why He did not do what He Himself commanded, i. e. not make this answer, but give the other cheek to the smiter? But what if He did both, both answered gently, and gave, not His check only to the smiter, but His whole body to be nailed to the Cross? And herein He shows, that those precepts of patience are to be performed not by posture of the body, but by preparation of the heart: for it is possible that a man might give his cheek outwardly, and yet be angry at the same time. How much better is it to answer truly, yet gently, and be ready to bear even harder usage patiently. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Augustine of Hippo: “And when He had thus spoken, one of the officers who stood by gave Jesus a blow with his open 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?” What could be truer, meeker, juster, than such an answer? For it is His [reply], from whom the prophetic voice had issued before, “Make for thy goal (literally, take aim), and advance prosperously and reign, because of truth, and meekness, and righteousness.” If we consider who it was that received the blow, might we not well feel the wish that he who struck it were either consumed by fire from heaven, or swallowed up by the gaping earth, or seized and carried off by devils, or visited with some other or still heavier punishment of this kind? For what one of all these could not He, who made the world, have commanded by His power, had He not wished rather to teach us the patience that overcometh the world? Some one will say here, Why did He not do what He Himself commanded? for to one that smote Him, He ought not to have answered thus, but to have turned to him the other cheek. Nay, more than this, did He not answer truthfully, and meekly, and righteously, and at the same time not only prepare His other cheek to him who was yet again to smite it, but His whole body to be nailed to the tree? And hereby He rather showed, what needed to be shown, namely, that those great precepts of His are to be fulfilled not by bodily ostentation, but by the preparation of the heart. For it is possible that even an angry man may visibly hold out his other cheek. How much better, then, is it for one who is inwardly pacified to make a truthful answer, and with tranquil mind hold himself ready for the endurance of heavier sufferings to come? Happy is he who, in all that he suffers unjustly for righteousness’ sake, can say with truth, “My heart is ready, O God, my heart is ready;” for this it is that gives cause for that which follows: “I will sing and I give praise.” — Tractates on John 113

Cyprian: For since it is written, “Neither shall revilers inherit the kingdom of God,” and again the Lord says in His Gospel, “Whosoever shall say to his brother, Thou fool; and whosoever shall say, Raca, shall be in danger of the Gehenna of fire,” how can they evade the rebuke of the Lord the avenger, who heap up such expressions, not only on their brethren, but also on the priests, to whom is granted such honour of the condescension of God, that whosoever should not obey his priest, and him that judgeth here for the time, was immediately to be slain? In Deuteronomy the Lord God speaks, saying, “And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest or to the judge, whosoever he shall be in those days, that man shall die; and all the people, when they hear, shall fear, and shall do no more wickedly.” Moreover, to Samuel when he was despised by the Jews, God says; “They have not despised thee, but they have despised me.” And the Lord also in the Gospel says, “He that heareth you, heareth me, and Him that sent me; and he that rejecteth you, rejecteth me; and he that rejecteth me, rejecteth Him that sent me.” And when he had cleansed the leprous man, he said, “Go, show thyself to the priest.” And when afterwards, in the time of His passion, He had received a buffet from a servant of the priest, and the servant said to Him, “Answerest thou the high priest so? " the Lord said nothing reproachfully against the high priest, nor detracted anything from the priest’s honour; but rather asserting His own innocence, and showing it, He says, “If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if well, why smitest thou me? " Also subsequently, in the Acts of the Apostles, the blessed Apostle Paul, when it was said to him, “Revilest thou God’s priest? " -although they had begun to be sacrilegious, and impious, and bloody, the Lord having already been crucified, and had no longer retained anything of the priestly honour and authority-yet Paul, considering the name itself, however empty, and the shadow, as it were, of the priest, said, “I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy, people.” — Epistle LIV

Cyril of Alexandria: And when He had said this, one of the officers standing by struck Jesus with his hand, saying unto Him, Answerest Thou the high priest so?

It had been foretold, by the mouth of the prophet, that with Christ this would come to pass: I gave My back to the scourge, and My cheeks to them that smite. He was being led on in truth to the end long ago foretold, to the verdict of Jewish presumption, which was also the abolition and determination of our deserved dishonour, for that we sinned in Adam first, and trampled under foot the Divine commandment. For He was dishonoured for our sake, in that He took our sins upon Him, as the prophet says, and was afflicted on our account. For as He wrought out our deliverance from death, giving up His own Body to death, so likewise, I think, the blow with which Christ was smitten, in fulfilling the dishonour that He bore, carried with it our deliverance from the dishonour by which we were burthened through the transgression and original sin of our forefather. For He, being One, was yet a perfect Ransom for all men, and bore our dishonour. But I think the whole creation would have shuddered, had it been suffered to be conscious of such presumption. For the Lord of glory was insulted by the impious hand of the smiter.

And I think that it would display a spirit of pious research to desire to learn why this insolent and presumptuous officer smites Jesus, Who had made no stubborn or angry reply at all, but had returned a very gentle answer to all the charges brought against Him. And it may be observed, that the leader of the Jewish nation had not bidden him smite Jesus, and assail Him with such extravagant impiety. Some may, perhaps, allege as a reason the ordinary and received custom among the officers, when they brought to the rulers men accused of some transgression to compel them to reply courteously, even against their will, and treat them at times with contumely when they returned a rude answer. But I do not think this ever occurred to excite his passion against Christ; and, if we fix our attention on what has already been said, we shall find another reason for his insolence. For we said just now, that certain of the officers, who were bidden to take Jesus, came into collision with the rulers, and returned so far initiated into the mysteries of Christ, and amazed at Him, that they openly declared: Never man so spake. Whereat the Pharisees were greatly enraged, and said: Are ye also led astray? Hath any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on Him? But this multitude, who know not the Law, are accursed. As, then, the Saviour’s words reminded the rulers of the indignation then stirred up in them against the officers (for He referred to them as witnesses of His teaching, saying: Behold, these know the things which I said), the officer was charged before them with having been struck with admiration of Christ; and, wishing to repel the suspicion of being well-disposed towards Him, and to divert their thoughts elsewhere, smote Him on the mouth, not suffering Him to say anything that could injure the reckless band of officers. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 11

John Chrysostom: What then doth the high priest? When it would have been right thus to have made the enquiry, that person did not so. “And when he had thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by smote Him with the palm of his hand.” What could be more audacious than this? Shudder, O heaven, be astounded, O earth, at the long-suffering of the Lord, and the senselessness of the servants! Yet what was it that He said? He said not, “Why askest thou Me,” as if refusing to speak, but wishing to remove every pretext for senseless behavior; and being upon this buffeted, though He was able to shake, to annihilate, or to remove all things, He doth not any one of these, but speaketh words able to relax any brutality. — Homily on the Gospel of John 83

Theophylact of Ohrid ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): When Jesus had appealed to the testimony of the people by, an officer, wishing to clear himself, and show that he was not one of those who admired our Lord, struck Him: 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? — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

John 18:23

Cyril of Alexandria: Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou Me?

He proves the officer guilty of a gross wrong, even if He That was on His trial had been a man of obscure position. For he smote Him causelessly, contrary to his express duty; not urged thereto by legal commands, but rather incited to brutal ferocity of behaviour by his own inbred madness. Call in question, if it please thee, and refute My words, as not spoken aright; but if thou canst not do this, why smitest thou Me, with Whose speech thou canst find no fault?

This is, indeed, the ordinary and most usual interpretation of the passage; but I think the meaning of the passage is different from this. For it may be, that He convicts the officer as guilty of the greater sin; not because he smote Him merely, but because, after having been previously amazed at His teaching, and not having now found Him in any wise guilty, he yet endured to treat Him with contumely. For if, He says, thou hadst not once been struck by My words; if I had not then seemed to you to teach most noble doctrines, and thou hadst not been convinced that I expounded Holy Writ in a marvellous way; if thou hadst not thyself exclaimed: Never man so spake, perhaps some plea might have been found for giving mercy to thy inexperience, and acquitting thee of this charge; but since thou hast known and hast marvelled at My teaching, and wouldst not, perhaps, Christ says, have borne witness against My words, if thou didst now think it right to bear in mind thine own words, how canst thou have any cloak for thy sin? You may understand the passage in this way; but also remark how the Saviour herein sketches for us the pattern of His great long-suffering towards us, in all its incomparable excellence, and, as in a well-defined portrait, by the actions of His life, gives us a type of the nature of His exceeding great mercy. For He That, by one single word, might have brought utter ruin on the Jews, endures to be smitten as a slave. He offers no resistance, and does not requite His persecutors with instant chastisement; for He is not subject to our infirmities, nor under the dominion of passion, or resentment, or discomposed by their malicious insults; but He gently puts His adversary to shame, and tells him, that he did not right to strike One Who answered courteously, and in the hour of His imminent peril forgets not the virtues He continually practised. For, by proper argument, He strives to induce the servant that ministered to the malice of the Jews to abandon his fit of passion, Himself receiving evil for good, according to the Scripture, but requiting those who were dishonouring Him with good instead of evil.

But our Lord Jesus Christ, even when He was smitten, endured it patiently, though He was truly God, the Lord of heaven and earth; and we poor miserable mortals, mean and insignificant as we are, mere dust and ashes, and likened to the green herb: For, as for man, his days are as grass; as a flower of the field, so he flourisheth, according to the Scripture,—-when one of our brethren happens to have some words with us, and lets fall some vexatious expression, we think we do right to be enraged with the fury of dragons, and cease not to pelt him with a storm of words in return for one; not granting forgiveness to human littleness, nor considering the frailty of our common humanity, nor burying in brotherly love the passions that thus arise, nor looking unto Jesus Himself, the Author and Perfecter of our faith; but eager to avenge ourselves, and that to the uttermost, though Holy Writ declares in one place: He that pursueth vengeance, pursueth it to his own death; and in another: Let none of you harbour resentment in your heart against your brother. But let Christ, the Lord of all, Himself be unto us a Pattern of gentleness to one another, and exceeding great forbearance; for He, for this very reason, saith unto us: A disciple is not above his master, nor a servant above his lord. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 11

John Chrysostom ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Hom. lxxxiii) What should they do then but either disprove, or admit, what He said? Yet this they do not do: it is not a trial they are carrying on, but a faction, a tyranny. Not knowing what to do further, they send Him to Caiaphas: Now Annas sent Him bound to Caiaphas the high priest. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

John Chrysostom: “And He saith, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil.” That is, “If thou canst lay hold on My words, declare it; but if thou canst not, why strikest thou Me?” Seest thou that the judgment-hall is full of tumult, and trouble, and passion, and confusion? The high priest asked deceitfully and treacherously, Christ answered in a straightforward manner, and as was meet. What then was next to be done? Either to refute, or to accept what He said. This however is not done, but a servant buffets Him. So far was this from being a court of justice, and the proceedings those of a conspiracy, and a deed of tyranny. Then not having even so made any farther discovery, they send Him bound to Caiaphas. — Homily on the Gospel of John 83

Theophylact of Ohrid ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): As if to say, If thou hast any fault to find with what I have said, show it; if thou hast not, why ragest thou? Or thus: If I taught any thing unadvisedly, when I taught in the synagogues, give proof of it to the high priest; but if I taught aright, so that even ye officers admired, why smitest thou Me, Whom before thou admiredst? — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

John 18:24

Augustine of Hippo ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (de Con. Evang. iii. vi) This shows that Annas was the high priest, for this was before He was sent to Caiaphas. And Luke in the beginning of his Gospel says, that Annas and Caiaphas were both high priests.

(Tr. cxiii) He was the one to whom they were taking Him from the first, as Matthew says; he being the high priest of this year. We must understand that the pontificate was taken between them year by year alternately, and that it was by Caiaphas’s consent that they led Him first to Annas; or that their houses were so situated, that they could not but pass straight by that of Annas. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Augustine of Hippo: But let us return to what follows in the Gospel narrative. “And Annas sent Him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest.” To him, according to Matthew’s account, He was led at the outset, because he was the high priest that year. For both the pontiffs are to be understood as in the habit of acting year by year alternately, that is, as chief priests; and these were at that time Annas and Caiaphas, as recorded by the evangelist Luke, when telling of the time when John, the Lord’s forerunner, began to preach the kingdom of heaven and to gather disciples. For he speaks thus: “Under the high priests Annas and Caiaphas, the word of the Lord came upon John, the son of Zacharias, in the wilderness,” etc. Accordingly these two pontiffs fulfilled their years in turn: and it was the year of Caiaphas when Christ suffered. And so, according to Matthew, when He was apprehended, He was taken to him; but first, according to John, they came with Him to Annas; not because he was his colleague, but his father-in-law. And we must suppose that it was by Caiaphas’ wish that it was so done; or that their houses were so situated, that Annas could not properly be overlooked by them as they passed on their way. — Tractates on John 113

Bede ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): Sent Him bound, not that He was bound now for the first time, for they bound Him when they took Him. They sent Him bound as they had brought Him. Or perhaps He may have been loosed from His bonds for that hour, in order to be examined, after which He was bound again, and sent to Caiaphas. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Theophylact of Ohrid ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): Thinking that as he was more cunning, he might find out something against Him worthy of death. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

John 18:25

Augustine of Hippo ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Tr. cxiii) After the Evangelist has said that they sent Jesus bound from Annas to Caiaphas, he returns to Peter and his three denials, which took place in the house of Annas: And Simon Peter stood and warmed himself. He repeats what he had said before.

(de Con. Evang. iii. 6) Here we find Peter not at the gate, but at the fire, when he denies the second time: so that he must have returned after he had gone out of doors, where Matthew says he was. He did not go out, and another damsel see him on the outside, but another damsel saw him as he was rising to go out, and remarked him, and told those who were by, i. e. those who were standing with her at the fire inside the hall, This fellow also was with Jesus of Nazareth. (Matt. 26:71, 72) He heard this outside, and returned, and swore, I do not know the man. Then John continues: They said therefore unto him, Art not thou also one of His disciples? which words we suppose to have been said to him when he had come back, and was standing at the fire. And this explanation is confirmed by the fact, that besides the other damsel mentioned by Matthew and Mark in the second denial, there was another person, mentioned by Luke, who also questioned him. So John uses the plural: They said therefore unto him. And then follows the third denial: 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? That Matthew and Mark speak of the party who here question Peter in the plural number, whereas Luke mentions only one, and John also, adding that that one was the kinsman of him whose ear Peter cut off, is easily explained by supposing that Matthew and Mark used the plural number by a common form of speech for the singular; or that one who had observed him most strictly put the question first, and others followed it up, and pressed Peter with more.

(Tr. cxiii) Lo, the prophecy of the Physician is fulfilled, the presumption of the sick man demonstrated. That which Peter had said he would do, he had not done. I will lay down my life for Thy sake; but what our Lord had foretold had come to pass, Thou shall deny Me thrice. (Luke 22:34) — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Augustine of Hippo: But the evangelist, after saying that Annas sent Him bound unto Caiaphas, returns to the place of his narrative, where he had left Peter, in order to explain what had taken place in Annas’ house in regard to his threefold denial. “But Peter was standing,” he says, “and warming himself.” He thus repeats what he had already stated before; and then adds what follows. “They said therefore unto him, Art thou also one of his disciples? He denied, and said, I am not.” He had already denied once; this is the second time. And then, that the third denial might also be fulfilled, “one of the servants of the high priest, being his kinsman whose ear Peter cut off, saith, Did I not see thee in the garden with him? Peter then denied again, and immediately the cock crew.” Behold, the prediction of the Physician is fulfilled, the presumption of the sick man is brought to the light. For there is no performance of what the latter had asserted, “I will lay down my life for Thy sake;” but a performance of what the former had predicted, “Thou shall thrice deny me.” — Tractates on John 113

Bede ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): Mystically, by the first denial of Peter are denoted those who before our Lord’s Passion denied that He was God, by the second, those who did so after His resurrection. So by the first crowing of the cock His resurrection is signified; by the second, the general resurrection at the end of the world. By the first damsel, who obliged Peter to deny, is denoted lust, by the second, carnal delight: by one or more servants, the devils who persuade men to deny Christ. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Cyril of Alexandria: Annas therefore sent Him bound unto Caiaphas, the high priest. Now Simon Peter was standing warming himself. They said therefore unto him, Art thou also one of His disciples? He denied, and said, I am not. One of the servants of the high priest, being a kinsman of him whose ear Peter cut off, saith, Did not I see thee in the garden with Him? Peter therefore denied again: and straightway the cock crew.

The inspired Evangelist, to our profit, checks the course of his narrative, like a horse at full speed, and turns it back again. And why? Because he was bound, before narrating what next ensued, to point out to us Peter’s third denial; and this event is best and most appropriately described as it occurred. He therefore designedly refers to what took place at first, and says, that Jesus was sent by Annas to Caiaphas; and shows us that Peter was questioned by the servants who were warming themselves with him at the fire, and also by a kinsman of him whom he had smitten; and that this was the occasion of his third denial. Then He mentions the crowing of the cock, making, it plain to us that no word of our Saviour ever falls to the ground; for He had foreknown and foretold the frailty of His own disciple in the midst of danger. Perhaps the divinely taught compiler of this book would have made no mention at all of this fact, had he not bethought himself of the captious spirit and ceaseless babbling of the adversaries of God. For some of those who seek to make bitter war on the glory of the Saviour would straightway have said: “Show us the denial of Peter, and how, and where, that came to pass which was foretold by Christ, Who, you say, cannot lie. For you maintain that He is Truth, and that He proceedeth from a Father Who is true.” It was very essential, therefore, that the inspired Evangelist should narrate to us this occurrence, and show that Christ at all times said what was true.

But perhaps some opponent, abstaining from bringing any such attack against us, will bring a grievous charge against Peter, and accuse the well-beloved disciple of incomparable cowardice, and say that he was so ready to make this verbal repudiation of his Lord, as thrice to fall away and deny Him, when he had not so much as had any actual experience of danger, and when peril was not, indeed, nigh at hand. Talk of this sort may be suitable to those who are not yet initiated in the faith; but I will at once dismiss it, and, bidding farewell to such nonsense, will attempt to make some excuse for the Apostle’s conduct, setting forth my argument for the benefit of those who are already accustomed to reflect upon the mysteries contained in the mysterious working of Divine Providence. For it was the bounden duty of the wise Evangelist to make mention of such things, that his hearers might know what even the teachers of the world were in themselves before Christ’s Resurrection, and before the Holy Spirit descended upon them; and what they were thereafter, when they had received the grace of the Spirit, Which Christ called power from on high. For any one may see how very jealous they were in assuming virtue; how readily they girded up their loins to follow Christ, and to overcome perils of every sort which they so frequently encountered. But when our Saviour Christ had not yet subdued the power of death, the fear thereof was still stubborn, and altogether invincible; and they who had not yet received the Spirit, nor had their hearts steeled by grace from above, showed that their minds were not yet wholly free from human frailty, and they were not altogether unshaken by the terrors of death. For just as iron, though naturally strong, cannot encounter without injury the harder kinds of stone, if it be not strengthened in the forge; so the soul of man may be buoyed up with unslacking enthusiasm for every thing that is good, but can never be triumphant in the conflicts that so arise, except it be first perfected by the grace of the Spirit of God. Even the disciples, therefore, themselves were frail at first; but, when they had received the Spirit of Almighty God, cast aside their native weakness, and, by communion with Him, attained to exceeding boldness.

It was expedient, then, that the frailty of the Saints should be recorded to the praise and glory of God, Who changed their weakness into power, and raised up, like a strong tower, their spirits, which were easily daunted even by slight dangers, and at times broken down by the mere apprehension of suffering. And that which befell a single one, or some few of the Saints, may afford us at the same time a lesson and a consolation. For we are taught thereby, not, through dwelling on our own infirmities inconsiderately, to slacken in God’s service, but rather to trust in Him Who is able to make us all strong, and to boast ourselves in His miraculous works and favour shown to us beyond hope. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 12

John Chrysostom ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Hom. lxxxiii) Or, He means that the once fervid disciple was now too torpid, to move even when our Lord was carried away: showing thereby how weak man’s nature is, when God forsakes him. Asked again, he again denies: They said therefore unto him, Art not thou also one of His disciples? He denied it, and said, I am not. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

John Chrysostom: “And Simon Peter stood and warmed himself.” Wonderful, by what a lethargy that hot and furious one was possessed, when Jesus was being led away! After such things as had taken place, he doth not move, but still warms himself, that thou mayest learn how great is the weakness of our nature if God abandoneth. And, being questioned, he denies again. — Homily on the Gospel of John 83

John 18:26

Cyril of Alexandria: For just as iron, though naturally strong, cannot encounter without injury the harder kinds of stone if it is not strengthened in the forge, so a person’s soul may be buoyed up with unwavering enthusiasm for everything that is good. However, it can never be triumphant in the conflicts that come up unless it is first perfected by the grace of the Spirit of God. Even the disciples, therefore, themselves were frail at first. But when they had received the Spirit of Almighty God, they cast aside their native weakness and by communion with him attained to great boldness. It was expedient that the frailty of the saints should be recorded to the praise and glory of God, who changed their weakness into power, and like a strong tower, raised up their spirits, which were easily daunted even by slight dangers and at times were broken down by the mere apprehension of suffering. And that which happened to a single one, or a few of the saints, may afford us at the same time a lesson and a consolation. For we are taught through this example not to slacken in God’s service by inconsiderately dwelling on our own infirmities. We are, rather, to trust in him who is able to make all of us strong, and we are to boast in God’s miraculous works and favor shown to us who were beyond hope. — COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF John 12

John Chrysostom ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Hom. lxxxiii. 3) But neither did the garden bring back to his memory what he had then said, and the great professions of love he had made: Peter then denied again, and immediately the cock crew.

(Hom. lxxxiii. 3) The Evangelists have all given the same account of the denials of Peter, not with any intention of throwing blame upon him, but to teach us how hurtful it is to trust in self, and not ascribe all to God. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

John Chrysostom: Then saith “the kinsman of him whose ear Peter cut off, (grieving at what had taken place,) Did I not see thee in the garden?” But neither did the garden bring him to remember what had taken place, nor the great affection which Jesus there had shown by those words, but all these from pressure of anxiety he banished from his mind.

But why have the Evangelists with one accord written concerning him? Not as accusing the disciple, but as desiring to teach us, how great an evil it is not to commit all to God, but to trust to one’s self. But do thou admire the tender care of his Master, who, though a prisoner and bound, took great forethought for His disciple, raising Peter up, when he was down, by His look, and launching him into a sea of tears. — Homily on the Gospel of John 83

Origen of Alexandria: Consider that when Peter sat outside, separated from Jesus while he was in the court of the high priest, he denied Jesus before everyone. And again a second time he denied him in the same way, not having gone outside the door but wanting to go out, yet still not having gone out. But also the third time, when those who stood by said, “Truly you are one of them” and he began to call a curse on himself and swore, “I do not know the man,” he was still not outside. And notice that all of his denials were made in the night and in the darkness before the coming of the day and the sign of day, that is, the rooster crowing, which wakes up those who are willing from their sleep. And I may say that if Peter had denied after the rooster crowed—when it might be said “the night is far spent, the day is at hand, let us walk honorably as in the day”—Peter would have deserved no excuse. But perhaps when anyone denies Jesus in such a way that the sin of denial may admit of healing, that person too appears to deny him before the rooster crows, since the Sun of righteousness has not yet been born to them, nor have they drawn near to his rising. — COMMENTARY ON Matthew 114

John 18:28

Alcuin of York ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): The passover was strictly the fourteenth day of the month, the day on which the lamb was killed in the evening: the seven days following were called the days of unleavened bread, in which nothing leavened ought to be found in their houses. Yet we find the day of the passover reckoned among the days of unleavened bread: Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto Him, Where wilt Thou that we prepare for Thee to eat the passover? (Mat. 26:17) And here also in like manner: That they might eat the passover; the passover here signifying not the sacrifice of the lamb, which took place the fourteenth day at evening, but the great festival which was celebrated on the fifteenth day, after the sacrifice of the lamb. Our Lord, like the rest of the Jews, kept the passover on the fourteenth day: on the fifteenth day, when the great festival was held, He was crucified. His immolation however began on the fourteenth day, from the time that He was taken in the garden. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Augustine of Hippo: Here we might suppose either that there had been something imperative requiring Caiaphas’s presence in the hall of judgment and that he was absent on the occasion when the other chief priests held an inquiry on the Lord, or else that the hall of judgment was in his house. So then, from the beginning of this scene they had only been leading Jesus away to the personage in whose presence he was at last actually conducted. But since they brought the accused person in the character of one already convicted, and since it had previously approved itself to Caiaphas’s judgment that Jesus should die, there was no further delay in delivering him over to Pilate with a view to his being put to death. And so it is that Matthew here relates what took place between Pilate and the Lord. — HARMONY OF THE GOSPELS 3.7.27

Augustine of Hippo: Let us now consider, so far as indicated by the evangelist John, what was done with, or in regard to, our Lord Jesus Christ, when brought before Pontius Pilate the governor. For he returns to the place of his narrative where he had left it, to explain the denial of Peter. He had already, you know, said, “And Annas sent Him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest:” and having returned from where he had dismissed Peter as he was warming himself at the fire in the hall, after completing the whole of his denial, which was thrice repeated, he says, “Then they bring Jesus unto Caiaphas into the hall of judgment (pretorium);” for he had said that He was sent to Caiaphas by his colleague and father-in-law Annas. But if to Caiaphas, why into the hall of judgment? Nothing else is thereby meant to be understood than the place where Pilate the governor dwelt. And therefore, either for some urgent reason Caiaphas had proceeded from the house of Annas, where both had met to give Jesus a hearing, to the governor’s pretorium, and had left the hearing of Jesus to his father-in-law; or Pilate had made his pretorium in the house of Caiaphas, which was so large as to contain separate apartments for its own master, and the like for the judge. — Tractates on John 114

Augustine of Hippo: “And it was morning; and they themselves,” that is, those who brought Jesus, “went not into the judgment hall,” to wit, into that part of the house which Pilate occupied, supposing it to be Caiaphas’ house. And then in explanation of the reason why they went not into the judgment hall, he says, “lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover.” For it was the commencement of the days of unleavened bread: on which they accounted it defilement to enter the abode of one of another nation. Impious blindness! Would they, forsooth, be defiled by a stranger’s abode, and not be defiled by their own wickedness? They were afraid of being defiled by the pretorium of a foreign judge, and had no fear of defilement from the blood of an innocent brother: not to say more than this meanwhile, which was enough to fix guilt on the conscience of the wicked. For the additional fact, that it was the Lord who was led to death by their impiety, and the giver of life that was on the way to be slain, may be charged, not to their conscience, but to their ignorance. — Tractates on John 114

Augustine of Hippo ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Tr. cxiv) The Evangelist returns to the part where he had left off, in order to relate Peter’s denial: Then led they Jesus to Caiaphas (a Caiapha Vulg.) unto the hall of judgment: to Caiaphas from his colleague and father in law Annas, as has been said. But if to Caiaphas, how to the prætorium, which was the place where the governor Pilate resided?

(Tr. cxiv) Either then for some urgent reason Caiaphas proceeded from the house of Annas, where both had been sitting, to the prætorium of the governor, and left Jesus to the hearing of his father in law: or Pilate had established the prætorium in the house of Caiaphas, which was large enough to afford a separate lodging to its owner, and the governor at the same time.

(de Con. Evang. l. iii. c. vii) According to Matthew, When the morning came, they led Him away, and delivered Him to Pontius Pilate. (Mat. 27:1, 2) But He was to have been led to Caiaphas at first. How is it then that He was brought to him so late? The truth is, now He was going as it were a committed criminal, Caiaphas having already determined on His death. And He was to be given up to Pilate immediately. And it was early.

(Tr. xiv) And they themselves entered not into the judgment hall: i. e. into that part of the house which Pilate occupied, supposing it to be the house of Caiaphas. Why they did not enter is next explained: Lest they should be defiled, but that they might eat the Passover.

(Tr. cxiv) The days of unleavened bread were beginning; during which time it was defilement to enter the house of a stranger.

(Tr. cxiv) O impious blindness! They feared to be defiled by the judgment hall of a foreign prefect, to shed the blood of an innocent brother they feared not. For that He Whom they killed was the Lord and Giver of life, their blindness saved them from knowing. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Bede ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): The praetorium is the place where the praetor sat. Praetors were called prefects and preceptors, because they issue decrees.

It was the custom of the Jews when they condemned any one to death, to notify it to the governor, by delivering the man bound. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Clement of Alexandria: Accordingly therefore, on the fourteenth day, when also Jesus suffered, the chief priests and scribes, bringing him early in the morning to Pilate, did not enter the Praetorium so that they might not be defiled but instead might without hindrance eat the Passover in the evening. By this precise reckoning of the days all the Scriptures agree, and the Gospels are harmonious. The resurrection also bears further witness. He rose on the third day, which is the first day of the weeks of harvest on which it was ordained that the priest should offer the sheaf. — Fragments Found in Greek Only in the Oxford Edition

Cyril of Alexandria: They lead Jesus therefore from Caiaphas into the palace: and it was early; and they themselves entered not into the palace, that they might not be defiled, but that they might eat the passover.

Judge righteous judgment, and Thou shalt not slay the innocent and just man, were the express injunctions of the Law and the Word of God. These miserable men could not help being ashamed of their lack of charges against Him; but, finding their fury against Christ to be without excuse, and being prevented from killing Him with their own hands by the approach of the atoning sacrifice (for they were about to sacrifice the Paschal lamb, according to the Law, which yet with them had lost its power), they bring Him to Pilate; trusting, in their gross folly, that they would not be quite implicated in the charge of shedding blood unjustly if they did not slay Him themselves, but only brought Him to suffer death at the hands of another; though what was in their hearts was altogether at variance with the Mosaic Law. And we must convict them, besides, of the greatest folly in acting as follows. For, while sentencing the sinless One to the doom of death, and bringing down upon their own heads the guilt of so frightful an impiety, they yet shun the threshold of the judgment hall, as though it would cause them to be defiled, and anxiously shrink from having intercourse with men who were still unclean. For they believed, I suppose, that stones, and the bodies of men who were their brethren, could defile the soul of man; but deemed that the worst of all crimes, the most unjust shedding of blood, stained them not a whit. And, marvel of marvels, the most absurd and irrational idea of all, they think themselves purified by the slaughter of a lamb, which typified for us nothing but the shadow of the mystery that is in Christ; and, while honouring the type of what is coming to pass, they scorn the reality itself. For while they were performing that which was but the semblance of His Atonement, they were defiled by the shedding of the Blood of Christ. Christ, then, said well when He called them whited sepulchres, outwardly adorned with the superficial embellishments of art, but inwardly full of evil odours and detestable impurity; and when, in another place, He said that they strained out the gnat and swallowed the camel. For while they were often exact about matters that were, so to say, wholly unimportant and insignificant, or, rather, about a mere nothing (for what is the gnat?), they made of no account the most weighty of all the charges against themselves, and made clean the outside of the cup and platter, while they regarded not at all the uncleanness within. For see how, though the prophet Jeremiah said plainly: Wash thy heart from wickedness, O Jerusalem, that thou mayest be saved, they were thoroughly convinced that the inward impiety of the soul mattered not a whit; and, when they brought Christ to Pilate, they shrank from places as accursed, and from the bodies of uncircumcised men; and if they did not commit the lawless act with their own hands, they yet made Pilate, as it were, minister to their cruelty, and in their stupidity imagined that they remained free from all blame. It may well excite our wonder to find that the holy prophets were well aware even of this impiety of theirs; for the blessed Isaiah said concerning them: Woe unto the wicked! for the reward of his hands shall be given him. And Ezekiel also: As thou hast done, it shall be done unto thee: thy reward shall return upon thine own head. Moreover, the inspired Psalmist exclaims: Render to them their desert; give them according to the work of their hands. For as they led Christ, the Saviour of all, captive to the Roman officers, so they received in their turn their reward, and were abandoned to the dominion of Rome, and were spoiled by the hand of their conquerors. For so fearful was the war that was kindled against them, and so frightful the extremities in which they were involved, that, if it had been possible, some, nay many, among them would rather have chosen to go into the mountains and rocks, and die there, before they saw the war—-a choice which Christ foretold that they would make, when He said: When ye see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then shall ye say to the mountains, Cover us; and to the hills, Fall on us. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 12

John Chrysostom ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Hom. lxxxiii) He was led to Caiaphas before the cock crew, but early in the morning to Pilate. Whereby the Evangelist shows, that all that night of examination, ended in proving nothing against Him; and that He was sent to Pilate in consequence. But leaving what passed then to the other Evangelists, he goes to what followed.

(Hom. lxxxiii) For the Jews were then celebrating the passover; He Himself celebrated it one day before, reserving His own death for the sixth day; on which day the old passover was kept. Or, perhaps, the passover means the whole season.

(Hom. lxxxiii. 4) Pilate however seeing Him bound, and such numbers conducting Him, supposed that they had not unquestionable evidence against Him, so proceeds to ask the question: And said, What accusation bring ye against this Man? For it was absurd, he said, to take the trial out of his hands, and yet give him the punishment. They in reply bring forward no positive charge but only their own conjectures: They answered and said unto him, If He were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered Him up unto thee.

(Hom. lxxxiii. 4) Or, they were not allowed by the Roman law to put Him to death themselves. Or, Pilate having said, Judge Him according to your law, they reply, It is not lawful for us: His sin is not a Jewish one, He hath not sinned according to our law: His offence is political, He calls Himself a King. Or they wished to have Him crucified, to add infamy to death: they not being allowed to put to death in this way themselves. They put to death in another way, as we see in the stoning of Stephen: That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which He spake, signifying what death He should die. Which was fulfilled in that He was crucified, or in that He was put to death by Gentiles as well as Jews. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

John Chrysostom: “They lead Him therefore from Caiaphas to Pilate.” This was done, in order that the number of His judges might show, even against their will, how fully tested was His truth. “And it was early.” Before cock crow He was brought to Caiaphas, early in the morning to Pilate; whence the Evangelist shows, that being questioned by Caiaphas during an entire half of the night, He was in nothing proved guilty; wherefore Caiaphas sent Him on to Pilate. But leaving these things for the others to relate, John speaks of what follows next.

And observe the ridiculous conduct of the Jews. They who had seized the innocent, and taken up arms, do not enter into the hall of judgment, “lest they should be polluted.” And tell me, what kind of pollution was it to set foot in a judgment-hall, where wrong-doers suffer justice? They who paid tithes of mint and anise, did not think they were polluted when bent on killing unjustly, but thought that they polluted themselves by even treading in a court of justice. — Homily on the Gospel of John 83

John Chrysostom: “And why did they not kill Him, instead of bringing Him to Pilate?” In the first place, the greater part of their rule and authority had been cut away, when their affairs were placed under the power of the Romans; and besides, they feared lest they should afterwards be accused and punished by Him. “But what is, ‘That they might eat the Passover?’ For He had done this on the first day of unleavened bread.” Either he calls the whole feast “the Passover,” or means, that they were then keeping the Passover, while He delivered it to His followers one day sooner, reserving His own Sacrifice for the Preparation-day, when also of old the Passover was celebrated. But they, though they had taken up arms, which was unlawful, and were shedding blood, are scrupulous about the place, and bring forth Pilate to them.

“And having gone out, he said, What accusation bring ye against this man?” Seest thou that he was free from fondness for rule and from malice? For seeing Jesus bound, and led by so many persons, he did not think that they had unquestionable proof of their accusation, but questions them, thinking it a strange thing that they should take for themselves the judgment, and then commit the punishment without any judgment to him. What then say they? “If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee.” O madness! for why do ye not mention His evil deeds, instead of concealing them? Why do ye not prove the evil? — Homily on the Gospel of John 83

John Chrysostom: Seest thou that they everywhere avoid a direct accusation, and that they can say nothing? That Annas questioned Him about His doctrine, and having heard Him, sent Him to Caiaphas; and he having in his turn questioned Him, and discovered nothing, sent Him to Pilate. Pilate saith, “What accusation bring ye against this man?” Nor here have they anything to say, but again employ certain conjectures. At which Pilate being perplexed saith, “Take ye him and judge him according to your law. They therefore said, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death,” But this they said, “that the saying of the Lord might be fulfilled, which He spake, signifying by what death He should die.”

“And how did the expression, ‘It is not lawful for us to put any man to death,’ declare this?” Either the Evangelist means that He was about to be slain not by the Jews only, but by the Gentiles also, or that it was not lawful for them to crucify. But if they say, “It is not lawful for us to put any man to death,” they say it with reference to that season. For that they did slay men, and that they slew them in a different way, Stephen shows, being stoned. But they desired to crucify Him, that they might make a display of the manner of His death. — Homily on the Gospel of John 83

Tertullian: We will prove that it may suffice that the death of the Christ had been prophesied, in order that, from the fact that the nature of the death had not been specified, it may be understood to have been affected by means of the cross and that the passion of the cross is not to be ascribed to any but him whose death was constantly being predicted.… For that you would do such a thing at the beginning of the first month of your new [years] even Moses prophesied when he was foretelling that all the community of the children of Israel were to sacrifice a lamb when evening came and were to eat this solemn sacrifice of this day [that is, of the Passover of unleavened bread] with bitterness.” And then he added that “it was the Passover of the Lord,” that is, the passion of Christ. This prediction was in this way also fulfilled that “on the first day of unleavened bread” you killed the Christ. — AN ANSWER TO THE JEWS 10

Tertullian: For that you would do thus at the beginning of the first month of your new (years) even Moses prophesied, when he was foretelling that all the community of the sons of lsrµl was to immolate at eventide a lamb, and were to eat this solemn sacrifice of this day (that is, of the passover of unleavened bread) with bitterness; “and added that “it was the passover of the Lord,” that is, the passion of Christ. Which prediction was thus also fulfilled, that “on the first day of unleavened bread” you slew Christ; and (that the prophecies might be fulfilled) the day hasted to make an “eventide,"-that is, to cause darkness, which was made at mid-day; and thus “your festive days God converted into grief, and your canticles into lamentation. — An Answer to the Jews

John 18:29

Augustine of Hippo: But is not this account contradictory to Luke’s, who mentions certain positive charges.… “And they began to accuse him, saying, ‘We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding giving tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ a King.’ ” … According to John, the Jews seem to have been unwilling to bring actual charges, … in order that Pilate might condemn him simply on their authority, asking no questions but taking it for granted that if Jesus was delivered up to him, he was certainly guilty. Both accounts are, however, compatible. Each Evangelist only inserts what he thinks sufficient. And John’s account implies that some charges had been made, when it comes to Pilate’s answer: ‘Then Pilate said to them, “Take him, and judge him according to your law.’ ” — HARMONY OF THE GOSPELS 3.8.35

Augustine of Hippo: “Pilate then went out unto them, and said, What accusation bring ye against this man? They answered and said unto him, If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee.” Let the question be put to, and the answer come from, those who had been delivered from foul spirits, from the sickly who had been healed, the lepers who had been cleansed, the deaf who were hearing, the dumb who were speaking, the blind who were seeing, the dead who were raised to life, and, above all, the foolish who were become wise, whether Jesus were a malefactor. But these things were said by those of whom He Himself had already foretold by the prophet, “They rewarded me evil for good.” — Tractates on John 114

Augustine of Hippo ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Tr. cxiv) Ask the freed from unclean spirits, the blind who saw, the dead who came to life again, and, what is greater than all, the fools who were made wise, and let them answer, whether Jesus was a malefactor. But they spoke, of whom He had Himself prophesied in the Psalms, They rewarded Me evil for good. (Ps. 39.) — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Cyril of Alexandria: Pilate therefore went out unto them, and saith, What accusation bring ye against this Man?

They shrank from the pollution, as they deemed it, of stones and walls, but Pilate went forth and inquired of them the reason of their coming to him, and required them to tell him the charges against the Captive they had brought unto him, judging the leaders of the Jews on the other hand. For, though he was a foreigner, he held in respect the ordinances of the Jews, and treated with consideration their prevailing customs. For he hastened out of the judgment hall, as was not his habit, expressing to the Jews by this significant action that their Law ought to be observed. They, being contrariwise minded to the Divine commandments, and paying very little heed to the Mosaic dispensation, were bringing about an unrighteous blood-shedding; while Pilate, who was outside the pale of the Law, inquired the charges, and investigated the accusations, they brought against Him, and pointed out to them, that it was absurd to chastise or exact a penalty from a Man Who had done no sin. And they, though they had nothing to say against Him, brought Him to Pilate, like a fierce robber. Well, then, was it said to the Synagogue of the Jews: Sodom has been justified by thee; and Christ Himself cries out, accusing the madness that the children of Israel here showed: Thou hast not done according to the judgments of the nations round about. And the saying is true; for the Greeks would not with defiled and unwashed hands have brought the usual sacrifices to the stones and blocks of wood they conceived to be gods, nor would they have destroyed one, unless it was in the most evil plight; but the Jews, though about to sacrifice the Passover to the true God, had their souls stained with the guilt of innocent blood, and were hastening to put to death unjustly Him Who was a stranger to all sin. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 12

Theophylact of Ohrid ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): Pilate however proceeds in a more gentle way: Pilate then went out unto them.

As if to say, Since you will only have such a trial as will suit you, and are proud, as if you never did any thing profane, take ye Him, and condemn Him; I will not be made a judge for such a purpose. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

John 18:30

Augustine of Hippo ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (de Cons. Evang. iii. 8) But is not this account contradictory to Luke’s, who mentions certain positive charges: And they began to accuse Him, saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Cæsar, saying that He Himself is Christ a King. (Luke 23:2) According to John, the Jews seem to have been unwilling to bring actual charges, in order that Pilate might condemn Him simply on their authority, asking no questions, but taking it for granted that if He was delivered up to him, He was certainly guilty. Both accounts are however compatible. Each Evangelist only inserts what he thinks sufficient. And John’s account implies that some charges had been made, when it comes to Pilate’s answer: Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye Him, and judge Him according to your law. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Cyril of Alexandria: They answered and said unto him, If this Man were not an evil-doer, we should not have delivered Him up unto thee.

They were perplexed for a specious plea against Him, but cloak the baseness of their impiety, and their apparent resolution to put Him to death unjustly, by the sophistical reply, that they would never have brought Jesus to suffer justice, if they had not taken Him in a criminal act. For they still affected to observe the Law, which bade them execute righteous judgment in all things; and, marvellous to relate, they use their respect for the Law as a weapon against the Lawgiver. They, who did not shrink from bringing an accusation against the Lawgiver, claimed credit as keepers of the Law. They declared that He That had come to take away sin had done evil, that the truth of the words that Christ spake, by the mouth of the Prophet Isaiah, might be seen: Woe unto them! for they have fled from Me: their doom is misery, because they have transgressed against Me. Though I have redeemed them, yet they have spoken lies against Me. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 12

John 18:31

Alcuin of York ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): Or as if he said, Ye who have the law, know what the law judgeth concerning such: do what ye know to be just. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Augustine of Hippo: “Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death.” What is this that their insane cruelty saith? Did not they put Him to death, whom they were here presenting for the very purpose? Or does the cross, forsooth, fail to kill? Such is the folly of those who do not pursue, but persecute wisdom. What then mean the words, “It is not lawful for us to put any man to death”? If He is a malefactor, why is it not lawful? Did not the law command them not to spare malefactors, especially (as they accounted Him to be) those who seduced them from their God? We are, however, to understand that they said that it was not lawful for them to put any man to death, on account of the sanctity of the festal day, which they had just begun to celebrate, and on account of which they were afraid of being defiled even by entering the pretorium. Had you become so hardened, false Israelites? Were you by your excessive malice so lost to all sense, as to imagine that you were unpolluted by the blood of the innocent, because you gave it up to be shed by another? Was even Pilate himself going to slay Him with his own hands, when made over by you into his power for the very purpose? If you did not wish Him to be slain; if you did not lay snares for Him; if you did not get Him to be betrayed to you for money; if you did not lay hands upon Him, and bind Him, and bring Him there; if you did not with your own hands present Him, and with your voices demand Him to be slain,-then boast that He was not put to death by you. But if in addition to all these former deeds of yours, you also cried out, “Crucify, crucify [him];” then hear what it is against you that the prophet proclaims: “The sons of men, whose teeth are spears and arrows, and their tongue a sharp sword.” These, look you, are the spears, the arrows, the sword, wherewith you slew the righteous, when you said that it was not lawful for you to put any man to death. — Tractates on John 114

Augustine of Hippo: Hence it is also that when for the purpose of apprehending Jesus the chief priests did not themselves come, but sent; yet the evangelist Luke says in the same passage of his narrative, “Then said Jesus unto those who were come to him, [namely] the chief priests, and captains of the temple, and elders, Be ye come out, as against a thief,” etc. As therefore the chief priests went not in their own persons, but by those whom they had sent, to apprehend Jesus, what else was that but coming themselves in the authority of their own order and so all, who cried out with impious voices for the crucifixion of Christ, slew Him, not, indeed, directly with their own hands, but personally through him who was impelled to such a crime by their clamor. — Tractates on John 114

Augustine of Hippo ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Tr. cxiv. 4) But did not the law command not to spare malefactors, especially deceivers such as they thought Him? We must understand them however to mean, that the holiness of the day which they were beginning to celebrate, made it unlawful to put any man to death. Have ye then so lost your understanding by your wickedness, that ye think yourselves free from the pollution of innocent blood, because ye deliver it to be shed by another? — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Cyril of Alexandria: Pilate therefore said unto them, Take Him yourselves, and judge Him according to your Law.

I should not do justice, he says, if I were to subject to legal penalties a Man Who has been convicted of no wrong, and Whose doom you left undecided; but judge Him, rather, according to your Law, if, indeed, he says, it has ordained that the Man Who is wholly without guilt deserves chastisement. It is not a little absurd, or, I should rather say, it is a subject for perpetual regret, that, while the Law of the Gentiles justified our Lord, so that even Pilate shrank from punishing Him That was brought to him on so vague a charge, they, who made it their boast that they were instructed in the Law of God, declared that He ought to be put to death. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 12

Tertullian: It was not as if he belonged to another god that they conceived an aversion against Christ and persecuted him, but simply as a man whom they regarded as a wonder-working juggler and an enemy because of his teaching. They brought him therefore to trial as a mere man, and one of their own too—that is, a Jew (only they saw him as a renegade and a destroyer of Judaism)—and punished him according to their law. If he had been a stranger, indeed, they would not have sat in judgment over him. — AGAINST MARCION 3.6

John 18:32

Augustine of Hippo: But when the evangelist John adds, “That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which He spake, signifying what death He should die:” if we would understand such words as referring to the death of the cross, as if the Jews had said, “It is not lawful for us to put any man to death,” for this reason that it was one thing to be put to death, and another to be crucified: I do not see how such can be understood as a consequence, seeing that this was their answer to the words that Pilate had just addressed to them, “Take ye him, and judge him according to your law.” If it were so, could they not then have taken Him, and crucified Him themselves, had they desired by any such form of punishment to avoid the putting of Him to death? But who is there that may not see the absurdity of allowing those to crucify any one, who were not allowed to put any one to death? Nay more, did not the Lord Himself call that same death of His, that is, the death of the cross, a putting to death, as we read in Mark, where he says, “Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests, and unto the scribes; and they shall condemn Him to death, and shall deliver Him to the Gentiles: and they shall mock Him, and shall spit upon Him, and shall scourge Him, and shall put Him to death, and the third day He shall rise again”? There is no doubt, therefore, that in so speaking the Lord signified what death He should die: not that He here meant the death of the cross to be understood, but that the Jews were to deliver Him up to the Gentiles, or, in other words, to the Romans. For Pilate was a Roman, and had been sent by the Romans into Judea as governor. That, then, this saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, namely, that, being delivered up to them, He should be put to death by the Gentiles, as Jesus had foretold would happen; therefore when Pilate, who was the Roman judge, wished to hand Him back to the Jews, that they might judge Him according to their law, they refused to receive Him, saying, “It is not lawful for us to put any man to death.” And so the saying of Jesus was fulfilled, which He foretold concerning His death, that, being delivered up by the Jews, He should be put to death by the Gentiles: whose crime was less than that of the Jews, who sought by this method to make themselves appear averse to His being put to death, to the end that, not their innocence, but their madness might be made manifest. — Tractates on John 114

Augustine of Hippo ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Tr. cxiv) As we read in Mark, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests, and unto the scribes; and they shall condemn Him to death, and shall deliver Him to the Gentiles. (Mark 10:33) Pilate again was a Roman, and was sent to the government of Judæa, from Rome. That this saying of Jesus then might be fulfilled, i. e. that He might be delivered unto and killed by the Gentiles, they would not accept Pilate’s offer, but said, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Cyril of Alexandria: They answer, that their purification, accomplished by the slaughter of the Paschal lamb (if any purification at all were possible for such murderers), stood in their way, and was, as it were, an overpowering obstacle to their shedding His innocent Blood. For, surely, they would have been very ready to commit the impious crime, and would not have needed the co-operation of any other. The Jewish mind was very prone to work every kind of evil deed, and to shrink from no atrocity; and to feel no shame at doing anything displeasing to God. They deemed it right for Pilate to lend them the service of his own cruelty, and to’ imitate the fury of the Jews, and to minister to them on this occasion, and to be by them overruled, so as to partake of their madness. And this also they say, that Christ might be proved to speak truth, and to have foreknown what manner of death He would die, and to have foretold it to His holy disciples. For what spake He unto them? Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of Man is betrayed unto the hands of sinners; and they shall crucify Him, and kill Him, and the third day He shall be raised up. It is requisite to make mention of this. For it was necessary that He should have this foreknowledge, that none might suppose that He, in Whose sight all things are naked and laid open, encountered His death involuntarily; but that men should believe that, of His own Will, He underwent the Cross on our behalf, and for our sakes. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 12

John 18:33

Alcuin of York ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): Wherein Pilate shows that the Jews had charged Him with calling Himself King of the Jews. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Augustine of Hippo: The Lord indeed knew both what He Himself asked, and what reply the other was to give; but yet He wished it to be spoken, not for the sake of information to Himself, but that what He wished us to know might be recorded in Scripture. This is what the good Master wished us to know; but first there had to be shown us the vain notion that men had regarding His kingdom, whether Gentiles or Jews, from whom Pilate had heard it; as if He ought to have been punished with death on the ground of aspiring to an unlawful kingdom; or as those in the possession of royal power usually manifest their ill-will to such as are yet to attain it, as if, for example, precautions were to be used lest His kingdom should prove adverse either to the Romans or to the Jews. But the Lord was able to reply to the first question of the governor, when he asked Him, “Art thou the King of the Jews?” with the words, “My kingdom is not of this world,” etc.; but by questioning him in return, whether he said this thing of himself, or heard it from others, He wished by his answer to show that He had been charged with this as a crime before him by the Jews: laying open to us the thoughts of men, which were all known to Himself, that they are but vain. — Tractates on John 115

Cyril of Alexandria: Having nothing at all to accuse Him of, and none of those crimes to allege against Him, which seem to bring in their train just punishment on the doers of them, and Pilate persisting in inquiring why they had brought Him, they assert that Jesus had sinned against Caesar, in assuming on Himself the dominion which Caesar had acquired over the Jews, and in changing the glory of his kingdom to suit His personal pretensions. Great was the malice which suggested this device, and caused the false accusation to assume this shape; for they knew that Pilate, however reluctant he might be, would take thought for his own safety, and would swiftly and precipitately punish the man against whom any such outcry was raised. For, as the inhabitants of Judaea ever were continually moved to tumults and civil strife, and were easily provoked to revolt, Caesar’s officers were the more vigilant in this respect, and were more careful guardians of order, and inflicted the most summary penalties on men who had this charge brought against them, sometimes groundlessly. The Jews, therefore, make it a charge against Christ, that He reigned over Israel. Therefore justly were they cast out, and the Gentiles brought in, and made subject to the yoke, and put into the Kingdom of Christ. Ask of Me, He says, and I shall give Thee the heathen for Thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for Thy possession. For when the one nation of the Jews provoked Him to wrath, all the nations of the world are given to Christ; and instead of one country, I mean Judaea, the uttermost parts of the earth. For, as Paul saith: Their fall is the riches of the world, and their loss the riches of the Gentiles. Pilate, then, speaks out plainly what he heard the Jews muttering, and bids Jesus answer him, whether He was in truth the King of the Jews. He was full of anxiety, it would appear, and thought Caesar’s rule was menaced, and was, therefore, very desirous to learn the truth, in order to visit what had been done with appropriate retribution, and acquit of blame the office entrusted to him by the Romans. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 12

John Chrysostom ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Hom. lxxxiii.) Pilate, wishing to rescue Him from the hatred of the Jews, protracted the trial a long time: Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall, and called Jesus.

(Hom. lxxxiii. 4) Or Pilate had heard this by report; and as the Jews had no charge to bring forward, began to examine Him himself with respect to the things commonly reported of Him. Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of Me?

(Hom. lxxxiii) He asks not in ignorance, but in order to draw from Pilate himself an accusation against the Jews: Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered Thee unto me. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

John Chrysostom: Pilate, wishing to be freed from trouble, doth not dismiss Him for a long trial, but, “Having entered in, he asked Jesus, and said, Art thou the King of the Jews? Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of Me?” Wherefore did Christ ask this? Because He desired to expose the evil intentions of the Jews. Pilate had heard this saying from many, and, since the accusers had nothing to say, in order that the enquiry might not be a long one, he desires to bring forward that which was continually reported. But when he said to them, “Judge him according to your law,” wishing to show that His offense was not a Jewish one, they replied, “It is not lawful for us.” “He hath not sinned against our law, but the indictment is general.” Pilate then, having perceived this, saith, as being (himself) likely to be endangered, “Art thou the King of the Jews?” Then Jesus, not from ignorance, but from a desire that the Jews should be accused even by him, asked him, saying, “Did others tell it thee?” On this point then declaring himself, Pilate replied, “Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me; what hast thou done?” Here desiring to clear himself of the matter. Then because he had said, “Art thou the King?” Jesus reproving him answereth, “This thou hast heard from the Jews. Why dost thou not make accurate enquiry? They have said that I am a malefactor; ask them what evil I have done. But this thou doest not, but art simply framing charges against Me.” — Homily on the Gospel of John 83

Theophylact of Ohrid ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): i. e. Apart, because he had a strong suspicion that He was innocent, and thought he could examine Him more accurately, away from the crowd: and said unto Him, Art Thou the King of the Jews? — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

John 18:34

Augustine of Hippo ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Tr. cxv) Our Lord knew indeed both what He Himself asked, and what Pilate would answer; but He wished it to be written down for our sakes. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Cyril of Alexandria: As no one, He says, has openly brought this charge against Me, whence proceeds your question? There can be no doubt that this trick proceeds from the malice of the Jews, and that they devised this cruel stratagem; for else you would not be, He says, at once judge and accuser. And Christ said this, wishing to bring it to the knowledge of Pilate that nothing that was unseen, and devised, and said in secret, could escape Him; and that, seeing that He was more than man, he might be more reluctant to minister to the cruelty of those who brought Him; and at the same time to teach him that he did very wrong in forcing Him, Who had been convicted of no crime, on the mere word of others to pay the penalty. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 12

Theophylact of Ohrid ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): He intimates here that Pilate was judging blindly and indiscreetly: If thou sayest this thing of thyself, He says, bring forward proofs of My rebellion; if thou hast heard it from others, make regular enquiry into it. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

John 18:35

Augustine of Hippo ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Tr. cxv) He rejects the imputation that He could have said it of Himself; Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered Thee unto me: adding, what hast Thou done? Whereby he shows that this charge had been brought against Him, for it is as much as to say, If Thou deniest that Thou art a King, what hast Thou done to be delivered up to me? As if it were no wonder that He should be delivered up, if He called Himself a King. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Cyril of Alexandria: He now exposes the villainy of the Jews, and almost publishes the multitude of His accusers. It is as though he said: “It does not concern me to know about Thee, for I am not a Jew; but rather befits Thine own nation and kindred, who. it may be, have this knowledge, and so bring Thee to suffer death.” He then accuses himself. For to say, What hast Thou done, implies nothing else but this. The holy Evangelist was very zealous to narrate every detail about the trial of Christ, and among them he tells us the fact that Pilate asked Jesus the question: What hast Thou done? And hereby we may best observe the total absence of charges against Him, and that, as none were brought forward, and Christ our Saviour was convicted of no crime, the sentence of death that went forth against Him was impious and most unjust. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 12

John 18:36

Augustine of Hippo ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Tr. cxv. 1) This is what the good Master wished to teach us. But first it was necessary to show the falsity of the notions of both Jews and Gentiles as to His kingdom, which Pilate had heard of; as if it meant that He aimed at unlawful power; a crime punishable with death, and this kingdom were a subject of jealousy to the ruling power, and to be guarded against as likely to be hostile either to the Romans or Jews. Now if our Lord had answered immediately Pilate’s question, He would have seemed to have been answering not the Jews, but the Gentiles only. But after Pilate’s answer, what He says is an answer to both Gentiles and Jews: as if He said, Men, i. e. Jews and Gentiles, I hinder not your dominion in this world. What more would ye have? Come by faith to the kingdom which is not of this world. For what is His kingdom, but they that believe in Him, of whom He saith, Ye are not of the world: although He wished that they should be in the world. In the same way, here He does not say, My kingdom is not in this world; but, is not of this world. Of the world are all men, who created by God are born of the corrupt race of Adam. All that are born again in Christ, are made a kingdom not of this world. Thus hath God taken us out of the power of darkness, and translated us to the kingdom of His dear Son.

(Tr. cxv) After showing that His kingdom was not of this world, He adds, But now My kingdom is not from hence. He does not say, Not here, for His kingdom is here unto the end of the world, having within it the tares mixed with the wheat until the harvest. But yet it is not from hence, since it is a stranger in the world. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Augustine of Hippo: Hear then, ye Jews and Gentiles; hear, O circumcision; hear, O uncircumcision; hear, all ye kingdoms of the earth: I interfere not with your government in this world, “My kingdom is not of this world.” Cherish ye not the utterly vain terror that threw Herod the elder into consternation when the birth of Christ was announced, and led him to the murder of so many infants in the hope of including Christ in the fatal number, made more cruel by his fear than by his anger: “My kingdom,” He said, “is not of this world.” What would you more? Come to the kingdom that is not of this world; come, believing, and fall not into the madness of anger through fear. He says, indeed, prophetically of God the Father, “Yet have I been appointed king by Him upon His holy hill of Zion;” but that hill of Zion is not of this world. For what is His kingdom, save those who believe in Him, to whom He says, “Ye are not of the world, even as I am not of the world”? And yet He wished them to be in the world: on that very account saying of them to the Father, “I pray not that Thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that Thou shouldest keep them from the evil.” Hence also He says not here, “My kingdom is not” in this world; but, “is not of this world.” And when He proved this by saying, “If my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews,” He saith not, “But now is my kingdom not” here, but, “is not from hence.” For His kingdom is here until the end of the world, having tares intermingled therewith until the harvest; for the harvest is the end of the world, when the reapers, that is to say, the angels, shall come and gather out of His kingdom everything that offendeth; which certainly would not be done, were it not that His kingdom is here. But still it is not from hence; for it only sojourns as a stranger in the world: because He says to His kingdom, “Ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world.” They were therefore of the world, so long as they were not His kingdom, but belonged to the prince of this world. Of the world therefore are all mankind, created indeed by the true God, but generated from Adam as a vitiated and condemned stock; and there are made into a kingdom no longer of the world, all from thence that have been regenerated in Christ. For so did God rescue us from the power of darkness, and translate us into the kingdom of the Son of His love: and of this kingdom it is that He saith, “My kingdom is not of this world;” or, “My kingdom is not from hence.” — Tractates on John 115

Cyprian: That He will reign as a King for ever. In Zechariah: “Tell ye the daughter of Zion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee: just, and having salvation; meek, sitting upon an as that hath not been tamed.” Also in Isaiah: “Who will declare to you that eternal place? He that walketh in righteousness, and holdeth back his hands from gifts; stopping his ears. that he may not hear the judgment of blood; and closing his eyes, that he may not see unrighteousness: this man shall dwell in the lofty cavern of the strong rock; bread shall be given him, and his water shall be sure. Ye shall see the King with glory.” Likewise in Malachi: “I am a great King, saith the Lord, and my name is illustrious among the nations.” Also in the second Psalm: “But I am established as a King by Him upon His holy hill of Zion, announcing His empire.” Also in the twenty-first Psalm: “All the ends of the world shall be reminded, and shall turn to the Lord: and all the countries of the nations shall worship in Thy sight. For the kingdom is the Lord’s: and He shall rule over all nations.” Also in the twenty-third Psalm: “Lift up your gates, ye princes; and be ye lifted up, ye everlasting doors; and the King of glory shall come in. Who is this King of glory? The Lord strong and mighty, the Lord strong in battle. Lift up your gates, O ye princes; and be ye lifted up, ye everlasting doors; and the King of glory shall come in. Who is this King of glory? The Lord of hosts, He is the King of glory.” Also in the forty-fourth Psalm: “My heart hath breathed forth a good discourse: I tell my works to the king: my tongue is the pen of a writer intelligently writing. Thou art lovely in beauty above the children of men: grace is shed forth on Thy lips, because God hath blessed Thee for ever. Be girt with Thy sword on Thy thigh, O most mighty. To Thy honour and to Thy beauty both attend, and direct Thyself, and reign, because of truth, and meekness, and righteousness.” Also in the fifth Psalm: “My King, and my God, because unto Thee will I pray. O Lord, in the morning Thou shalt hear my voice; in the morning I will stand before Thee, and will contemplate Thee.” Also in the ninety-sixth Psalm: “The Lord hath reigned; let the earth rejoice; let the many isles be glad.” Moreover, in the forty-fourth Psalm: “The queen stood at thy right hand in a golden garment; she is clothed in many colours. Hear, O daughter, and see, and incline thine ear, and forget thy people and thy father’s house; for the King hath desired thy beauty, for He is thy Lord God.” Also in the seventy-third Psalm: “But God is our King before the world; He hath wrought salvation in the midst of the earth.” Also in the Gospel according to Matthew: “And when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judah in the days of Herod the king, behold, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem, saying, Where is He who is born King of the Jews? for we have seen His star in the east, and have come to worship Him.” Also, according to John, Jesus said: “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would be in trouble, that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now is my kingdom not from hence. Pilate said, Art thou a king, then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. For this cause I was born, and for this cause I am come into the world, that I might bear testimony to the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.” — Treatise XII Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews

Cyril of Alexandria: He dispelled the fear Pilate felt as the appointed guardian of Caesar’s kingdom, for he supposed that Christ was meditating insurrection against temporal rule, as the Jews had vainly talked. For they hinted at this when they said: If this Man were not an evildoer, we should not have delivered Him up unto thee; meaning insurrection by the evil they said He was doing. For they affected to be so well-disposed to the Romans, as not even to be able to utter the word revolt. For this cause, then, they said they had brought Him to Pilate, to suffer judgment. Christ, in His reply, denied not that He was a King, for He could not but speak truth; but He clearly proved that He was no enemy to Caesar’s rule, signifying that His Kingdom was not an earthly kingdom, but that He reigned, as God, over heaven and earth, and yet greater things than these.

What proof, then, did He give? and how did He remove this suspicion? He says, that He had never employed any spearmen or warriors, and had never had with Him any men at all resolved on resistance; not merely in order to prevent His losing His Kingdom, but not even, that He might escape from the imminent danger cast upon Him by the hand of the Jews; for it did not proceed from their ruler himself, namely, Caesar. When, then, He had shown the groundlessness of this outcry by so clear a proof, Pilate perceived that the presumptuous attempt against Christ was without excuse. Yet, without any compulsion, and when there was nothing to incite him to that consequence, he complied with the pleasure of the Jews, to the perdition of his own soul, and shared with them the guilt of having put Christ to death. Christ, indeed, when He said that His Kingdom was a supernatural kingdom, not only freed Pilate from all alarm, and dispelled his suspicions about an insurrection, but induced him also to have an exalted opinion of Him, and by His reply in some sort commenced to instruct him. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 12

Eusebius of Caesarea: And when they were asked about Christ and his kingdom, of what nature it was, and where and when it would appear, they answered that it was neither of the world, nor earthly, but heavenly and angelic, and would appear at the end of the world when he would come in glory to judge the living and the dead and to give to every one according to his works. — ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY 3.20.3-4

John Chrysostom ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Hom. lxxxiii) He then tries to bring round the mind of Pilate, not a very bad man, by proving to him, that He is not a mere man, but God, and the Son of God; and overthrowing all suspicion of His having aimed at a tyranny, which Pilate was afraid of, Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world.

(Hom. lxxxiii) Or He means that He does not derive His kingdom from the same source that earthly kings do; but that He hath His sovereignty from above; inasmuch as He is not mere man, but far greater and more glorious than man: If My kingdom were of this world, then would My servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews. Here He shows the weakness of an earthly kingdom, that it has its strength from its servants, whereas that higher kingdom is sufficient to itself, and wanting in nothing. And if His kingdom was thus the greater of the two, it follows that He was taken of His own will, and delivered up Himself.

(Hom. lxxxiii) Heretics infer from these words that our Lord is a different person from the Creator of the world. But when He says, My kingdom is not from hence, He does not deprive the world of His government and superintendence, but only shows that His government is not human and corruptible. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

John Chrysostom: “My Kingdom is not of this world.” He leadeth upwards Pilate who was not a very wicked man, nor after their fashion, and desireth to show that He is not a mere man, but God and the Son of God. And what saith He? “If My Kingdom were of this world, then would My servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews.” He undoeth that which Pilate for a while had feared, namely, the suspicion of seizing kingly power. “Is then His kingdom not of this world also?” Certainly it is. “How then saith He it ‘is not’?” Not because He doth not rule here, but because He hath His empire from above, and because it is not human, but far greater than this and more splendid. “If then it be greater, how was He made captive by the other?” By consenting, and giving Himself up. But He doth not at present reveal this, but what saith He? “If I had been of this world, ‘My servants would fight, that I should not be delivered.’” Here He showeth the weakness of kingship among us, that its strength lies in servants; but that which is above is sufficient for itself, needing nothing.

From this the heretics taking occasion say, that He is different from the Creator. What then, when it saith, “He came to His own”? What, when Himself saith, “They are not of this world, as I am not of this world”? So also He saith that His kingdom is not from hence, not depriving the world of His providence and superintendence, but showing, as I said, that His power was not human or perishable. — Homily on the Gospel of John 83

Tertullian: If he exercised no right of power even over his own followers, to whom he discharged menial tasks—if, in short, though conscious of his own kingdom, he shrank back from being made a king—he in the fullest way possible gave his own an example for turning coldly from all the pride and outward trappings, as well of dignity as of power. — ON IDOLATRY 18

Tertullian: If, also, He exercised no right of power even over His own followers, to whom He discharged menial ministry; if, in short, though conscious of His own kingdom, He shrank back from being made a king, He in the fullest manner gave His own an example for turning coldly from all the pride and garb, as well of dignity as of power. — On Idolatry

Tertullian: But how will a Christian man war, nay, how will he serve even in peace, without a sword, which the Lord has taken away? For albeit soldiers had come unto John, and had received the formula of their rule; albeit, likewise, a centurion had believed; still the Lord afterward, in disarming Peter, unbe — On Idolatry

Theophylact of Ohrid ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): Or He says, from hence, not, here; because He reigns in the world, and carries on the government of it, and disposes all things according to His will; but His kingdom is not from below, but from above, and before all ages. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

John 18:37

Augustine of Hippo: “Truth has sprung up from the earth, and righteousness has looked down from heaven.” Yes, “truth has sprung up from the earth” because Christ was born from a woman. “Truth has sprung up from the earth” because the Son of God has come forth from the flesh. What is Truth? The Son of God. What is the earth? Our flesh. Inquire where Christ was born, and you will see that “truth has sprung up from the earth.” Yet this Truth that has sprung up from the earth existed before the earth, for heaven and earth were made through him. But in order that righteousness might look down from heaven, that is, that human beings might be made righteous through divine grace, Truth was born from the Virgin Mary, that he might be in a position to offer sacrifice for those who needed justification, the sacrifice of his passion, the sacrifice of the cross. How could he offer his sacrifice for our sins, except by dying? But how could he die, unless he took from us what could die? Had he not taken mortal flesh from us, Christ could not have died, for the Word does not die, the Godhead does not die, the Power and Wisdom of God does not die. How could he offer himself as a saving victim, if he did not die? But how could he die without clothing himself in flesh? And how could he put on flesh unless Truth sprang up from the earth? — EXPLANATION OF Psalms 84.13

Augustine of Hippo ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Tr. cxv) He did not fear to confess Himself a King, but so replied as neither to deny that He was, nor yet to confess Himself a King in such sense as that His kingdom should be supposed to be of this world. He says, Thou sayest, meaning, Thou being carnal sayest it carnally. He continues, To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. The pronoun here, in hoc, must not be dwelt long on, as if it meant, in hâ re, but shortened, as if it stood, ad hoc natus sum, as the next words are, ad hoc veni in mundum. Wherein it is evident He alludes to His birth in the flesh, not to that divine birth which never had beginning.

(Tr. cxv) But when Christ bears witness to the truth, He bears witness to Himself; as He said above, I am the truth. (c. 14:6) But inasmuch as all men have not faith, He adds, Every one that is of the truth heareth My voice: heareth, that is, with the inward ear; obeys My voice, believes Mc. Every one that is of the truth, hath reference to the grace by which He calleth according to His purpose. For as regards the nature in which we are created, since the truth created all, all are of the truth. But it is not all to whom it is given by the truth to obey the truth. For had He even said, Every one that heareth My voice is of the truth, it still would be thought that such were of the truth, because they obeyed the truth. But He does not say this, but, Every one that is of the truth heareth My voice. A man then is not of the truth, because he hears His voice, but hears His voice because he is of the truth. This grace is conferred upon him by the truth. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Augustine of Hippo: “Pilate therefore said unto Him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king.” Not that He was afraid to confess Himself a king, but “Thou sayest” has been so balanced that He neither denies Himself to be a king (for He is a king whose kingdom is not of this world), nor does He confess that He is such a king as to warrant the supposition that His kingdom is of this world. For as this was the very idea in Pilate’s mind when he said, “Art thou a king then?” so the answer he got was, “Thou sayest that I am a king.” For it was said, “Thou sayest,” as if it had been said, Carnal thyself, thou sayest it carnally.

Thereafter He adds, “To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth.” Whence it is evident that He here referred to His own temporal nativity, when by becoming incarnate He came into the world, and not to that which had no beginning, whereby He was God through whom the Father created the world. For this, then, that is, on this account, He declared that He was born, and to this end He came into the world, to wit, by being born of the Virgin, that He might bear witness unto the truth. But because all men have not faith, He still further said, “Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.” He heareth, that is to say, with the ears of the inward man, or, in other words, He obeyeth my voice, which is equivalent to saying, He believeth me. When Christ, therefore, beareth witness unto the truth, He beareth witness, of course, unto Himself; for from His own lips are the words, “I am the truth;” as He said also in another place, “I bear witness of myself.” But when He said, “Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice,” He commendeth the grace whereby He calleth according to His own purpose. Of which purpose the apostle says, “We know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to those who are called according to the purpose of God,” to wit, the purpose of Him that calleth, not of those who are called; which is put still more clearly in another place in this way, “Labor together in the gospel according to the power of God, who saveth us and calleth us with His holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace.” For if our thoughts turn to the nature wherein we have been created, inasmuch as we were all created by the Truth, who is there that is not of the truth? But it is not all to whom it is given of the truth to hear, that is, to obey the truth, and to believe in the truth; while in no case certainly is there any preceding of merit, lest grace should cease to be grace. For had He said, Every one that heareth my voice is of the truth, then it would be supposed that he was declared to be of the truth because he conforms to the truth; it is not this, however, that He says, but, “Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.” And in this way he is not of the truth simply because he heareth His voice; but only on this account he heareth, because he is of the truth, that is, because this is a gift bestowed on him of the truth. And what else is this, but that by Christ’s gracious bestowal he believeth on Christ? — Tractates on John 115

Cyril of Alexandria: He makes use of Christ’s truth-speaking to charge Him withal. When he heard Him say: My Kingdom is not from hence, he was indeed quit of his fear of an insurrection; but he still compels Him to openly profess this thing, and defines as a charge His mere assertion that He had a kingdom, though He asserted that it was not of this world. He drives Jesus, as it were, to make this profession; and says, Thou hast confessed already that Thou art a King. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 12

Eusebius of Caesarea: His kingdom and throne were not human. They were not of this world. Therefore he said before Pilate, “My kingdom is not of this world.” And when he was asked by him if he were a king, Jesus answered, “For this also I have been born.” So if he has been born for this, he will remain for this … for the kingdom of this world is not able to endure forever, nor is it endless as if extended indefinitely. — COMMENTARY ON Psalms 88 [89].39-46

Eusebius of Caesarea: The throne of the kingdom conferred on Jesus is nothing mortal or temporal. Rather, it truly extended throughout the whole world like light shining as the moon established forever, enlightening understanding souls through his divine and heavenly teaching. — TO STEPHANUS 15.4

Gregory of Nazianzus: Who is the person who has never, by experience and contemplation, traversed the entire series of titles and powers of Christ, both those more lofty ones that originally were his and those more lowly ones that he later assumed for our sake: God, the Son, the Image, the Word, the Wisdom, the Truth, the Light, the Life, the Power …, the Maker, the King.… Who is the person who hears but pays no attention to these names so pregnant with reality and has never yet held communion with or been made partaker of the Word in any of the real relations signified by each of these names Christ bears? — IN DEFENSE OF HIS FLIGHT TO PONTUS, ORATION 2.98

Hippolytus of Rome: Now, as our Lord Jesus Christ, who is also God, was prophesied of under the figure of a lion, on account of His royalty and glory, in the same way have the Scriptures also aforetime spoken of Antichrist as a lion, on account of his tyranny and violence. For the deceiver seeks to liken himself in all things to the Son of God. Christ is a lion, so Antichrist is also a lion; Christ is a king, so Antichrist is also a king. The Saviour was manifested as a lamb; so he too, in like manner, will appear as a lamb, though within he is a wolf. The Saviour came into the World in the circumcision, and he will come in the same manner. The Lord sent apostles among all the nations, and he in like manner will send false apostles. The Saviour gathered together the sheep that were scattered abroad, and he in like manner will bring together a people that is scattered abroad. The Lord gave a seal to those who believed on Him, and he will give one like manner. The Saviour appeared in the form of man, and he too will come in the form of a man. The Saviour raised up and showed His holy flesh like a temple, and he will raise a temple of stone in Jerusalem. And his seductive arts we shall exhibit in what follows. But for the present let us turn to the question in hand. — Hippolytus Dogmatical and Historical Fragments

John Chrysostom: “My Kingdom is not of this world.” That is, “I am indeed a King, yet not such an one as thou suspectest, but far more glorious,” declaring by these words and those which follow, that no evil had been done by Him. For one who saith, “To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth,” showeth, that no evil hath been done by Him. Then when He saith, “Every one that is of the truth heareth My voice,” He draweth him on by these means, and persuadeth him to become a listener to the words. “For if,” saith He, “any one is true, and desireth these things, he will certainly hear Me.” And, in fact, He so took him by these short words, that he said, “What is truth?” — Homily on the Gospel of John 84

John Chrysostom ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): Pilate therefore said unto Him, Art Thou a King then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a King.

(Hom. lxxxiii. 4) If then He was a King by birth, He hath nothing which He hath not received from another. For this I came, that I should bear witness to the truth, i. e. that I should make all men believe it. We must observe how He shows His humility here: when they accused Him as a malefactor, He bore it in silence; but when He is asked of His kingdom, then He talks with Pilate, instructs him, and raises his mind to higher things. That I should bear witness to the truth, shows that He had no crafty purpose in what He did. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

John Chrysostom: “Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a King. To this end was I born.” If then He was born a king, all His other attributes are by Generation, and He hath nothing which He received in addition. So that when thou hearest that, “As the Father hath life in Himself, so hath He given to the Son also to have life,” deem of nothing else but His generation, and so of the rest.

“And for this cause came I, that I should bear witness unto the truth.” That is, “that I should speak this very thing, and teach it, and persuade all men.” — Homily on the Gospel of John 83

Theophylact of Ohrid ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): Or, to Pilate’s question whether He was a King, our Lord answers, To this end was I born, i. e. to be a King. That I am born from a King, proves that I am a King.

For it had almost vanished from the world, and become unknown in consequence of the general unbelief. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

John 18:38

Alcuin of York ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): Or, he did not wait to hear the reply, because he was unworthy to hear it. And saith unto them, I find no fault in Him. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Apostolic Constitutions: In their madness cast upon Him, till it was very early in the morning, and then they lead Him away to Annas, who was father-in-law to Caiaphas; and when they had done the like things to Him there, it being the day of the preparation, they delivered Him to Pilate the Roman governor, accusing Him of many and great things, none of which they could prove. Whereupon the governor, as out of patience with them, said: “I find no cause against Him.” — CONSTITUTIONS OF THE HOLY APOSTLES

Augustine of Hippo ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Tr. cxv) After Pilate had asked, What is truth? he remembered a custom of the Jews, of releasing one prisoner at the passover, and did not wait for Christ’s answer, for fear of losing this chance of saving Him, which he much wished to do: And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews.

(Tr. cxv) He could not dismiss the idea from his mind, that Jesus was King of the Jews; as if the Truth itself, whom he had just asked what it was, had inscribed it there as a title. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Augustine of Hippo: You are righteous, O Lord, but we have sinned and committed iniquity and have done wickedly. Your hand has grown heavy on us, and it is only right that we are handed over to that ancient sinner, the governor of death. For he has persuaded our wills to be like his will because he does not remain in your truth. What will wretched people like us do? “Who shall deliver us from the body of this death?” It is only your grace through Jesus Christ our Lord, who was begotten co-eternal by you and was created in the beginning of your ways. The prince of this world found nothing worthy of death in him. Yet he killed him, and the handwriting of the decree against us was blotted out. — Confessions 7.21.27

Augustine of Hippo: “Pilate said unto Him, What is truth?” Nor did he wait to hear the answer; but “when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and said unto them, I find in him no fault. But ye have a custom that I should release unto you one at the passover: will ye therefore that I release unto you the King of the Jews?” I believe when Pilate said, “What is truth?” there immediately occurred to his mind the custom of the Jews, according to which he was wont to release unto them one at the passover; and therefore he did not wait to hear Jesus’ answer to his question, What is truth? to avoid delay on recollecting the custom whereby He might be released unto them during the passover - a thing which it is clear he greatly desired. It could not, however, be torn from his heart that Jesus was the King of the Jews, but was fixed there, as in the superscription, by the truth itself, whereof he had just inquired what it was. — Tractates on John 115

Cyril of Alexandria: He does not deny the glory of His Kingdom, nor leave it to the voice of Pilate only to affirm it, for as God He is King, whether man so will, or no; but He once more showed the power of the truth which impelled Pilate, though reluctant, to declare the glory of Him Who was on His trial; for, He says: Thou hast said, that I am a King. For this cause was I born, He says, and came into this world when I became Man, that I should bear witness unto the truth; that is, that He might take lying out of the world, and, having subdued the devil, who gained his way by guile, He might show truth triumphant over the universe; truth—-that is, that nature that is truly sovereign by nature, which has not by craft acquired the ability to hold rule and dominion over heaven and earth, and, in a word, everything that is brought into being; nor has this been added unto it from without, but it is seen to be essentially and naturally inherent. In order, too, that He might show that Pilate’s dulness of apprehension arose from his stubborn heart, and his reluctance to admit the truth, Christ fitly adds the word: Everyone that is of the truth heareth My voice. For the word of truth gains a ready acceptance from those who have already learnt and love it; but with others it is not so. Yea, the Prophet Isaiah said to some: If ye will not believe, neither shall ye understand. Pilate showed at once the truth of this, when he said: What is truth? For, just as those whose sight is injured, and who have wholly lost the use of their eyes, have their sense of colour entirely annihilated, so as not to note when gold is brought before them, or a shining and precious stone shown them, nay, even the very light of the sun’s rays excites in them no wonder, as they have no perception thereof, and can gain no profit from any such thing; so to men whose minds are warped, truth seems a foul and ugly thing, although it instils into the minds of those who behold it its spiritual and Divine radiancy. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 12

Cyril of Alexandria: In order that he might show that the difficulty in Pilate’s perception came from his stubborn heart and from his reluctance to admit the truth, Christ appropriately adds, “Everyone who is of the truth hears my voice.” For the word of truth is readily accepted by those who have already learned and love it. But it is not the same for everyone. In fact, the prophet Isaiah said to some, “If you will not believe, neither shall you understand.” Pilate showed at once how true this was when he said, “What is truth?” For there are those whose sight has been injured or who have entirely lost the use of their eyes and their sense of color has been entirely annihilated. They would not even be able to tell if someone placed gold before them or a brilliant precious stone. In fact, even the very light of the sun’s rays does not engage them in any kind of wonder since they have lost all perception and can gain no profit from any of these things. In the same way, to people whose minds have become warped, truth seems a foul and ugly thing even as it instills a spiritual and divine brilliance into the minds of those who behold it. — Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 12

John Chrysostom ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Hom. lxxxiii) He knew that this question required time to answer, and it was necessary immediately to rescue Him from the fury of the Jews. So he went out.

(Hom. lxxxiii) He did not say, He has sinned and is worthy of death; yet release Him at the feast; but acquitting Him in the first place, he does more than he need do, and asks it as a favour, that, if they are unwilling to let Him go as innocent, they will at any rate allow Him the benefit of the season: But ye have a custom, that I should release one unto you at the passover. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

John Chrysostom: “What is truth?” But for the present he applieth himself to what was pressing, for he knew that this question needed time, and desired to rescue Him from the violence of the Jews. Wherefore he went out, and what said he? “I find no fault in him.”

Consider how prudently he acted. He said not, “Since he hath sinned, and is deserving of death, forgive him on account of the Feast”; but having first acquitted Him of all guilt, he asks them over and above, if they were not minded to dismiss Him as innocent, yet as guilty to forgive Him on account of the time. Wherefore he added, “Ye have a custom that I should release unto you one at the Passover”; then in a persuasory way, “Will ye therefore that I release the king of the Jews? Then cried they all, Not this man, but Barabbas.” — Homily on the Gospel of John 84

John Chrysostom ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Hom. lxxxiii) These words have an effect upon Pilate, persuade him to become a hearer, and elicit from him the short enquiry, What is truth? Pilate said unto Him, What is truth? — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Melito of Sardis: Who is this God? It is he who is himself truth and whose word is truth. And what is truth? That which is not fashioned or made or represented by art, that is, that has never been brought into existence and is on that account called truth. If, therefore, someone worships that which is made with hands, it is not the truth that he worships or yet the word of truth. — A Discourse Which Was in the Presence of Antoninus Caesar

Theophylact of Ohrid ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): For it had almost vanished from the world, and become unknown in consequence of the general unbelief.

Pilate is judicious in replying that Jesus had done nothing wrong, and that there was no reason to suspect Him of aiming at a kingdom. For they might be sure that if He set Himself up as a King, and a rival of the Roman empire, a Roman prefect would not release Him. When then He says, Will ye that I release unto you the King of the Jews? he clears Jesus of all guilt, and mocks the Jews, as if to say, Him whom ye accuse of thinking Himself a King, the same I bid you release: He does no such thing. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

John 18:39

Bede ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): This custom was not commanded in the law, but had been handed down by tradition from the old fathers, viz. that in remembrance of their deliverance out of Egypt, they should release a prisoner at the passover. Pilate tries to persuade them: Will ye therefore that I release unto you the King of the Jews. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Cyril of Alexandria: As I was considering and meditating in my mind how the custom arose for the Jews to ask for one man to be released to them (a robber, it might be, or a murderer), the idea occurred to me that they no longer regulated their actions altogether according to the Law, but, choosing rather to use their own customs, they fell into a decayed state of manners not altogether in agreement with the law of Moses. But while I was searching the divine Scriptures and hunting everywhere for the origin of this custom, I came on one of the divine dictates that caused me to suspect that when the Jews sought the release of a malefactor, they were, in fact, in however mistaken a way, fulfilling one of the customs of the Law. At the end of the book called Numbers we find recorded the law concerning voluntary and involuntary homicide. When the penalty in the case of premeditated murder has been clearly laid down, the book goes on to speak of involuntary homicide, and, after other remarks, makes the following declaration: “But if he stabbed him suddenly without enmity, or hurled anything on him without lying in wait or used a stone, by which a man may die, and without seeing him cast it on him, so that he died, though he was not his enemy and did not seek his harm, then the congregation shall judge between the manslayer and the avenger of blood, and the congregation shall restore him to the city of his refuge, to which he had fled.”Since this was the written commandment when any, as it happened, were involved in such a calamity, the Jews, when they were congregated together (and so that they might not appear altogether to neglect this enactment), sought the release of one of them. For the Law laid down that it was to be the act of the entire assembly. Since, then, they were permitted by the Law to ask for the release of a prisoner, they make this request of Pilate. For after they had once accepted the Roman yoke, from then on they were, for the most part, ruled by their laws in the administration of their affairs. We might say even further that, although it was lawful for them to put to death anyone convicted of a crime, they brought Jesus to Pilate as a criminal, saying, “It is not lawful for us to put any man to death.” For, though they alleged as a plea their purification by the sacrifice of the Passover, yet they showed themselves flatterers of Rome in entrusting to the laws of the Romans the duty that the divine commandment from heaven laid on themselves. — COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF John 12

Cyril of Alexandria: When he called Jesus king of the Jews, he spoke in jest and tried to abate by ridicule the anger of the furious mob. He also clearly showed that this particular accusation was brought in vain. A Roman officer would never have thought a man condemned of plotting for a kingdom and revolution against Rome worthy to be released. He bore witness, then, to Jesus’ utter innocence by the very reasons he gave for Jesus’ release. — COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF John 12

Origen of Alexandria: Do not wonder that the Roman government, holding sway over the Jews who had recently become their subjects, thought it was appropriate to grant them something acceptable at the feast of the Passover. They allowed them to ask for anyone they wanted [to be freed] even though he might appear guilty of many murders. For in this way nations sometimes grant favors to those whom they have conquered, until their rule is established. Yet this custom of releasing a prisoner existed at one time among the Jews also. … Let us inquire whether anything like this may take place also in God’s judgment where the whole church may ask for any sinner to be released from the condemnation of sin especially if, while having other evil works, he is eager to do good for the church. — COMMENTARY ON Matthew 120

John 18:40

Alcuin of York ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): The name Barabbas signifies, The son of their master, i. e. the devil; his master in his wickedness, the Jews’ in their perfidy. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Augustine of Hippo ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): (Tr. cxv) Upon this they cried out: Then cried they all again, saying, Not this man, but Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a robber. We blame you not, O Jews, for releasing a guilty man at the passover, but for killing an innocent one. Yet unless this were done, it were not the true passover. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Augustine of Hippo: “But on hearing this, they all cried again, saying, Not this man, but Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a robber.” We blame you not, O Jews, for liberating the guilty during the passover, but for slaying the innocent; and yet unless that were done, the true passover would not take place. But a shadow of the truth was retained by the erring Jews, and by a marvellous dispensation of divine wisdom the truth of that same shadow was fulfilled by deluded men; because in order that the true passover might be kept, Christ was led as a sheep to the sacrificial slaughter. — Tractates on John 115

Bede ((as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)): Inasmuch then as they abandoned the Saviour, and sought out a robber, to this day the devil practises his robberies upon them. — Catena Aurea by Aquinas

Cyril of Alexandria: For they preferred a robber to him who did not regard his equality with God the Father [as robbery] and took our poverty upon him for this very end, that is, that he might deliver us from the true murderer, that is, Satan.… For the assembly, by its clamor, put him to death, though Pilate invited them to choose his release. In this way, even those who had not yet learned the divine law might be proved better than those instructed in the Law. — COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF John 12

John Chrysostom: How many were offended … when they made that dreadful and monstrous assertion that the robber and housebreaker, the man laden with the crime of murder, deserved to be released rather than Jesus. How many were offended when, having received permission from the judge to make their choice, they preferred Barabbas, desiring not only to crucify Christ but also to involve him in infamy? For they thought that by these means they should be able to manufacture the belief that he was worse than the robber and such a great transgressor that neither on the plea of mercy nor the privilege of the festival was it possible to save him. For they did everything for the purpose of slandering his fame. This is also why they crucified the two robbers with him. Nevertheless the truth was not obscured but shone forth all the more clearly. — LETTERS TO OLYMPIAS, TO MY LADY 4

John Chrysostom: O accursed decision! They demand those like mannered with themselves, and let the guilty go; but bid him punish the innocent. For this was their custom from old time. — Homily on the Gospel of John 84

Origen of Alexandria: There is a likeness between the names of Barabbas and Jesus that is nothing short of a true mystery. Barabbas is appointed for making sedition and wars and murders in the souls of people, but Jesus is appointed for all good things as the Son of God and Peace and Word and Wisdom. These two therefore are bound in both human things and bodies. Here the people [of the Jews] asked for Barabbas to be released to them. Therefore, that nation [i.e., Israel] does not cease from having seditions and murders and robberies, as regards some of their own race in outward things but also as regards all the Jews who do not believe in Jesus who have also struggles within their own souls. For where Jesus is not, there are seditions and quarrels and battles. But where Jesus is … all good things, and innumerable spiritual riches, along with peace, rest in their hands. For he is our peace who made both one. And if anyone sees the opposite take place, he will recognize in them all that notable prisoner, Barabbas, whose release is craved not only then by sinful Israel according to the flesh but also by all like them in either doctrine or life. Whoever, therefore, does evil things in his body frees Barabbas and binds Christ. But whoever does good things frees Christ and binds Barabbas. — COMMENTARY ON Matthew 121

Origen of Alexandria: Celsus’s comparison of Christ to a robber or murderer … is anticipated in the Gospels since God was numbered with the transgressors by wicked people who wanted a murderer (one who had been cast into prison for sedition and murder) to be released to them and wanted Jesus to be crucified. And they crucified him between two robbers. Jesus, indeed, is always being crucified with robbers among his genuine disciples and witnesses to the truth, and he suffers the same condemnation they do among people—if indeed we grant that those people have any resemblance to robbers who because of their godly lives suffer all kinds of injury and death so that they may keep their lives clean and pure.… But neither Jesus … nor they were … put to death according to any form of justice, and so it is his persecutors who are the ones who should incur the charge. — AGAINST CELSUS 2.44