St Matthew Chapter XXVI : Verses 67-75
Contents
- Matt. xxvi. 67-75. Douay-Rheims text & Latin text (Vulgate).
- Notes on the text.
- Additional Notes : St Peter's denial.
Matt. xxvi. 67-75
 |
| Other struck His face. J-J Tissot. Brooklyn Museum. |
Tunc exspuerunt in faciem ejus, et colaphis eum ceciderunt, alii autem palmas in faciem ejus dederunt,
68 Saying: Prophesy unto us, O Christ, who is he that struck thee?
dicentes : Prophetiza nobis Christe, quis est qui te percussit?
69 But Peter sat without in the court: and there came to him a servant maid, saying: Thou also wast with Jesus the Galilean.
Petrus vero sedebat foris in atrio : et accessit ad eum una ancilla, dicens : Et tu cum Jesu Galilæo eras.
70 But he denied before them all, saying: I know not what thou sayest.
At ille negavit coram omnibus, dicens : Nescio quid dicis.
71 And as he went out of the gate, another maid saw him, and she saith to them that were there: This man also was with Jesus of Nazareth.
Exeunte autem illo januam, vidit eum alia ancilla, et ait his qui erant ibi : Et hic erat cum Jesu Nazareno.
 |
| And going forth, he wept bitterly. J-J Tissot. Brooklyn Museum. |
Et iterum negavit cum juramento : Quia non novi hominem.
73 And after a little while they came that stood by, and said to Peter: Surely thou also art one of them; for even thy speech doth discover thee.
Et post pusillum accesserunt qui stabant, et dixerunt Petro : Vere et tu ex illis es : nam et loquela tua manifestum te facit.
74 Then he began to curse and to swear that he knew not the man. And immediately the cock crew.
Tunc cœpit detestari et jurare quia non novisset hominem. Et continuo gallus cantavit.
75 And Peter remembered the word of Jesus which he had said: Before the cock crow, thou wilt deny me thrice. And going forth, he wept bitterly.
Et recordatus est Petrus verbi Jesu, quod dixerat : Priusquam gallus cantet, ter me negabis. Et egressus foras, flevit amare.
Notes
67. Then did they spit in his face. In those barbarous times the guards could ill-treat their prisoners with impunity.
Spitting was a mark of the greatest contempt. And the Lord answered him : If her father had spitten upon her face, ought she not to have been ashamed, etc. (Num. xii. 14). Those who were excommunicated by the synagogue were exposed to be treated thus. Perhaps the members of the Sanhedrin thus expressed their hatred and rage as they passed our Lord. Jesus had foreseen this, and every other detail of His Passion. Seneca relates that when Aristides was sentenced to this indignity at Athens, the judges had considerable difficulty in finding one who would inflict it on the Just.
buffeted him. They struck Him with the clenched fist.
struck his face with the palms of their hands. Man cannot conceive what violence and humiliations Jesus endured in this awful moment at the hands of these inhuman wretches. He submitted to it willingly, in order to redeem us, and to shew us how to bear suffering and insult. If He, the Lamb of God, suffered thus for us, we ought to be ready to endure pain and contempt for Him.
68. Saying : Prophesy unto us, etc. Before doing this they covered His sacred face in order to veil His eyes, and thus ridicule Him as a prophet. The brutal soldiers did this in derision of Christ’s prophetic words, You shall see the son of man, etc. And blaspheming, many other things they said against him. The inspired prophet had described exactly the awful scene when, speaking in the name of Christ, he says, I have given my body to the strikers, and my cheeks to them that plucked them : I have not turned away my face from them that rebuked me, and spit upon me (Is. 1. 6).
the servants struck him. These would be the officials of the Sanhedrin.
Note. — St Luke concludes his narration thus : And blaspheming, many other things they said against him. How much these words reveal concerning the awful indignities to which our blessed Lord was subjected during that terrible night, the last of His earthly life.
Jesus was mocked three times.
I. In the House of Caiphas.
The guards mocked, struck, and blindfolded our Lord. They spat upon Him and struck Him in the face with the palms of their hands. They asked him to prophesy, and blaspheming, many other things they said against him.
II. In Herod’s Palace.
Herod and his soldiers despised and mocked and set him at nought, and clothed Him in a white garment in mockery of His royalty.
III. In the Prætorium.
The whole band of Roman soldiers treated Jesus as a mock king. They clothed Him in a purple mantle, put a reed in His hand, and a crown of thorns on His head. Then, in cruel mockery, they did homage to Him, and as they bent the knee in derision, they spat upon Him and struck Him on the head with the reed. (This third mockery took place after the scourging, but St Luke mentions neither of these incidents.)
69. without in the court. St Luke speaks of him as being in the midst of the hall, while St Mark has “in the court below.” This would refer to the quadrangle, around which ran a covered cloister. The apartments opened on to this cloister. As Jerusalem was built on the slopes of mountains, the courts were often lower than the apartments, and communicated with them by flights of steps. The buildings stood on a series of terraces, and near the Tyropœan valley the descent was particularly rapid. St John relates how St Peter had obtained admission to the court (xviii. 16). The apartments were often screened off with curtains from the covered cloister. The windows all looked on to the court.
there came to him a servant-maid. She had seen him sitting in the light. It was early in the spring, and as Jerusalem stood nearly 3000 feet above sea-level, the nights were cold, hence they had kindled a fire in the midst of the hall (St Luke). St John adds that she was a portress. All the Evangelists note that it was a woman who first questioned St Peter. “ It was not Pilate, nor any of the Sanhedrin, nor a mob of soldiers, but a simple waiting-maid, who frightened the self-confident apostle into denying his Master.”
70. I know not what thou sayest. Peter’s reply is evasive. When we compare the narrations as given by the four Evangelists, we note that with each interrogation St Peter’s fear increased. Hence the gradation —
(1) The simple denial.
(2) Denial confirmed by an oath.
(3) Denial with cursing and swearing.
As his protestations of fidelity had increased in vehemence, so now his denials become each time more emphatic. In order to reconcile the different accounts given in the four gospels, we must remember that the three denials were not replies to three distinct interrogations, separated by an interval, but were three occasions when the attention of the servants and bystanders was drawn to St Peter, and he was questioned each time by more than one person. This would naturally have occurred. Sometimes those who recognized St Peter questioned him, at other times they spoke of him to the bystanders, who in their turn addressed St Peter.
“ How should we judge of St Peter’s denial? Consider his crime—
(1) In the light of his calling, and his guilt is decided.
(2) In the light of his character, and his conduct is inexplicable.
(3) In the light of circumstances, and his transgression is extenuated.
(4) In the light of conscience, and the sentence we would pass dies upon our guilty lips. Wherefore he that thinketh himself to stand, let him take heed lest he fall (1 Cor. X. 12),” (Van Oosterzee, Comm. St Luke).
71. out of the gate. Better, “ into the porch ” (εἰς τὸν πυλῶνα).
72. I know not the man. In his fear, and desire to exculpate himself and lull their suspicion, Peter calls Jesus “the man.”
73. after a little while, (μετὰ μικρὸν) There was an interval, the space as it were of an hour (St Luke), between the second and the third denial.
Surely thou also art one of them. The “also” doubtless refers to St John, who had obtained admission into the palace of Caiphas ; at least he is generally supposed to be the “ other ” disciple of whom he himself speaks. Cf. But Peter stood at the door without. The other disciple therefore, who was known to the high-priest, went out and spoke to the portress and brought in Peter (St John xviii. 16),
thy speech doth discover thee. The Galileans had a peculiar dialect and vocabulary, and they did not pronounce the guttural sounds correctly. The bystanders gave two reasons for charging St Peter with being one of Christ’s disciples, viz. his speech and his presence in the garden.
74. immediately. All the Evangelists call attention to the cock having crowed immediately after the denial. This was the second cockcrowing. Cf. And immediately the cock crew again (St Mark).
75. Peter remembered the word, etc. “For how was it possible that the darkness of denial should remain under the regard of the Light of the world ? ” (St Jerome.) According to an ancient tradition, St Peter ever after fell on his knees and wept when he heard a cock crow.
going forth. He left the palace of the high-priest. Had he not been so presumptuous as to join in the throng with his Master’s enemies, it is probable that he would not have denied Him.
wept bitterly. Two circumstances brought St Peter to recognize his terrible fall : —
1. He heard the cock crow, and remembered our Lord’'s solemn warning.
2. The Lord, turning, looked on Peter.
This reproachful, loving look of Christ, accompanied with an interior grace of repentance, touched St Peter to the quick ; and going forth from the company where he had been led into sin, he wept bitterly for his fault, not only immediately after, but during his whole lifetime.
St Peter’s repentance is an example of perfect contrition, which, arising from the love of God, obtains remission even of mortal sin. Still, when conscious of mortal sin, the Catholic must not trust to perfect contrition to efface his fault, since he cannot know for certain whether his contrition be really perfect. Therefore the Church enjoins that all who have sinned mortally should have recourse to the Sacrament of Penance in order to obtain the remission of their sin. This confession of mortal sin must be made at least with attrition in order to obtain pardon. Attrition is sorrow for sin, arising more from fear of God than from love of Him. In perfect contrition, love predominates as its effective cause.
Additional Notes
St Peter denies our Lord
I. Causes of St Peter’s Denial.
(1) Remote :
(a) St Peter did not heed Christ’s warning.
(b) He presumed on his own strength of character.
(c) His false conception of the Messias caused him to be scandalized when he saw his Master a prisoner,
(d) He neglected to “ watch and pray in Gethsemani.”(e) He deserted his Master.
(2) Proximate :
(a) He followed “ afar off.”(b) He joined in the company of our Lord’s foes.(c) He feared for his own safety.
II. The Denials as given by the four Evangelists (St Matt, xxvi., St Mark xiv., St Luke xxii., St John xviii.). (The small figures by the quotation marks refer to the first, second, third, and fourth (²²) gospels respectively. )
First Denial.
(1) Time. When he “ sat with the servants at the fire and warmed himself.”²
(2) Place. In “ the court below,” ^ “in the midst of the hall.”³
(3) St Peter's Interlocutors. When a certain serving-maid had seen St Peter “ sitting at the light and had earnestly beheld him, she said,”³ “ Thou also wast with Jesus the Galilean.” ¹
“Thou also wast with Jesus of Nazareth.” “ This man also was with him.”²
“ Art not thou also one of this man’s disciples”²²
(4) His denials. “ He denied before them all, Saying, I know not what thou sayest.” ¹
“ I neither know nor understand what thou sayest.”²
“ And he went forth before the court, and the cock crew.”²
“ Woman, I know him not.”²²
“ I am not.”²²
Second Denial.
(1) Time. “ After a little while.” ³
(2) Place. “As he went out of the gate.” ¹ “As he went forth before the court.” As he “ was standing and warming himself,’’²²
(3) Peters Interlocutors. Another maid saw him and she said to them that were there, “ This man also was with Jesus of Nazareth,” ¹
“ This is one of them.”² A man said, “ Thou also art one of them.”³ Several said, “ Art not thou also one of his disciples ? ”²²
(4) His denials. “ Again he denied with an oath : ” ¹ “I know not the man,” ¹
“ O man, I am not.” ³ “I am not.” ²²
Third Denial.
(1) Time. “ After the space, as it were, of one hour.” ³
(2) Place. Either in the court or the porch.
(3) St Peter's Interlocutors. “ They came that stood by and said to Peter : Surely thou also art one of them, for even thy speech doth discover thee.” ¹
“ Surely thou art one of them, for thou art also a Galilean.” ²
A man affirmed : “ of a truth this man was also with him, for he is also a Galilean.” ³
“A kinsman of Alalchus” said, “Did I not see thee in the garden with him ? ” ²²
(4) His denials. “ Then he began to curse and to swear that he knew not the man.” ¹
“ I know not this man of whom you speak.” ²
“ Man, I know not what thou sayest.” ³
“ Again therefore Peter denied.” ²²
Immediately as he was yet speaking ³ the cock crew again.² “And the Lord turning looked on Peter,” ³ “ and Peter remembered the word that Jesus had said unto him,² and going forth he wept bitterly.” ¹
Lessons we may learn from St Peter's Denials.
(а) To distrust ourselves and to look to God for strength.
(b) To have compassion on those who sin grievously.
(c) To watch and pray against temptation.
(d) To repent sincerely of our faults.
(e) To have confidence in the mercy of God.
(f) To avoid the occasions of sin.
(g) To obey our spiritual superiors, because they are placed over us by God, and not merely on account of their natural talents or virtues. St Peter, in spite of his sin, was placed over the other apostles, as the Vicar of Christ.
Totus tuus ego sum
Et omnia mea tua sunt;
Tecum semper tutus sum:
Ad Jesum per Mariam.
No comments:
Post a Comment